Yes, Mrs. Gallant, with pleasure.
Very respectfully, I have respect for both jurists, and certainly I value their long careers and their opinion, but that's what it is. I happen to have a dissenting opinion on it.
My opinion is based, among others, primarily on the quite abundant jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights. They have said that according to the European Convention on Human Rights, to have a trial of a quasi-criminal or criminal nature whereby you can sentence somebody to a loss of liberty when that individual goes before a tribunal that is not chaired by someone who is legally trained, has no right to counsel, has no transcript, and has no right to appeal is not constitutional. It's the only place in Canada where this exists.
If retired Chief Justice LeSage arrives at a different opinion, I will be as respectful of his opinion as I certainly think he would be of mine.
My opinion is that it is not constitutional. I've written about it extensively. I've testified under oath that it is my honest belief it is not. We are shortchanging our soldiers, and there's a quick solution to it.
In other countries, France has gotten rid of military tribunals in peacetime, and I could mention others. It would cost very little. Providing them with tribunals that meet the bare minimum would enhance respect for the rule of law and enhance the respect the military has for the military justice system, but there is a minimum to make a tribunal constitutional.
I stand and rest my case. I believe despite and in spite of Justice Lamer's or Justice LeSage's opinions, these tribunals are not constitutional.