Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Federal Supreme Court Justice Richard Wagner, left, confers with his colleague Supreme Court Justice Morris Fish in Ottawa, Dec. 10, 2012.

FRED CHARTRAND/The Canadian Press

A retired Supreme Court judge is calling for urgent reforms to Canada’s military justice system to prevent victims of misconduct, sexual and otherwise, from continuing to suffer.

Morris Fish says the current system is rife with areas where the potential for interference in police investigations and courts martial from the chain of command exists, which is why action is needed now.

“Reform of the military justice system along the lines developed by my recommendations is no longer an option: It’s essential to protect present and future generations of military members,” Mr. Fish said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.

Story continues below advertisement

“So that’s why I say there is an urgent need for reform of the military justice system in order to prevent present and future victims of sexual misconduct and other misconduct from continuing to suffer needlessly and unduly.”

Mr. Fish’s comments follow the release of an explosive 400-page report earlier this month on the system that the Canadian Armed Forces uses to investigate and try everything from minor disciplinary infractions to heinous criminal acts.

Mr. Fish spent six months starting last November quietly studying the system, which functions separately from its civilian counterpart and is subject to mandatory reviews every decade or so, with his final report tabled in Parliament on June 1.

Much of the review coincided with the military’s latest reckoning with sexual misconduct as several senior commanders have been accused of improper, and in some cases criminal, behaviour.

Underlying much of the current crisis are questions of fairness and accountability in how the military handles such allegations, with concerns that those higher up in the ranks are treated less severely than those near the bottom.

Those concerns were only underscored following revelations the military’s second in command, Lieutenant-General Mike Rouleau, recently golfed with former defence chief Jonathan Vance.

Lt.-Gen Rouleau is not only responsible for administration of the military police, who are currently investigating Mr. Vance on allegations of sexual misconduct, but has the power through the National Defence Act to issue orders in relation to police investigations.

Story continues below advertisement

While Lt.-Gen. Rouleau and the military’s top police officer insist he has never issued such an order, the vice-chief of defence staff’s power was one of the areas of potential interference identified by Mr. Fish in his report even before the golf game.

But it was far from the only one, with Mr. Fish finding numerous other areas where commanders have both direct and indirect influence over military police, prosecutors, defence lawyers and even judges themselves.

The retired justice heard directly from military police officers and others of instances in which they had either seen interference or otherwise felt they were not truly independent of the chain of command.

Mr. Fish, in his report, called for all military police, not only members of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, to be able to lay charges. As it stands now, non-CFNIS officers can only recommend charges to the chain of command.

“I heard about charging recommendations of members of the uniformed military police being rejected – even for serious offences – on the basis of extraneous and irrelevant considerations,” Mr. Fish wrote in his report.

Those included “the performance of the accused in the unit, a wish to give the accused ‘another chance’ or to avoid compromising the accused’s career.” Some officers also worried laying charges could draw attention to their own failure to maintain discipline.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Fish also specifically flagged the vice-chief of defence staff’s ability to issue orders in relation to military police investigations as a serious and clear concern, and called for it to be repealed.

More insidious, particularly in the given context of allegations involving the very top echelon of the Canadian Armed Forces, were the many ways that Mr. Fish found the independence of military judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers is threatened.

For example, the director of military prosecutions (DMP) is appointed by the judge advocate-general for renewable four-year terms.

While the prosecutor is supposedly independent, “I was told by the DMP that the possibility of renewal makes them vulnerable to political pressures.”

Similar concerns were raised about the defence lawyers assigned to protect troops facing disciplinary or criminal charges. Mr. Fish said he heard stories of some being reluctant to cross-examine high-ranking witnesses, especially at promotion time.

Mr. Fish was quick to say in his report and by telephone that he has full confidence in the current judge advocate-general, Rear-Admiral Geneviève Bernatchez, as well as the military’s current top prosecutor, defence lawyer and judges. But he says the system’s proper functioning should not be dependent on personalities or individuals.

Story continues below advertisement

The retired judge found numerous other problems with the military justice system outside potential interference, including the time it takes to resolve cases, light sentences on convictions and the fact it is legally impossible to court martial a chief of the defence staff.

That could be relevant if military police decide to charge Mr. Vance or his successor as defence chief, Admiral Art McDonald. Mr. Vance has denied wrongdoing and Adm. McDonald has not commented.

Mr. Fish also dedicated an entire chapter in his report to the system’s handling of sexual-misconduct cases, and many of his recommendations on that front have been accepted outright by the military and Liberal government.

But much of Mr. Fish’s report – and many of his recommendations – focused on boosting independence in the system. Those include “civilianizing” military judges, and having senior police and legal officers appointed by cabinet rather than the chain of command.

Yet while the government says it accepts all of Mr. Fish’s recommendations “in principle,” it has not given a timeline for implementation.

Mr. Fish said he was optimistic they would be implemented, based on the public commitments delivered by senior military leaders and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan earlier this month, which he believes were approved by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office.

Story continues below advertisement

“I cannot imagine this commitment could have been made without it having passed through the PMO, the highest authorities of government,” he said.

“So I read into this an acceptance not only by the CAF and the [Defence] Department, at least an implicit acceptance by the PMO.”

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies