Evidence of meeting #53 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay. We're going to vote on clause 11.
Shall clause 11 carry as amended?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
You're right.
I'm going to do that in English a second time.
Shall clause 11 carry as amended? All in favour? All against?
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay. This clause carries as amended. Merci.
(On clause 35)
We now move on to clause 35.
We will be dealing with amendment 7.1 put forward by the Bloc québécois. I would point out to members that the reference number is 5011571, which can be found on the left-hand side of the page.
Mr. Bachand, you have the floor.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
You have just given the reference number. Must I consider that all members around the table have received this sheet?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Indeed, and that is why I quoted the reference number: 5011571.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chairman, it is really not complicated. I was astounded to learn that, in the case of a summary trial, an individual may be hit with a judicial record.
I understand full well that military justice must be stringent and rigorous. It has always been said that military justice cannot be a replica of civil justice. However, I find that it is really an exaggeration that someone who leaves his or her post to go to the washroom and then reports to his or her commanding officer can be told that because he or she left his or her post —and there is no interest in knowing if it was to go to the washroom or not —, he or she will have a judicial record. It is absolutely essential that this situation be corrected, because I find that the penalty is very much exaggerated compared with the seriousness of the infraction.
Consequently, amendment BQ-7.1 would remedy this situation. As for the superior commander — we will be looking later on at amendment BQ-7.2, pertaining to the superior commander —, the same type of reasoning will apply.
I do not know if I had made myself clear, but, in essence, we no longer wish to see people coming out of a summary trial with a criminal record.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That case is grossly exaggerated. That is just not what would happen at all.
Now, on amendment BQ-7.1, we have significant problems with purely on a technical basis, notwithstanding the policy problem we have. First of all, “judicial record” is not a defined term anywhere. It's not a defined term under any act. It is in fact inconsistent with the Criminal Records Act, so technically the amendment does not mean anything. It's technically wrong.
What I would suggest for consideration is that amendment NDP-8 covers the same issue. We still have a problem with the policy side of that, but at least amendment NDP-8 is technically correct.
I would throw this out just for consideration. We might want to vote down amendment BQ-7.1 and have the same discussion on amendment NDP-8, because I believe it has the same meaning. But at least, as I say, NDP-8 is technically correct.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, through you, I would like to ask the JAG this question: as it currently stands, what types of convictions result from a summary trial conviction? The concern we have would be to ensure that summary trial convictions for regular service members don't end up on the criminal record.
3:55 p.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence
Currently, Mr. Chair, as was discussed I think by the witnesses who appeared from the Criminal Lawyers' Association, “criminal record” is a very vague term in the Canadian legal structure. There is a provision in the Criminal Records Act that talks about criminal records as defined in the Criminal Records Act, so it's a fairly legally convoluted term.
Essentially, what the Criminal Records Act provides is that if you are convicted for an offence under federal law, you will end up with a criminal record within the meaning of the Criminal Records Act. The effect of that is that any federal conviction puts you into that category. That includes a conviction under the National Defence Act. That does visit what we believe to be, in certain circumstances, an undue harshness on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for very minor matters, as was suggested by Mr. Bachand earlier.
Clause 75 of the bill was introduced to address that very circumstance, to ensure that people convicted of minor offences and minor circumstances do not fall within the scope of the Criminal Records Act definition of a criminal record. This is modelled on what you find in the Contraventions Act, a piece of legislation which ensures that for minor federal offences, ticketing type offences, you don't end up with a criminal record as defined in the Criminal Records Act.
So essentially what clause 75 does, unamended, is address the concern that I'm hearing being expressed here today.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I guess I'd just suggest that maybe the simplest thing to do to not induce confusion would be.... I suggest that we vote against BQ-7.1 and maybe have the policy discussion when we get to NDP-8, if that's simpler.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I could also withdraw the amendment. I am not a masochist: I do not enjoy getting beaten.
3:55 p.m.
Voices
Ah, ah!
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Do I have committee members' consent for the withdrawal of amendment 7.1 of the Bloc québécois?
