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

[daftandbarmy]

thanks for taking the time

Industry is in full survival mode now too, faced with skyrocketing costs, increasing taxes, lower certainty, and huge amounts of red tape, so the AI related - and non-AI related - job loss is likely to be even more staggering than predicted.

Businesses that can will also flee the country in greater numbers than before.

The huge bureaucracy can then spend its time writing more briefing notes for high level dreamers while the people queue up for their weekly bread ration at the government run grocery stores

 

[lenaitch]

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

Those considerations sound ripe for Section 15 ('Equality Before the Law) challenges.

 

[lenaitch]

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.




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.

Setting aside the particular focus on sexual assault victims, where does it stop? Do the families of murder victims get to drive the prosecution? How about human trafficking, or the families of drug addiction victims if a family member fatally overdosed.

At it most foundational level, offending the criminal law is offending the State; that's why cases are identified as 'R v' or 'The Queen/King vs'. as opposed to two opposing named parties as seen in civil court, and it is the State that brings you to account.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Setting aside the particular focus on sexual assault victims,

That's the core of the discussion but okay..

where does it stop? Do the families of murder victims get to drive the prosecution? How about human trafficking, or the families of drug addiction victims if a family member fatally overdosed

No one is seriously arguing that, are they?
Are families currently driving the prosecution in court martials or civilian court?

At it most foundational level, offending the criminal law is offending the State; that's why cases are identified as 'R v' or 'The Queen/King vs'. as opposed to two opposing named parties as seen in civil court, and it is the State that brings you to account.

Okay. Is this not how criminal court and court martials are currently conducted?

 

[lenaitch]

That's the core of the discussion but okay..



No one is seriously arguing that, are they?
Are families currently driving the prosecution in court martials or civilian court?


Okay. Is this not how criminal court and court martials are currently conducted?

I was just expanding the scope of the argument. It currently only focuses on sexual assault because a retired judge wrote a report on it. It could have just as easily been triggered by any other group of offences.

No one is arguing that it could or should apply to other classes of offences, but the principle is similar. If someone is killed by an impaired CAF member, should the victim's family have a role?

Giving the victim a formal, procedural role in a criminal prosecution is not current practice. An accused's trial rights are laid out in the Criminal Code and Charter. A victim is procedurally involved in a civil action because they are a named party to the proceeds and (hopefully) has counsel.

 

[MilEME09]

• Loss of Full-Time Employment: A major concern raised is the significant loss of full-time jobs—111,000 lost in the first four months of 2026—suggesting that businesses are shifting to part-time, non-benefited roles to cut costs (8:30-10:50).

I mean the CAF does this too, we place people on rolling, continuous 89 day contracts so we dont have to pay benefits. At one point we had a person go 1.5 years doing this, took awhile to argue and convince brigade to release funds to make it a 3 year to get him benefits

 

[Altair]

I mean the CAF foes this too, we place people on rolling, continuous 89 day contracts so we dont have to pay benefits. At one point we had a person go 1.5 years doing this, took awhile to argue and convince brigade to release funds to make it a 3 year to get him benefits

I might start to regret posting the AI summery of @ArmyRick videos.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I was just expanding the scope of the argument. It currently only focuses on sexual assault because a retired judge wrote a report on it. It could have just as easily been triggered by any other group of offences.

No one is arguing that it could or should apply to other classes of offences, but the principle is similar. If someone is killed by an impaired CAF member, should the victim's family have a role?

Giving the victim a formal, procedural role in a criminal prosecution is not current practice. An accused's trial rights are laid out in the Criminal Code and Charter. A victim is procedurally involved in a civil action because they are a named party to the proceeds and (hopefully) has counsel.

Seems like you’re conflating two different things. Allowing a sexual assault complainant to choose between civilian or military police is a jurisdictional decision about who investigates. It's not giving victims control over prosecutions, procedure, or Charter rights. The Crown still runs the case either way.


The government opened this door without consulting civilian police and now they're closing it despite opposition from police, police chiefs, and victims. Carney gets to own the results.