Thank you very much, Monsieur LeBlanc.
Thank you for your question and your comments.
To answer your questions in sequence, you're right in terms of the intention that the summary offences that would be set out in a code of disciplinary matters for the military would not have application when it comes to a criminal record, if you will, outside of a military record. There are many codes of discipline that a Canadian soldier could potentially face that would never be found in a Criminal Code--for example, leaving their post, or being late, or having a uniform that was perhaps not seen to be in compliance. All of those things, while perhaps seen as mundane or perhaps not in need of discipline--although some parents, I'm sure, would take issue with my saying that--are in fact very important when it comes to the proper maintenance of discipline and order within the military. There is a litany of other examples I could give.
But clearly, being in violation of some of those summary offences under military law would in no way, shape, or form find its way into a person's criminal record, which could be later disclosed. There is an effort clearly in the legislation to delineate that which would be seen as a strictly military disciplinary-type summary offence as opposed to what might make its way into the more traditional system and result in a summary offence.
Coming from that point to your next question, with respect to how the evidentiary requirements would apply, the intention here again is to mirror the criminal justice system where appropriate, the standard of justice being proved beyond a reasonable doubt in these hearings depending on how the offender, if you will, elects to be tried. The evidentiary requirements are very much in keeping with the civilian system; that is to say there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidentiary burden is borne by the crown--by the accuser, in traditional parlance--and similarly, the standard that must be met in order for it to get before a criminal tribunal is that balance of probabilities, and the other phrase, which I'm sure you're familiar with, is it in the public interest that these charges proceed? That standard also finds its way into consideration. Is there a public interest in pursuit?
Under the military standard it may be different, but it is given the same level of consideration in terms of pursuit of certain charges, whether they be summary or hybrid offences or whether they be more serious offences. It is not meant to be out of step, except where there are those specific military offences that wouldn't be found in the Canadian Criminal Code.
I believe that answers your question.