Thank you very much.
Mr. Drapeau, you have cited changes to the summary trial system in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand as much fairer judicial processes. While comparison can be useful and can be extended to other countries—also to NATO members or others—it is important to consider that each nation has a unique legal structure and tradition. For example, the U.K. is bound by the European Court of Human Rights, and Australia is bound by its Constitution.
However, in an independent review, Chief Justice LeSage of the Superior Court of Ontario stated that the Canadian summary trial system is vital to the maintenance of discipline at the unit level and is therefore essential to the life-and-death work the military performs on a daily basis. In dismissing your concern over constitutionality, he stated that the summary trial system was constitutionally sound.
Given that former Chief Justices Dickson and Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada and former Chief Justice LeSage all supported the current structure of the summary trial system as constitutionally compliant, why make changes to the system based on other countries' specific constitutional requirements? I understand making it here, but—