Thank you, Mr. Bachand.
You're right. We always need to keep the justice system up to date, not only for civil law, but for military law, as well. That is exactly the reasoning behind this bill. It's an opportunity to look at the application of the charter, for example, and make certain pragmatic changes to improve our justice system.
The use of victim impact statements was being brought to bear at a time when I was still practising law as a crown prosecutor in Nova Scotia, and I remember the profound impact this had on family members and victims themselves. This is a very profound example of where the military justice system can be improved by the application of that change, and there are other examples that, in very practical ways, I think, will improve the military justice system and put it more in line, as you suggested, with the civil system, to bring it into the new era and to ensure that some of these important modernizations that have already occurred in our criminal justice system will be equally applicable for those in the military and for those affected by military service.
Having said that we need to make these specific changes--the majority of which, I believe, are incorporated here, if memory serves me--we have accepted 94% of the recommendations of the Lamer report, or 83 of the 88 recommendations that were laid out in some detail, in whole or in part. But we still come back to the fundamental necessity of having a separate justice system for our military personnel, and those reasons that were set out by Justice Lamer as well as Justice Dickson speak to the operational effectiveness of the military.
They speak to the necessity for protecting a culture that is still very important when it comes to the discipline of our men and women in uniform--discipline, efficiency, morale, and respect for the rule of law within the military. Men like Laurie Hawn, who have served in uniform, will tell you that knowing those rules and regulations are set out in very clear terms is extremely important to the efficiency and the effectiveness of our men and women.
It also meets those disciplinary needs that are outside the current Criminal Code, outside the current disciplinary system, if you will, that applies for civilians like you and me. Military personnel live by a different standard, that is, they are expected, in many cases--to be very frank and blunt--to put their lives on the line and to do so in circumstances that have very high stakes for our country and for them personally, for their families, for their comrades in arms. This added responsibility of risk requires a certain cohesiveness. It requires a specific application of military justice.
All of this is incorporated in the reasons that were set out by Justice Lamer in the Généreux case, and it also speaks of the armed forces need for a system that can try offences both in the ordinary law and within their disciplinary code. It has that flexibility as well, as you're aware, where it can have application in the civil system.
I hope I have addressed your question. I know it was a two- or three-part question, but the short answer is yes, it's compatible with what we're seeing happening in the evolution of our civil system, but it's necessary, I would suggest now, for this legislation to proceed so that we can bring some of those modernizations into the military system as well.