In looking at the briefing document which we received from Mr. Perron, he says, “imprisonment or a fine which by its magnitude would appear to be imposed for the purpose of redressing a wrong done to society at large rather than to the maintenance and internal discipline within [a] limited sphere of activity.” That's on page 2, paragraph 46. He goes on to talk about the Supreme Court ruling in Guindon, which said, “With respect to the process, the heart of the analysis is concerned with the extent to which it bears the traditional hallmarks of a criminal proceeding.”
If it is a criminal proceeding that results in the potential for a criminal record as well as penal fines, even the confinement to barracks, as the Supreme Court has already stated, in a conditional sentence, is a form of imprisonment. Anything that would be seen as house arrest would then be considered imprisonment.
I think we need to err on the side of caution here and make sure that this is in line with previous Supreme Court rulings and that charter rights aren't being violated. That's not to take away from the administrative side of trying to deal with things in a more expeditious fashion, but we don't want to undermine the rights of our soldiers, sailors and air crew.