Bill C-15 (Historical)

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system. The amendments, among other things,
(a) provide for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement;
(b) permit the appointment of part-time military judges;
(c) specify the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process;
(d) provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution;
(e) modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person; and
(f) modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods.
The enactment also sets out the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s duties and functions and clarifies his or her responsibilities. It also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee.
Finally, it makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Motions in Amendment

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I want to thank all the members of the committee who did yeoman's service in getting our bill through and back here at report stage. I also appreciate the amendments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I have two main concerns about the motions being brought forward to amend Bill C-15 at report stage. One is making the reports and the rationale public. I am concerned about how that might impact upon the privacy information of those who were investigated. I am also concerned about how that could, in some situations, have an impact on national security matters that national defence and the Canadian Forces have to deal with from time to time. That is one set of concerns I have with Motion No. 2.

With Motion No. 1, we are setting a dangerous precedent. This is something where we would refer to a technical document in legislation. It could be expanded and become more of a policy document. Usually in legislation we only refer to regulations and never to technical documents. We are taking away the ability of parliamentarians to review everything that is legislatively responsible to Canadians, in this case the Canadian Forces. We are turning that technical document, which is a living, breathing entity that changes from time to time, depending on who the vice chief of defence staff is, and others are, into legislation. That management document should never be referred to in legislation.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear what my colleague, the chair of the defence committee, is saying about the first piece. That needs to be reviewed by folks who understand the technical aspects and nature of it, and that is fair. Regarding the second piece, clearly, there are provisions where massive security is involved. That type of issue would have to be dealt with because it would be a national security issue.

The court system deals with the rights of privacy all the time. It is judged whether it is in the public interest to be open or to be closed. That happens on the civilian side quite often, such as in the most recent Magnotta trial, where folks ask if it should be closed or open. Those rights are determined by the judge inside of the courtroom. That determination would be done on a case-by-case basis, not a unilateral basis.

My view is it needs to be open as many times as it possibly humanly can, with the exception of unique situations that the judge would determine at that moment in time, with the rights to appeal and all those other pieces.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be on my feet today to talk to Bill C-15 at report stage and to deal with a colleague's proposed amendment to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The title is interesting. One wishes there were a shorter handle on the title, but it is also more commonly known as the “strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act”.

We have had lots of discussion this morning on the issue of relevance of the debate and what we are talking about. What is important to understand and appreciate here is that the amendment before us for discussion and debate is a piece of a system. It sits in the broader context of the military justice system. It is important to understand the relationship of that amendment and the issues implicated by that amendment in the context of the broader justice system.

Members may recall that we had opposed this bill at second reading on this side of the House, but an important amendment has come out of committee that allows us to reluctantly support the bill when we move on to third stage. I say “reluctantly” because the bill would still be far from what it ought to be. It would make a number of changes to the military justice system that would be positive, but not all of its changes would be positive, and that is why our colleague's proposed amendment to the bill is welcome today. It is an important issue to contemplate and debate.

The bill has had a long history. It was 10 years in the making to get to this point, and it is important that it get a thorough vetting. The parliamentary secretary talks as though his party was not in government for seven of those years, but in fact it was, and he should be asking questions back in the lobby about why we waited around for seven years for this important bill to arrive.

Nevertheless, there is a long history to this bill. It emerges out of a couple of very comprehensive reports.

The Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer had a crack at it in 2003. He made 88 recommendations, which is suggestive of some of the very significant deficiencies in the military justice system.

There was a Senate committee report dealing with the same matters. Then again there was another report by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Patrick LeSage, and the parliamentary secretary should contemplate why the Conservatives sat on that report for a year before bringing it forward if he is in such a hurry to see this bill and these changes implemented.

In the interim, we have had elections. The Liberals had two years with it as well, and they did not do anything, and we have had a Conservative prorogation. It seems there is a general resistance. In fact, we have even walked backwards from where we have been in earlier Parliaments, when we had Bill C-41 die on the order paper.

The significance of Bill C-41 was that it dealt with an issue that is very important to our party, and that is the issue of service-related offences that can proceed through summary trial and result in a criminal record.

Former Colonel Michel Drapeau has spoken at length about the unique nature of military justice systems and the need to balance an expeditious justice system providing for deterrence and ensuring discipline, and the importance of that in having efficient armed forces while also ensuring that the rule of law predominates.

Therefore, in the military justice system we get this summary trial process which, in the normal course in civilian life, we would not recognize as a form of fair justice.

In this process, one's own commander can sit in judgment and there are no transcripts, no right to counsel, et cetera. This is important, because about 95% of cases that go to trial go through this system.

However, we are supporting the bill because at the end of the day we have managed, over the years, to persuade the Conservative Party that fewer of the offences that can go through the summary trial procedure can actually attract a criminal record that a member of the armed forces might take into civilian life. Bill C-15 would lessen the number of those offences. That is a very positive thing and that is why the bill, with or without this amendment, is worthy of our support.

Nevertheless, we are left with an approximate form of justice with this summary trial process, and this is where the importance of the amendment comes in. It is the investigation that precedes that approximate form of justice that becomes extremely important, and that investigation process must be done properly.

The Conservatives have taken the accountability framework that was put together following the Somalia inquiry that set out the relationship between the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal and are turning that administrative document into statute, which is a worthy thing to do. However, in the course of doing so, the Conservatives have done something quite unfortunate, and that brings rise to the amendment today.

This amendment is worthy because the bill would provide new powers to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff with respect to military police investigations, those very investigations that will end up in summary trials. Clause 4 of the bill proposes adding a subsection 18.5(3) to the National Defence Act to say that:

(3) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

Currently the accountability framework language says:

The VCDS shall not direct the CFPM with respect to specific military police operational decisions of an investigative nature.

Further, it says under section 7(a) that:

The VCDS will have no direct involvement in individual ongoing investigations but will receive information from the CFPM to allow necessary management decision making.

Those provisions are there, and they flow from the principles and purpose of the accountability framework. Of course, this accountability framework flows from the extremely unfortunate incidents in Somalia, which, although they may have been in the last century, are critically relevant to this discussion today.

The purpose of the accountability framework that came out of the Somalia inquiry is to ensure the provision of a professional and effective military police service for independent investigations, to balance competing interests and priorities and, critically, to ensure that the Provost Marshal is accountable to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff for “developing and maintaining police standards which are consistent with those of other police agencies”. Who in Canada would want to deny the men and women of our Canadian armed forces an investigation into alleged misconduct that is consistent with those of other police agencies?

That is what the accountability framework allowed. History proves that it is a workable document and provided for reasonable, fair investigations leading into these summary trials.

It is most unfortunate and very much a backward step for the government to now propose in Bill C-15 an investigation process that is inconsistent with those of other police agencies in this country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to contemplate how the government side can say that turning this key component of the Federal Accountability Act on its head is in the interests of military combat situations.

We are talking about military police investigating events of a criminal nature after the fact. The Provost Marshal would certainly be able to control when military police are investigating an event. The idea had never occurred to anyone until 1998 that the Chief of the Defence Staff should ever give instructions to affect the investigation of an event being investigated by military police. We are now told that in 2013 we have suddenly realized that since 1998 this separation of authorities would have somehow put people at risk in a field of battle.

Conservatives say I do not understand it, and they are right. I do not believe it. I do not understand how it could possibly be the case that one would want to accept this reason for causing this entire bill to potentially violate the charter.

I would ask my friend from Beaches—East York for his thoughts.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government side has offered up this very narrow hypothetical set of circumstances to put a bill, which is on the whole a very positive step forward, in danger of being deemed unconstitutional. The general rule and principles set out in the accountability framework should survive in Bill C-15. It is the expectation of Canadians that any justice system be fair and reasonable; I would even dare suggest that most Canadians would suggest that there be a higher onus on a justice system that applies to the men and women of our armed forces in light of what we ask them to do on our behalf.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland said that there was no mistrust on the NDP benches toward the military. There obviously is, because New Democrats are not taking the advice of military people, past and present, who have knowledge of this issue; they are taking the advice of people who want to undermine the core principles of the military justice system and civilianize it.

He also said there are no checks and balances. There are. The Provost Marshal is required in the unamended bill to make public the instructions, and if there is improper interference, he has the right to go to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The only argument we have heard from the other side is what I call the argument from stupidity, from the members for St. John's East and Scarborough—Guildwood: the idea that military police are not so stupid that they would ever go to the wrong place at the wrong time. Conservatives also agree that they are not stupid.

However, what would the member for Beaches—East York think of the following situation? If the VCDS chooses to obey the law, which this amendment would have him do as we do in a civilian context, by never interfering or breathing a word to military police conducting an investigation, and military investigators went to a place where an exercise or military operation was about to take place that they did not know about, were not informed of and on which they did not have the benefit of secret operational information, where would the responsibility lie?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it is not a matter of mistrust of the military. The accountability framework emerged from an inquiry in a very unfortunate part of our military history. It set out very clear purposes and principles that Canadians believe in and that New Democrats accept and demand for civilians of this country. That accountability framework was signed by Vice-Admiral Garnett, who was the VCDS at the time, and Colonel Samson, who was the Provost Marshal at the time.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 after my colleagues. I must admit, they made very interesting and very precise speeches on the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank the hon. member for her efforts and for presenting these amendments.

First of all, I must say that I support her amendments. We had presented practically the same ones in committee. Clearly, we are going to support them because they are quite logical.

I will come back to that a little later in my speech because it has been mentioned a few times that consideration of the amendments must be very precise at report stage, which is what I will try to do as much as possible today to enlighten my colleagues on this bill and, more specifically, on the amendments.

If I may, I would like to give a little background before moving on to the heart of the subject, even if it does not please my colleagues.

I think Canadians listening to us would be very pleased to know how Bill C-15 ended up in the House, what we are currently doing and what still needs to be done for it to eventually become law.

The process began in 2003. In this debate today, we have been saying that the process began 10 years ago, following on the report of the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court. The report contained 88 recommendations.

Bill C-15 is a kind of legislative response to the recommendations in that report. However, there is a big “but”, because Bill C-15 does not completely reflect those recommendations. In reality, it responds very little to the report that contained 88 recommendations. In fact, the government has attempted to implement only about 20 of them since then.

Since 2003, the report by the hon. Patrick LeSage, retired Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has also been presented. That was in December 2011. On June 8, 2012, the Minister of National Defence himself tabled that report here in the House. Although the Conservative government has had the LeSage report for over a year, it still did not incorporate any of its recommendations into Bill C-15.

As the hon. member for Beaches—East York pointed out, the government has been sitting on that report for a year now and nothing has been implemented. The NDP, however, did try to have some of those recommendations incorporated into Bill C-15.

There have also been several other versions. I will not spend too much time on this, since that is not really what interests us the most at this stage of the bill. However, there was also Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, which both died on the order paper because of the 2008 election after Parliament was prorogued. Then, in July 2008, there was another version, Bill C-60.

The bill that was most in line with what we wanted was Bill C-41, introduced in 2010, also further to the Lamer report. All of the bills introduced after that report were basically in response to that report. Bill C-41, which had fortunately been amended in committee, also died on the order paper because an election was called, which, as some people may recall, was due to a case of contempt of Parliament on the part of the Conservative government, on a question of access to sensitive documents. That is also not the subject of today's debate. We all remember what happened.

Bill C-15 is similar to Bill C-41, which was the result of committee work in the last session. However, significant amendments made at committee stage during the last Parliament were not included in Bill C-15. When Bill C-15 was introduced, one of our biggest disappointments was that it did not contain all of the changes made to Bill C-41 during the previous Parliament. We were very disappointed, and we wondered why they had not been included in Bill C-15.

However, I should point out that we had a small win in committee and we managed to do some good. Not that long ago, we had to make changes so that nearly 95% of the offences in the code of discipline would no longer result in a criminal record. That is an important win for us. Canadians who do not serve in the Canadian Forces are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which uses a fair and balanced justice system to protect the public. However, we felt that members of the Canadian Forces were not offered the same protection as other Canadians.

That brings me to the two amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I would like to read Bill C-15, as it now stands. We are talking about clause 4 of the bill, which would add sections 18.3 through 18.6 to the current National Defence Act, after the existing section 18.2. The two amendments focus on subsections 18.5(3) and 18.5(4), which read as follows:

(3) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

(4) The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) are available to the public.

We tried to amend these provisions in committee. Unfortunately, those amendments were not accepted and the provisions remained unchanged. Today, two motions were moved. We want to expand on clause 4 to make it a bit more specific by adding the following:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal and in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the Accountability Framework signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal on March 2, 1998, issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation, providing that the rationale for issuing the instructions or guidelines is also stated.

This motion further narrows the proposed amendment to Bill C-15 in order to ensure the transparency of orders given by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, a position created by this bill. All of clause 4 is, in fact, an addition to the current National Defence Act with regard to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

In our opinion, subsection 18.5(3) was much too problematic. The statement that “[t]he Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation” means that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff has the power to give instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal with respect to a particular investigation.

I liked the analogy used earlier by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood about the military and civilian police. He spoke about the mayor of a city calling up the local police chief and telling him how to proceed with an investigation or what he can or cannot do. We would regard that as direct interference in the right to an independent police investigation, whether it was being conducted by the civilian or military police. The law must be much more clear and transparent to ensure that there is no interference in investigations, which must remain as independent as possible.

My time is up. I would be pleased to answer questions.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perplexed by the member for Sherbrooke's remarks. He claims that the NDP wanted to put in amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted in the last Parliament, that is, in the 40th Parliament. Bill C-41 was introduced in the 40th Parliament.

At report stage, there was no mention of clause 4 or the amendments proposed today by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Why was the NDP prepared to pass the unamended bill, with the current version of clause 4, whereas today it wants to accept the amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands? What has changed? Is this not further proof that the NDP merely wants to prolong the debate?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, as a parliamentarian and legislator, my goal is not to prolong debates, but to make a positive contribution to the debate in order to ensure that a law that is passed is well written and that there is no chance that a bad bill will have direct consequences for the people covered by the bill. That is the duty of legislators.

I cannot speak for the MPs in the 40th Parliament. Like my colleague, the member for Ajax—Pickering and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I was not a member in the 40th Parliament. However, I do know that some specific things were asked for and they were not included in Bill C-15. We were never given an answer by the government about that.

As for our position on clause 4, I would say that if the proposed amendments are not adopted, it will not prevent us from voting in favour of Bill C-15 in its present form.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleague a question about Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. My question is about amendment No. 6020589.

As the representative for Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, I would like to point out that the NDP feels that the Canadian Forces should be held to an extremely high standard of discipline, and in return, members deserve a justice system that adheres to a comparable standard. A criminal record can make the life of a former member very complicated, especially when the member is looking for work or an apartment or wants to travel. Clearly, the NDP has good intentions.

I would like to ask my NDP colleague if he could elaborate on that for our Conservative colleague across the aisle, who does not seem to understand why we are supporting the amendments, and amendment No. 6020589 in particular.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right off the bat that I share my colleague's passion for the armed forces. I have many reservists living in my riding and I visit them quite often. I also frequently visit two regiments in my riding, the Sherbrooke Hussars and the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke. These are two extraordinary regiments and I salute them today.

My colleague mentioned that everyone should have the same rights, but that military justice is unique, since there is a chain of command. My colleagues have spoken about that already today. There must be a difference, of course. We must ensure that the people who serve our country and who dedicate their lives to Canada are entitled to the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the charter gives everyone the right to fair and equitable justice and access to counsel. That is not covered in Bill C-15. Despite the differences in the military justice system, members of the military must have the same rights as all Canadian citizens, which includes access to a fair and equitable justice system. As stated in section 10 of the charter, they must also have the right to retain and instruct counsel and receive legal advice, which is not currently the case. Members of our military deserve some respect for everything they go through every day.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I am pleased to be on my feet yet again to speak to the bill. We are of course supportive of the amendments that are in front of us. We have been supportive of the negotiated and agreed bill that came out of previous Parliaments. I echo other members who have said this could have been passed quite a long time ago. It is absolutely true.

I cannot help but think of those soldiers who have criminal records from maybe six months, eight months or a year ago, who would not have a criminal record if it happened six months from now, assuming the bill actually finds it way into law. Is that not a shame, because for some time now the official opposition has been—I am going to use this word—harping on this issue of criminal records?

I was reviewing some the earlier issues of Hansard, and there are quite a few on a relatively straightforward bill. I recalled my time as our defence critic when I worked with the parliamentary secretary on the bill. I was not on the committee that crafted it, but I was the critic at the time it was working its way through the House.

I remember working with the hon. member. I enjoyed the experience. There was a great deal of co-operation. Of course we are talking about back when it was a minority government. Things were very different then. The government was a little more open to listening and considering other points of view then, and the proof that it changed was when Conservatives had a majority government and then brought in what should have been the same bill. It was the same bill sans a number of important clauses that we thought should be in it, up to and including the issue of—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the member standing for a point of order? It appears he is not.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre can go on with the debate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I glance at the other side, I will move my glance past that member and move on to the parliamentary secretary, who is clearly here to do some serious business.

Before the hon. member got up on who knows what point, I was commenting on the level of co-operation, and I was glad for that. It is an important file regardless of whether one is the minister, the parliamentary secretary or a critic for the official opposition, third or fourth party. The fact that we could come together said a lot about the members of Parliament who were on that committee and the intention of all sides.

I was saying that the level of co-operation switched when the Conservatives got a majority government. We had a document that was not perfect in the view of the official opposition. We know the government did not think it was perfect. Everybody put a little water in their wine and compromised a little, so that on the vast areas where we did agree, we could actually bring in a bill and get it passed.

However, because of politics, we are all going to be playing the blame game, pointing to other members and saying they slowed it down, saying they did not do the right thing. The fact remains that our fellow citizens in uniform cannot be too pleased with the way we are treating their legal system.

If I might say, it is one thing to be saluting the troops, acknowledging the troops and thanking them, but there is a whole lot more to it than just sending them off to be in harm's way. There is so much more to what it means for a nation to be supporting its soldiers, rather than just waving, saluting and saying “Yay, way to go.” This is one of those times and one of those areas.

I was looking at the debate last time, and it was interesting because the accusations being hurled from the government members were that we were trying to slow it down, and I think their main reason was that we supposedly did not like defence or we did not like the armed forces, which makes no sense whatsoever. The government side was accusing us of that.

We kept standing up and saying we did not want to delay it but we wanted to get some improvement. We wanted to get it improved to the point where it was as close as possible to the bill we already agreed on. If we could get that far, we were prepared to support it even if it did not contain all the changes we wanted.

However, because of the tenacity of the official opposition in refusing to let go of that issue and in refusing to allow ourselves to be browbeaten into supporting something we did not want to, we were being accused of unfairly holding things up. That argument does not hold a lot of water, given the fact that most of what we were seeking in those previous debates is now here in this bill.

We have an opportunity today to make an even greater improvement, and that is a good thing. What would be even better is if the government would take seriously the review of the entire military justice system and not just do it piecemeal. This is not just us. There are judges—and I will probably get a chance to read the quote in a response. This is coming from our jurors, our judges, saying that we should not do it in a piecemeal way, that we would better serve the defence of Canada and the soldiers who staff it if we did an entire review, wall to wall.

The government did not do it. It did not even bring in all the recommended changes from the first review. It received another review. It was tabled in June 2012, and there was no response to that one. Interestingly it took the government six months to table it.

Then a year later there is still nothing done. It raises the question of how serious the government is. We had to drag it, kicking and screaming, to this point, where we could protect the future of our soldiers through their not having criminal records.

I do not know why the parliamentary secretary is laughing at that. I do not see anything humorous in it. I did not mean it to be humorous. I was pointing out the importance and severity of the issue.

Finally, the official opposition is now at a point where, reluctantly, it will support the bill.

There has been no artificial delay. We said we would not pass the bill because it did not have these components and in particular this one here, the criminal records. We focused on it. We said so over and over, to the point where the government accused us of just deliberately delaying for some unknown reason. The government accused us of that.

However, we did not blink. We said no. The government could use its majority and ram it through; we could not stop it, but make no mistake, at every opportunity we had, we would not fast-track the bill. We would not let it go through any more quickly than necessary. We were going to stand up and keep making these points under the leadership of our defence critic, and that is what we did.

It is always a bit risky. However, at the end of the day, the government came to its senses enough to realize that, by acquiescing, it not only solved a bit of its problem with the party opposite it in the House, but I would like to think it also realized that this is in the best interests of our soldiers. That is who the legal system is there to serve.

Remember, we are a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. We respect so greatly the rights that individuals have. The government accuses us of being soft on crime and all this stuff. This is the same application. All we in the official opposition are saying is that there are ordinary citizens who voluntarily join and offer up, ultimately, their lives to the service of defending this country and its people. They deserve better than a piecemeal approach to reviewing the military justice system; they deserve better than a government just accusing the opposition of not caring enough; and they deserve better than to see it take so long for some justice to actually be brought to our military justice system.