I move that Bill C-77, in clause 25, be amended (a) by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 22 with the following:
163.1 (1) A superior commander who is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, at a summary hearing, that a per-
(b) by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 22 with the following:
(2) A commanding officer who is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, at a summary hearing, that a person has
(c) by replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 22 with the following:
(3) A delegated officer who is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, at a summary hearing, that a person has commit-
I'll speak to that again. We heard from the Quebec bar association, as well as from Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Perron, that because this bill reduces.... This, actually, is a big difference to our original Bill C-71, as well, because we talked about “beyond a reasonable doubt” and now we're talking about this “balance of probabilities”, which doesn't have any jurisdiction under the charter or the Supreme Court rulings in the past. I still think that even though we're trying to make this administratively more simple, it's the right of the accused that they be proven beyond a reasonable doubt of any service infractions.
Section 2.3 of the Quebec bar association brief talks about the subject of Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Perron's recommendation number 3 on page 12 of his brief, which says:
Under C-77, the accused is liable to be sentenced to a more severe punishment (“fine”) based on a lower threshold of conviction. The summary hearing under C-77 offers less protections to the accused than what was present in C-71 and what is actually present in the summary trial process.
We prefer that we go back to the terminology “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is accepted in a court of law.