National Defence committee  Pardon me?

National Defence committee  I'm not sure. I wonder if you could rephrase the question.

National Defence committee  What specific figure are you referring to?

National Defence committee  They're all from the 2007 JAG annual survey.

National Defence committee  I couldn't find them online. I'm sorry.

National Defence committee  I don't know which surveys you're referencing.

National Defence committee  At the level of generality at which you're speaking, it's difficult to agree or disagree with you, but I can say that the problems and the dissatisfaction with the summary trial process remain at a sufficiently grave level that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association believes something ought to be done about it.

National Defence committee  Yes, that's correct.

National Defence committee  The way the Constitution is structured allows for the types of scenarios of which you're speaking, in the form of justification. So yes, a soldier could invoke section 7, but their commanding officer's order that they go under the wire would be justified pursuant to the principles of fundamental justice, and even if not, they'd be justified pursuant to section 1, concerns about national security.

National Defence committee  I think he could be arrested, he could be subject to the court martial system. Or in the scenario that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association envisages, the charging officer could make the election of whether it was simply a unit discipline matter or should be elevated to the level of a criminal judicial process.

National Defence committee  No, but we're talking about what happens if a person doesn't do as he's supposed to do, whether he commits a very serious crime or a small disciplinary infraction. The question is which process should be used to determine their guilt. What we're saying is if you want to impose imprisonment, you should have a good process; and if you don't need to impose imprisonment, you can just have a reprimand, then a less elaborate, less complicated process might be appropriate.

National Defence committee  I think there's a distinction to be made between the interests served by promoting unit discipline and the interests served by protecting against offences at the level of the community of Canada at large in the way criminal law is intended to protect. In our view, summary trials are appropriate to the first aspect, and criminal law procedures and processes and consequences are appropriate to the second function.

National Defence committee  I'm a great admirer of both Chief Justice Dickson and Chief Justice Lamer, as they then were, but I don't agree with everything they ever said. If they made these comments, they would have made them a while ago. I appreciate that Justice Lamer's 2003 report was made in the context of an entirely different act, in which he felt the summary process could be improved significantly.

National Defence committee  Yes.

National Defence committee  I don't agree with the fundamental assessment he has made that the potential for incarceration at summary trials is necessary to keep unit discipline, even on the battlefield. There might be some exigent circumstances where it is of assistance to have the threat of incarceration, but certainly in a non-deployment context it's difficult to sustain that argument.