Minister, we agree. I certainly agree with a great deal of what you've said. I think the history of this bill compels it towards a serious but expeditious, or not unduly lengthy, study if we can agree on a number of principles and see them translated into the clauses.
I have two specific questions, Minister, through the chair.
The first is about the issue of summary trials. I think you've made the point well with respect to the two former chief justices of Canada having reviewed this. My concern is not necessarily with the procedural protections in a summary trial. It's about the consequences in terms of a criminal record.
Perhaps you could just assure us. I think it is the case, but I'd like to hear it from you, on the record, that if, for example, a summary trial were held for an offence that may not be in the Criminal Code of Canada, such as, for example, disobedience.... Maybe when you were prosecuting cases in the provincial court in Stellarton you would have liked to prosecute somebody for disobedience, but it doesn't exist in the civil criminal justice system. I wouldn't want to see somebody go through a summary trial, be found guilty of an offence for which there's no equivalent in the Criminal Code, and somehow end up with the equivalent of a criminal record or some ongoing thing that would perhaps follow that person into civilian life once he or she finished with the forces.
I'll just give you the second question, Minister, because it's also fairly straightforward.
It's about the evidence a court martial would use in determining the appropriate sentence. I agree with you on the sentencing principles. I think you're absolutely right about modernizing them and bringing them into line with Criminal Code sentencing principles. But I wanted to make sure that I didn't misunderstand the necessary evidentiary requirement for certain facts to be considered. At one point, I think it's in section 203.5, it talks about the court martial having to “be satisfied on a balance of probabilities of the existence of the disputed fact before relying on it in determining the sentence”. Then later on it talks about “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the obvious criminal standard. I just want to make sure that those standards aren't conflicting. I want to understand how they might work together.