National Defence Committee on Feb. 25th, 2013

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have a question. I know it affects your pay, so is there any other purpose to that? I guess it's an additional punishment. It also has the effect of adding a category to the list of potential punishments by saying in addition to receiving the reprimand, or whatever it is, or detention, you will also lose at least one rank, and maybe more. Is there a purpose to that other than to take away pay, or does it have something to do with the chain of command? Can you explain that a little bit more?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Colonel.

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

Mr. Chair, there are two comments that should be made in response to the question.

The general intent is that if a non-commissioned member is sentenced to the punishment of detention, they are reduced in rank to private for the period of the detention, and then their rank is restored. Let's take the hypothetical example of a sergeant who was sentenced to detention and reduced in rank to private. They would continue to be paid, but at the private level while they served that sentence, and once the sentence was done they'd go back to their previous rank.

What clause 20 is actually referring to is the specific case where there's an intermittent sentence, which is, you will recall, one of the new sentencing options provided for in the bill. This particular clause says “until the sentence of detention is completed”, which is meant to address the situation where you may have a person who is sentenced to detention but is serving it intermittently—over the space of several weekends, for example—just to avoid any uncertainty about what their status is during the period when they are not actually in detention.

Let's say, again, a sergeant is sentenced to detention. They serve the sentence intermittently. During the period when they are in custody, they are a private. But if there isn't a rule providing clarity, there'd be massive confusion if they showed up at the armoury in the middle of the week before they went back to serve their detention again on the weekend. What is this person's rank? What is this person's status?

So this is just meant to provide clarity. While they're undergoing intermittent sentence, they're a private throughout that period.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Why would it be problematic for even the case you're talking about? Are we talking about reservists here, primarily?

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

Yes, primarily but not entirely.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

So not necessarily, but very likely that's where it would be used.

If I'm serving a detention sentence on the weekend, and I may or may not have other duties in the reserve, I'm a private. What's the problem if I'm a sergeant when I'm in the armoury? Why am I not entitled to be a sergeant? I'm not serving my detention. Is the purpose of the reduction of rank while you're in detention to keep you below the rank of someone who might be looking after you, somebody who might be guarding you, or is the purpose punishment and loss of pay? If that is the case, then your detention and the loss of pay that runs with that....

If you're sentenced to 14 days not intermittently, say, you'll lose 14 days of pay between your current rank and that of private, and that's all you'll lose. But if you're serving as a reservist and you are in detention on the weekend, and you're serving at the armoury on a Wednesday night, why do you have to be a private on a Wednesday night? You're only supposed to be a private while you are in detention and lose that. In the case of a reservist, your loss of pay would continue for more than 14 days if you had 14 days' intermittent sentence.

Wouldn't that be the case? And wouldn't that be unfairly discriminating against someone in the reserves? Perhaps you can enlighten me on that. What's the confusion if I'm a sergeant when I'm in the armoury but a private when in detention?

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

Mr. Chair, this is just meant to avoid what we describe as the yo-yo effect. In fact we think it would cause massive confusion in the unit if there was uncertainty about the status of that person.

Let's remember what their status is. They are an offender. They have been convicted of an offence. They have been sentenced to a custodial sentence. They are only going to be able to serve that sentence on an intermittent basis if they ask for it. So in essence they're accruing a benefit, which they get to choose, to serve that sentence on an intermittent basis.

I put it to you that it would be considered illogical and unfair by the other members of the unit if one had this yo-yo effect, that the person was a private in detention on the weekend and got to be a sergeant during the week. It would be extremely bad for morale. It would create uncertainty in the unit.

I certainly don't think it discriminates. In fact, it allows the person to make an informed choice as to which option they wish to choose, to serve intermittently for a longer period or to serve it consecutively and get it over with.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Is there a parallel section for commissioned members?

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

Mr. Chair, commissioned officers cannot be sentenced to the punishment of detention. They can only be sentenced, in terms of custodial punishments, to the punishment of imprisonment.

In essence, the option of detention is a break that non-commissioned members get. There's a long, principled reason why, but the general theory is that if a commissioned officer commits an offence that is so great that he or she should be sentenced to a custodial sentence, it will be imprisonment, because it's likely that person isn't coming back to serve, whereas the purpose of a punishment of detention is essentially rehabilitative—to allow that person to correct the deficiency in discipline, to restore them to the standard of effectiveness they should be at, to come back in essence newly minted, and to hopefully carry on.

It's meant to be in essence a benefit for lower-ranked people, recognizing the fact that they don't have the same degree of responsibility that commissioned officers would have.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Even on the same conviction, say drunk driving or something of that nature, a far harsher sentence applies to a commissioned officer as opposed to a non-commissioned officer?

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

Mr. Chair, Parliament made the choice long ago, indicating the punishment of detention isn't applicable to serving officers. If you look at the principles of sentencing that are set out in clause 62 of this bill, it's considered to be an aggravating circumstance if one commits a particular offence and one abuses one's rank. The general principle is, if you are of a more senior rank, the commission of the same offence as a person of more junior rank is inherently more serious.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have a point of order, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Can we continue this next day?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I need a motion to adjourn. We have to agree on a motion to adjourn.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I don't think we need to have a motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, we do. Every committee needs a motion to adjourn.

[An hon. member]

I make the motion to adjourn.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Just before you make your motion to adjourn, the supplementary estimates (C) were tabled by the President of the Treasury Board today. When can we expect to see them before this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As soon as possible, but we're in communication.

Mr. Alexander, do you have any information?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I don't, but I have a point of order, Chair.

With the indulgence of my colleagues, could we vote on clause 20 before we adjourn?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's what I was trying to get to, I was trying to get to—

I've got Mr. Larose, Mr. Strahl. Mr. McKay had the floor. I'd like to dispose of this, if that's not a problem.

I need a motion to adjourn.

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, I have a motion to adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

The meeting is adjourned. We're out of here.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. We'll see you on Wednesday.