Thank you.
I'm very glad we had that question about concurrent jurisdiction, because I think that answers the problem, frankly.
To deal directly with Ms. Gallant's question, I perfectly agree with her. But if you have concurrent jurisdiction, the problem you have is that if a person is tried, for whatever offence, under the military justice system, they don't have any protections and they can get a criminal record. If they're tried under the civil criminal process, they have all the protections and they do get a record.
Mr. Hawn has a good point. In a serious circumstance, such as impaired driving, why should a soldier not attract a criminal record when a civilian might? If it's a concurrent jurisdiction, it is a matter of discretion. And that discretion can be exercised by military police, according to what we've just been told.
If it's something regarded as being in the realm of service discipline--issues of good order, morale, and so on--which requires a military prosecution, then you go that route, and you get your quick and speedy disposition. You get your summary trials. You get your laxer--or lack of--rules of evidence. You get your lack of disclosure. You get all of those things, but you don't get a criminal record.
If it's something the military decides is criminal in nature and is deserving of all the criminal sanctions, including a criminal record, then you prosecute it in the civil court. If it's impaired driving or if it's a case of domestic violence--spousal assault--and is deserving of the sanctions of spousal assault and the consequences of spousal assault, then it is prosecuted under the Criminal Code. The discretion rests with the military police, with the system, or with policy, whatever it comes down to.
To me that is a good threshold and a good test. If you're going to use the military justice system, then you do it as part of the disciplinary process, as part of maintaining good order and discipline, and people don't end up with criminal records. If it's an offence such as, let's say, deliberate arson, that smacks of criminal behaviour, whether it's a military person or a civilian. Well, prosecute the person under the criminal law. But if you're talking about somebody not following the proper regulation, which requires him to do X, Y, and Z and he doesn't do it, and a fire results, why should that person end up with what looks like arson and end up with a criminal record?
That's the way I see it. I think this concurrent jurisdiction, this discretion, provides the answer to the problem. I think it's supportable as such. It answers Mr. Hawn's concerns, I think, in a way that works.