Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the National Defence Act

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system. The amendments, among other things,
(a) provide for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement;
(b) permit the appointment of part-time military judges;
(c) specify the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process;
(d) provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution; and
(e) require certain decisions of a court martial panel to be unanimous.
This enactment also sets out the duties and functions of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and clarifies the responsibilities of the Provost Marshal and the Military Police Complaints Commission.
This enactment also makes amendments in respect of the delegation of the powers of the Chief of the Defence Staff as the final authority in the grievance process and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. As per its title, Bill C-15 is intended to amend the National Defence Act on matters related to military justice.

There is a substantial context to the bill. It has a fairly long history and iterations of the bill have come before this House, many iterations in fact.

The bill is a legislative response to the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and subsequent to that, the May 2009 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Chief Justice Lamer's report was a very comprehensive and independent review of the National Defence Act, which arrived at 88 recommendations pertaining to the military justice system, suggesting there are a lot of issues that need to be corrected.

However, to date only 28 of these recommendations have been implemented in the form of legislation, regulations or even change in practice. Clearly, much work remains to be done.

Other efforts to respond to the chief justice's report preceded the bill before us tonight. Bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper, in 2007 and 2008 respectively.

Bill C-60 made a dent in Chief Justice Lamer's recommendations, in 2008. Bill C-41 was introduced in 2010. It went through committee stage with agreement for some positive amendments, but it too eventually died on the order paper.

This bill, Bill C-15, seeks to accomplish a great deal in response to Justice Lamer's report and the Senate committee report.

Among other things, the bill would provide for greater flexibility in the sentencing process; and additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It would modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person, modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation period. It clarifies the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, and, finally, it make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

The bill is a step in the right direction, in that it would move the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. This much is true. However, it falls too short on some of the key objectives, those being reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system, and strengthening the military complaints commission.

Curiously, the bill even falls short of Bill C-41 as amended by the committee. In our view, it is not worthy of the support of this House as currently drafted.

This view is informed most fundamentally by the principle that the men and women of our Canadian Forces are entitled to the same rights that we send them to fight for around the world. What a terrible and bitter irony it would be if we, as Canadians, were to stand aside and allow the men and women of our Canadian Forces to become effectively second-class citizens in our midst, particularly when we have intervened around the world in deadly conflicts to uphold basic human rights and systems of rule or law that ensure such rights are protected.

These rights to which we are so committed, for which we are prepared to put at risk the lives of young Canadians, in fact do not permit the kind of treatment to which we subject the men and women of our Canadian Forces under our current military justice system.

This requires a bit of an explanation about military systems of justice, in that military justice is a bit different from the justice system that prevails in the rest of civil society because of the primacy attached to the issue of discipline and efficiency in the military.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau is an expert in military justice and law and is the author of the only really significant military legal text in Canada. He had this to say about the implications to military justice of the centrality of discipline to the functioning of the military:

Few professions are as dependent on discipline as is the military. Discipline is fundamental to military efficiency, cohesion and esprit-de-corps, permitting commanders to control the use of violence so that the right amount and type of force can be applied in exactly the right circumstances, the right time and in the right place. At the personal level, discipline ensures also that in times of great danger and risk, the soldier can and will carry out orders even if his natural instinct for self-preservation and fear tells him otherwise. Likewise, group and individual discipline ensures adherence to laws, standards, customs and values of civilian society, even during combat operations.

Another statement reads, “Therefore, discipline is integral not only to the maintaining of an efficient armed forces but also to ensuring that the rule of law predominates within the military, particularly when engaged in great peril and danger in combat.”

In 1980 and 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the constitutionality of certain aspects of the military justice system. On both occasions it affirmed that a separate system of justice was needed to meet the unique requirements of military discipline. This is especially so because certain actions, like being absent without leave, which are offences in the military, are not obviously civil offences.

However, there is a tension here in the military justice system that must be resolved through legislation. There must be, on the one hand, speedy response to breaches of discipline. On the other hand, there must be adherence to law and as far as possible, that means adherence to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and principles of natural justice. That is, principles that suggest that any system of justice should be heard and decided by a neutral impartial body and that, in the most general terms, the hearing be fair. That is, provide notice, the opportunity to examine evidence, to speak, to answer and so on. At this point this tension remains unresolved.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association commented on the interests influencing the system. It said that military officers who give out sentences in summary trials are concerned with showing unit discipline and deterring future violations, not the effect they impose on an accused in the civilian world with a criminal record, for example.

We believe this tension is resolvable. We do not believe that the need for an efficient military justice system is inconsistent with, and therefore needs to take the place of, fundamental principles of justice for the members of our Canadian Forces. We believe that the bill is potentially salvageable with the necessary amendments at committee.

At the core of the issue before us is the matter of summary trials. In the context of the Canadian armed forces, summary trials are disciplinary actions which are generally less serious than courts martial. They are designed to deal with minor service offences with limited possible punishments. Offences can range from insubordination and drunkenness to being absent without leave. Actions like this, while destructive to the flow of military life, are less serious in the civilian world.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau testified before the national defence committee that summary trials continue to be the dominant disciplinary method used to try offences by the Canadian military. In 2008-09, there were a total of 1,865 cases determined by summary trial, and only 67 heard by court martial.

A 2008 CBC study found that military charges against Canadian Forces members had risen dramatically in the years since Afghanistan. Post-Afghanistan, disciplinary charges had increased by as much as 62% in certain areas.

Just 10 years previous, there were only 1,300 summary charges laid, compared to 2,100 in the midst of the Afghan conflict in 2006-07.

Most Canadians are likely unaware that the summary trial procedure exposes soldiers to penalties, including imprisonment and even more seriously the potential that following convictions they will have a criminal record that will continue through to their civilian lives.

While subsequent Judge Advocate General annual reports have indicated that the frequency of convictions has declined since the high point of the Afghanistan conflict, what is being left behind and what continues are convictions under this very inadequate form of justice. Canadian Forces personnel were still punished, and depending on the sentences, will have criminal records for the rest of their lives.

It is not news that having a criminal record can make life after the military very challenging. Ordinary things like getting a job, travelling, or renting an apartment become very difficult. Most Canadians would be shocked to learn that our soldiers, who bravely served our country, can get a criminal record from a system of justice that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

The objective of summary trials is to promote and maintain unit discipline. Therefore, the focus is on dealing with alleged offences expeditiously and returning the member to service as soon as possible. Fairness and justice, which are guaranteed in civil criminal trial, take a back seat to discipline and deterrence. In summary trials the accused do not have access to counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer.

Through proposed and accepted amendments to Bill C-41, an iteration of this bill in the previous Parliament, we had gone much further down the road of reconciling this tension in the military justice system of expediency and the inclusion of fundamental legal principles. For example, a key New Democrat amendment to Bill C-41 was the provision ensuring military personnel convicted of offences during a summary trial would not be subject to a criminal record. We believed then, and we still believe, that those who bravely serve our country should not be deprived of the rights and protections that other Canadians enjoy.

It should be noted that Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a limited number of offences, if they carry a minor punishment which is defined under the act or a fine less than $500, to no longer result in a criminal record. This is a positive aspect of Bill C-15, but it does not in our view go far enough.

A New Democrat amendment to Bill C-41 also expanded the list of offences that could be considered less serious and would therefore merit less severe punishments and no carry-over of records to an individual's civilian life. That too had been accepted through committee with Bill C-41. This is one of the amendments that we would like to see included in Bill C-15.

Another area in which Bill C-15 falls short is with respect to grievance committees. In his 2003 report, Chief Justice Lamer described for us the grievance process in the military. Having spent about 20 years involved with grievance proceedings in the workplace context, I was surprised to learn about a grievance process in the military. However, Chief Justice Lamer stated in his report:

Grievances involve matters such as benefits, personnel evaluation reports, postings, release from the Canadian Forces, [et cetera] all matters affecting the rights, privileges and other interests of CF members.... Unlike in other organizations, grievors do not have unions or employee associations through which to pursue their grievances.... It is essential to the morale of the CF members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent, and prompt manner.

That is not happening presently in the Canadian Forces.

The grievance committee, under this system, is a group which is intended to be an independent civilian oversight body to be composed entirely of non-Forces members. In fact, it is composed entirely of retired Canadian Forces officers, and some just recently retired. Like the summary trials system, there is obviously an apprehension of bias in this system. As it is the purpose of this body to have an outsider perspective on matters such as benefits and personnel evaluations, it should be obvious that former Canadian Forces soldiers are not capable of bringing, or are not seen to bring, an objective and independent viewpoint to their task. This seems like a very obvious breach of the rule against bias.

The New Democrats have proposed that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This amendment, too, was accepted as part of Bill C-41 and should also be a part of Bill C-15.

Finally, Bill C-15 would fail to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. While Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces provost marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints as well as protect complainants from being penalized for filing good faith complaints, nothing has been done to effectively empower the commission to act as an oversight body. We believe it is necessary that the Military Police Complaints Commission be empowered by a legislative provision that would allow it rightfully to investigate and report to Parliament.

In conclusion, I will bring it back to Colonel Drapeau for the final word on this matter. He said, in part:

...I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial. If Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland have seen fit to change the summary trial system, it begs the question: why is Canada lagging behind?

I will leave the government side to ponder that question.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we have had great collaboration from all three parties represented in this House.

I want to pay particular tribute to the three members I mentioned earlier. The member for St. John's East made a couple of remarks about the LeBlanc case which probably, if they were heard by members of the Canadian Forces, would have them regretting that he chose to pursue his legal career not in the Judge Advocate General's office but in civilian life. He clearly understands the importance of the system, the importance of a strong defence, the importance of independent judges and professionals at every level of the military justice system.

I thank the member for his clarity on the issues. I also thank his party and the Liberal Party for their constructive contribution to advancing these bills.

I rise now in support of Bill C-15 , the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada bill, which concerns an important aspect of national defence, that of military justice in the broad sense.

Maintaining the integrity of the military justice system is the responsibility of government and should concern all Canadians. The military justice system is an essential tool to maintain the discipline, morale and operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces.

Without such a system, our men and women in uniform would not be able to focus on their number one priority which is to protect the interests of Canada and Canadians.

For that reason, the government, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Constitution recognized the importance of maintaining a robust military justice system.

This government also recognizes, as did Chief Justice Lamer in his 2003 report, that there is room for improvement. The principles and procedures of military courts martial and summary trials must remain consistent with Canadian values and the evolution of Canadian criminal law. After all, a legal system can only remain strong if it evolves alongside the society it serves. Otherwise, an outdated system could risk undermining not only the legitimacy of military law, but also the health and vitality of the forces themselves.

This government has tried three times since 2006 to introduce the necessary legislation to do so, but each bill has failed to progress as a result of the unpredictable nature of a minority Parliament. I do not think it is worth going into the details again of those stories from previous Parliaments.

In 1998, when the National Defence Act was last updated, an independent review of the act every five years was made mandatory. In the first review, in 2003—the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was right to mention that it was some time ago—Chief Justice Lamer made several important recommendations about how to improve the act.

These recommendations focused on the administration of military justice, the role of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the head of the military police, and the system by which grievances of Canadian Forces members were addressed. All of these recommendations were studied in detail, both inside and outside the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence. A wide range of stakeholders--civilian, military, government, non-government--were consulted and, as a result, this government brought forward legislation on two separate occasions to update the National Defence Act. Members know them well. They were Bill C-7 in 2006 and Bill C-45 in 2008, both of which, as we are aware, died on the order paper.

Then in 2008, the ruling of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada in the case of Regina v. Trépanier forced the government to introduce legislation on an urgent basis. In response, the government rapidly introduced a targeted bill, Bill C-60, to rectify this problem. Thanks to many hon. members still present, this legislation was passed by Parliament.

In 2010, the government once again tried to update the National Defence Act, this time by following up on recommendations from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs as well as the latest recommendations from Chief Justice Lamer.

That bill, Bill C-41, was introduced during the final session of the 40th Parliament and was both studied and reported on by the Senate committee.

Some of the amendments that were submitted by the Bloc and discussed in committee were included in Bill C-41.

However, that bill died with the dissolution of Parliament in March. Since that time, we have had the Court Martial Appeal Court ruling, already discussed today, which assessed the process by which military judges were appointed, currently on a five-year basis, and we started to deal with that issue with Bill C-16. However, that bill does not address other important amendments included in Bill C-15, a bill that aims to reinforce military justice by bringing the National Defence Act up to date. This is an act that is evergreen, that requires constant updating, as many pieces of legislation do, on which the institutions of our country depend.

We have given careful consideration to the recommendations and proposed amendments put forward by members of the House, when Bill C-41 was studied in committee.

Bill C-15 would address various problems regarding military justice through a series of important amendments to the National Defence Act.

First, it would strengthen the administration of military justice by allowing for the appointment of part-time military judges to serve in times of large-scale operations and other search periods, thereby providing flexibility in the courts martial system. We hope this is not a provision that will be needed soon or often, but it needs to be there and it is a former chief justice of our country's Supreme Court who endorses that view.

In addition, it would lower the minimum rank requirement for the senior member of a court martial panel from colonel to lieutenant colonel in most cases and reduce the minimum rank of serving panel members on courts martial of non-commissioned members from warrant officer to sergeant. This fight simply widens the pool of those eligible to serve on these panels.

It would also allow for one more non-commissioned officer to serve on the panel when the accused is a non-commissioned member, as well as allow for increased participation of non-commissioned officers, without undermining the requirement for leadership and experience in the maintenance of discipline. It is the experience of non-commissioned members, as well as officers, on which this system depends.

This bill would clearly define the objectives, intent and principles of sentencing in the military justice system.

By articulating the purposes of military justice, we would be giving increased clarity and transparency to all those engaged in its delivery. This is perhaps the most exciting and compelling aspect of this bill. The National Defence Act had not previously articulated the purposes of military justice. They are implicit and known but now they would be explicit and this would provide Parliament's guidance to the military judges, officers and Court Martial Appeal Court justices presiding over courts martial, summary trials and appeals, just as Parliament has already done for the civilian criminal justice system in the Criminal Code. Of course, this guidance would expressly recognize the crucial elements unique to the military system necessary for it to fulfill its vital function.

The bill would also introduce a broader range of sentencing options to help ensure that the punishments handed down by courts martial or summary trials are appropriate, both in terms of being appropriate to the offence committed as well as being broadly comparable to the range and type of sentences available within the civilian criminal justice system. Criminal justice evolves. Military justice must reflect the best of the evolution of the civilian criminal system.

Bill C-15 would also improve how victims are treated by the military justice system. The bill includes the option of presenting victim impact statements before courts martial and would give military judges the authority to order restitution.

Victim impact statements are very important to the whole justice system, something that is recognized on the civilian side but which now needs to be enacted on the military side for us to continue to be as proud of and confident in that system as we have been to date.

The bill would set an additional limitation period for holding summary trials, requiring that charges be laid within six months of an alleged offence being committed, to accompany the existing requirement that the summary trial be held within one year of the alleged offence. And, Bill C-15 would legally empower the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada to suspend sentences handed down by courts martial where deemed appropriate.

In addition to resolving issues related to the administration of military justice, Bill C-15 would strengthen the military police system by officially establishing the position, duties and responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, who is the military police chief, and by speeding up the military police complaint process and making it more fair.

The provost marshal, just to be clear, is not yet recognized officially in the National Defence Act. Mr. Justice Lamer recommended that he or she be so, and the position would be so under Bill C-15 when it is enacted.

With respect to addressing grievances in the Canadian Forces, Bill C-15 would permit the Chief of the Defence Staff to better delegate his power as the system's final grievance authority, thereby helping to resolve grievances more swiftly and efficiently in the interests of better administration and morale.

The bill would also formally change the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, at its own request, to the military grievances external review committee to reflect the actual status of that committee. This would better reflect its independence and increase the confidence of Canadian Forces members in its impartiality.

Finally, this bill would improve the existing statutory requirement for a periodic independent review of selected provisions of the National Defence Act. It would clearly establish that requirement in the act itself, setting out both the scope of review and the mandate of review period which would be adjusted from five to seven years to ensure the quality and effectiveness of each independent review.

In conclusion, the government recognizes that the changes proposed in this bill are extensive and, in some cases, complex. However, it should be noted that, in most cases, the need for these changes has been recognized for years and most of the proposed changes have already been addressed and analyzed in committee.

Our men and women in uniform are counting on us. This government acknowledges that regular attention and review is necessary to ensure the continued relevance and effectiveness of any legal system, military or civilian, and through Bill C-15, we will ensure that this is the case for military justice in the years to come.

Canadians depend on their government to build and maintain a justice system that reflects our national values and respects the rule of law. This government has been given a strong mandate from Canadians to do that. The House has a mandate to act in this area as well. I therefore call on the House to support this important effort by moving this bill forward as quickly as possible.

It may seem to some of us in the House that the measures in the bill are distant or obscure. Not all of us have had direct contact with the military justice system, but we all understand that the roughly 100,000 Canadian men and women in uniform, regular force, reserve force, depend on these measures for their morale, for their discipline, for the framework of justice, action and order in which they operate in Canada, and which they take with them abroad when they are deployed as they have been so often in the history of this country.

We have a responsibility to them, eight years after the Lamer report, to move forward with these important measures. The measures in Bill C-15 go well beyond those provided for in Bill C-16, and will indeed supersede that of the bill we dealt with earlier today if that bill passes into law earlier.

We hope that we have the support of all members of the House in moving through an expeditious debate on the bill, efficient consideration at committee, and early implementation and enactment of the bill into law.

Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-16. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is well aware that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

What we take issue with is that the parliamentary secretary has said in the House that we have failed to provide unanimous consent, which is completely false. I will give an example. Today, I gave unanimous consent, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois which I represent, to the agreement between the Cree and the federal government. We had already given our word and consent with respect to this bill.

With regard to Bill C-16, we were asked for our support yesterday at the same time that we were asking for unanimous consent to pay tribute to veterans. Remembrance Day is at hand. We are all wearing poppies—I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are wearing one also—to commemorate the battles fought by our veterans, the people who went overseas to fight in two world wars and other conflicts, which unfortunately should not have occurred but did, and who fought for our freedom.

The dean of the House of Commons, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, wanted to rise, like members of other parties, and pay tribute for a few minutes to the people who fought to protect our freedom and to prevent dictators from taking control of the world and suppressing freedoms, as was recently the case in Libya. The leader of the Green Party also wanted a few minutes to address the people and pay tribute to our veterans. This was refused by lack of unanimous consent. We were simply told that the Conservative government had the right to do so and that it was within the rules.

I know that the government was probably afraid that the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois would use this precedent to intervene and rise often in the House, saying that they want to be recognized as parties. We have known from the beginning that we do not have 12 members, just 4, and that the leader of the Green Party is the only member of Parliament for her party. For that reason, the interim leader of the Bloc Québécois specifically stated yesterday, when making the request, that he did not want to set a precedent and that he simply wanted to make a statement.

That was one of the lowest moments I have experienced since being elected in 2004. I have rarely seen a government rebuff the opposition parties in a such a way and on such an occasion.

We did not give our unanimous consent to Bill C-16 then and we are opposing it today because the fault lies with the government for not being alert enough to introduce it sooner. The government could have introduced this bill as early as September 19, when Parliament resumed, but it waited until October 7. The government has also introduced a series of bills and has prevented the opposition from debating them and discussing them properly by moving closure and time allocation motions five or six times. I do not even know how many there have been, but closure has been moved on at least five or six bills. We cannot follow the normal legislative process because the government is in a very big hurry. It made legislative choices, but Bill 16, which we are discussing today, was not part of them.

The Conservatives chose to introduce Bill C-10 on justice. They decided to abolish the firearms registry and destroy the data. They also introduced a bill that will diminish Quebec's political weight in the House. There was also the bill on the Canadian Wheat Board. They chose to introduce all those bills instead of Bill C-16. I want to come back to Bill C-16 to which we could have given our unanimous consent. We only did what the government said it would do, in other words, follow the rules. I have been in federal politics long enough to know there are rules to be followed in the House. There is a legislative process to be followed: first reading, second reading, third reading and work in committee.

I understand perfectly well that there was a court order, but if the government was in such a hurry, it could have made sure that this bill went through all the stages as quickly as possible. After all, it is the government that sets the agenda.

Yesterday, by refusing to allow us to pay tribute to veterans, if the government was trying to send a message that we do not exist, that we are not an official party and that we do not deserve to speak in this House, it failed. Today we are sending our own message that we are still here. Just like the Conservative members, and in fact like all members of the House, we were democratically elected. Even the Prime Minister himself must acknowledge that he was democratically elected in his riding and that he is an MP first and foremost, and Prime Minister second. I think it is our duty to do things correctly here.

Thus, there are no second-class MPs in this House. I never thought that when there were 50 Bloc Québécois MPs, nor do I think that today, just because we are fewer in number. My message to the government is that it should think carefully before acting as heinously as it did yesterday. Nevertheless, once again, it is the government's fault that it did not introduce the bill earlier. And we support Bill C-16, especially since a court decision will strengthen the independence of military judges. That is very important. The Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-16, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges), in the House of Commons at first reading.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada delivered its judgment in the Regina v. Leblanc case. In its decision, the appeal court determined that the provisions in the National Defence Act and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces regarding the appointment and retirement of military judges do not sufficiently respect judicial independence as required by section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In declaring certain National Defence Act provisions constitutionally invalid and inoperative, the Court Martial Appeal Court in Regina v. Leblanc suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of six months to allow remedial legislation to be enacted. The declaration will be effective December 2, 2011.

Bill C-16 amends the provisions of the National Defence Act that deal with the tenure of military judges, providing that they serve until the retirement age of 60 years, unless removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee or upon the resignation of the military judge.

To give a bit of background and explain the situation in full, I should mention that judges used to be appointed for a predetermined period of time. I believe it was for five years, but when a judge's term was up for renewal, it seemed that he or she did not have complete independence at that time. Now the process will simply be the same as it is for other judges. The tenure for military judges will allow them to sit as such until the retirement age of 60 years. That creates a balance. It sends a message that we will improve the situation around judicial independence, which is something we in the House could in no way be opposed to.

Justice Lamer made a number of recommendations, and this is one that we have agreed with from the outset. The Bloc Québécois believes in keeping military justice separate from civilian justice. It makes sense for the Canadian armed forces to have its own justice system, in light of the particularities of military life and military requirements. This bill corrects a situation that created a fairly significant difference between the civilian justice system and the military justice system, in order to improve the military system.

It is absolutely necessary to have discipline within an army. Without that discipline, we would lose any sense of structure and effectiveness. Since the primary goal of our armed forces is to protect the safety of Canadians, this issue is vitally important. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized this principle in 1992:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Service Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs. In addition, special service tribunals, rather than the ordinary courts, have been given jurisdiction to punish breaches of the Code of Service Discipline. Recourse to the ordinary criminal courts would, as a general rule, be inadequate to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military.

A number of changes were called for. I think that Bill C-16 is a step that, I repeat, addresses only one of Justice Lamer's recommendations. We can go step by step. That is no problem.

There are also offences in the Code of Service Discipline that do not have equivalents in civilian justice. For example, the offences of disobedience of lawful command or disobedience to a superior officer do not exist in civilian justice. Military justice applies to three categories of people: military personnel in the regular forces, reservists and civilians who work with military personnel on missions.

But although military justice is necessary, people who join the Canadian Forces do not lose their rights, including their charter rights.

For 12 years, a great deal of thought has been given to modernizing military justice to bring it more in line with civilian justice. In its May 2009 report, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs wrote the following, “...the military, as an organization, benefits when the rules that govern it largely reflect those that apply to Canadian society in general.”

We therefore feel it is important that the government consider not only the issue of the independence of military judges but also the entire military justice reform. In my opinion, even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence can understand that, when we talk about such a bill, it goes without saying that we should expand our discussion and thought process a bit to include the whole military justice policy, particularly since more than one recommendation was given by Justice Lamer and the Senate committee.

Military justice reform dates back to 1997 and stems from two reviews. First, a special advisory group received a mandate to study the Code of Service Discipline set out in the National Defence Act. Then, the commission of inquiry into the deployment of Canadian forces to Somalia was asked to review how to handle the actions of certain soldiers sent to that country.

The two resulting reports led the government to introduce Bill C-25, which came into effect on September 1, 1999. This bill amended the National Defence Act by abolishing the death penalty in the military justice system, a very important change; incorporating civilian parole ineligibility provisions; creating the Canadian Forces Grievance Board; creating the Military Police Complaints Commission; strengthening the independence of military judges by making changes to the terms of their appointment, their qualifications and their tenure; and creating new positions within the military justice system in order to separate the investigative function from the prosecution and defence functions.

Clause 96 of Bill C-25 provided for an independent review every five years in order to examine the amendments to the National Defence Act. Many of the amendments I just listed are still pending. I am counting on the current government and its Minister of National Defence to take into account the majority of the recommendations that I mentioned just a few moments ago.

With this in mind, the federal government appointed a former Supreme Court justice, Antonio Lamer, to conduct the first review. He presented his report to Parliament in March 2003. Military justice has been on the radar for some time now, and here today we have this bill—barely two pages long—regarding the independence of judges. There will undoubtedly be other, more significant, changes that will improve the National Defence Act and that will also implement Justice Lamer's recommendations, which, as I have said before, are already 10 years old.

In his report, Justice Lamer observed that “Canada's military justice system generally works very well, subject to a few changes.” Consequently, he made 88 recommendations to improve military justice. I will not list the 88 recommendations, although some here might like me to do so.

I will briefly refer to some of Justice Lamer's 2003 recommendations: arrest procedures and pre-trial detention; procedures for proceeding by indictment; the structure of the court; sentencing; aligning the rights of the accused with those in a civil court such that the accused could choose the type of court martial and such that the finding of court martial panels would be arrived at by unanimous vote; strengthening the independence of the principal intervenors in the military justice system; and improving the grievance and military police complaints processes.

In order to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations and amend the National Defence Act, the government introduced Bill C-45 in August 2006. It died on the order paper. In March 2008, the government introduced another bill, Bill C-7, which was identical to Bill C-45 and also died on the order paper when an election was called in the fall of 2008.

In April 2008, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case of Regina v. Trépanier. At issue was the possibility of choosing the type of court martial. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada ruled that a provision of the National Defence Act that gave the court martial administrator exclusive authority to select the type of court martial was unconstitutional. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada found that it was unacceptable that the accused could not chose the kind of court martial that would judge him or her.

Following that ruling—which brings us to where we are today—the federal government introduced Bill C-60 to accomplish the following: to more closely align the manner in which the mode of trial by courts martial is determined with the approach in the civilian criminal justice system, while still satisfying the unique needs of the military justice system; to reduce the types of courts martial from four to two; to allow military judges to deal with certain pre-trial matters at any time after a charge has been preferred; and to require court martial panels to make key decisions on the basis of a unanimous vote. Bill C-60 passed in the House on June 18, 2008.

One of Justice Lamer's recommendations has been incorporated into Bill C-16 before us today.

I repeat—and I will conclude on this in just a moment—the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to Bill C-16. The Bloc did not break any agreements to speed things up. The government alone is responsible for its own legislative agenda. It could have introduced the bill to get it through all the various steps in the usual way, knowing very well that a court order meant that a certain timeline had to be respected.

I cannot believe that, with the army of people and public servants available to the Minister of National Defence, it did not occur to him to look at a calendar and ensure that all the steps could be completed regarding Bill C-16. It is because of the government's own negligence that it is so keen to have the bill fast-tracked, because it did not do its homework.

I cannot believe that the government behaved in this manner. However, as I explained at the beginning of my speech, it is simply because the government made other choices. It had other priorities. It wanted to reduce Quebec's political weight with Bill C-20, for instance. It wanted to put the Canadian Wheat Board out of commission. It also decided to rule out all potential debate on Bill C-10 regarding justice. I can assure this House, not everyone is pleased about that. It is no longer only Quebec that opposes that bill. We will soon be up to 10 provinces that oppose the bill. But the government decided to make it a priority anyway.

In closing, it should have found a way to move a little faster on this matter and introduce Bill C-16 earlier. Had it done so, we might not still be talking about it today.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you said, I am joined by Brigadier-General Blaise Cathcart, justice advocate general of the Canadian Forces.

Mr. Chair and colleagues, thank you for giving us the opportunity to present Bill C-41.

I'm very pleased to be with you at the committee as you begin your examination of Bill C-41. This legislation is specifically aimed at strengthening the Canadian military justice system.

Let me begin by stating how much I appreciate the support that has already been expressed by members of the committee, by members of the opposition in particular, for Bill C-41, and the indication that has come from the committee regarding the willingness to consider this bill in a timely manner.

I say that because, as many of you will know, there is quite a history with this bill. It is coming back now for the third time, and this is a bill of some urgency and priority, I would suggest to you. The government's legislation is in response to the Lamer report. This is the third time, as I mentioned, the legislation has been introduced in response to that report. It was first introduced as Bill C-7, in April 2006. It subsequently died on the order paper. It was back as Bill C-45, a successor bill introduced in March 2008, which also died as a result of an election call. As members are now aware, this bill was introduced in June of 2010.

The Lamer report was tabled in Parliament in the year 2003 and followed an independent review of portions of the National Defence Act to be amended by Bill C-25. Chief Justice Lamer made numerous recommendations that were aimed at improving not only the military justice system but also the Canadian Forces grievance process as well as the military police complaints process.

He said, and I quote, “Canada has...a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence”, and I believe this to be absolutely true. But of course that is not to say, as with any justice system, that it cannot be improved. The old adage about our justice system being a living tree equally applies to the military justice system. I see my friend from Beauséjour nodding in agreement. I'm sure that's an expression he heard at law school as well.

That's what the government is seeking to achieve with this legislation, Mr. Chair.

The bill reflects recent recommendations made by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs after their study of Bill C-60. Bill C-60 was required to respond to the judgment of the Court Martial Appeal Court in the case the Crown versus Trépanier.

As you consider Bill C-41, I also believe it is important to keep in mind that the military justice system is a separate system of justice designed to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. This separate and distinct aspect was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Généreux.

The military justice system contributes to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale within our military. It reinforces the command structure of our military in support of both day-to-day and operational activities. Given the key role our military plays in protecting Canadians and advancing Canadian interests and values, ensuring that the National Defence Act keep pace with developments in the law and Canadian society is important.

Bill C-41 is a key step that is part of a process of continuous improvements—the classic living tree. And the bill has a number of key provisions that I'll touch on.

It will enhance the independence of military judges by providing them with security of tenure until the age of retirement. That is, of course, consistent with all members of the Canadian Forces. This is consistent with the tenure of judges in the Canadian civil justice system as well, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-41 also includes a statutory articulation of the principles of sentencing in the military justice system, which provides guidance in the sentencing process. This guidance parallels that provided in the Criminal Code, while taking into consideration the specifics of the military justice system.

One of the concerns expressed by some honourable members during the debate at second reading was that the sentencing of the military justice system might be unduly harsh in comparison to the civil system. It should be noted that Bill C-41 will provide statutory protection against undue harsh sentences being imposed by service tribunals. The bill in fact proposes that the principle of restraint will be followed in the sentencing system of the military justice system. This means that a determination should always be made as to what is the minimum sentence required to maintain discipline, efficiency, and morale within the military, and it requires that the sentence be imposed by the service tribunal.

This bill will also enhance the flexibility of sentencing by providing a greater ability to tailor a sentence to the particular circumstances of the offender and of the offence—also consistent with our civilian system—and by allowing for additional sentencing options, in effect modernizing the act in the form of absolute discharges, intermittent sentences, and restitution orders, all of which are now incorporated into the Criminal Code.

Bill C-41 also provides for the introduction of victim impact statements. This will permit individual victims of offences to more readily express themselves in the sentencing process at courts martial.

Together with enhanced provisions for restitution, Bill C-41 will therefore help ensure that victims of offences are not disadvantaged by having a particular case tried in the military justice system rather than in the civilian one.

I understand that during the debate at second reading there were also concerns raised regarding the fairness of the military justice system, particularly in relation to the summary trial system. In that regard, I would like to remind my colleagues that two of Canada's most eminent jurists, the late Chief Justice Brian Dickson and Antonio Lamer examined this system in significant detail. As you're aware, the Lamer report touches specifically on this. While making recommendations for refinement, both of these eminent jurists endorsed it, and they noted that the summary trial system strikes the necessary balance between meeting the unique disciplinary needs of the Canadian Forces and the needs to respect the rights of individual members of our military.

It should be noted, Mr. Chair, that Bill C-41 also includes provisions to improve the efficiency of the grievance and military police complaints process. For instance, it addresses the Canadian Forces grievance process with a view to making it more effective, transparent, and fair. The suggested amendments would require that grievances be treated as quickly as circumstances permit. They would also allow for a greater delegation of authority to the Chief of the Defence Staff in the treatment of grievances.

Finally, the bill will also establish the position of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshall in the National Defence Act, and specify the functions and responsibilities of the position , as well as make improvements to the fairness and efficiency of the military police complaints process.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, just let me emphasize that a sound military justice system is absolutely key to our military, as it is in our society. It's key for the readiness, for the effectiveness, and it's key for the morale of the Canadian Forces themselves.

Our men and women in uniform, as you know, put their lives on the line in the service of our country. They need to know they can rely on a justice system that supports, protects, and enables them as they undertake the crucial tasks that we set forward. Canadians similarly need to know that their country's military system will treat those who serve fairly and in a way that corresponds to Canadian norms and values.

The proposed amendments ensure that the military justice system keeps pace with evolving legal standards in the Canadian criminal justice system and they reinforce the continued compliance of the military justice system with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while always preserving the system's capacity to meet essential military requirements.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, they are the fans of my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville. I get the impression they are more anxious to hear from him than from me. That is understandable, I suppose. He is an excellent member.

I am pleased to rise in debate today on Bill C-41.

We will vote in favour of this bill at second reading. Military justice must absolutely be updated. However, there are some clauses of the bill that, at first glance, are cause for concern. We would like to take the time to study the bill properly in committee.

In 1998, the Liberal government at the time passed Bill C-25. The purpose of that bill was to update the military justice system, and it included a clause that required the operation of the bill to be reviewed after five years.

The former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, drafted a report containing 88 recommendations, which are the reason why we are debating this bill today.

Unfortunately, since the Conservatives have been in government, there has been little action to address Judge Lamer's recommendations.

In April 2006, the Conservatives introduced Bill C-7 to amend the National Defence Act. However, it was never brought to the House of Commons for debate. A year and a half later, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, which would, as we all know, become a recurring theme. The Prime Minister's actions in fact killed the bill. The Conservatives introduced it once and the Prime Minister killed the bill by proroguing Parliament.

It took the government approximately five months before reintroducing the bill as Bill C-45 on March 3 of that year. Once again, this bill was never brought forward for second reading debate, and a few months later the Prime Minister broke his own fixed election law, thereby killing the bill again.

It is difficult to believe that the Conservatives give any attention to military justice when we see them introduce bills with absolutely no intention of ever debating them. Therefore, I am pleased we are debating this today and hope we will see more of this bill, but that remains to be seen.

What this shows once again, unfortunately, is that we cannot trust the government, just as we cannot trust it when it comes to military procurement. We have seen what the Conservatives have been saying about the joint strike fighter project, the F-35s, the stealth fighters that they want to purchase. They have said for months in the House that a competition is not required because Canada was part of one back in 1999-2000.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-41, particularly since I serve the men and women on the Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt who do an extraordinary job serving our country. I pay homage and give thanks to them and their families for all that they do, have done and will do in the future.

On June 16, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-41, which is designed to strengthen military justice in defence of the Canada Act. It was given first reading in the House of Commons. The bill would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Among other things, the proposed bill provides for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement and permits the appointment of part-time military judges. It specifies the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process. It provides for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It modifies the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person. It modifies the limitation period applicable to summary trials. It allows the accused person to waive the limitation periods. It sets out the Canadian Forces provost marshal's duties and functions and clarifies his or her responsibilities. It also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the military grievances external review committee. It makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

The Liberal Party understands the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. The Liberal Party also believes that Canadian citizens who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose their rights before the courts. As well, the addition of new penalties, in particular, absolute discharge intermittent sentencing and compensation, is important if we are to have an equitable system.

The rationale for our position is as follows.

There is a significant disparity between the military justice system and the civil system. This disparity must be eliminated as much as possible. It is also worth noting that this disparity does not represent an advantage, but rather a disadvantage, in being subjected to military law, which imposes harsher sentences and applies a less flexible system than the civil system.

It is for that reason the Liberal Party is supporting this bill. We would certainly would like it to be moved forward to the next stage.

Part of this comes out of Chief Justice Lamer's report. I want to read a quote from him as I think it is instructive in terms of illustrating why we need to change the status quo. Justice Lamer said the following:

To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently.

I have no argument there. He goes on to say:

Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct.

The Liberal Party has a problem with that. Individuals who are giving of themselves in the Canadian Forces should not be treated more harshly under a military system than a civilian system. We do not think this is very fair at all.

Let us bore down into some of the specifics, and a little history is important.

The government's legislative process in response to Justice Lamer's report was first introduced in the House of Commons back in April 27, 2006. It was Bill C-7. Bill C-7 died on the order paper when the government prorogued Parliament in September 2007. A successor bill, Bill C-45, was introduced in March 2008, but it met a similar fate as Bill C-7. It too died on the order paper in the 39th Parliament because of a federal election.

Therefore, it is not true that the government wants to move this speedily along. It has had two kicks at the can already and, through its own hand, has ensured that bills like this died on the order paper.

Let us take a look at some of the more specific aspects of the bill, which could be quite instructive. One deals with military judges. The bill actually provides that military judges have security to tenure to retirement age and would serve to enhance the independence and effectiveness of military judges in their role in the military justice system in part by creating a reserve force military judges panel. It is important, though, that these individuals have experience of being in the forces, in the field and in the theatre, as our forces members do.

One of the ongoing challenges in dealing with veterans is that there are not enough people on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board who understand what military folk and their families have to go through and what military members are confronted with in the field, which is completely different from the lives that we are privileged to share in our country. As a result of that absence of understanding, in my experience, justice is not being provided to our veterans when they go before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The people on the board are frequently individuals who are appointed for partisan reasons. That has always happened, to be sure, but we need an element of competence on the board. One of the problems we have is an absence of competence and knowledge with respect to what our military men and women endure in the field.

The government would be well served to make sure that individuals who are on this review board and other review boards such as we have for our veterans must have the competence and understanding of what our forces members see and do within the context of being a member of the forces and what they are confronted with in the field.

Also with respect to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, a number of the members of that board should have experience in health care, in medicine. It is crucially important because many of our veterans are suffering from medical problems and need people who have medical knowledge with respect to what they have to endure and can assess them.

The other thing is on sentencing reforms with respect to the bill. The Lamer report recommended a comprehensive review of the sentencing provisions in the National Defence Act with a view to providing a more flexible range of punishments and sanctions.

On the purposes and principles of sentencing, these changes would ensure that we articulate the purposes, objectives and principles of sentencing in a military justice world. That is really important for everybody to understand and to have clarity into why things have been done.

The proposed amendments would provide for additional sentencing options in the form of absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders. The amendments would also provide for the use of victim impact statements, as we have heard before.

I would like to speak to the summary trial limitation period. The National Defence Act provides that an accused person cannot be tried by summary trial unless it commences within one year after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed. These amendments would add an additional limitation period for summary trials that would require that the relevant charge be laid within six months of the commission of the alleged offence.

One question we have is whether this would result in more court martials for less serious matters. In other words, although we are trying to make sure that the system is more balanced, in the end would our military folk be confronted with a system that is more punitive than what need be for minor offences?

I want to address a couple of issues with respect to justice for our veterans in particular. The pension reform issue is a very big one for many of our veterans. The current situation is that spouses of veterans who are married after the age of 60 cannot share equitably in their pensions. This must change. The world is a different place now and the rules as written have been around for many, many decades. For the sake of our veterans, and I believe it applies to RCMP officers too, for those who marry after the age of 60, there must be fair and equitable treatment under the law for their spouses with respect to their pensions.

In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, we have a very extraordinary program. It is Cockrell House. It is named after World War II veteran Jack Cockrell. This house, quite remarkably, is meant to deal with a situation that many Canadians would be appalled to find out occurs in our midst, and that is to deal with homeless veterans.

Cockrell House provides housing for homeless veterans, and due to the leadership of a very remarkable developer named Russ Ridley in my riding, as well as the Mayor of Colwood, Dave Saunders, who have come together with veterans such as Dave Munro, Angus Stanfield and others to create this house, our veterans actually can go this house and live there for up to two years while they receive treatment for their mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder, operational stress injuries and socio-economic problems that they may find themselves in.

I was visiting there recently with our critic for veterans affairs and it was heartbreaking but inspiring to see these men and women who were there in the house. It was heartbreaking in the sense that some veterans had been living in the bush for years. Can we imagine, veterans who have served our country, living in the bush for years on end? That is the situation we have today, and this is not a problem isolated to Vancouver Island, but rather, this is a national problem.

We do not know how many veterans are actually living out in the bush, who are homeless, but we know there are probably more than 1,000. There should not be one veteran in a homeless situation in Canada. They gave to our country and make an enormous sacrifice for us. We have a reciprocal duty to take care of them.

I commend retired General Hillier for his work in trying to deal with this, but I would ask communities from coast to coast to please take a look at the model of Cockrell House on Vancouver Island, because it can help. It is a partnership between the private sector, the developer, the local community and our veterans to ensure that we have a home for our veterans who have fallen under hard times. I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to please take a look at this, because it is an issue of fundamental justice for our veterans and for their care.

We are seeing younger and younger veterans who have been traumatized and are seeking justice for what they have endured. They are seeking care for what they have endured.

For them on the issue of Afghanistan, I have to say that while our troops are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan, that mission has not been backed up by the diplomatic work that has to be done. In order to support them, what is missing are huge pieces of the puzzle that will enable the Afghan people, the Afghan government and us to be able to see some semblance of security and stability in the country. In particular, we have failed to see the government, with our partners in ISAF, put together a plan with our Afghan partners to have an on-the-ground diplomatic initiative to flip elements of the insurgency.

It is very sad to hear in this House when members of the government refer to the fact that we are battling “terrorists” in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that we are battling an insurgency. It is a complex insurgency made up of different groups with different motivations. There are people involved in the drug trade and common criminals. There is the Taliban, individuals who have a vicious view of the world and are absolutely brutal. Negotiating with those elements of the Taliban will probably not work out, but there are parts of the Taliban that actually can work in terms of bringing them into the power structures in the country.

The other issue is corruption. The ongoing corruption of Mr. Karzai's government and our support of him is a message to the Afghan people that we support his actions. By being seen to be almost blindly supporting what Mr. Karzai does and not demonstrating to the Afghan people that our support for him is absolutely conditional, we are seen as part of the problem, which means that our troops are being seen, in too many cases, as part of the problem, because they do not differentiate one from the other.

In the support of our troops and the extraordinary work that they are doing, it is crucial to ensure that we have an on-the-ground diplomatic effort to be able to hive off and negotiate and flip elements of the insurgency. Only by doing this will security come to Afghanistan. Only by doing this will the training option that we are engaging in now, to train the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police, be successful.

If the training element is all we do and if the other elements of the mission are simply going to be runts in what we do within the country, then Afghanistan five years from now will be little better than it is today, because we are not going to beat an insurgency by virtue of throwing more troops into the situation. The kind of war being fought requires very few people. It is done by stealth to create havoc in a country. It takes very little effort to do that and that is what we are seeing now.

The other aspect is that there has been very little effort to get India and Pakistan on the same page. India will support Mr. Karzai in a non-Pashtun government, and Pakistan will support the Taliban and Pashtun within Afghanistan. As we see, these two countries are playing a proxy war within Afghanistan. Unless India and Pakistan get on the same page, working in lockstep towards the security and development of the country, we are never going to see security in that country.

Why do we not have a regional working group? We are not alone there, but due to the extraordinary commitment and cost in terms of the blood of our troops and with respect to the treasury of Canada, surely we have the cachet to put our foot down and demand a number of things for the success of this mission.

To my knowledge, we have not done that. What we tend to hear in Canada are discussions on the military option with respect to Afghanistan, which is certainly a part of it, but we know that we are ultimately not going to be able to address an insurgency unless we deal with the diplomatic initiatives that are required.

On the development side, I met with the medical officers at the Mirwais Hospital in Kandahar city, as well as in a hospital in Kabul. These hospitals do not even have the ability to secure an airway, intubate and ventilate people. They do not have the ability to provide general anesthesia.

The levels of trauma they see within Kandahar city and Kandahar in general, as well as in Kabul, are atrocious. Yet we have been in the country nine years and there has been billions of dollars in aid spent within the country, and the Mirwais general hospital in Kandahar city and hospital in Kabul do not even have the ability to provide general anesthesia and are operating with local anesthesia. How horrific is that? That is absolutely cruel and inhumane punishment. It should not happen.

I beseech the government, through CIDA, to engage the Mirwais general hospital. I know we have given money to the Red Cross. I certainly understand doing that, but there has been a failure in that mission. There has been a failure in implementing the Red Cross' actions within the Mirwais general hospital and these people desperately need access to basic services.

I actually have the ability now to provide the equipment they need. I have a needs list for them. I have tried to engage CIDA to help. I have tried to get DND to help. All that is needed, quite frankly, is a very small area within a C-17 aircraft, smaller than two desks here. A space that size in a C-17 aircraft would provide lifesaving tools for people to use at the Mirwais general hospital. Increase the space to an area the size of eight seats here and there would be enough equipment for two hospitals.

I beseech the government. I would be happy to work with it so that our troops can deliver this equipment to both the Mirwais general hospital in Kandahar city and the general Hospital in Kabul. We can work together to enable those people to have access to the medical equipment that will save people's lives within the country. I am happy to work with the government to do this and I hope it sees this as a non-political endeavour but one that will certainly help our provincial reconstruction teams working within the country.

In closing, I know I added a few extra things that may be outside the realm of this bill, but I did it to provide information to the government that there are some options that we could work together on to help the mission, our troops and the Afghan people. I certainly hope that the government takes a look at some of those options, and I know my party would be very willing to work with it to implement these things for the good of our troops, the good of the mission and the good of our country.

National Defence Act

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak, on behalf of the NDP, to Bill C-60, An Act to amend the National Defence Act. We will support the bill at second reading and its reference to the Standing Committee on National Defence later today.

The National Defence Act has not been reviewed often by the House of Commons. The last time it was amended was in 1998, and before that it went unchanged for 50 years.

On April 24 of this year, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada made a decision to strike down a section of the National Defence Act. I want to remind members of the House what the decision of the court said.

The panel of three judges said that the military justice system “is in dire need of a change and modernization to improve its fairness and meet the constitutional standards”. We should keep that warning in mind.

We should also keep in mind that many of the reforms promised could have been dealt with years ago. Military justice is separate from the civilian justice system because militaries must maintain discipline and morale. Breaches of discipline are dealt with speedily and sometimes more severely than they would be in the civilian world. This difference with the civilian system is crucial.

The military justice system does not only exist to punish wrongdoers, it is a central part of command, discipline and morale. Ours is a voluntary military and if the military justice system is not seen as equitable and fair, we will not only have a justice problem, but we could also have an operational problem.

In 1992 the Supreme Court recognized that military justice needed to be different from the civilian justice system. However, there was nothing in that decision that said the military justice system should be antiquated or behind the times.

In 1998 Bill C-25 was introduced to modernize the National Defence Act. The changes brought about are too numerous to mention here today, but for instance, it removed capital punishment from the books. The bill included an undertaking to review the act every five years so we have not faced another situation where Canada would go for 50 years without updates or revisions.

Former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, undertook a study of military justice, His report was tabled in Parliament in November 2003. The report contained 88 recommendations, some of with which the government has not agreed. It was not until three years later, however, that legislation was introduced by the government to implement the recommendations of Lamer, and that was under the previous minister in the form of Bill C-7. That bill had many of the changes recommended by Lamer, however, it had a poison pill, which was to virtually eliminate the power of the Military Police Complaints Commission. This would have seriously undermined civilian oversight of the military police, so that bill was dropped.

The department has been faced with the problems brought up by the Trépanier decision for several years, but it did not reform the act. In the Trépanier decision, Justice Létourneau wrote:

The unanimous concern of this Court in Nystrom about the fairness of section 165.14 was expressed more than two years ago, i.e. on December 20, 2005. Since then, there have been five new constitutional challenges to that provision and appeals before this Court are pending. Retired Chief Justice Lamer made a recommendation as early as September 3, 2003 that section 165.14 be amended to give the accused the option to choose his or her trier of facts. As previously mentioned, he also made a recommendation that a working group reviewed the reorganization of the courts martial with a view to improving the fairness of the trial, at the center of which, as an important element of that reorganization, is the right for an accused to choose the trier of facts. Yet, Bill C-45 has been tabled before Parliament and it contains no remedial provision. The authorities have been given more than four and a half (4½) years to address the problem

As a result of the decision made by the Court Martial Appeal Court on April 24 of this year, the department suspended convening all courts martial. This is not a situation that can continue. Serious offences in the military must be prosecuted.

As it stood in the National Defence Act, the director of military prosecutions had the power to choose what type of court martial a member of the Canadian Forces would face. The idea of a prosecutor having this much power is completely contrary to accepted practice in the civilian justice system. As I said at the outset, we have to accept the military justice system will never be the same as the civilian system, but what justifiable military reason was there for this power being given to a prosecutor?

The three justices who made the determination in the Trépanier case, on April 24, said that the military justice system “is in dire need of a change and modernization to improve its fairness and meet the constitutional standards”. If an appeal court made that kind of ruling about the civilian justice system, the entire country would be outraged.

At the end of the day, it is up to Parliament to rewrite the act; it is not up to the courts. It is our responsibility to ensure that these urgent reforms are carried out. Such a delay of justice is a denial of justice.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about the lack of balance in staffing the military justice system. The JAG has 14 staff officers, who work on prosecutions, and four military judges, but how many military defence lawyers are there? There are only four military defence lawyers.

A system with an equal number of defence lawyers and judges would not be tolerated for one moment in the civilian justice system. Military defence lawyers are overworked and under-recognized, just like many members of the Canadian Forces.

I believe everyone in the House will come together to support changes to the act, and I hope we can do so quickly.

[Chief Angus Toulouse, Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario]

Good morning.

I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity, albeit brief, to make a presentation on the important matter of Bill C-44. My comments today are based on a more comprehensive written brief, which I would urge the committee members to review. It should be in the clerk's hands within the next day or so; it's in translation, so hopefully it will get here in the next day or two.

As the Ontario regional chief, I work closely with the Chiefs of Ontario Secretariat, which is a coordinating body for the 134 first nation communities located within the boundaries of the province of Ontario. Ontario has the largest status Indian population of any province or territory in Canada. Therefore the position taken by the Chiefs of Ontario in relation to Bill C-44 should be given significant weight by the committee and the federal government.

The position taken by the Chiefs of Ontario with regard to the bill is a general one: the inherent right to self-government and other constitutional rights attached to individual first nations and not to the Chiefs of Ontario organization. Therefore, individual first nations may come before the committee and take different positions based on their particular right and history.

Before dealing with the specific issue of Bill C-44, I'd like to take this opportunity to share with the committee the priority concerns of Ontario first nations. These concerns have been identified through an ongoing strategic exercise. In summary form only, the priority concerns are as follows: 1. Rebuild our nations; 2. Negotiate respect and recognition of first nations jurisdiction; 3. New jointly developed federal land claims policies; 4. Respect first nations treaties, lands, and resources. Each priority is described in the written brief.

With these Ontario first nation priorities in mind, I'd now like to turn to the specific issue of Bill C-44. Subject to the following six conditions, Chiefs of Ontario, in principle, can endorse repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Condition one is consultation and accommodation. Bill C-44 should not proceed without a thorough consultation process, open to all interested first nations. The federal government has admitted that there was no specific consultation leading up to Bill C-44. Careful consultation and accommodation are a legal and a moral requirement. There is no urgency to Bill C-44, as the section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act issue has been pending for 30 years and first nation actions not directly connected to the Indian Act are already exposed to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In the context of the consultation, the federal government should be required to provide a detailed legislative policy and fiscal impact assessment of Bill C-44. This is a matter of basic due diligence, which the federal government has refused to do to date.

The second condition is the interpretive provision. The bill must include an interpretive provision to balance the tension between individual and collective rights. There is a serious risk that the individual rights of the Canadian Human Rights Act will have a serious negative impact on the collective rights and traditions of first nation governments. The interpretive provision must also protect the Indian Act from the real risk of wholesale gutting because of exposure to the Canadian Human Rights Act. All serious legislative and policy proposals on the repeal of section 67 since 2000 have included an interpretive provision. That is the bright line in this policy area.

I'm referring in particular to the following: first, the Canadian Human Rights review panel, “Promoting Equality: A New Vision”--2000; second, joint ministerial advisory committee report on governance legislation--JMAC 2002; third, BillC-7 , First Nations Governance Act, FNGA, 2003; fourth, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, “A Matter of Rights” - 2005.

Without an interpretive provision, repeal of section 67 is like throwing a grenade into collective rights, and also into the Indian Act.

Condition three is the realistic transition period. The transition period for implementation of the bill should be changed from the proposed six months to three years. Again, the bright line from all serious proposals since 2000 is that a transition period of approximately 18 to 36 months is required. First nations are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to adjust programs, practices, and legislation.

The predictable result of Bill C-44 will be administrative chaos. I acknowledge the standing offer of the Human Rights Commission to assist first nations with the transition process. However, the reality is that the commission will be preoccupied with its own transition and will not have the capacity to assist the 600-and-so first nations in just six months.

I note that the six-month transition process of Bill C-44 is doubly flawed. Section 3 refers to transition in connection with undefined aboriginal authorities. It is unknown if such authorities include first nations governments and related entities.

The fourth condition is regarding adequate financial resources. The federal government must provide first nations governments with adequate new financial resources to deal with all aspects of Bill C-44 implementation. The new open-ended liabilities that flow from Bill C-44 include the following: training and capacity; legal costs defending complaints; and the costs of settlements and awards. These liabilities may be staggering in the long term. First nations governments are not in a position to assume new, unfunded liabilities. The growth of the first nations funding envelope has been capped by the federal government at approximately 2% since 1996. As a result, many first nations, especially in the north, are near or past the point of bankruptcy.

The fifth condition is the non-derogation clause. There should be a non-derogation clause protecting aboriginal and treaty rights.

And the sixth condition is first nations human rights jurisdiction. There must be a binding recognition by the federal government that first nations governments have the independent jurisdiction to develop their own human rights regimes, including regional and national human rights institutions. Long before Canada existed, first nations governments enjoyed a rich heritage of protecting collective and individual rights. The regime under the Canadian Human Rights Act may be treated as a fallback for first nations that choose not to exercise their jurisdiction in relation to human rights.

These six conditions are all critical. Most of them reflect the bright line of serious policy development since 2000. In its current form, Bill C-44 is a radical and unexplained departure from that bright line.

In landmark decisions such as Guerin, Sparrow, Delgamuukw, and Taku and Haida, the Supreme Court of Canada has made it crystal clear that the federal government is subject to a constitutional fiduciary obligation to consult and accommodate first nations when a federal proposal is likely to have a negative impact on asserted or established first nations rights.

The extent of the duty depends on the significance of the underlying right and the significance of the likely negative impact. Bill C-44 is very likely to have a very significant impact on significant first nations collective rights. The likelihood of significant impact is magnified many times by the absence of an interpretive provision. It is likely that unmitigated application of the Canadian Human Rights Act will directly interfere with the action of first nations governments on first nations territory. It is also likely the Canadian Human Rights Act will lead to the disabling of significant portions of the Indian Act. One scenario is that the protective land provisions of the Indian Act will be eliminated, opening the way for fee-simple mortgaging and the loss of reserve land.

In view of the likely significant effect on important rights, the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence is clear. At a minimum, a very significant and careful consultation and accommodation exercise with first nations is constitutionally required.

As Bill C-44 represents a radical departure from the bright line of policy discussion since 2000, the federal government cannot rely on past discussions to justify the bill. Most past discussions contradict the approach of the bill.

While I'm respectful of the work of the commission and while I understand the pressure to endorse Bill C-44, I cannot agree with the last-minute revision contained in the presentation to the committee. A statement of general principles will not protect the rights of first nations. There is no guarantee that later unspecified guidelines would make any difference in the face of the black and white terms of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

What is required is a binding interpretive provision developed in consultation with first nations. Before the passage of the bill, anything less would be a foolish act of faith in a federal government that has already shown its true colours by reneging on the 2005 Kelowna accord and scuttling the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

In conclusion, Bill C-44 is a punitive and ham-fisted approach to the sensitive and complex issue of the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The federal government has ignored the bright line of serious policy work since 2000 and proposes to implement the Canadian Human Rights Act without reasonable protection for the collective rights of first nations and the fiscal crisis of first nations.

Bill C-44 is consistent with a negative agenda towards first nations that is aimed at levelling collective rights and destroying whole parts of the Indian Act. The federal government position that there will be no extensive consultation on Bill C-44 is untenable as a matter of Canadian constitutional law and reflects dishonour on the Crown and all Canadians.

As described in detail in our written brief, the repeal of section 67 can only be contemplated if six key conditions apply. I respectfully urge the committee to do the right and lawful thing, which is to reject the punitive Bill C-44 and to adopt amendments and a timetable consistent with the six conditions. In doing that, it will be an incremental step towards rebuilding the relationship with first nations.

The adoption of Bill C-44 as is will be another nail in the coffin. The results are predictable: embittered relations with first nations; possible litigation based on the failure to consult and other grounds; administrative chaos; and an ever-deepening financial crisis for first nations.

That's the presentation I have for you this morning.

Thank you.

[Chief Patrick Brazeau, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

On behalf of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, l am pleased to appear before you today to discuss our perspectives on the draft Bill C-44 under study by the members of this committee.

There are three areas that the congress wishes to address today relative to the implications of the draft Bill C-44. These include our comment on the Indian Act as an impediment to effective human rights protection in first nations communities; our views around band councils and on governance in general in first nations communities; and the need for education and outreach to increase awareness, allay concern, and engender understanding of the value of the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Since 1982, Canada's Constitution and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the highest law of the land, has specifically recognized three groups of aboriginal peoples: Indians, Inuit, and Métis. However, some 25 years after the repatriation of our Constitution, the gap between theoretical equality and government practice in respect of the recognition and protection of aboriginal rights afforded by its provisions is a matter of daily issue for the constituents of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Their concerns and aspirations continue to be dismissed by all levels of government. Time and time again they continue to have to contend with exclusion and ignorance.

l have said many times that the Indian Act should be, and in fact must be, replaced. This archaic legislation represents an artificial and foreign imposition of “Indian-ness” on aboriginal peoples. l reassert this call once again to the committee members present here today.

The Indian Act has resulted in the deconstruction of traditional, historical aboriginal nations. Under its prescriptive provisions, these historical communities were reassembled into Indian reserves, many of which have been home to social and economic hardship for aboriginal peoples for more than a century.

In addition to the establishment of the reserve system, the Indian Act, under section 6, prescribes who is entitled to registration as a status Indian. From that designation flows specific entitlements to programs and services. These include things like funding for post-secondary education, for non-insured health benefits, as well as access to housing and some income tax exemptions. Beyond the written words of the Indian Act and the bureaucratic system that sustains and enforces its colonial provisions are aboriginal peoples and their families.

Right now in Canada there exist many aboriginal families in which individuals within the same family do not share the same access to programs and services based solely on their entitlement, or lack thereof, to Indian Act registration. Reasonable people do not have to spend a lot of time pondering the implications of, for example, the fact that while one parent or sibling can access prescription medications, dental care, or eyeglasses, the other parent or child cannot.

Every parent wants their children to have a better life than they do. Imagine for a minute that parents who have successfully accessed post-secondary funding for themselves may see their own children denied the same access because of the application of the tenets of the Indian Act.

Clearly, the Indian Act, both directly and indirectly, is the foundation for discrimination against the majority of the aboriginal population in Canada today. There is a profound lack of federal-provincial consensus around jurisdiction and financial responsibility for programs and services for registered Indians. This includes education, health care, and social services such as income assistance and assisted living services. While federal and provincial governments argue about who should pay for what, aboriginal families and individuals go without.

That said, does the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples support the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act? Absolutely and unequivocally.

The fact that the Indian Act has substantially escaped human rights scrutiny for three decades is unacceptable in a country that is otherwise held up throughout the world as an example of a successful and prosperous democracy.

The federal government has spent a great deal of time, effort, and money in trying to support the establishment of the modern fundamentals of good governance on Indian Act reserves. It has also spent an extraordinary amount of money and effort defending the Indian Act from court challenges. Much of this effort has stemmed from the Indian Act's outdated and inadequate direction on governance-related matters within the act's band council governance system.

Since 2003, when the proposed first nations governance act was withdrawn, we have waited for government and first nations communities to present viable alternatives to the much publicly maligned proposed Bill C-7. Nearly four years later we are still waiting. For people who live on Indian Act reserves, the band council is the be-all and end-all in their community. It is the source of jobs, housing, income assistance, education, and training.

CAP and its affiliates across the country continue to be contacted by band members, many of whom have left the reserves because of disputes over access to programs and who report numerous grievances and concerns. They cannot obtain copies of program criteria or policies. They are denied access to redress mechanisms or have had their appeals adjudicated by the same people who denied them access to those programs in the first place.

The provision of on-reserve programs and services is typically done by means of funding from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada under standardized contribution agreements with band councils and their organizations and agencies. These agreements include funding for education, health, social programs such as income assistance, child and family services, family violence, and assisted living. Contribution agreements require band councils to deliver programs with processes that adhere to principles of transparency, disclosure, and redress.

We are aware of a band bylaw that was passed that forced family members to reside separate and apart because spouses or children are not band members. There are also electoral processes that deny individuals the right to run for councils on the basis of their religion, marital status, or residency.

How can we permit these grievances to perpetuate? How we, as aboriginal leaders, and you, as parliamentarians, cannot be morally moved to remedy these situations with speed, conviction, and precision is quite frankly beyond me.

There remains a great deal of debate and controversy in this country about what constitutes a human right and whether or not aboriginal peoples enjoy the same human rights as Canadian citizens generally do.

Sadly, at this point in our history we know that Canada has failed to address a significant source of real and potential discrimination against its aboriginal peoples. Thankfully, the repeal of section 67 from the Canadian Human Rights Act will begin to deal with this pressing issue.

There is an enormous need for education at the individual, band council, organizational, and federal and provincial government levels in order to mitigate and manage what may be a significant conflict of values, program standards, and jurisdictional issues as a consequence of the repeal of section 67.

We, at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, are under no illusions that the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to the Indian Act and the full implementation of the Canadian Human Rights Act on reserve will be anything but challenging and at times perhaps even overwhelming. That being said, we do not wish to see a prolonged implementation period for these measures. Human rights are not negotiable, and cannot be deemed negotiable, and their application cannot, and again must not, be deferred in 21st century Canada.

In summary, we strongly encourage the committee to make strong and specific recommendations to the government about the need to work with aboriginal peoples, their band councils, and representative organizations in order to ensure that the implications of the repeal of section 67 are understood and embraced by impacted individuals, communities, and federal-provincial government departments whose existing programs and services have been tied to Indian Act registration and processes.

We live in a nation that enjoys almost boundless prosperity. We, in Canada, are indeed “the true north strong and free”. We need to move quickly and sincerely to ensure that our first nations sisters and brothers, be they youth or elder, living both on or off reserve, enjoy the full freedom, benefit, and protection of the provisions afforded by Canada's Human Rights Act.

So we applaud Minister Prentice and Prime Minister Harper for taking the necessary steps to make this occur, and we encourage the committee to help make these plans a reality.

Meegwetch, merci, and thank you.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I brought forward the concern, I think. My concern is not in any way to short-circuit the process. I was part of Bill C-7, which did short-circuit the process or did not do a comprehensive notification to communities on many aspects of Bill C-7. I think money spent up front is money saved at the other end. It would be money well spent to notify people or to expand the notice.

I don't view this as a marketing thing. I think it's information, and there are often private networks that go on, but I think it's expanding the notice of opportunity. Then we can't be held at fault for doing it.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Let me begin, Mr. Chair, and I hope you will indulge me.

I think it's important to correct the record that's been presented in the House of Commons. I say this to you, Mr. Minister, and I say it to you with respect: I have never indicated a lack of support for Bill C-44 or for the reform of matrimonial real property. I believe if you check the records, both in this committee and in the House of Commons, I have never indicated a lack of support on my own part or on the part of my party.

We have concerns about the issues of process. We will probably speak to them today, and we will speak to them in the ensuing weeks as we review this bill. But in terms of the intent of this bill and the intent of matrimonial real property reform, I am supportive of it and my party is supportive of it. We believe these are important issues to be addressed. I hope the record is clear on that after today.

Minister, you spoke about several issues, and you anticipated the concerns about the bill. You spoke about the issue of consultation.

I was part of Bill C-7. I sat around the clock for many days, as did my colleague here, in 24-hour and 48-hour sessions. I know the bill and I understand the importance to many groups of the repeal of section 67. But I can say that part of the lack of success of Bill C-7 was the abbreviation of the consultation process.

While you spoke to the fact that we have had 30 years of discussion—and I underline the word “discussion”—I believe there's a difference between discussion and consultation. We have not had consultation prior to the introduction of this bill. We've not had consultation with first nations, native women's associations, and a entire litany of groups as it relates to this bill.

There are a number of concerns. My own belief is that we're going to be doing the consultation after the introduction rather than prior to the introduction, which will in fact delay the progress of this bill. I'd like your comments on why there was not a real consultation on this bill, specific to this bill, in the introduction of the bill.

I'd also like your comments on the abbreviated timeframe of six months, when we know the Human Rights Commission recommended a minimum of an 18-month to 30-month implementation.

I have more questions, but I'll start with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

When it's translated it will be distributed, yes.

Thank you, sir.

You're dismissed, panel. Thank you.

To the committee members, I'd ask you to remain for a moment.

First of all, on a housekeeping item, we'll have lunch available at 12:30 for committee members and staff. I would encourage those who are not committee members and staff to make sure they wait until the former have had their lunch, because we're going to endeavour to deal with the report following the second panel's presentations.

To committee members, this Thursday the House of Commons finance committee will begin its review of the Bank Act. This is an important undertaking, and it's my sincere hope that the work of the committee in this, as in all of its undertakings, be given the serious consideration it merits.

As your chair, it is my wish to maximize both the efficiency and the effectiveness of your work. I know that none of us would wish to call into question the integrity of the work we do here. For that reason, I will be removing myself as your chair for the duration of the consideration of Bill C-7.

As I have previously disclosed to you and to the clerk, my family has a controlling interest in two companies that place insurance contracts of various types. I have consulted with the Ethics Commissioner's office. I have consulted with you, and I thank you for your input. I appreciate it very much.

The contentious topic of banks marketing insurance products will most certainly be raised at some point during your deliberations. This issue relates directly to companies in which I and my spouse have controlling interests. Although the impact of such changes as proposed is uncertain, there is no doubt that my participation in the discussions could potentially lead to accusations of conflict of interest and therefore have the effect of discrediting the work that we as a committee must undertake to do. As your chair, I cannot allow that to happen.

I thank the committee members for their support and their encouragement and advice during the difficult period of considering this issue. I believe this course of action is the correct one, and I believe this decision has come about because of your input to me and to my family.

I also want to thank Massimo, our vice-chair, for agreeing to take on the chairmanship during the committee's deliberation of the Bank Act.

I wish the committee great success in this important review, and I look forward to resuming our work together following the completion of your report.

We will recess for two minutes while the second panel comes forward.

National Defence

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does talk about openness and transparency frequently, but his government has introduced Bill C-7, a bill that would gut the powers of the Military Police Complaints Commission. The forces have been through enough with what happened in Somalia and the allegations and the cover-ups.

Can the Prime Minister and the government not see that this time we have to set things right? We have to be above reproach here. What will be the timeline of the commission? Will it be a public investigation, and can we be sure that National Defence will disclose what really happened here?

National Defence Act

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, An Act to amend the National Defence Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)