Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2018

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Can you tell me more about the military justice round table and how the first meeting went?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

The military justice round table goes to the heart of the need for better communications between the military justice actors. It brings together representatives from the Court Martial Appeal Court, the courts martial, the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services of the division of military justice and me.

It's a table that brings together these actors to discuss issues of mutual concern and to look at potential solutions. Issues of mutual concern are delays. This is preoccupying the civilian criminal justice system just as it does us. We're very mindful of the independence of these actors as we proceed.

The first meeting was held in June of 2018. The next meeting will be held in January. We develop agendas and discussion points to go to the most urgent of things. The conversations so far are very collegial. We are very happy to be brought back together to have those discussions and to be able to find solutions together, in a collegial manner, moving forward.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

What was the most urgent of those things?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

The first order of business was to re-establish connections and contacts amongst us because we realized, as did the Auditor General, that there was no fluid communication between these actors. The very first meeting was dedicated to ensuring that we had a better understanding of each other's expectations of that body and what it could do for us as we progress.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We will now move to Mr. Nuttall, please.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for much of the information you are bringing forward to the questions from my fellow committee members.

Ms. Bernatchez, before I went off a little bit, we were going into some of the targets related to different types of offences, complex and simple offences. Could you provide that technical information to us?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Could you provide the technical information in terms of the targets for timelines for summary offences and all the way up?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Right now it's a bit premature, because we're in the midst of consultations with the various stakeholders, but these will be defined. We'll establish the time standards required.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Going back to my original question—and I didn't ask it there—were there targets in place?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Some targets were established. It's not a system that was completely devoid of time frames and time standards. We had time standards in place for certain things, as noted in the Auditor General's report, but we're aiming to have those time standards established and enforced for all steps of a case within the military justice system. If actors are not able to respect those time standards, we need the reason why.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I understand there are multiple offices looking at each case. When it starts to be investigated and eventually moves to the commanding officer's or the prosecutor's hands, there must be some sort of standard that says it's going to take this long overall. We know the Supreme Court is saying 18 months is the time within which justice must be served. If it is 18 months, is there not some sort of matching, already-established, already-in-place goal or target for the military justice system to meet, perhaps some in summary, simple cases, and different ones in more complex cases?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Bernatchez.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Timeliness is at the heart of the military justice system.

That's what it is all about.

It's a system that needs to respond to the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces in a timely manner and that needs to be portable. In order for that system to deliver what it needs to deliver, absolutely, it needs to respect timelines.

In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Jordan case, established time standards. For our courts martial, it has been determined that the 18-month time standard applied to the military justice system. Just like the civilian justice system—

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I'm sorry, if I may, that 18 months, as far as I could read, was basically “no longer than”. It wasn't a target. It should not take more than 18 months. If my boss came to me and said, “I don't want this to take longer than one week,” I'm going to set a target of three days, so that at day five, at the end of that workweek, he or she definitely has from me what was asked for.

What did you do to respond to said target?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Just like the civilian criminal justice system, the military justice system has been addressing its mind very closely to delays, because of the Jordan decision. That's not to say it is not a topic or a concern or a subject of conversation that was not addressed prior—

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

This is two years ago, so what is that line?

All I'm trying to figure out is this. On day one, we know it can't take longer than 18 months, or it shouldn't, except for some very difficult circumstances that may be the one in 100 case. For the other 99 cases, what targets do you set up? What are the established targets within the military justice system to be met?

I'm finding this very difficult, Mr. Chair. I've asked the question three or four different ways and it might be that I'm not asking it the right way. I understand that, or I might not have the right language, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Bernatchez—and we're a little over time—we'll have just your answer and then that will be it.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

There are time standards that are established, for example, by the Canadian Forces provost marshal. How long should his police investigation last? As noted in the Auditor General's report, sometimes they were longer than that and we did not often know why. There are time standards for the provision of legal advice to units and prosecutors when charges are being considered. Again, as noted by the Auditor General's report, it was not always documented as to why they were not respected. That's what needs to be fixed. We need to define time standards. We need to be able to hold people, actors, accountable for respecting those time standards and know why they're not able to meet the time standards when they can't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. We're over time. We'll come back as well if you want to try.

Monsieur Falcon Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you for coming to meet us today. It is very pleasant and very important. My thanks to you all.

[The member spoke in Cree.]

I'd just like to ask a few little questions.

I have a bit of a different perspective, in fact, from that of, I think, most of my colleagues. I was in the armed forces for about 22 years. I was actually the disciplinarian in my many units, either in the navy, as the regulating petty officer, or in the 5^e brigade, where I was the sergeant-at-arms. I was actually the one doing the investigations and helping to lay the charges against personnel who had committed infractions of the code of service discipline.

I would just like to confirm with Commodore Bernatchez whether it's within three years after an infraction has been committed that you have to lay a charge. If someone commits an infraction, do you have three years from that date? If they commit the infraction, let's say, today, is there three years? Is that true, or is there unlimited time?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

A statute of limitations is provided for different offences. As it pertains to summary trials, the statute of limitations currently is that the matter must be proceeded with within one year of the alleged infractions. That's the criterion that is applied.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The charge must be laid within one year.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

That's correct.