National Defence Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Welcome, everybody, to the defence committee this afternoon. To our guests, my apologies for being late. We had a vote and it took some time.

In the interest of time, I'm going to introduce Lieutenant-General Charles Lamarre, who will speak on Bill C-77.

I understand and appreciate that you have a number of colleagues here, but to save time, I'll turn the floor over to you for your opening remarks. Then we can get to questions. I understand that you have to leave by 12:45. We'll endeavour to get you out of here at that time.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[Lieutenant-General Charles Lamarre, Commander, Military Personnel Command, Department of National Defence]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

First, I am Lieutenant-General Chuck Lamarre. I'm commander of military personnel command, the organization that recruits, trains and does the care, service, pay and so on and so forth for all of our members. We assist with the eventual transition out of military as well. Thank you for inviting us to come here and speak to you today.

The care and support of all Canadian Armed Forces personnel are of paramount importance to our operational success. Our military justice system deals with people, and it is also critical to operational success, so I'm pleased to have the opportunity to engage in the committee's study of Bill C-77.

I will introduce our experts in a moment. They will also be able to provide details and answers to all of your questions.

I want to start by stating, however, that the Canadian Armed Forces has a system of care that is world class and available to all of our members. The CAF health system has 37 clinics, of which 31 have in-house mental health professionals. There are approximately 465 dedicated mental health positions distributed among those 31 clinics.

In addition, there are over 4,000 mental health care providers in the civilian system who have registered to provide care to military members in their own practices.

Finally, we have also teamed up with Veterans Affairs Canada to create the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada joint suicide prevention strategy, which was launched on October 5, 2017.

The experts we have with us today can speak more to the excellent level of care that we provide to our members. They are Colonel Peter Clifford, deputy surgeon general, and Colonel Rakesh Jetly, senior psychiatrist and mental health adviser for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces has a duty to proceed from the point of view of care and compassion towards all of our members. It is part of the profession of arms, a code of conduct for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces that is underpinned by a high standard of values and ethics.

In instances where a member has committed an act of self-harm, the foremost priority of leadership is to provide care and support to that member. It is not to charge or punish a member in already difficult circumstances, and we do not.

We are also happy to have with us today two of our legal experts, Colonel Steve Strickey, deputy judge advocate general, military justice; and Lieutenant-Colonel Geneviève Lortie, director of law, military justice and policy. This is their second appearance before the committee, and they would be pleased to address any legal issues surrounding the study of this bill.

We take the health and well-being of our members, including their mental health, very seriously. Our members are always our highest priority.

We look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you, General.

I'm going to give the first 10-minute period of questions to MP Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our delegation for being here today to answer some of our questions.

I want to focus my questions on the issue of the minor sanctions. We know that minor sanctions and expressions will be defined under the regulations instead of through Bill C-77. Can you comment on the benefit of defining them under regulation instead of through legislation on specific cases?

[Colonel Stephen Strickey, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for that question.

In terms of the minor sanctions, as you all know, there were some comments made in a previous meeting concerning the minor sanctions, and in particular the confinement to barracks. With regard to outlining those in the regulations, the government has looked at other parallel systems, and in particular, a system along the lines of the RCMP disciplinary scheme, which also outlines their minor punishments in regulations. That was what...the decision was made at the time to put those in regulations.

I will note as well that the decision as to what those minor sanctions will be has yet to be made. They will be determined, obviously, in the regulations.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What is the benefit of defining them under these regulations instead of through legislation?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

In terms of benefit, certainly it's the government's decision to legislate any sanctions in the service offences. As you well know, the service offences are currently laid out and—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What can be the practical benefit of doing it through the regulations instead of through the legislation?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

The practical benefit of putting anything in regulation, sir, as you well know, is that it is much more expedient to make the changes. It's much more expedient if we feel, with any regulation, that we need immediate action. From a legal and procedural perspective, it's easier to regulate than legislate.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

In a previous committee meeting on November 1, Pascal Lévesque said that he had concerns with defining service infractions and minor sanctions through future regulations instead of through the bill. He cited concerns specifically with respect to the perspective of transparency.

I want to give you an opportunity to engage on this subject and to explain how defining service infractions and minor sanctions through future regulations impacts transparency specifically.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

Thank you for that question.

Pascal Lévesque is a former colleague, and certainly a friend of mine. We've worked together. We've appeared before this committee not as witnesses, but in support. I respect his opinion and his submission.

With regard to his concerns, service offences are laid out in the National Defence Act. They are codified. As Pascal knows very well, because we did work together, the same can be said of regulation. If we take the view that any disciplinary regulation will be set out in volume II of the Queen's Regulations and Orders, which is currently the disciplinary volume.... All members, and all those who use it—accused, presiding members and commanding officers—will be well aware of what those service infractions are.

The one advantage I'll point out procedurally as well, not necessarily in this realm, but generally, is that with the QR and O we have the ability to put in notes. A note to the QR and O does not have a meaning in law, if you will, but it's very helpful in terms of adding some assistance to those members who would use either the summary infraction system, or any other aspect of the QR and O.

In response to Mr. Lévesque's question, I can assure this committee that as with the legislation, although it's a different system, all users of the summary infraction system will be well aware of those service infractions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Are you of the opinion that there will be greater transparency through regulations?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

It's not my view, Mr. Chair, to have an opinion one way or the other in this conversation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

No, I'm sorry, I'm not asking you for a political opinion or even an opinion. I'm just asking, from a practical perspective, would you agree that things become more transparent through regulation?

I don't want your opinion. I want to know what you think the practical impact would be on the ground.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

Thank you for the question.

From a hypothetical perspective, I can assure the committee, as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and a legal officer who advises commanders, that regulations are very well known among all members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The QR and Os are published. They are transparent, and all members must be aware of their content. It is a different process, obviously, as compared to legislation, but I'm very confident in saying as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces that the QR and Os are very well known among the rank and file, sir.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have about a minute.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'll hold it there. My next question has a lot to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Next is MP Martel.

[Richard Martel, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC]

Good morning. I am pleased you are here today.

My question is for you, Lieutenant-Colonel Lortie.

What do you think about the possibility of amending section 98 of the National Defence Act with respect to maiming or injury?

[Lieutenant-Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Director of Law, Military Justice, Policy, Department of National Defence]

I was here and I heard the previous discussions. Of course, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces ensure the health and well-being of all members. This includes mental health, which is taken very seriously.

We believe that it is very important to continue to follow the discussions taking place in the committee, to hear from the expert witnesses and their contribution to the committee's consideration of Bill C-77.

[Richard Martel]

The committee heard testimony from retired Lieutenant Colonel Jean-Guy Perron and representatives from the Barreau du Québec. They shared with us some of their concerns about Bill C-77.

I would like to know what you think of this. Clause 55(2) of Bill C-77 specifies that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are subject to the Code of Service Discipline even when they are not on duty. However, this section may be inconsistent with section 60 of the National Defence Act, which states that, although regular force members are subject to the Code of Service Discipline at all times, reserve force members are only subject to it when on duty, in uniform, in a military establishment or in or on any vessel.

Why does the new clause in Bill C-77 not reflect the National Defence Act?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

As the deputy JAG for military justice, that would be our collective responsibility. As I alluded to earlier, we recently received the submissions that were received by the committee, and we are in the process of reviewing those submissions.

It would be premature at this stage, because we have our teams reviewing those submissions, to provide any kind of opinion or comment on them. I can assure the chair, however, that we are actively reviewing the submissions by former legal officers and colleagues of both Lieutenant Colonel Lortie and me.

[Richard Martel]

Do I still have time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have about four minutes.