Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[McG]

I agree the CAF needs to have a more robust system of "professional discipline" and by that I mean, a more robust administrative measures system. Having your license revoked in accounting and being kicked out of the professional is the equivalent of getting kicked out of the "profession of arms" i.e. getting released.

Professional disciplinary process are unlike employer systems because the results are public - the accusations, decisions, and punishments all get published.

We don’t need more teeth for our administrative processes (they are actually fine). We need a professional disciplinary system that is not quasi-criminal.

The new service infractions & summary hearing are a step in the right direction, but we are not all the way to where we need to be.

 

[McG]

A professional disciplinary system, unlike an employer’s HR processes, communicates (to the members and to the public) what behaviours the profession finds unacceptable.

If the CAF wants there to be a profession of arms, then there needs to be a professional disciplinary system that does more than satisfy just the employer’s expectations for good enough conduct & performance.

 

[mariomike]

Not to agree / disagree with the need for the above in the CAF.

But, would there be a financial cost to members?

 

[brihard]

The use of the word "discipline" in the professional world vs. the CAF are not interchangeable. It's making this discussion quite a tangled mess.

Under the CAF, the "disciplinary" system is the NDA, up to and including very serious criminal offences (i.e. indictable) but also including less serious offenses (summary conviction) --- all of which I believe, under the NDA, are defined as "services offences." Then it also has "service infractions" that don't result in a criminal record. Point is - the "disciplinary" system in the CAF refers to essentially the judicial process / the civilian equivalent of a criminal justice system.

In professional circles, the term "discipline" is not used in that matter. It's purely an administrative system (e.g. remedial measures, admin reviews, recommendations to release someone, etc.) like any employer has... except instead of your employer doing it, it's the professional body that does it (your employer will also have its own.... but the employer is constrained to following employment law whereas the professional is not, because the profession will be working pursuant to different legislation.... which is why the profession can issue you a "fine" as penalty but your employer can't).

So, that's why professional discipline can co-exist and operate in parallel with the criminal system, just like the CAF's remedial measure exists in parallel to its "disciplinary" system.

I agree the CAF needs to have a more robust system of "professional discipline" and by that I mean, a more robust administrative measures system. Having your license revoked in accounting and being kicked out of the professional is the equivalent of getting kicked out of the "profession of arms" i.e. getting released.

The biggest issue with the CAF's "professional discipline" system (again... administrative measures) is that there is no transparency. All of it is protected as confidential information about an individual. Which in reality just allows CAF leadership to do a shit job at upholding that system and get away with it sans any scrutiny.

Commit professional misconduct in accounting/law/medicine/engineering etc. and the "professional discipline" process and results are public. That transparency is necessary to ensure the profession itself properly regulates itself. It's there to ensure that the decision-makers (i.e. our disciplinary tribunals) are accountable for their decisions. It's a feature, not a bug, and the CAF does not have this feature.

Respectfully, I think you're getting unnecessarily hung up on the additional layer of professional licensing. That's your lawyers, accountants, doctors, engineers, psychologists.... I don't think, when most of us are talking about 'professional discipline', that we're talking about that. Maybe the use of the word 'professional' is skewing us lightly here so I'll use 'employer discipline' instead.

CAF is in a weird space. It has its own criminal justice system, which I think everyone would agree needs to remain in place for certain very CAF specific circumstances and offences; deployments overseas, offences unique to military operations and service. I take no issue with that. There needs to be a way for CAF to punish the disobeyal of lawful orders, and such.

CAF also has 'adminsitrative measures', which are an awkward and ugly blending of performance management, and conduct mangement. Performance management is 'you are not performing your job well enough', and should exist to improve that perofmrance, and to document reasonable efforts to do so and the member's failure to improve to support performance based release.

I submit, and I think some others agree, that CAF needs a standalone diciplinary process that is neither blended with the administrative performance process, nor is it overlapping the judicial criminal process.

Sticking with what I know, I look to the systems that exist for police. We are not a 'licensed profession', though we're certainly highly regulated. We have codes of conduct provincially or federally that are statutorily empowered, regulatorily based, and administered on a balance of probabilities. Our employers run these processes. We cannot be sent to jail under them, but we can be docked pay, docked leave, demoted, or fired. There are due process rights and they're judicially reviewable administrative law decisions.

Our employer disciplinary processes can be engaged in overlap with criminal processes. If a cop gets drunk and gropes someone at a work party, they may be charged criminally with sexual assault. They may also, separately, be charged with an offence under their respective code of conduct. The latter will determine disciplinary employment consequences. The employer disciplinary matter can be fed by, but does not depend on the criminal proceedings. A criminal stay of proceedings or acquittal may mean no criminal sanction, but on the balance of probabilities standard the employer can still decide 'nope, no longer suitable for our organization' and fire; or 'you done effed up, we think you may be salvageable, but you're docked a month's pay and demoted for two years. This is on a less demanding standard that allows the employer to more efficiently manage its own disciplinary affairs but still affords due process rights. None of this involves professional licensing.

So, of rme personally that's more what I'm imagining... Again just sticking what I know.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Professional disciplinary process are unlike employer systems because the results are public - the accusations, decisions, and punishments all get published.

Is this accurate for our civilian police services?

When I bitch and complain about LEO'S getting light or suspended sentences I'm told they also get dealt with internally. It doesn't seem like those results really get published?

 

[brihard]

Is this accurate for our civilian police services?

When I bitch and complain about LEO'S getting light or suspended sentences I'm told they also get dealt with internally. It doesn't seem like those results really get published?

Depends on the service and sometimes on the level of discipline. The RCMP publish all their ‘conduct hearing’ decisions; my understanding is a ‘hearing’ is when one of their members potentially faces dismissal, though that’s not always the penalty. For more minor stuff they have ‘conduct meetings’ that aren’t published.

RCMP conduct hearings are published here:

Navigation by Date: 2025 - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

decisions.rcmp.gc.ca

 

[mariomike]

That's your lawyers, accountants, doctors, engineers, psychologists....

And your paramedics in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick ....

Thankfully not Ontario. Yet.

Self-regulation shifts the cost from the municipality to individual practitioners.

These fees cover professional regulation, quality assurance, and discipline, which were previously funded by the municipality , and may include additional costs for malpractice insurance.

One should be careful if one wishes to impose that on CAF members.

 

[Booter]

Is this accurate for our civilian police services?

When I bitch and complain about LEO'S getting light or suspended sentences I'm told they also get dealt with internally. It doesn't seem like those results really get published?

Most municipal forces do an end of year report where they go over the year from a discipline standpoint. Some are more detailed than others.

Others just advertise that you can ask for copies of decisions and they post their hearing schedule

 

[Jarnhamar]

Depends on the service and sometimes on the level of discipline. The RCMP publish all their ‘conduct hearing’ decisions; my understanding is a ‘hearing’ is when one of their members potentially faces dismissal, though that’s not always the penalty. For more minor stuff they have ‘conduct meetings’ that aren’t published.

RCMP conduct hearings are published here:

Navigation by Date: 2025 - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

decisions.rcmp.gc.ca

I'm surprised (and impressed) at how many of those hearings ended in the officer being ordered to resign or face dismissal. Nice to see it being taken so seriously.

 

[McG]

Respectfully, I think you're getting unnecessarily hung up on the additional layer of professional licensing. That's your lawyers, accountants, doctors, engineers, psychologists.... I don't think, when most of us are talking about 'professional discipline', that we're talking about that. Maybe the use of the word 'professional' is skewing us lightly here so I'll use 'employer discipline' instead.

Yes, we are talking about professional discipline and not professional licensing. But professional discipline is also different from employer discipline. An employer can discipline its professionals for things that the professional body does not discipline, and the professional body can discipline its members for things that the employer does not discipline. Where the federal government holds a monopoly on the employment of military, an argument could be made that we do not need parallel professional and employer disciplinary processes. But in that case, if we want to say that the profession of arms is a thing, we need a military disciplinary system that negates the need for a parallel employer's administrative process for conduct.

I submit, and I think some others agree, that CAF needs a standalone diciplinary process that is neither blended with the administrative performance process, nor is it overlapping the judicial criminal process.

Sticking with what I know, I look to the systems that exist for police. We are not a 'licensed profession', though we're certainly highly regulated. We have codes of conduct provincially or federally that are statutorily empowered, regulatorily based, and administered on a balance of probabilities. Our employers run these processes. We cannot be sent to jail under them, but we can be docked pay, docked leave, demoted, or fired. There are due process rights and they're judicially reviewable administrative law decisions.

Yes (again), and picking from the best elements of various police disciplinary systems probably gives the best model for what the CAF needs as a professional disciplinary systems.

Self-regulation shifts the cost from employers to individual practitioners.

No. Firstly, Professional bodies are not employers, and all employers will maintain their own disciplinary systems separate from professional disciplinary processes. So costs are not shifted. And, as already noted, we are talking about just professional discipline and not professional accreditation and licensing.
and even in the case of full licencing bodies, many employers will pay licensing fees and professional maintenance training tuitions and the federal government is one such employer that has ways to pay for professional licensing where it is required a job.