National Defence Committee on June 10th, 2010

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

General, thank you very much for—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Excuse me. You have five minutes in this round.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, General, for being here this morning, and congratulations on your success through what I'm sure was a very rigorous, competitive process.

If I may, I'll just perhaps start quickly with the issue of solicitor-client privilege as well, as was touched on briefly this morning. Perhaps this question may take you back to your law school days, but could you just briefly describe what solicitor-client privilege is, why it exists, why it's a principle of our legal system, and what it serves to do?

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

Thank you for that question. It will take me back to my law school days, to great days at Dalhousie law school.

Essentially, to put it into perspective, in order to have confidence between clients and solicitors or barristers with regard to seeking legal advice and the ability of the particular solicitor or barrister involved to properly defend their client across a spectrum of issues--civil or criminal issues--in the case of defence counsel for the accused, you need to have what I will call that sacred area. You need to have that zone where the communications between the two are protected from being made public immediately or at least being made public in all but very narrow and controlled circumstances.

Without that, I think, in very basic terms, you'll end up with a chilling effect, whereby clients, whether they're government clients or private clients—and I worked in private practice in Halifax-Dartmouth—will simply not come and seek legal advice. I think that would be a major blow and a major disservice to the rule of law, particularly in Canada, and, I guess perhaps on a lighter note, would quickly dry up the profession of law and the business of making money through legal practice.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

And that's more important.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That would be a shame.

Thank you very much, General.

Turning now to the presentation you provided us, you mentioned that part of the responsibilities of your office and of your specific role, sir, is to report annually to the Minister of National Defence on the issue of the administration of military justice. I'm not familiar with that report. Is that report a public report or not?

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the report.

As a new JAG, I have yet to file the report, but I believe there was one filed this week, tabled by our minister. I have a copy here. It's available on the JAG website as well and from other sources. This is the report from 2008-09. We were a bit delayed because we had a challenge in the court-martial system a year and a half ago that we had to deal with, and that caused the delay of this particular report.

But yes, annually, my predecessors and I will continue that process of providing a written report to our minister, the Minister of National Defence, who will then table that report publicly with Parliament.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

What are some of the elements of that report, then?

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

The report is largely focused on the military justice system. You'll see an overview of the military justice system for that particular reporting year. It'll include a lot of statistics about the numbers of summary trials and numbers of courts martial. If, in a particular year, specific issues arise--and they always do--in terms of military justice, that will be highlighted in the report. You will also see a quick overview, as I explained in my opening remarks, of the Office of the JAG, how we work, how we function, and where we're deployed in that given year.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Good.

Do I have time for one more?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

You have 50 seconds.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

General, you've dropped in on us while we are studying the role of the Canadian Forces post-2011, specifically as it relates to the peacekeeping operations or peace operations generally. I note that you have some experience in that area. I threw you a bit of a curveball at the beginning. Perhaps I'll end with one as well.

Could you just provide us with any insight or advice on issues that we should consider as we study the role of Canadian Forces in peace operations post-2011?

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

Thanks again, Mr. Chair, for the question. It's starting to feel like a Toronto Blue Jays game here, but that's okay--they're winning these days. In any event, that's a good question.

I'll give you a short answer. That would be a lovely session, I think, for a future debate, because there's a lot of good, fertile ground on future missions and the types of missions. But certainly from a legal perspective, I think a point to remember is that whether we're engaged in what we call combat operations, as in Afghanistan, or peace enforcement operations, as we did in Bosnia, or more like the traditional peacekeeping mission--and I think the closest one we last did was Eritrea-Ethiopia--you're going to have a number of the same legal challenges and operational challenges. One that the committee is obviously very well aware of is detainees. Use of force is another issue in terms of the international law aspects.

So I would encourage parliamentarians and committees and, ultimately, I guess, Mr. Chair, your researchers to look into those areas, because Canada will continue to be called upon by the world community to go to places where, frankly, the rule of law is broken down, if not broken. As for how we are able to assist not only in terms of a physical combat role or military roles on the ground, but in rebuilding and helping states rebuild, as I said, as we're currently doing in the Congo with the rule of law mission there....

I think the main message would be that it may be a different mission--you may wear a blue beret--but a lot of the legal issues will remain the same.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you.

Mr. Bachand, you have five minutes for your questions.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cathcart, I am not sure whether you followed the discussions regarding the appointments of the Supreme Court of Canada judges and the importance of their knowledge of French. You are appointed by the Governor in Council. I would like to know whether that is a criterion that those who promote you to the position of Judge Advocate General examine.

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

I honestly don't know what the decision-makers looked at specifically. Certainly as a member of the Canadian Forces, as you folks may be aware, there are requirements for members of the Canadian Forces and, certainly, general officers, to attain what we call a profile in the second language. For general officers, it's a public service test to the CBC level, and that is what I have and had to obtain in order to fulfill all the other qualifications.

As for the depth and nature of that competency, Mr. Chair, I am not aware to what extent the decision-makers looked at that.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

One of the arguments put forward by those in favour of the French-knowledge requirement is the notion of French mentality. Those opposed to it argue that a person’s competence cannot be assessed based on their knowledge of a language. We, as defence critics for the Bloc Québécois, believe the requirement is important. What is your skill level? I know it is based on an A, B or C system. What is your competency level in French?

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My letters are CBC.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

C, B, C.

Is that high, low, middle, or below?

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

I believe the highest you can get is “exempt”, which is EEE. It's the opposite, so A would be the lowest, B is the middle, and C is the highest, next to exemption.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Could we have a conversation where I addressed you in French and you responded in French?

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

Yes, we could, but, to be honest, it is a matter of confidence, especially when it comes to legal matters. As you know, it is extremely difficult, even in one’s first language, to understand all the nuances involved in legal arguments and issues. In my case, it is a matter of practising with my colleagues on a daily basis, but, to be honest, the majority of discussions revolve around law, hockey and so forth.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Oh, oh!

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

So a setting such as this gives me another opportunity to practise my French.