I oppose this section. I have a strong objection to it. It deals with what is called bribery and corruption and fraud. It deals with a person :
"(a) who connives at the exaction, by a person supplying property or services to the Defence Forces of an exorbitant price therefor or,
(b) who improperly demands or accepts compensation, consideration or personal advantage in respect of the performance of any military duty or in respect of any matter relating to the Department of Defence or the Defence Forces, or
(c) who receives directly or indirectly, whether personally or by or through any member of his family or person under his control, or for his benefit, any gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration. . ."
There was a section in the old Act, not as comprehensive as this, but which undoubtedly covered a number of these things :
". . . the offence of taking any fee or advantage in respect of, or being in any illicit way interested in, the sale or purchase of any provisions, stores, arms, equipment or other goods for the use of any of the forces."
As a general rule, in peace time most property bought for the Army is bought not by the Army but by the civil side of the Department. If the Minister would knock out " subject to military law " and bring in the officers of the Department of Defence as well as officers and soldiers I would not have the same strong objection. The Minister can, of course, deal with civil servants under the ordinary law if they were guilty of bribery and corruption or fraud of that nature. I suppose that there have been very few cases of that during 30 years in the Army. I think that a section like this is really offensive to the members of the Army. If anybody does engage in any of the frauds mentioned here he can, and should be, dealt with under the ordinary law of the country and be tried by jury. In fact, some of the few cases that we have had were dealt with by juries outside. Although it is in the old Act, I look on it as offensive towards the Army as a whole.