Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've served in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 30 years, first as a signal officer in the Canadian Army, and for the past 15 years as a military prosecutor. I've appeared at all levels of court, including three cases before the Supreme Court of Canada involving significant constitutional challenges to the military justice system.
In June 2021, I was appointed by the Minister of National Defence to a four-year term as the director of military prosecutions, and was subsequently reappointed to serve a three-year term. As director of military prosecutions, I'm statutorily responsible for preferring charges for courts martial and for conducting those prosecutions. I also act as counsel for the minister in respective appeals before the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada.
In order to fulfill these duties, I lead an organization of 30 military prosecutors and civilian staff, collectively referred to as the Canadian military prosecution service. My team includes six reserve force military prosecutors, who are all civilian Crown prosecutors with extensive criminal law experience, including in the prosecution of sexual offences. I sit on the federal-provincial-territorial heads of prosecutions committee, and I have arrangements with several prosecution services across Canada, whereby regular force military prosecutors may be seconded to civilian prosecution services to gain experience with criminal prosecutions and to build relationships between our services. All of my prosecutors, regular and reserve force, are well-trained professionals, with a deep commitment to justice. I have the utmost confidence in their ability to prosecute cases of Criminal Code sexual offences and to advise military police in the investigation of those offences.
In November 2021, in response to Madam Arbour's interim recommendation, I directed our prosecutors to stop exercising jurisdiction in respect of new allegations of Criminal Code sexual offences. I made that decision in consideration of Madam Arbour's concerns about a mounting crisis in public confidence in the military justice system, along with numerous reports, during the summer of 2021, alleging sexual misconduct by our senior-most leadership.
At the time, I expected that direction to be temporary. Work was already under way to implement the recommendations from Mr. Fish's report, and I believed that once that work was completed, along with addressing any additional concerns for Madam Arbour in her final report, we would be well placed to resume exercising jurisdiction. I did not anticipate that Madam Arbour would recommend removal of jurisdiction or that the government would accept that recommendation.
Since November 2021, significant improvements have been made to the military justice system and to victim supports within the CAF. We have implemented the Declaration of Victims' Rights. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre now provides independent legal advice and representation for victims. The federal-provincial-territorial heads of prosecutions committee has adopted a statement of principles and presumptions for the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by Canadian prosecuting authorities.
These steps, along with CAF's broader culture change and administrative reforms, have positioned us well to be able to restore public confidence and address sexual misconduct, including Criminal Code sexual offences, in a meaningful and effective manner. If it wasn't for the tabling of Bill C-11, I would already have rescinded my direction to stop exercising jurisdiction in these cases, and I'm fully prepared to resume accepting appropriate cases in the military justice system now. I believe victims in the CAF are better served by retaining a concurrent jurisdiction over these offences. Victims deserve a say in where their cases are heard, and I am concerned that some cases will not be heard if jurisdiction is removed.
More tools to address sexual violence are better than fewer. I recommend that clauses 7 and 8 of the bill be struck and that jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute be retained. I applaud the bill's strengthening of the position of the DMP, and I support the change to a seven-year, non-renewable term aligned with that of the director of public prosecutions, but I am concerned about the proposed disciplinary framework for the DMP. In my view, the only appropriate remedy for a DMP found to have committed misconduct is removal. This would also align with the framework of the DPP.
I recommend clause 15 of the bill be amended to provide for removal as the only remedy. Alternatively, I recommend that the disciplinary framework proposed in clause 15 of the bill be replaced with the language contained at subsection 5(1) of the DPP act. I also have concerns about the acting DMP provisions. Bill C-11 would currently limit the minister's ability to appoint an acting director to 90 days, beyond which GIC approval is required. It is imperative that there is always someone who can act as the director. The power to prefer and prosecute charges by court martial is given to the director by statute, and the length of time for which the minister could appoint an acting director needs to be extended, or the provision should be amended to simply require notice to the GIC where the minister has authorized the longer term.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.