We're prepared to adopt it.
Evidence of meeting #55 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 section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #55 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 section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I am now ready to look at each of the sections.
I would like Mr. Gleeson to state which offences are related to sections 86, 87 and so on. Once we have that, maybe Mr. Harris, who moved amendments NDP-8 and NDP-9 will be satisfied. It might also allow us to have a more thorough discussion.
Mr. Gleeson, could you explain for each offence what the punishment might be?
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Oui, absolument.
May I proceed?
Again, you need to read the amending motion with the actual draft in the clause-by-clause document of the bill, on page 49. So starting at line 6 on the English side and the French side, on the English side we start with “85”--
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Yes, it's page 49 of the clause-by-clause, obviously on the left side of the page, which is the bill side.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I thought the question was being called on the NDP amendment. I'm just trying to figure out where we are.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
No, I asked to discuss this amendment, option 3, and members want to have more details about it, so they have the floor.
I'll give the floor to Colonel Gleeson to answer the question by Mr. Bachand.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
So the first offence that's captured is 85. It was captured in the previous version as well. That is “insubordinate behaviour”. You don't see that on your amending sheet because it's in the bill already, so we aren't making a change there. That line is not changing. It's on line 6 of the bill on page 49, so you do not see 85 on either the French or the English version of the motion.
The next offence provision is 86, “quarrels and disturbances”. In the English version of the bill as it exists, 86 is on line 5. Therefore, you do not see it in the English motion. On the French side of the bill, 86 is on line 7. Therefore, you see 86 on the French version of the motion.
In French, it is offence 86.
The next offence is section 87, “resisting or escaping from arrest or custody”, “désordres”. Section 89 is “connivance at desertion”. Section 90 is “absence without leave”. Section 90 is an offence that was already on the list in the original version. Section 91 is “false statement in respect of leave”. Section 95 is “abuse of subordinates”. Section 96 is “making false accusations or statements or suppressing facts”. Section 97 is “drunkenness”. Section 99 is “malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another”. Section 101 is “escape from custody”. Section 101.1 is “failure to comply with conditions”. Section 102 is “hindering arrest or confinement or withholding assistance when called on”. Section 103 is “withholding delivery over or assistance to civil power”. Section 108 is “signing inaccurate certificate”. Section 109 is “low flying”. Section 112 is “improper use of vehicles”. Section 116 is “destruction, damage, loss or improper disposal”. Section 117 is “miscellaneous offences” including an act of a fraudulent nature not specifically set out in another provision of the code. Section 118 is “offences in relation to tribunals”. Section 118.1 is “failure to appear or attend”. Section 120 is “ill-treatment or non-payment of occupant or person [who is billeting an individual]”. Section 121 is “fraudulent enrolment”. Section 122 is “false answers or false information”. Section 123 is “assisting unlawful enrolment”. Section 126 is “refusing immunization, tests, blood examination or treatment”. And section 129 is “conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline”. And again, section 129 was previously on the list.
Those are the 27 offences that would now be captured under option 3 in this process. So we've expanded from the original five to these 27. Again, they're all there because objectively they are the least serious offences in the code, in that there is a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment or less prescribed if you are convicted of them.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
It's less than two years. I think I said “two years or less”, but it's less than two years--moins de deux ans.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Colonel.
Would you go over with me a number of other service offences, which I did have on a list of service offences that we were concerned about for another amendment? I had 83, 84, 93, 98, 100, 106, 107, 110, 111, 113, 114, and 115. Section 129 is already included. Could you go over those and say why you felt they should not be included, and why, despite the lack of procedural safeguards, these should result in a criminal conviction?
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Section 83 is “disobedience of lawful command”, and someone convicted of it is “liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment”. So again, we were working with the principle that they were objectively the least serious in the code. Section 83 didn't meet that standard, so it was not included in the list.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
--but you could have subjective circumstances that were trivial in nature, so they're not captured by this amendment.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
No, they're not. As I said, the principle we adopted was the two-year minimum objective standard.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
That's in terms of the standard laid out in the code for maximum punishment.