Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-jgqf9 Total loading time: 0.189 Render date: 2021-10-28T09:32:35.410Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Parliamentary Debate as a Driver of Military Justice Reform in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2020

Preston Jordan Lim*
Affiliation:
Yale Law School limpreston@gmail.com

Abstract

In June 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced judgment in the case of R v Stillman, upholding the military justice system’s ability to try serious civil offences. The Stillman decision highlighted one key mechanism of military justice reform: court judgments. This article argues, however, that military legal experts have overlooked Parliamentary debate as a key driver of military reform. By drawing on analysis of Hansard from past decades, this article argues that the Canadian Parliament has historically pushed for radical reform to the military justice system. This reformist consensus continues to shape Parliamentary discussions on military justice in the twenty-first century.

Résumé

Résumé

En juin 2019, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu un jugement dans l’affaire R c. Stillman qui confirmait la capacité du système de justice militaire à juger des infractions civiles graves. L’arrêt Stillman a jeté la lumière sur un mécanisme clé de la réforme de la justice militaire : les jugements des tribunaux. Cet article soutient, cependant, que les experts juridiques militaires ont négligé les débats parlementaires comme moteur essentiel de la réforme militaire. En s’appuyant sur l’analyse du Journal des débats parlementaires canadiens (Hansard) des dernières décennies, cet article soutient que le Parlement canadien a historiquement soutenu des réformes radicales du système de justice militaire. Ce consensus réformiste continue de façonner les discussions parlementaires sur la justice militaire au XXIe siècle.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Canadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R v Stillman, 2019 SCC 40 [Stillman].

2 R v Beaudry, 2018 CMAC 4 at para 53 [Beaudry].

3 See, for example, Jesse, Beatson, “R v Beaudry: Is Canada’s military justice system unconstitutional?Court, 13 March 2019, http://www.thecourt.ca/r-v-beaudry-is-canadas-military-justice-system-unconstitutional/Google Scholar; Ken, Hansen, “A landmark ruling on military courts means the forces must change for the better,” Maclean’s, 8 October 2018, https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/a-landmark-ruling-on-military-courts-means-the-forces-must-change-for-the-betterGoogle Scholar.

4 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 11(f).

5 National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5, ss 2, 130(1)(a) [NDA].

6 Stillman, supra note 1 at para 51.

note 1

7 Ibid at para 74.

8 Ibid at para 109.

9 Debates, House of Commons (15 October 2018), 22350.

10 Chris, Madsen, Another kind of justice: Canadian military law from Confederation to Somalia (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1999), 51Google Scholar.

11 Gilles, Létourneau, Introduction to military justice: An overview of the military penal system and its evolution in Canada (Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2012)Google Scholar.

12 Judge Advocate General, Draft Internal Report: Court Martial Comprehensive Review (Ottawa: Judge Advocate General, 2018), 40, accessed 23 April 2020, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/migration/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/jag/court-martial-comprehensive-review-interim-report-21july2017.pdfGoogle Scholar.

13 National Defence Act, SC 1950, c 43, ss 190–99 [NDA 1950].

14 Ibid at s 190(5).

15 Ibid at s 190(2).

16 Ibid at s 195-96.

17 Ibid at s 196(1).

18 NDA, supra note 5 at s 245(1)(b).

note 5

19 Michael, Drapeau, “Canadian military law: Sentencing under the National Defence Act: Perspectives and musings of a former soldier,” Canadian Bar Review 82, no. 2 (2003): 432Google Scholar.

20 Pitzul, Jerry and Maguire, John, “A perspective on Canada’s code of service discipline,” Air Force Law Review, 52 (2002): 7.Google Scholar

21 Drapeau, supra note 19 at 433.

note 19

22 Madsen, supra note 10 at 46, 85.

note 10

23 Iacobelli, Teresa, Death or Deliverance: Canadian courts martial in the Great War (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2013) 6.Google ScholarPubMed

24 Debates, House of Commons (20 February 1959), 1231.

25 Debates, House of Commons (16 May 1950), 2549.

26 Debates, House of Commons (16 May 1950), 2554.

27 Debates, Senate (8 November 1949), 227.

28 Debates, Senate (8 November 1949), 226.

29 Debates, House of Commons (16 May 1950), 2556.

30 Debates, House of Commons (16 May 1950), 2555.

31 Debates, House of Commons (25 April 1955), 3143.

32 Debates, House of Commons (16 May 1950), 2541.

33 Debates, House of Commons (25 February 1959), 1380.

34 Debates, House of Commons (25 April 1955), 3149.

35 Debates, House of Commons (7 June 1950), 3318.

36 Debates, House of Commons (25 February 1959), 1378.

37 Debates, House of Commons (20 February 1959), 1231.

38 Bushnell, Ian, The Federal Court of Canada: A history, 1875–1992 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Canada, Court Martial Appeal Court, Court martial appeal reports, vol. 1 (Ottawa, ON: Court Martial Appeal Board, [1957] 1 CACM at iii.Google Scholar

40 “John Charles Alexander Cameron, Q.C., M.P.,” Parlinfo, Parliament of Canada, accessed 23 April 2020, https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/People/Profile?personId=3682.

41 Bushnell, supra note 38 at 385.

note 38

42 “Senator MacTavish in Politics 40 years,” Toronto Star, 16 November 1963.

43 Canada, Public Archives of Canada, Gordon, Melville Burgoyne Kennedy (Ottawa, ON: Public Archives of Canada, 1981), http://data2.archives.ca/pdf/pdf001/p000002708.pdf.Google Scholar

44 Debates, House of Commons (25 February 1959), 1380.

45 Canada, Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, vol. 1 (Ottawa, ON, 1997), https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/handle/1974/6881/somalia_vol1e.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y.Google Scholar

46 Canada, Department of National Defence, Report of the Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and Military Police Investigation Services (Ottawa, ON: Department of National Defence, 1997), https://responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/public/docs/meetings/20130924/materials/allied-forces-mil-justice/canada-mj-sys/04_Dickson_Rpt.pdf.Google Scholar

47 Létourneau, supra note 11 at 49.

note 11

48 Judge Advocate General, supra note 12 at 34.

note 12

49 R v Généreux, [1992] 1 SCR 259 at 295.

50 An Act to Amend the National Defence Act, SC 1988, c 35.

51 Ibid at s 96(2).

52 See An Act to Amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the Criminal Code, SC 2000, c 10; An Act to Amend the National Defence Act (Non-Deployment of Persons Under the Age of Eighteen Years to Theatres of Hostilities), SC 2000, c 13; Canada Shipping Act, SC 2001, c 26; An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to Amend Other Acts, SC 2002, c 13; An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Organized Crime and Law Enforcement) and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, SC 2001, c 32; Court Administration Services Act, SC 2002, c 8 [Bill C-30]; Anti-Terrorism Act, SC 2001, c 41; Public Service Modernization Act, SC 2003, c 22; An Act to Amend Certain Acts of Canada, and to Enact Measures for Implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in Order to Enhance Public Safety, SC 2004, c 15; An Act to Amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act, SC 2007, c 5; An Act to Amend the National Defence Act (Court Martial) and to Make a Consequential Amendment to Another Act, SC 2008, c 29 [Bill C-60]; Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, SC 2013, c 24 [Bill C-15].

53 Bill C-30, supra note 52.

note 52

54 Bill C-60, supra note 52.

note 52

55 Bill C-15, supra note 52.

note 52

56 Debates, House of Commons (19 March 1998), 5150-51.

57 Debates, House of Commons (19 March 1998), 5157.

58 Debates, House of Commons (19 March 1998), 5122.

59 Debates, House of Commons (19 March 1998), 5142.

60 Debates, House of Commons (19 March 1998), 5147.

61 Debates, House of Commons (26 November 2010), 6496.

62 Debates, House of Commons (26 November 2010), 6497.

63 Debates, House of Commons (26 November 2010), 6520.

64 Debates, House of Commons (26 November 2010), 6517.

65 R v Moriarity, 2015 SCC 55 at para 33.

66 Debates, House of Commons (10 June 1998), 7945.

67 Debates, House of Commons (29 April 2013), 16003.

68 Debates, House of Commons (19 March 1998), 5144.

69 Bow, Brian, “Parties and partisanship in Canadian defence policy,” International Journal 64, no. 1 (2008/9): 87.Google Scholar

70 Debates, House of Commons (19 March 1998), 5156.

71 Debates, House of Commons (19 March 1998), 5159.

72 Debates, House of Commons (30 April 2013), 16086.

73 Westman, Jeffrey, “Bill C-77 and the quiet revolution in military justice,” ABlawg, 26 July 2019, https://ablawg.ca/2019/07/26/bill-c-77-and-the-quiet-revolution-in-military-justice.Google Scholar

74 Canada, Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Casavant, Lyne et al., “Bill C-77: An Act to Amend the National Defence Act and to Make Related and Consequential Amendments to Other Acts,” (Ottawa, ON: Library of Parliament, 2018), https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C77EGoogle Scholar

75 An Act to Amend the National Defence Act and to Make Related and Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, SC 2019, c 71.

76 Samara Centre for Democracy, The real house lives: Strengthening the role of MPs in an age of partisanship, vol. 3 (Ottawa: Samara Centre of Democracy), 6, 23 April 2020, https://www.samaracanada.com/docs/default-source/reports/the-real-house-lives-by-the-samara-centre-for-demoracy.pdf?sfvrsn=b893062f_2.Google Scholar

77 Debates, House of Commons (22 February 2019), 25736.

78 Debates, House of Commons (28 February 2019), 25937.

79 Debates, House of Commons (28 February 2019), 25934.

80 Debates, House of Commons (1 October 2018), 22062.

81 Debates, House of Commons (28 February 2019), 25938.

82 Debates, House of Commons (22 February 2019), 25728.

83 Debates, House of Commons (22 February 2019), 25671.

84 Debates, House of Commons (1 October 2018), 22064.

85 Debates, House of Commons (15 October 2018), 22388.

86 Debates, House of Commons (1 October 2018), 22057.

87 Debates, House of Commons (30 April 2013), 16116.

88 Fidell, Eugene R., “The Next Judge,” Journal of National Security Law and Policy 5, no. 1 (2011): 306.Google Scholar

89 R v Déry, 2017 CMAC 2 at para 87.

90 Ibid at para 30.

91 R v Royes, 2016 CMAC 1 at para 14; see also R v Moriarity, 2014 CMAC 1 at paras 16, 105.

92 “Rules of appeal practices and procedures of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada,” Court Martial Appeal Court, accessed 23 April 2020, https://www.cmac-cacm.ca/en/pages/law-and-practice/rules

93 Stillman, supra note 1 at para 68.

note 1

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Parliamentary Debate as a Driver of Military Justice Reform in Canada
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Parliamentary Debate as a Driver of Military Justice Reform in Canada
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Parliamentary Debate as a Driver of Military Justice Reform in Canada
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *