Evidence of meeting #63 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
MGen Blaise Cathcart
Yes, that is a very important question. I heard you refer to it before, Mr. McKay, as controversial. I'm not sure yet how controversial it is. There are a few folks who have—
Liberal
MGen Blaise Cathcart
It certainly does in certain quarters.
From a larger perspective, a superintendent of the military justice system perspective, I would fully support the underlying goal. I'm extremely sensitive to the concept of police and police independence, because if you don't get that right, a lot of the underpinning of the entire military justice system can fall very quickly.
I am very confident with the underlying rationale, which is a fundamental understanding that military police are unique in Canada. A good Latin term we use in the legal world is sui generis. There is no other police force in Canada that is like the military police. The difference is that they not only do policing, which is very important, but they have an operational role. They are members of the Canadian armed forces.
In that context you have to constantly find ways and evolve ways in which they can fulfill without hesitation, without question, their independence in the policing function they do while at the same time recognizing that they are still full-fledged members of the military and have a chain of command.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have time for only one more set of questions.
Mr. Opitz, you have the floor.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both for being here, Admiral and General.
I hear you on the military police, because people don't realize the military police have a role on the battlefield as well. That fact often goes missing in a comparison with the role of a regular peace officer.
As we did in the first round, we're talking about some of the areas where we need to improve our system, certainly. I think the Admiral will remember, starting out as a naval reservist back in 1977, that the system back then was not necessarily the best, particularly for reservists, who were often left out of the justice loop. In the last 20 or 30 years, especially in the last 10 years, with the flattening of the grievance system to two particular levels—immediate and final, as opposed to the multi-level approach of the past—things have improved significantly. I think it has made things move faster. Hopefully you can comment a little bit on that.
I want to talk a little bit about summary trials. That's the most common form of military tribunal in the system. It is a very prompt way to deal with minor offences. Those things were dealt with when I was a company commander and battalion commander in the field, because they are quick and can sometimes be done in a matter of a week or so.
Some criticisms of summary trials have been advanced. Could you elaborate, General, on your views regarding the fairness and the constitutionality of summary trials?
MGen Blaise Cathcart
It's another very important topic and question, so I thank the committee for that question.
Again, fundamentally the summary trial system from my perspective is very sound and constitutionally compliant. It does its job both on the legal side, but also, more importantly, in support of the chain of command. I mentioned earlier the concept of discipline. It is really the key disciplinary tool. Mr. Opitz, you referred to that it is the most commonly used. Generally, on an annual basis through my annual reports it's confirmed that somewhere in the area of 94% to 95% of all charges are dealt with at summary trial so that is the main tool out there.
Is it perfect? No. No system is perfect, and that's why we're continually looking for ways both internally within ourselves, and consulting with others, with allies, and using the parliamentary processes here, to find ways and suggestions to make it a better system. But it's fundamentally at its base very sound, and that was attested to through all the independent reviews by Justice Lamer, and more recently by Justice LeSage as well, and Justice Dickson. They all said the summary trial system does what it's supposed to do. That is to, as you highlighted, deal with, generally speaking, minor disciplinary matters in a fair yet efficient way both here in Canada, but more importantly when deployed, because there is no other law unless you want to be subject to the host nation's law unless the code of service discipline or the National Defence Act goes with you, which include a summary trial system.
We also are very vigilant internally. We do annual JAG surveys of the military justice system. We also send out JAG staff to actually talk to a sampling of individuals across the military justice system, those who have been involved, for instance, CEOs like you were in your past sitting in judgment. We've talked to accused and convicted who have gone through it. Generally, more often than not the answers are positive that people think the system is ultimately fair, it does the job they expect it to do, and they respect it for what it does. Again, that's not to say it's perfect. Certainly you will run into the odd individual who preferred a different punishment perhaps at the end of the day, but the reality is they understood the process, and they understood they had a fair shot in it.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
I also found it to work at the lowest possible level with the least administrative burden, so I found that useful.
Further to that, I see there's provision in Bill C-15 that would impose an additional limitation in respect to summary trials, but it would also allow for an option for the accused to waive the summary trial limitation period.
Could you explain a little bit more about that, and why it's included in the bill.
MGen Blaise Cathcart
It can be viewed as a minor point, but I think process-wise and, again, to our young men and women in uniform, it's very important they understand that the first amendment that's being proposed is to have a charge laid within six months to be dealt with in terms of a summary trial process. That's in addition to what's already outstanding, that a trial has to occur within one year from the charge being laid. Again, it's designing to streamline and make it more efficient and fair at the same time.
The fairness is you may have a charge that was beyond that limitation period that the accused, himself or herself, may not want to go to court martial because the only option to deal with the charge at that point is to go to a more formal, full-blown court martial. This, in essence, is giving an opportunity to individuals charged outside of those limitation periods to choose on their own accord to say that no, they're going to waive the limitation period so they can take advantage of the summary trial system. They could do that for a variety of reasons, but most commonly it would be because it would be a quicker process for them to go through at that point.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
Time has expired, and the committee does have to suspend and move to some committee business that will take a few minutes.
I want to thank Vice-Admiral Donaldson and Major-General Cathcart for their testimony today and for helping us with our study. We really appreciate that.
I'd ask anybody who's not tied to a member of the committee to vacate the room immediately.
The meeting is suspended.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
