I think the idea of transferring all cases into the civilian system is a bit of a hope and a prayer. We heard from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in their written submission, that they strongly recommend maintaining concurrent jurisdiction. The proposed provisions of Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces military police.
We just witnessed the government come in with their gun grab. In that, there were several provinces and municipal and provincial police forces saying they would not participate. If they are saying no to the federal government on gun confiscation, why would they want to take the time and the extra resources to handle stuff that has traditionally been done through the military justice system?
We have, now and through Bill C-11, this duplicity in which, if it's going to happen within Canada, we're going to hand it over to the civilian courts. They are overrun and have their own problems with the Jordan framework, and lower levels of sexual misconduct aren't going to be handled. We don't know if information is going to be properly shared—the reports to civilian agencies, to the chain of command and to the military justice system—or if summary hearings can take place at the same time as civilian court cases are being heard. What happens to the administrative penalties for the accused?
We don't know how this is all going to play out, so it's a bit of a hope and a prayer. You hope the civilian system has the capacity to deal with it. You hope the provinces are going to want to participate. You hope it's going to bring justice for victims.
A comeback we've heard from the majority of our witnesses who are victims of military sexual trauma is that this isn't going to work. Donna Van Leusden said, “It's about having the choice, having some agency and recognizing there are some crimes that would be prosecuted within the military system that would not be prosecuted in the civilian system. I firmly believe it's a mixed thing, but I do think it's progress that we're looking at it.”
Christine Wood said:
I originally completely opposed the transfer of all cases to civilian court, and that was for three reasons: number one, it's broken; number two, it offers victims no choice; and number three, I believe the CAF has to maintain control over its jurisdiction and demonstrate it can be responsible for fixing its own harms.
I really think that we need to pass CPC-3. The NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives all want to make sure that the victims' right to have a choice in how their cases are heard, investigated and tried is maintained. CPC-3 and NDP-1 are identical. CPC-4, CPC-5, NDP-2 and BQ-1 all work together, and I don't believe that any one of them passing would cause the other ones to be out of order. I think so in all cases. I've asked the legislative clerk if there are any amendments made here, with connectivity between amendments, that would force any of these to be out of order and then not deemed admissible.