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.
decisions.rcmp.gc.ca
