National Defence committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members, for giving me the honour to appear before you. Over the past decade I have watched our army transform itself into a world-class organization whose performance in Afghanistan has gained the unrestricted admiration and respect of both our

National Defence committee  Thanks for your question. I need to comment on your opening comments. You said you're a layperson. Please, that's exactly what I'm looking for, to have laypersons interested in it. Why? Your sons and daughters and nephews and nieces are serving in the military—symbolically, but

National Defence committee  You did. I think the time has come to have a wall-to-wall performance audit. It's not only the judges but the military justice system that is separate and apart from the civil penal system. Is it worth our while? Why is there some difference? The global trend is to civilianize

National Defence committee  Yes, Mrs. Gallant, with pleasure. Very respectfully, I have respect for both jurists, and certainly I value their long careers and their opinion, but that's what it is. I happen to have a dissenting opinion on it. My opinion is based, among others, primarily on the quite abund

National Defence committee  Heck, no. Heck, no. Heck, no. The chain of command that is wearing a rank and controlling their future—their promotion, their posting, their whatever it is—suggests to them, without counsel, that it would be best to go into a summary trial, nod, nudge, and you want me to sign up

National Defence committee  Mrs. Gallant, if you read my text and you see that a conviction rate in summary trial is 97.68%, if you want me to conclude that it is fair when the 97.68% conviction rate was arrived at without presence of counsel, rules of evidence, transcript, or the right to appeal, then we h

National Defence committee  First of all, I don't think they're wrong. I happen to be dissenting on it. I don't see them being wrong and I certainly don't see myself as being wrong. There is a good reason, and there are in fact precedents. There is movement. I alluded to it and I'm saying it again. There'

National Defence committee  My short answer is that it works. You have before you someone who has been commanding on two occasions, and I presided over summary trials. From a chain of command perspective, a military perspective, it's the best system there is: there are no arguments, no rules of evidence, an

National Defence committee  The reason it has to be challenged is that one doesn't have the right to appeal. There is no transcript. Even if today somebody had the means, mental and financial, to challenge this, it would be very difficult. We have gone through 2,000 trials a year without a challenge in cour

National Defence committee  And I don't do defence work, so I cannot really say. We have an internal police, the military police, who wear a military rank. They are subject to orders and subject to the code of service discipline; it's difficult enough for them to be seen and perceived as independent, and no

National Defence committee  You have just put your finger on the issue. People suffering from mental or medical problems, or both, are probably not in any physical or mental position to defend themselves. However, that is what they are required to do under the current rules. Not only do these people not ha

National Defence committee  I do not know of any.

National Defence committee  The answer is yes. Let's look at the example in England. When an appeal tribunal was set up for summary trials, the number of these trials went down considerably. In fact, often, the decisions under appeal were deemed to be invalid. A good military leader does not simply use dis

National Defence committee  Yes, I am aware, sir. There is now training given to those presiding either in a capacity as an officer presiding at a summary trial or as a delegate officer, but that doesn't make them lawyers and it doesn't make them trained in law.

National Defence committee  It's quite simple. You have two experts in two separate fields telling you it needs to be changed, to be addressed, and to be more sensitive to and compliant with our charter itself. You've alluded to tradition. Our summary trial is a carbon copy and flows from the U.K. militar