National Defence Committee on Nov. 27th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We have MP Spengemann and then MP Bezan.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Colonel Strickey, is there a grey zone? Is there a large area of disagreement as to what could constitute a penal offence or an administrative offence? We're looking at detention to barracks, and you start putting a time frame on that, like detention to barracks for 30 days plus. Could that be considered an offence where criminal justice appellate mechanisms would be appropriate?

If the answer is no, then I think the way this amendment is framed reinforces our concern that it injects a criminal system element into a system that quintessentially should be administrative in nature, and for that reason, we would oppose it. However, I take the points raised by colleagues. There may be some offences where there's this argument as to whether or not charter rights would be infringed or higher levels of appellate review would be appropriate.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

I think you're quite correct. What we're dealing with, from my assessment, in the proposed amendment, when we look at line 3, “service infraction is detention, reduction in rank or a fine exceeding 25% of basic pay”, that tracks the language of the current offences that are set forth in the National Defence Act and further elaborated in the QRs and Os. The bill, at proposed section 162.7, outlines the sanctions.

To be clear, in the summary hearing system, the sanction of detention would not be available. The sanction of reduction in rank is available. The sanction of a fine exceeding 25% of basic pay would not be available, but one would look to the deprivation of pay for not more than 18 days.

Technically speaking, we're taking the current system with the proposed system and envisioning an appeal to another system, if I can say that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's helpful. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

You're saying that you're comfortable that detention will not be part of a minor service infraction that's going to be charged under the new summary hearings.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

As it's set out in the proposed legislation, sir, yes, I am. It's not in the act and it would not be a minor sanction as currently set out. It's not a minor sanction currently in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. Detention is a punishment in and of itself that's set forth in the scale of punishments in the NDA.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I think we just wanted to make sure that this was the threshold that's defined in the act. Anything to that degree or higher requires the opportunity for court martial and appeal.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

I would just like to clarify.

Within the scale of punishments, you know, sir, as well as I do, that in the NDA, we have imprisonment for life, imprisonment for two years or more, dismissal with disgrace, imprisonment for less than two years, and dismissal from Her Majesty's service. Then we get to detention, reduction in rank, forfeiture of seniority, severe reprimand, reprimand fine, and in paragraph 139(1)(l), minor punishments, which are defined in the regulations. That's the current state of law.

In terms of the proposed state of law, again, proposed section 162.7 states that the following sanctions may be imposed in respect of a service infraction: reduction in rank, severe reprimand, reprimand, deprivation of pay for not more than 18 days, and minor sanctions.

That's just to draw a rough parallel between the two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Is there any further discussion on amendment CPC-6?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I know that for tomorrow I will be reading the QRs and Os just to get up to speed again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I see no further discussion on amendment CPC-6.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 37 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 38 to 42 inclusive agreed to on division)

I notice there's an amendment CPC-7, which looks to insert a new section 42.1.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I would suggest that we're almost out of time. Why don't we leave that to start off our next meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I think that's probably a fair assessment.

The meeting is adjourned.