Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Altair]

thanks for taking the time

Using the AI summarize feature and posting it here takes way less time than sitting and watching these masterpieces in full.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Liberals restore bill containing incoming GG's recommendation for Canada's military

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-11-military-sexual-misconduct-recommendation-9.7191845

On the same day the prime minister named Louise Arbour as Canada's next governor general, the Liberals voted to restore proposed legislation to move ahead with Arbour's key recommendation for the country’s military.

The bill before parliament would put into law Arbour's 2022 recommendation to strip the Canadian Armed Forces of the power to investigate and prosecute sexual offences, leaving that to civilian authorities instead.

The Liberals voted on Tuesday to drop a Conservative amendment to the bill that would have given victims of sexual offences the right to choose whether their cases are tried by the military or civilian judicial system.

That's unfortunate for victims of sexual assault.

 

[dapaterson]

Liberals restore bill containing incoming GG's recommendation for Canada's military

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-11-military-sexual-misconduct-recommendation-9.7191845

That's unfortunate for victims of sexual assault.

Why should one class of victims be able to pick and choose the venue for their alleged assailant, and not others?

 

[brihard]

Liberals restore bill containing incoming GG's recommendation for Canada's military

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-11-military-sexual-misconduct-recommendation-9.7191845

That's unfortunate for victims of sexual assault.

Offhand I can’t think or any other part of Canada’s criminal justice system where the victim makes any election about mode of trial, jurisdiction, etc. I suspect this was an opposition ‘poison pill’, and I bet we’ll see them use it to make noise about the government not supporting sexual assault victims or something like that. But I don’t see a benefit to the administration of justice in that proposal.

Giving victims direct decision making over prosecutorial jurisdiction (DMP vs provincial MAG) and civilian court versus court martial would not be appropriate, nor would it be likely to deliver better justice. The role of the victim in prosecution is solely to be a witness, and then to give a victim impact statement if they so choose and if there’s a guilty verdict.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I suspect this was an opposition ‘poison pill’, and I bet we’ll see them use it to make noise about the government not supporting sexual assault victims or something like that.

It looks like there's been some testimony from SA victims and other witnesses, including SME's, in favor of empowering victims by giving them a choice.

But Conservative MP Jeff Kibble says the government is ignoring critical testimony from sexual assault survivors and other witnesses at the defence committee that studied the bill and made amendments.

Arbour’s report found giving victims a choice between the civilian and military systems would place an unfair burden on victims, and could leave them regretting their choice if there’s an acquittal.

"I think that it's infantilizing survivors a bit," said retired major Donna Van Leusden, who trains organizations to help other sexual assault survivors.

But I don’t see a benefit to the administration of justice in that proposal.

Giving victims direct decision making over prosecutorial jurisdiction (DMP vs provincial MAG) and civilian court versus court martial would not be appropriate, nor would it be likely to deliver better justice.

The main argument seems to be that civilian police may choose not to investigate allegations of sexual offences where the military will regardless. That gives victims a better chance of being heard, even if it's something civpol thinks is a waste of time/resources.

Also if military police investigate and decide no criminal code offence has been committed they can still refer the case to the members home unit for a UDI, potentially remedial measures. If civpol investigate and find no criminal offence is committed then it's dropped.

 

[McG]

Liberals restore bill containing incoming GG's recommendation for Canada's military

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-11-military-sexual-misconduct-recommendation-9.7191845

On the same day the prime minister named Louise Arbour as Canada's next governor general, the Liberals voted to restore proposed legislation to move ahead with Arbour's key recommendation for the country’s military.

The bill before parliament would put into law Arbour's 2022 recommendation to strip the Canadian Armed Forces of the power to investigate and prosecute sexual offences, leaving that to civilian authorities instead.

The Liberals voted on Tuesday to drop a Conservative amendment to the bill that would have given victims of sexual offences the right to choose whether their cases are tried by the military or civilian judicial system.

That's unfortunate for victims of sexual assault.

I don't see the value in that proposal. It doesn't do anything to help a victim.

However, military discipline evolved to a pseudo-criminal process where pursuing criminal charges and pursuing disciplinary charges is seen to give rise to a double jeopardy. No other professional body has that nonsensical barrier. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and engineers can all conduct discipline and hold their members specifically accountable to the profession even for things that were (or may be later) punished under criminal law.

If military discipline cannot be fixed to hold CAF members specifically accountable to the profession, then I would be happy to see a provision that allows criminal courts during sentencing to consider and assign stiffer punishments when:

• Where a serving member's criminal offences is inherently prejudicial of good order and discipline of the CAF,
• Where a serving member's criminal offence has the potential bring disgrace or to undermine the public confidence in the CAF,
• Where a serving member's criminal offences is inherently prejudicial to the defence and/or security of the nation, or
• Where a serving or former member leveraged expertise gained as a result of their service to commit a criminal offence.

But the better solution would be to remove the double jeopardy barrier against parallel criminal proceedings and military discipline. Sometimes the court decides that maybe something is okay, when the profession itself knows there is no way this was acceptable behaviour: Jeffrey Sloka: Former neurologist acquitted on sexual assault charges can’t practice medicine

The main argument seems to be that civilian police may choose not to investigate allegations of sexual offences where the military will regardless. That gives victims a better chance of being heard, even if it's something civpol thinks is a waste of time/resources.

Also if military police investigate and decide no criminal code offence has been committed they can still refer the case to the members home unit for a UDI, potentially remedial measures. If civpol investigate and find no criminal offence is committed then it's dropped.

Jurisdiction to investigate and jurisdiction to prosecute are different things. The legislation seems to be about the jurisdiction to prosecute

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don't see the value in that proposal. It doesn't do anything to help a victim.

This is a pretty big sticking point for me.
Giving SA victims agency after an assault absolutely can help them. For years one of the biggest criticisms was that victims felt powerless in the process. Allowing them some say in whether civilian police or MP handle the case gives them at least some control back over how they navigate the investigation.

MP will also investigate cases that civilian police may decline or not prioritize, which can still have major implications for discipline, conduct, and unit cohesion within the CAF.

If military discipline cannot be fixed to hold CAF members specifically accountable to the profession, then I would be happy to see a provision that allows criminal courts during sentencing to consider and assign stiffer punishments when..

Good points.

But the better solution would be to remove the double jeopardy barrier against parallel criminal proceedings and military discipline. Sometimes the court decides that maybe something is okay, when the profession itself knows there is no way this was acceptable behaviour

Completely agree. Remedial measures in these cases may not have enough teeth.

Jurisdiction to investigate and jurisdiction to prosecute are different things. The legislation seems to be about the jurisdiction to prosecute

“The proposed legislation will provide exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities to investigate and prosecute such offences when committed in Canada.”

Prosecution is definitely part of it but investigation is also explicitly included.

 

[brihard]

I don't see the value in that proposal. It doesn't do anything to help a victim.

However, military discipline evolved to a pseudo-criminal process where pursuing criminal charges and pursuing disciplinary charges is seen to give rise to a double jeopardy. No other professional body has that nonsensical barrier. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and engineers can all conduct discipline and hold their members specifically accountable to the profession even for things that were (or may be later) punished under criminal law.

If military discipline cannot be fixed to hold CAF members specifically accountable to the profession, then I would be happy to see a provision that allows criminal courts during sentencing to consider and assign stiffer punishments when:

• Where a serving member's criminal offences is inherently prejudicial of good order and discipline of the CAF,
• Where a serving member's criminal offence has the potential bring disgrace or to undermine the public confidence in the CAF,
• Where a serving member's criminal offences is inherently prejudicial to the defence and/or security of the nation, or
• Where a serving or former member leveraged expertise gained as a result of their service to commit a criminal offence.

But the better solution would be to remove the double jeopardy barrier against parallel criminal proceedings and military discipline. Sometimes the court decides that maybe something is okay, when the profession itself knows there is no way this was acceptable behaviour: Jeffrey Sloka: Former neurologist acquitted on sexual assault charges can’t practice medicine


Jurisdiction to investigate and jurisdiction to prosecute are different things. The legislation seems to be about the jurisdiction to prosecute

Very well put. You beat me to a fair bit of what I was going to say.

It looks like there's been some testimony from SA victims and other witnesses, including SME's, in favor of empowering victims by giving them a choice.

With nothing but respect to the victims, while they may feel empowered, that doesn’t make is a sound practice for a justice system. The investigation and prosecution, if any, should purely rest on the facts.

The main argument seems to be that civilian police may choose not to investigate allegations of sexual offences where the military will regardless. That gives victims a better chance of being heard, even if it's something civpol thinks is a waste of time/resources.

Also if military police investigate and decide no criminal code offence has been committed they can still refer the case to the members home unit for a UDI, potentially remedial measures. If civpol investigate and find no criminal offence is committed then it's dropped.

I think the issue here is the Venn diagram of “sexual offences” under the Criminal Code definition, “service offences” under the NDA, and CAF’s broad category of “sexual misconduct”.

Draw a big circle and call it “sexual misconduct”. All the stuff covered by the current governing DAOD 9005-1 falls in there. The inappropriate pin-up calendar, the sexual remarks, sexual harassment, the gay jokes, all of the various and sundry inappropriate behaviour with a sexualized element.

Inside this large ‘sexual misconduct’ circle you would see a smallest circle of crim code “sexual offences”. Sexual assault, for the most part, but also things like voyeurism, distributing intimate images without consent, and such. DAOD 9005-1 explicitly captures all of those as “sexual misconduct”.

The “sexual offences” circle would mostly but not completely fit within a larger circle of “service offences”; and for the sake of this discussion we’ll limit that to service offences that also constitute sexual misconduct. Most Crim Code sexual offences committed by a CAF member, such as Sexual Assault, will likely also constitute a service offence; disgraceful conduct, abuse of subordinates, disobey lawful order etc. But lots of service offences that constitute Sexual Misconduct, including those same ones, are probably not a crim code offence like sexual assault.

So- if a victim contacts Kingston or Halifax police, or Cole Lake RCMP or what have you, civilian police will only concern ourselves with that innermost circle of crim code sexual offences. I’m skeptical at claims they ‘won’t investigate’ them.

Which brings us to the problem: it seems like if civilian police are investigating, say, a sexual assault, I understand that current practice would bar the MPs exercising concurrent jurisdiction over, for instance, disobey lawful order for breaching DAOD 9005-1, or abuse of subordinates?

That’s silly. The Code of Service discipline does not (or should not) go away as if barred by double jeopardy. Conduct could overlap multiple offences under both crim code and NDA. While the Kienapple principle would seem to bar prosecution of essentially the same offence, it doesn’t mean a distinctly different offence arising out of the same facts could not separately be investigated and prosecuted by military authorities as a service disciplinary matter. And there are legal mechanisms in both federal and provincial privacy legislation that allows information to be shared between police services for the purpose of investigating offences under other acts.

There would be some work to do to formalize this, but it would be achievable.

Separately I also think most CAF disciplinary stuff should move to a professional disciplinary process on balance of probabilities, and that doesn’t behave as a criminal court. While CAF should still have a criminal justice system, it should be reserved for rare cases that truly need that. IMO. most of what proceeds through courts martial should either be a civilian criminal prosecution, or an administrative disciplinary proceeding.

 

[McG]

“The proposed legislation will provide exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities to investigate and prosecute such offences when committed in Canada.”

Prosecution is definitely part of it but investigation is also explicitly included.

That is how the article describes the bill itself, but the Conservative amendment and all the described objections seem to focus on jurisdiction to prosecute.

 

[ArmyRick]

Switch gears for a second. I will give Uncle Mark (PM MC) an atta boy! On what? I am hearing more and more, and seeing some of it, some actual positive changes in the Forces.

While true, many of these changes were planned by military and/or long time coming, the fact is we would NOT move forward one inch under Trudeau Liberals. Not one one inch. PM MC seems to have no hesitation about many of the things in DND spending.

Keep going, Uncle Mark.

For bonus points, kick Lena Diab, Gary A and Melanie Jolie out of cabinet, they are fools.

 

[Jarnhamar]

With nothing but respect to the victims, while they may feel empowered, that doesn’t make is a sound practice for a justice system. The investigation and prosecution, if any, should purely rest on the facts.

That seems like you're assuming the victim's choice replaces evidence based investigation, which it does not.

The proposal is about who conducts the investigation/prosecution. It's not whether facts and evidence determine the outcomes. Victims having a say in jurisdiction doesn’t change the standard of proof or the evidentiary threshold. It's only going to effect (affect?) which authority handles the case.

One of Arbour's reasons is a victim might be upset if their choice of investing authority doesn't land a conviction. Seems like a weak argument.

As far as recruiting and optics goes I doubt this is sending a great message.

Also, I was under the impression most police agencies didn't want to fully take over this mandate exclusively. Has that changed or are they just going to be told too bad.

I think the issue here is the Venn diagram of “sexual offences” under the Criminal Code definition, “service offences” under the NDA, and CAF’s broad category of “sexual misconduct”...

Agree with most being said here (especially the distinction between criminal and professional/military accountability).

A few things come to mind:

-Victims could end up pulled through multiple processes, interviews, and standardss of proof.

-Civilian police may become reluctant to share information if it looks like the CAF is running a second quasi criminal process alongside theirs.

-Many NDA/service offences are built on the same factual allegations as the CC offence (basically would be using the same evidence and witnesses to prove the other offences).

-If we move too much into administrative discipline on a balance of probabilities it risks serious allegations being handled through a lower procedural standard than criminal court.

 

[McG]

If we move too much into administrative discipline on a balance of probabilities it risks serious allegations being handled through a lower procedural standard than criminal court.

This doesn’t happen. Professional disciplinary bodies can hand out huge fines, mandate training, and revoke licenses to practice. The police don’t walk away from a criminal investigation because a profession is doing its own disciplinary process.

And let’s make sure we are not conflating military discipline with remedial measures. Military discipline needs to be like a professional association’s disciplinary system. The military’s administrative process, including remedial measures, is an employer’s corrective HR process.

In the civilian world the criminal system, professional disciplinary systems, and employer corrective HR processes all exist and react simultaneously to correct wrongs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

This doesn’t happen...

Agreed, those systems can coexist. I’m not conflating remedial measures with discipline though. My concern is more about where the line gets drawn if the underlying allegation is extremely serious.

A professional body revoking a licence on a balance of probabilities is one thing. The CAF imposing career-ending consequences tied to allegations that closely mirror serious criminal conduct raises a different fairness concern, especially where the criminal process did not result in conviction.

Even the Arbour report notes that administrative or disciplinary measures may still proceed regardless of the criminal outcome. Just something to be cognizant of.

 

[McG]

A professional body revoking a licence on a balance of probabilities is one thing. The CAF imposing career-ending consequences tied to allegations that closely mirror serious criminal conduct raises a different fairness concern, especially where the criminal process did not result in conviction.

A professional association revoking a licenses to practice is career ending. It is exactly the same level of consequence as a military disciplinary system ending a CAF member’s career. And in the civilian side, it does happen that the disciplinary body ends a practitioner’s career while the criminal proceeding find that same individual to be not guilty. See the article link that I posted up thread about the neurosurgeon who conducted a significant quantity of vaginal exams for ???. A judge found the guy not guilty, buy the professional association ended his license and through that his career.