The committee was studying Bill C-11, which addresses jurisdiction over sexual offences in the Canadian Armed Forces. Appearing were Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Deputy Judge Advocate General for Military Justice Modernization, and Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan, Director of Military Justice Implementation from the Office of the Judge Advocate General.
Colonel Lortie testified that the proposed amendments to clause 8, particularly CPC-5, would maintain military investigative jurisdiction for sexual offences, contrary to Justice Arbour's recommendation five, which sought to remove such jurisdiction for clarity. She argued that the amendment creates uncertainty by allowing military police to act until civilian authorities arrive, but without clear primacy, potentially leading to confusion for victims and legal challenges. She noted that the bill's original safety net provisions (sections 70.2 and 70.3) were designed for emergencies only, not full concurrent jurisdiction.
Lieutenant-Colonel MacMillan added that the amendment's language, which references a victim's request for court-martial early in an investigation, is problematic because charges and evidence are not yet known at that stage. He emphasized that the lack of clarity could undermine the military justice system's functioning, as the provisions were intended to work together with the removal of jurisdiction in proposed section 70.1. He disagreed with the premise that the amendment provides meaningful choice, noting that it instead creates a grey zone.
On amendment BQ-1, which would allow civilian courts to transfer cases to court-martial, Colonel Lortie warned of significant delays that could violate the Jordan framework's 18-month timeline, leading to stays of proceedings. She noted that the civilian court has no authority over court-martial jurisdiction, and the transfer process involves multiple steps—withdrawal of charges, new investigations, and prosecutorial decisions—that risk retraumatizing victims. Lieutenant-Colonel MacMillan clarified that charges would already be laid in civilian court before any transfer, and the victim lacks standing to request it directly, relying on prosecutorial discretion.
Regarding CPC-7, which would create an offence for wilfully delaying evidence transfer, Colonel Lortie stated that section 124 of the National Defence Act already covers negligence in duty, and the amendment's focus on "wilfully" misaligns with that provision. She noted that the duty to disclose evidence rests with the prosecution, not individual military police members, and the amendment does not address unrepresented accused. Lieutenant-Colonel MacMillan called the amendment redundant, as existing provisions already punish improper handling of evidence.
On BQ-2, which would require a plan for an inspector general for sexual misconduct, Colonel Lortie argued it duplicates existing oversight mechanisms, including the ombudsman, the Military Police Complaints Commission, and the mandated seven-year review under the National Defence Act. She noted that Justice Arbour recommended against creating new bodies, citing resource waste and inconsistent mandates.
On CPC-8 and NDP-3, which propose sunset clauses of three and five years respectively, Colonel Lortie explained that the existing seven-year mandated review under section 273.601 would already examine the provisions, and a sunset clause could lead to their expiration without a mechanism to preserve them if they work. Lieutenant-Colonel MacMillan noted that a resolution to extend the sunset could be impossible during an election or prorogation, and the reset clause in the mandated review would provide seven years post-royal assent to assess the changes.
The committee debated procedural matters, including the impact of adopted amendments on later proposals and the ability to revisit decisions with unanimous consent. A subamendment to CPC-8 was moved to change the sunset period from three to four years, and the committee agreed to continue clause-by-clause consideration at a later meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.