For reference to the discussion,
(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:
a.take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
b.make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
c.except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-19.page
I believe he is ( was? ) in the PRes.
Now your talking about service in the Armed Forces, I'm talking about possessing a commission, two very different things. You may no longer be a member of the Armed Forces; however, you still hold a commission and can be asked to serve "at pleasure".
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith
To ........ .........
hereby appointed an Officer in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces
With Seniority of the .... day of ......... ....
WE reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and Integrity do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to be an Officer in our Canadian Armed Forces. You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the Rank of .............. or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote or appoint you to, and you are in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us to exercise and well discipline both the Inferior Officers and Non-Commissioned Members serving under you and use your best endeavour to keep them in good Order and Discipline, and We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their Superior Officer, and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any other your Superior Officer according to Law, in pursuance of the Trust hereby Reposed in you.
IN WITNESS Whereof our Governor General of Canada hath hereunto set his hand and Seal at Our Government House in the City of Ottawa this .... day of .......... in the Year of our Lord ................... and in the .... Year of Our Reign.
By Command of His Excellency the Governor General
The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the Governor General, The Chief of Defence Staff falls next in the military hierarchy. Should the Governor General not publically spank a person who possesses a commission signed by his office? How can you have a Minister of National Defence, who holds a commission given to him by the Governor General, in command of the Ministry of National Defence? How does the Governor General strip a person of their commission in this instance for poor conduct? See where the conflict is?
Note: I'm not saying Harjit Sajjan should be stripped of his commission or should even resign, he made a small error and a formal apology should be enough. And while many, if not most, may start their political careers wanting to make a difference, in the end, it tends to come down to the bit in yellow - no matter what team jersey.
Officers manage a vital national institution, do Judges become politicians once they leave the bench? I think anyone working as a Judge or holding a Commission from the Head of State should abstain from participating in politics for life. It's the reason the Monarch has "placed special trust" in you.
The record says he released as of 8 Nov 2015.
Even if you release, you still hold a commission. It's the reason he can call himself LCol (Ret'd) Sajjan. He serves at the "Queen's Pleasure".
Re: renouncing commissions, are all commissioned members expected to do that on release? And if they don't, are they not civilians?
Nope, it's the reason I can release from the military then five years later, join as if I never left. Otherwise I would need to be awarded a new commission. Commissions have a start date and end date, the end date is when the Monarch says I'm done or I die.
Interesting concept -- and you think this would still be a good idea if you had someone working for you publicly (e.g., potentially to the media) disavowing/disagreeing with your orders/directions while in a leadership position over them?
Disagreement is different than not actioning though. If a person tells me to do something, I can tell him that it's a bad idea for XXXX; however, I will carry it out because it's my duty.
I think debate is healthy. The government controls the Armed Forces through budget allocation and directing us to undertake missions. How does a military run an Academic Institution such as RMC if it can't critique government policy. Situation: "I'm a student undertaking a Masters in War Studies at RMC and I also happen to be a member of the Armed Forces. I produce a paper critiquing the methodology used in the upcoming Defence Policy Review". I need to write this paper to fulfill my academic obligations but I'm also violating the CSD by doing so. How is this just in a democracy?