Ms. Gallant, what you're describing is a situation known as “concurrent jurisdiction” between the civilian justice system and the military justice system. In many cases such as the one you've described, there will be an exercise of discretion between the civilian police and civilian crown attorneys, on the one hand, and the military police and the director of military prosecutions staff, on the other, in deciding which system a particular charge should be tried in.
If a charge is laid by the civilian police, it would inevitably be tried in the civilian justice system. If a charge is laid by the military police, it would depend on which system they laid the charge under. Military police are peace officers. They can go downtown and lay a charge in the civilian system. Or the charge could be laid in the military system.
But the point is this: if a particular type of offence is tried by summary trial under the proposed amendment, and if that person is convicted, he or she would not acquire a record, whereas if that person were tried for the same incident in a civilian court, then he or she would acquire a record.