Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on National Defence.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in your committee's work. As you know, more than 10 years have passed since I submitted my report. During these 10 years, I've had limited contact with the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF. I therefore have no new information to share with you on the current situation, either in terms of culture, which was one important aspect of my review, or processes, which was another. In any case, that's not the main focus of your work. The bill that you're considering relates more specifically to various aspects of military justice.
I assume that you want to ask me about transferring all cases involving sexual misconduct, or having sexual connotations, from the military justice system to the civilian justice system. Two reports, each of them more recent than mine, have addressed the topic of military justice to an extent that was largely beyond my mandate. Those reports were submitted by Justice Fish, who could possibly make it here to join you, and Justice Arbour, whom I believe has testified before other committees already. The legislative changes that you're considering now are based on the recommendations in those reports.
To prepare for today's hearing, I listened to testimony presented to you by a number of witnesses. I noted that the witnesses' positions, despite some differences, seemed genuine and informed. Your work is made all the more difficult by the fact that the proposed changes will likely have a real impact on the lives of CAF members.
I was particularly interested in the testimony given by Dr. Karen Breeck for a number of reasons. First, she's a CAF medical resource. This reminded me of having discovered during my research review that health services are often the first resource contacted by victims and by the persons whose behaviour is at issue.
Second, the people who provide these services function independently of the justice system and see multiple facets of the lives of persons in need. They see the effects of assaults and the consequences of the judicial process, both military and civilian. Independence and multiple facets are two important factors.
Third, and without trying to minimize the value of the other witnesses' testimony, I believe Dr. Breeck's opinion is based not only on her expertise, but also on decades of personal experience.
Dr. Breeck and certain witnesses stressed two points that resonate a lot with me and align with certain aspects of my own review. First, the fact that inappropriate conduct of low severity is unlikely to be prosecuted in civilian courts is something I observed myself 10 years ago.
Today, the civilian justice system is still facing challenges and even making headlines. As you might have seen yesterday, the Globe and Mail published an article on criminal justice system delays and the number of proceedings stayed.
We therefore have few reasons to believe that low-severity misconduct will be prosecuted in the civilian system any time soon. As I explained in my report, a culture of sexualization emerges through many small, day-to-day actions. If these small actions go unchecked, a culture of impunity takes hold and opens the door to more serious wrongdoing.
I therefore believe that transferring jurisdiction for offences of lesser severity involves significant risks. Unless such actions are punished, the people within the CAF who commit them could develop a sense of invulnerability. The CAF could end up perpetuating, or reviving, an atmosphere ill-suited to culture change.
Another point raised by Dr. Breeck and other witnesses is the need to gather data. I made this item an important focus of my review. I noted that data were not being compiled consistently. A lack of data creates a vulnerability, and I see that data collection is still a point of tension. This bill is an opportunity to address those weaknesses.
In closing, I'd like to return to the difficulty of your work. Several witnesses have suggested a cautious approach that allows some progress but limits the risks. This involves placing a limitation clause on the obligation to transfer all files. I heard some English-speaking witnesses call this a sunset clause.
Robust information gathering combined with a limitation clause would let you accomplish two things at once. It would provide you with evidence-based data for evaluating a new process and it would limit the risks.
I do not believe that a simple, periodic legislative review is enough. As you know more than most, the legislative process is very long. If the legislation remains in force until its possible amendment, and if the transfer of cases to the civilian justice system produces negative outcomes, the CAF will suffer the consequences.
However, if a limitation clause is passed, this aspect of the bill would no longer remain in force and the option system would resume. I think this is the more cautious approach.
Thank you for your attention. I'll be pleased to answer your questions.
