______

Other sites on military law

-Part I -- Canadian Military Law -- Miscellaneous

-  Blog

- Somalia Inquiry & Government Reaction
      -  1995-1997: Somalia Inquiry
      -  Departmental Reaction to Somalia Inquiry
      -  Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and Military Police Investigation Services
          January 1997 to July 1997
      -  The Special Senate Committee on the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia (April 1997)
      -  Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces (March 1997)
        -  Minister's Monitoring Committee on Change in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces (October 1997 to 1999)
         - Bill C-25--An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
         (Royal Assent, 10 December 1998)
       - 2003 -- Five Year Review of Bill C-25
       - 2011 -- Second Five Year Review of Bill C-25    
         

-  Governments Bills 1999-2012 on National Defence Act

- Current Affairs -- Sexual Misconduct

- Court Martial Comprehensive Review 2016-2017

- JAG & DND Web Sites

- Laws, Regulations and Orders

- Superseded Legislation

- Web Sites of Interest

Part II -- Canadian Military Law -- Bibliography
 A-B--C-D--E-G--H-L--M-R--S-Z

------

AMENDMENTS TO TERMS OF REFERENCE - COURT MARTIAL COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW       

Reference: 0160-1-06551-06-0034 Terms of Reference – Court Martial Comprehensive Review, dated 13 May 2016

1. At the reference, my predecessor initiated a comprehensive review of the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) court martial system, pursuant to the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) statutory responsibilities for superintendence of the administration of military justice under section 9.2(1) of the National Defence Act (NDA), and for the conduct of regular reviews of the administration of military justice under section 9.2(2) of the NDA.
2. Since taking up my appointment as the JAG on 27 June 2017, I have been briefed by the Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team (CMCRT) on the status of the review, and have provided the team with some broad guidance to consider as they work towards completion of a draft report.  Following my review of the draft report, it is my intent to then seek the input of key stakeholders who have expertise or interest in the court martial system.  Any additional policy or legal analysis following my review of the draft report will be provided to me by the CMCRT at my direction.
3. In order to permit the CMCRT to consider and incorporate my guidance, and to produce a final report that will assist me in providing advice and recommendations to the Minister of National Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff, I hereby amend the Terms of Reference for the Court Martial Comprehensive Review, as follows:
   
   1. Timing of Review.  The comprehensive review shall produce a draft report deliverable to me no later than 21 July 2017.
   2. Classification/Designation of the CMCRT Final Report.  As the final report will be a policy-based analysis and discussion of options for enhancing the court martial system, the report should not be marked or treated as a document that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
4. I fully support the efforts of the CMCRT, and look forward to receiving the team’s draft report.  Like my predecessor, I expect each member of the CMCRT to continue to bring to bear the full extent of his or her legal and military expertise throughout the remaining period of this comprehensive review. Fiat Justitia.
   

 

Geneviève Bernatchez
Commodore
992-3019 / 996-847

17 January 2018

DRAFT INTERNAL REPORT - COURT MARTIAL COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

The Canadian military justice system forms an integral part of Canada’s legal mosaic and the requirement for military tribunals
 have long been recognized in Canadian law, including the Constitution, and reinforced by Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court
of Canada. This separate system of military tribunals allows the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to deal with matters that pertain directly
to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military.

Furthermore, Canadians have a clear expectation that their armed forces will be a disciplined one while reflecting Canadian values and
ethics. All Canadians, including the proud women and men of the CAF, also expect that their military tribunals will continue to evolve
in accordance with Canadian law while recognizing the unique role the military justice system plays in reinforcing discipline.

The Court Martial Comprehensive Review was initiated by my predecessor by terms of reference dated 13 May 2016. The purpose of
this internal review was to conduct a legal and policy analysis of all aspects of the CAF’s court martial system and provide options to
enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of that system.

The review was also designed to engage a healthy public dialogue over the future of the military justice system through online discussion
boards and posted summaries from public consultations and stakeholder submissions, both supportive and critical of the current system.

On 27 June 2017, I was appointed Judge Advocate General (JAG), and in early July 2017 was briefed by the Court Martial
Comprehensive Review Team (CMCRT) on the status of its work. At that time, I provided the team with broad guidance as it worked to
complete the report, then due in final form by 14 July 2017. On 12 July 2017, I made amendments to the team’s terms of reference.
A key amendment was that the report would be changed from a legal and policy analysis, subject to solicitor-client privilege, to a
policy-based analysis which would be unprivileged and could be shared publicly. The amended terms of reference also mandated the
production of a draft report and extended the deadline for the production of the document to 21 July 2017.

The enclosed internal draft report was submitted to me on time in July 2017. It provides a history and overview of Canada’s court
martial system, a comparative international study with selected states’ military justice system, offers an unusual theoretical basis for
Canada’s courts martial and provides a number of observations, some from CAF commanders and members, on the military justice system.

In large part due to challenges related to methodology and a paucity of metrics and analytics, the paper is of limited assistance in assessing
the current court martial system.

And so, considerable work remains to be done. As with the civilian criminal justice system, the military justice system is in constant
evolution and benefits from internal and external reviews that offer meaningful evidence-based analysis and recommendations that serve
to enhance it. To that end, I am looking forward to significant consultations with key stakeholders and with those who have expertise and
interest in the military justice system. In terms of the external reviews, we will have much to learn from the Office of the Auditor General
audit into the military justice system slated for publication in the spring of 2018 and I am looking forward to the results of the next
independent review to be undertaken within the next 2 years pursuant to section 273.601 of the National Defence Act.

In light of the forthcoming external reviews, I have determined that no additional revision of the draft internal report will be required and
that it will serve as a discussion paper. In that regards, the discussion paper represents the views of its authors. It does not represent my
views or those of the Office of the Judge Advocate General. It offers perspectives that may be taken into account following receipt of the
Auditor General’s report, the report of the next independent review authority along with other internal and external consultations.

 As the superintendent of the administration of military justice, I remain confident it is an important and relevant system to promote the
discipline, effectiveness and morale of the CAF. And, as with any other criminal justice system, the military justice system must remain
in constant evolution in order to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those who use it and are impacted by it, while meeting all
applicable Canadian legal requirements. Therefore, moving forward, consideration and analysis of the various perspectives will contribute
to formulate tangible options and recommendations to decision-makers to enhance the fairness, effectiveness, efficiency and, ultimately,
legitimacy of Canada’s military justice system.

Geneviève Bernatchez
Commodore
Judge Advocate General

------------------------------------------------

17 janvier 2018

ÉBAUCHE - RAPPORT INTERNE - RÉVISION GLOBALE DE LA COUR MARTIALE

Le système de justice militaire canadien fait partie intégrante de la mosaïque juridique du Canada et la nécessité d’avoir des tribunaux
militaires est reconnue depuis longtemps dans le droit canadien, y compris dans la Constitution. Le système de justice militaire canadien
a aussi reçu l’appui des tribunaux canadiens, entre autres celui de la Cour suprême du Canada. Ce système distinct de tribunaux militaires
permet aux Forces armées canadiennes (FAC) de traiter de questions liées à la discipline, l’efficience et le moral des militaires.

De plus, les Canadiens s’attendent manifestement à ce que les forces armées soient disciplinées et à ce qu’elles reflètent les valeurs et
l’éthique de la population. Tous les Canadiens, y compris les femmes et les hommes qui sont fiers de servir au sein des FAC,
s’attendent aussi à ce que les tribunaux militaires continuent d’évoluer en conformité avec le droit canadien, tout en reconnaissant
le rôle unique que  joue le système de justice militaire dans le renforcement de la discipline.

La révision globale de la cour martiale a été entreprise par mon prédécesseur par des attributions en date du 13 mai 2016. Le but de
cet examen interne était de fournir une analyse des aspects juridiques et des politiques reliées au système des cours martiales des FAC
et de fournir des options qui pourraient rendre ce système plus efficace, efficient et légitime.

La révision avait également pour but de lancer  une saine discussion avec le public sur l’avenir du système de justice militaire grâce à
des babillards électroniques et à la publication de résumés de consultations publiques et de représentations par des parties intéressées,
qu’il s’agisse de points de vue favorables ou défavorables au système actuel.

Le 27 juin 2017, j’ai été nommée juge-avocat général (JAG), et au début du mois de juillet 2017, l’équipe de la révision globale de la
cour martiale (ERGCM) m’a informée de l’état d’avancement de ses travaux. À l’époque, j’ai donné des conseils généraux à l’équipe
qui était en voie de terminer son rapport, lequel devait être prêt le 14 juillet 2017. Le 12 juillet 2017, j’ai modifié le mandat de l’équipe.
J’ai modifié, entre autres, l’objectif du rapport. Plutôt que de porter sur une analyse juridique et des politiques qui serait assujettie au
secret professionnel de l’avocat, le rapport devait porter sur une analyse stratégique des politiques, sans privilège, afin d’être accessibles
au grand public. Le mandat modifié exigeait aussi de rédiger un rapport provisoire et repoussait la date limite de production du document
au 21 juillet 2017.

Le rapport interne provisoire ci-joint m’a été remis dans les délais en juillet 2017. Il fournit un historique et un aperçu du système des
cours martiales au Canada, une étude comparative du système de justice militaire d’États sélectionnés, offre un fondement théorique
inhabituel pour les cours martiales canadiennes et fournit un nombre d’observations, dont certaines proviennent de commandants et
militaires des FAC.

En raison surtout des difficultés relatives à la méthodologie et du peu de paramètres et d’analyses acceptables, le document est d’une
utilité limitée pour évaluer le système actuel des cours martiales.

Par conséquent, beaucoup de travail reste à faire. Tout comme le système civil de justice pénale, le système de justice militaire est en
constante évolution et tire parti d’examens à l’interne et à l’externe qui offrent une analyse fondée sur des données probantes et des
recommandations visant l’amélioration de celui-ci. À cette fin, j’anticipe positivement des consultations à venir  auprès des principaux
intervenants et des personnes ayant une expertise et un intérêt dans le système de justice militaire. En ce qui a trait aux examens externes,
nous aurons  beaucoup à apprendre de la vérification du Bureau du vérificateur général concernant  le système de justice militaire dont
la publication est prévue pour le printemps 2018, ainsi que des résultats du prochain examen indépendant qui doit être entrepris au cours
des deux prochaines années conformément à l’article 273.601 de la Loi sur la défense nationale.

À la lumière des examens externes attendus, j’ai conclu qu’il ne sera pas nécessaire de poursuivre la révision de l’ébauche du rapport
interne, et que le document servirait à des fins de consultations. En ce sens, ce document de consultation représente les opinions de
ses auteurs. Il ne représente pas mon point de vue ni celui des membres du Cabinet du juge‑avocat général. Le document présente des
perspectives qui pourront être prises en compte avec celles des rapports du vérificateur général, du prochain examen indépendant et des
consultations à l’interne et à l’externe.

En tant que responsable de l’administration de la justice militaire, je demeure persuadée que ce système important et valable favorise
la discipline, l’efficacité et le moral des FAC. Et comme pour tout système de justice pénale, le système de justice militaire doit évoluer
constamment pour continuer à répondre aux besoins de ceux et celles qui s’en prévalent et qui sont touchés par celui-ci, tout en respectant
les exigences juridiques canadiennes en vigueur. À cet égard, un examen et une analyse des diverses perspectives contribueront à formuler
des options concrètes visant à rendre le système de justice militaire du Canada plus juste, efficace, efficient et, en définitive, plus légitime.

 

Geneviève Bernatchez
Commodore
Juge-avocat général

Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez (Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence):

My predecessor mandated a court martial comprehensive review. It pertained to the court martial system, and extensive
consultation occurred. The team that carried out the review also did a fantastic job at comparative analysis.

When I took on the position of Judge Advocate General, I had an opportunity to look at the draft report with my
military justice division. There were some aspects of it that I wanted to have clarified, because I was brand new at
the job and needed a little bit of time to better understand certain aspects. The team was mandated to provide to me
on July 21 a draft interim report for me to review.

 We are currently in the process of reviewing this report, which I think will not only form the basis of a great opportunity
to engage in a dialogue with parliamentarians, the Canadian public, and members of the Canadian Armed Forces as to
what the Canadian military justice system is and where it should go, but will also enable me to formulate policy and
legal analysis recommendations to the Minister of National Defence and the chief of the defence staff toward the
modernization of this piece of the military justice system.
.....

 I would very much like to be able to put as much of it as possible on my website soon. There are certain aspects of the
report, though, that I think will be classified under solicitor-client privilege because they contain either legal advice or
policy analysis for recommendations to the minister.....


My default position will be to communicate as much as possible to the public, to engage them in that dialogue, and to
ensure that we get the feedback we require in order to advance in it while protecting the pieces of it that I need to protect
because of professional obligations.

[Emphasis in bold added]

Court Martial Comprehensive Review

The Judge Advocate General has recently directed the completion of a comprehensive review of the court martial system.
The purpose of the review is to conduct a legal and policy analysis of all aspects of the Canadian Armed Forces’ court
martial system and, where appropriate, to develop and analyze options to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and
legitimacy of that system and then assess whether changes to any features of the system are required or advisable in order
to promote greater systemic effectiveness, efficiency, or legitimacy. In terms of harmful and inappropriate sexual
behaviour, the review will examine all offences of a sexual nature to determine whether there is a requirement to
update or add any service offences to the existing legislation. It will also evaluate if current sentencing provisions
are appropriate and if additional measures should be taken to protect the rights or interests of victims.

It is significant that all members of the Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team are intimately familiar with
the External Review Authority report, including its ten seminal recommendations. They are also fully aware of the
Chief of the Defence Staff's and the Judge Advocate General’s orders relating to Operation HONOUR. Additionally,
the Judge Advocate General has required that any options considered by the team as a means of achieving greater
effectiveness, efficiency, or legitimacy within the court martial system are to be consistent with efforts that are being
undertaken by other authorities in support of Operation HONOUR.  The review team will deliver its final report to
the Judge Advocate General no later than July 2017.

2.3  Court Martial Comprehensive Review

The Court Martial Comprehensive Review was initiated by our previous JAG, Major-General Cathcart,
in May of 2016 to conduct a legal and policy analysis of all aspects of the CAF’s court martial system
and, where appropriate, to develop and analyse options to enhance the e ectiveness, e ciency, and
legitimacy of that system. In July 2017, the Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team submitted an
internal draft report to the current JAG.

Due to challenges related to methodology and a paucity of metrics and analytics, the report was found
to be of limited assistance in assessing the current court martial system. In light of various external
reviews of the military justice system, such as the one conducted by the Auditor General discussed
above, it was determined by the JAG that no additional revision of the draft internal report was to be
undertaken. The draft report thereby only serves as a discussion paper that represents the views of
its authors and does not represent the views of the Office of the JAG or the DMP.

[page 12 of the report]

----------

2.3  Révision globale de la cour martiale

La Révision globale de la cour martiale fut initiée en mai 2016 par le JAG précédent, le Major-général
Cathcart, a n d’examiner les aspects juridiques et les politiques associés au système de cours martiales
des FAC et d’identi er les moyens d’en augmenter l’e cacité, l’e cience et la légitimité. En juillet 2017,
l’Équipe de la révision globale de la cour martiale a soumis l’ébauche de son rapport interne au présent
JAG. En raison de problèmes liés à la méthodologie employée ainsi qu’en l’absence de données
appuyant ses conclusions et recommandations, le rapport s’est avéré être d’une utilité limitée pour
diagnostiquer les lacunes du système de cours martiales. À la lumière des autres véri cations externes
réalisées telles que celle du Véri cateur général mentionnée ci-dessus, la JAG a décidé que l’ébauche
du rapport ne serait pas révisée. Celle-ci représente donc un document alimentant la discussion sur
le système de cours martiales qui re ète uniquement l’opinion de ses auteurs et non celle du CJAG
ou du DPM.

[page 12 du rapport]

Court Martial Comprehensive Review

The Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team, to be led by the Deputy JAG for Military Justice and additionally comprised of three legal officers, will be conducted in accordance with Terms of Reference issued by the JAG. The purpose of the comprehensive review is to conduct a legal and policy analysis of all aspects of the CAF’s court martial system and, where appropriate, to develop and analyse options to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of that system.

At the outset, the Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team will assess the current court martial system’s effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy and then will assess whether changes to any features of this system are required or advisable in order to promote greater systemic effectiveness, efficiency, or legitimacy. The Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team will consider the following subject matter areas:

• The status and institutional structure of tribunals/courts with jurisdiction over service offences, including whether they ought to be: military or civilian in character; permanent or ad hoc entities; and, capable of deploying to austere or hostile environments inside and outside of Canada;
• The status and institutional structure of a prosecution service with responsibility for prosecuting service offences, including whether this service ought to be military or civilian in character, and capable of deploying to austere or hostile environments inside and outside of Canada;
• The mechanism through which defence counsel services are provided to persons accused of committing service offences, including whether such services ought to be: provided by military or civilian lawyers; provided in whole or in part at public expense; and, capable of being provided within austere or hostile environments inside and outside of Canada;
• The substantive body of service offences, including full consideration of whether any current offences ought to be updated or repealed, and whether any additional offences ought to be added;
• The punishments, sanctions, and sentencing laws that apply in respect of service offences, including full consideration of whether any current sentencing provisions ought to be updated or repealed, and whether any additional sentencing options ought to be added;
• The laws of evidence that ought to apply at trials in respect of service offences;
• The rights, grounds, and mechanisms of appeal that ought to exist for the Crown and for persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline; and,
• The special needs of any particular groups who may interact with the military justice system, including victims, young persons, and aboriginal offenders.

The comprehensive review will commence no later than July 2016 and will produce a completed report deliverable to the JAG by July 2017. [Chapter 2, pp. 10-11]

Court Martial Comprehensive Review

Pursuant to his statutory responsibilities for super-intendence and for the conduct
of regular reviews of the administration of military justice under subsections 9.2(1)
and (2) of the NDA, on 13 May 2016, the JAG directed the Deputy Judge Advocate
General for Military Justice (DJAG MJ) to conduct a comprehensive review of the
CAF’s court martial system. The purpose of this review is to conduct a legal and
policy analysis of all aspects of the CAF’s court martial system and, where appropriate,
to develop and analyze options to enhance the effect-iveness, efficiency, and legitimacy
of that system.

The comprehensive review commenced on 15 July 2016, and will produce a draft
policy-based report for the JAG by 21 July 2017.36

The Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team (CMCRT), comprised of legal officers
from the Military Justice Division, is considering the follow-ing subject matter areas:

1. The status and institutional structure of tri-bunals/courts with jurisdiction over service
offences, including whether they ought to be: military or civilian in character; permanent
or ad hoc entities; and, capable of deploying to austere or hostile environments inside
and outside of Canada;

2. The status and institutional structure of a pros-ecution service with responsibility for
pros-ecuting service offences, including whether this service ought to be military or civilian
in character, and capable of deploying to austere or hostile environments inside and outside
of Canada;

3. The mechanism through which defence counsel services are provided to persons accused
of committing service offences, including whether such services ought to be: provided by military
or civilian lawyers; provided in whole or in part at public expense; and, capable of being provided
within austere or hostile environ-ments inside and outside of Canada;

4. The substantive body of service offences, includ-ing full consideration of whether any current
offences ought to be updated or repealed, and whether any additional offences ought to be added;

5. The punishments, sanctions, and sentencing laws that apply in respect of service offences,
including full consideration of whether any current sentencing provisions ought to be updated
or repealed, and whether any addi-tional sentencing options ought to be added;

6. The laws of evidence that ought to apply at trials in respect of service offences;

7. The rights, grounds, and mechanisms of appeal that ought to exist for the Crown and for
persons subject to the CSD; and,

8. The special needs of any particular groups who may interact with the military justice system,
including victims, young persons, and aborig-inal offenders.

During the reporting period, the CMCRT con-ducted extensive public and internal CAF consultation
to seek input on the subject matter areas to be reviewed and analyzed. Additionally, as part of its
review, the CMCRT conducted technical visits involving consultation with foreign subject matter
experts from ten countries (United States, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, France,
Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Finland). The CMCRT also took advantage of opportunities for
less in-depth knowledge exchanges with military justice experts from Singapore and Israel, as part
of other visits to these places that were being con-ducted by Office of the JAG legal officers. This
comparative study by the CMCRT of how other states operate their military justice systems exposed
the CMCRT to a full range of military justice considera-tions, structures, practices, and outcomes.
_____
36 Amendments to Terms of Reference – Court Martial Comprehensive Review, 11 July 2017.

[pp. 37-39]

Court Martial Comprehensive Review

The Court Martial Comprehensive Review (CMCR) was initiated
by the previous Judge Advocate General by terms of reference
dated 13 May 2016. The purpose of this internal review was to
conduct a legal and policy analysis of all aspects of the Canadian
Armed Forces’ court martial system and provide options to enhance
the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of that system. Soon
after her appointment, the Judge Advocate General met with the
CMCR Team and provided additional guidance including direction
to make the document a policy-based analysis, not subject to
solicitor-client privilege, in order for the document to be made public.
A draft CMCR report was provided to the Judge Advocate General
in July 2017. In large part due to challenges related to methodology
and a paucity of metrics and analytics, the document was of limited
assistance in assessing the current court martial system. The draft
internal report will therefore serve as a discussion paper. It offers
perspectives that may be taken into account following receipt of the
Auditor General’s report, the report of the next independent review
authority along with other internal and external consultations on the
military justice system. The Judge Advocate General published the
draft CMCR report on 17 January 2018 and has communicated
publicly her decision that the CMCR project has reached its
conclusion.18
--------
18 Judge Advocate General Statement, Draft Internal Report - Court Martial Comprehensive Review,
dated 17 January 2018, http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-court-martial-
comprehensive-review/index.page

[p. 30]

-------------

Révision globale de la cour martiale

Le juge-avocat général précédent avait entrepris une révision globale
de la cour martiale (RGCM) par l’émission d’un mandat à cet effet le
13 mai 2016. Cette révision interne visait à procéder à une analyse
juridique et stratégique de tous les aspects du système de cour martiale
des Forces armées canadiennes et à offrir des options pour améliorer
l’efficacité, l’efficience et la légitimité du système. Peu après sa nomination,
le nouveau juge-avocat général a rencontré l’équipe chargée de la RGCM
pour lui donner des directives additionnelles, dont celle de transformer le
document en une analyse stratégique des politiques pour s’assurer que le
privilège avocat-client ne s’applique pas au document et que ce dernier soit
accessible au grand public. En juillet 2017, un rapport provisoire sur la
RGCM a été préparé à l’interne pour le juge-avocat général. Dû en grande
partie à des difficultés relatives à la méthodologie et à un manque de
paramètres mesurés et de données analytiques, le document produit n’a
été utile que dans une mesure limitée pour évaluer le système de cour
martiale actuel. Le rapport interne provisoire servira donc à alimenter la
discussion. Le document présente des perspectives pouvant être prises en
compte après avoir reçu le Rapport du vérificateur général, le rapport de la
prochaine autorité chargée du prochain examen indépendant au même titre
que d’autres consultations à l’interne et à l’extérieur sur le système de justice
militaire. Le 17 janvier 2018, le juge-avocat général a publié une ébauche du
document produit dans le cadre de la RGCM et a expliqué publiquement sa
décision à l’effet que la RGCM était parvenu à sa conclusion18.
....
___
18 Déclaration du juge-avocat général, Ébauche – Rapport interne – Révision globale de la cour martiale, en date du 17 janvier
 2018, http://www.forces.gc.ca/fr/a-propos-rapports-pubs-droit-militaire-revision-globale-cour-martiale/index.page

[p. 31]

• Terms of Reference - Court Martial Comprehensive Review
  
• News Release - The JAG Launches Comprehensive Review of Court Martial System
• Backgrounder - The Canadian Armed Forces Court Martial System
  

     Terms of reference in pdf format at http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/jag/court-martial-comprehensive-review.pdf (accessed 29 July 2016);

      . Consultation document at http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-court-martial-comprehensive-review/index.page (accessed 12 October 2016)

      .  Document de consultation http://www.forces.gc.ca/fr/a-propos-rapports-pubs-droit-militaire-revision-globale-cour-martiale/index.page (vérifié le 12 octobre 2016)

a. Col Rob Holman, CD, LL.B., LL.M: DJAG MJ and Director General (DG CMCRT)

LCdr Mike Madden, CD, LL.B, LL.M.: Senior Legal and Policy Advisor

c. LCdr Clark Colwell, CD, LL.B, LL.M.: Legal and Policy Advisor

d. Lt(N) Amélie Aubut, LL.B, LL.M.: Legal and Policy Advisor

Ordered in May 2016, the 560-page draft document titled “Court Martial Comprehensive Review Interim Report”
was completed in July 2017 but it still has not been released to the public.

Senior commanders have criticized the military justice system for being slow, light on punishment, and failing
to protect victims’ rights.

___________"Chicane de clochers -- parochial squabbles",  Global Military Justice Reform web site, blog, 17 January 2019 available at http://globalmjreform.blogspot.com/2019/01/chicane-de-clochers-parochial-squabbles_17.html (accessed on 18 January 2019);

Earlier today the National Post posted an article titled “Canadian military claimed a report didn’t exist -even though it ‘clearly’did.”
 The report was critical of the actions taken in 2017 by the Judge Advocate General, Commodore Geneviève Bernatchez and her senior staff.

Over the years, attempts to modernize the National Defence Act (NDA) to bring it more in line with globally accepted standards of justice,
or even with our own domestic civilian penal system, have been serially resisted by the Canadian military legal establishment. Several of
the reforms that have been made are the result of pressures that were initiated from outside, none the least the judiciary, but not, repeat
not, within the JAG organization or the military itself.

It is Parliament NOT the military that needs to embark upon a review of the scope of jurisdiction of the Canadian penal military justice system and the resulting modus operandi of the court martial system. Therefore, they write, only soft reforms acceptable and compatible with the military mind and the views of the chain of command are likely to result from this in-house JAG self-initiated review of the military justice system. 

These in-house reforms would have no significant effect as they would permit the JAG to continue lording over this broken military justice system.  See Opinion Piece; "It's time for a civilian review of the military justice system" published today in Hill Times (the Parliamentary Precinct newspaper).

Over the past decade or so, the JAG has been conferred a plenipotentiary mandate over the administration of the military penal and disciplinary justice system. The JAG has monopolistic authority for providing advice to all stakeholders in the system on practices, procedures, development, and reforms. (source: https://www.hilltimes.com/2016/11/14/civilian-review-military-justice-system-required/86788    , accessed 15 November 2016)

The book comes as the Office of the Judge Advocate General has been conducting a review of the Canadian military
justice system. In the authors' view, the terms of reference for that review are too narrow, and a more comprehensive
review is required. They hope that Behind the Times may inspire and assist in understanding the challenges the system
faces, and some areas in need of urgent reform.

National Defence told a requester that it had searched for a requested report [Court Martial
Comprehensive Review] but could find no related records. In the same response, it also
noted that the report in question was still being drafted.

We investigated the complaint about this response, while the Canadian Armed Forces’ National
Investigation Service conducted a professional misconduct investi-gation into the processing of the
original request.

We concluded that the response, which was based on recommendations from the Office of the
Judge Advocate General, was inappropriate, since, as the response itself highlighted, a document
did exist. In addition, the fact that the document was in draft form at the time of the request did not
exclude it from the Act.
[read the rest at pages 8-9]

Le droit militaire est en mal de réformes substantives nécessaires pour entrer dans l'ère de la modernité et corriger les injustices qu'il comporte.
Immédiatement il m'en vient à l'esprit.  Une dizaine que je désire porter à l’attention des lecteurs et développer dans une courte série de blogues.
Énumérons-les.

Caroline Maynard formule a donc formulé quatre recommandations à l’intention des bureaux du JAG et de l’Accès à l’information :

• effectuer un bilan annuel des procédures en place pour les requêtes d’accès à l’information
• que les exceptions faites pour exclure des documents restent des exceptions et que les explications de ces exclusions soient les plus complètes possibles
• un accord de performance des cadres du ministère de la Défense nationale, qui devrait inclure l’obligation de se conformer à la loi sur l’Accès à l’information
• des discussions de haut niveau sur les performances de l’Accès à l’information et du Bureau de première responsabilité sur les préoccupations ou problèmes émergents et fournir un instantané en temps réel des tendances et conformité de l’Accès à l’information et de la protection des renseignements personnels.

[comments made after the article]

James McLeod  9 hours ago
They will circle the wagons around Commodore Bernatchez and defend her to the death. All of
these senior officers are politician's first and have long since lost any sense of duty to their jobs
and Canada. If one of them were to be held accountable, the entire house of cards would start to
crumble. It is absolutely essential therefore, that the senior officers be protected at any cost.

Vance may have stabbed VAdm Norman in the back because he had integrity, but for those
who don't have it and protect each other, he will shut down everything he can.

------

Paul Dunbar 10 hours ago
is there one politician or military official or RCMP person that's actually trustworthy
and honest ???
....

Slarty Bartfast 6 hours ago
Reply to @Paul Dunbar: How about the Officers who told the JAG it was illegal? I am guessing
life hasn't been pleasant around that office for them.

The senior military lawyer overseeing the judge advocate general’s (JAG) internal review of Canada’s court martial system raised a few
eyebrows at the Canadian Bar Association’s (CBA) military justice conference by reproaching his host for purportedly failing to provide
“meaningful, substantive” input during a recent public consultation on court martial reform.

Col. Robert Holman“I think my biggest concern is — notwithstanding that three-and-half extra months were taken [by the CBA] to
provide ‘meaningful’ comments, there were no meaningful, substantive comments on any of the areas that...