Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm very grateful for this additional opportunity. In fact, this is very much in response to a document that was provided to me just yesterday—a very short time ago—and I hope that these additional brief remarks will address some concerns that you and the members of the committee may already have.
My first concern is with respect to the minister's response to my recommendation that all criminal sexual offences that are currently within the concurrent jurisdiction of both civilian courts and the military justice system should go back to the exclusive jurisdiction of civilian courts, as they were prior to 1998.
Military justice is an exceptional form of justice, and it rests on the assumption that it is necessary to enhance efficiency, discipline and morale in the armed forces. No rationale was ever advanced in 1998 to give concurrent jurisdiction to the military justice system—the court martial and summary trials—over sexual offences, which until then had been—like murder still is today—within the exclusive purview of civilian courts.
This was supposed to be necessary to enhance efficiency, discipline and morale. Frankly, the last 20 years, I think, have demonstrated not only that it did not improve efficiency, discipline and morale, but, if anything, that the prosecution of these sexual offences by military courts has served to erode efficiency, discipline and morale. Therefore, I see no basis for the Canadian Armed Forces to retain jurisdiction over sexual offences. In my view, that jurisdiction should be vested exclusively with the civilian courts.
As long as concurrent jurisdiction remains, the evidence so far indicates, frankly, that the CAF will continue to consider itself the primary jurisdiction, and surprisingly, civilian authorities seem very happy to decline to exercise their own jurisdiction.
Removing the competence of military courts over these offences requires an act of Parliament, but simply yielding to the concurrent competence of civilian courts doesn't require an act of Parliament—it requires, essentially, an operational policy decision. It's very obvious to me that those involved in that process are dragging their feet.
On the military side, not prosecuting sexual offences would considerably reduce the workload, both on the investigation side of the NIS and the military police and on the prosecution side in what were then summary trials and courts martial.
On average, the military justice system handles approximately 30 sexual offence cases per year. Therefore, this actually would, if transferred to the civilian system—which, across Canada, handles about 2,300 such cases per year—be a minimal additional burden, if one can call it that, on the civilian system.
The administration of criminal justice in Canada is actually a provincial competence under our jurisdiction. I find it very surprising that some provincial authorities seem reluctant to exercise their constitutional power. Frankly, apart from some possible posturing over resources, I don't understand the need for the kind of extensive negotiations that the minister's response to my report envisages, such as a deputy minister-level series of federal, provincial and territorial consultations. There's nothing complicated about that. The civilian jurisdiction already exists. It's just a question of exercising it.
The second matter that causes me some concern deals with the abolition of the duty to report. This has been the subject of extensive consultation and discussion. There's an existing working group in CAF and DND looking at the problem caused by this “duty to report”, which puts an unfair burden on not only victims but also their friends and those in whom they want to confide. It is not enforced. Failure to report is never prosecuted. There is no reason not to abolish duty to report.
The minister's response points to an initiative that had already taken place before I finished my report: an amendment to the QR&O. This shows that it's not all that difficult to do something when a decision is made to go ahead. However, it only touches on a very small portion of the problem, in the context of the restorative justice exercise. For most members of the Canadian Armed Forces today, that duty still exists and, in my opinion, should be removed.
My last comment, Mr. Chair, is on the minister's response to my recommendation that military colleges should be the subject of a very detailed, profound examination, led by educational specialists. It's now seven months after the production of my report—probably nine, if you look at March, when I provided the leadership of CAF and DND with a draft of my report—and we're still at the stage of examining parameters, terms of reference and so on. All of that is against the backdrop of a suggestion that military colleges, as they exist, are superior institutions. It doesn't suggest the kind of open mind with which, I think, this kind of exercise should be undertaken.
The good news, Mr. Chair, is that the minister has appointed an external monitor to oversee the implementation of my recommendations. It looks as if it will be a lengthy process. Looking at the response from the minister—which creates a large number of internal reviews, and further task forces and tiger teams—I hope the external monitor has a full decade ahead of her to oversee these efforts.
Overall, I find that all the reviews suggested in the minister's response are, for the most part, internal. Therefore, they entirely miss the central point of my report, which is the need for CAF to open up to a lot more external scrutiny and input.
Thank you very much for your patience, Mr. Chair.