Bill C-45 (Historical)

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

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 his or her responsibilities.
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

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-41. This bill was introduced on June 16, 2010, to amend provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system.

The amendments, among other things, provide for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement; permit the appointment of part-time military judges; specify the objectives and principles of the sentencing process; provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution; modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person; and modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods.

The text of this bill, beyond what I just listed on military justice, also 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.

Finally, it makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process and makes consequential amendments to other acts.

The Bloc Québécois wants Bill C-41 to be studied in committee. It is true that the purpose of this bill is to improve the military justice system by enhancing judicial independence, but we lean heavily in favour of the healthy administration of justice. Accordingly, we are in favour of any initiative to enhance impartiality and the quality of judges and courts. However, this bill is long and complex and it contains a number of other measures. That is why we are calling for it to be studied in committee, in order to have witnesses inform our decisions.

I will try to put this into context. 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 went into effect in 1998. This bill amended the National Defence Act by abolishing the death penalty in the military justice system; 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. That was in 1997. 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.

In this 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, especially in the areas of arrest procedures and pre-trial detention, procedures for proceeding by indictment, the structure of the court and sentencing. He recommended that the rights of the accused be more in line with those in a civil court so they could choose the type of court martial, and that the finding of court martial panels be arrived at by unanimous vote. The purpose of another recommendation was to strengthen the independence of the principal intervenors in the military justice system and to improve the grievance and military police complaints processes.

In order to implement the recommendations of Justice Lamer and amend the National Defence Act, the government introduced Bill C-45 on August 27, 2006, but it died on the order paper.

So the government introduced Bill C-7, which was identical to Bill C-45, on March 3, 2008, and it died on the order paper when the election was called in the fall of 2008. Of course Bill C-45, which had been introduced on August 27, 2006, died on the order paper when the election was called in December 2006.

In April 2008, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case of R. 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, 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.

Bill C-41 is a new version of Bill C-45 and therefore fits into the notion of general reform with a view to implementing Justice Lamer's recommendations.

Bill C-41 before us here today is a new version of Bill C-45 and, once again, aims to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations. A closer look at Bill C-41 reveals that it fits into the broad military justice reform that began in 1998, as I mentioned. It contains several provisions.

First, it contains a number of provisions concerning military judges, which I will list. It provides judges with tenure until their retirement, grants judges immunity from liability as granted to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, grants the chief military judge the authority to establish rules of practice and procedure with the Governor in Council's approval, improves the system's flexibility by appointing part-time military judges from a panel of reserve force military judges, and stipulates that in order to be appointed as a judge, the member must have served as an officer for at least 10 years.

There are provisions in Bill C-41 concerning summary trials. For one, in terms of the limitation period, charges must be laid within six months after the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the trial must commence within one year after the offence was committed. The accused person may waive the limitation period established for summary trials.

There are other provisions related to the court martial panel. In the majority of cases, the rank required in order to sit as the senior member of a panel would be lowered from colonel to lieutenant-colonel. As well, the pool of Canadian Forces members eligible to sit on a General Court Martial panel would be enlarged, and the number of non-commissioned members would increase from two to three for the trial of a non-commissioned member.

In addition to these provisions, Bill C-41 would reform military justice by putting additional restrictions on the power to arrest without warrant, by extending the limitation period from six months to two years in terms of civil responsibility, by granting the Chief of the Defence Staff the authority to cancel an improper release or transfer if the member consents, by indicating that the role of Canadian Forces provost marshal is provided for in the National Defence Act as well as by setting out his responsibilities and ties to the Canadian Forces chain of command and by requiring the provost marshal to provide the Chief of the Defence Staff with an annual report on his activities and those of the military police.

Lastly, Bill C-41 would protect individuals who file any type of complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission and would require the provost marshal to resolve conduct complaints or to close cases within 12 months.

This is clearly an impressive and important bill. Once again, that is why the Bloc Québécois wants to discuss it in more detail in committee and wants to bring in witnesses with expertise in military justice so that they can provide some insight.

There are other arguments. The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to 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. 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, in the Généreux decision, which I will quote:

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 [and Quebeckers] 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.

I repeat, that was a quote from the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the Généreux case. The Bloc Québécois subscribes to the principle of keeping military justice separate from civilian justice.

There are also offences in the Code of Service Discipline that have no equivalents in civilian justice. I am thinking of offences such as disobeying a command or a superior officer. 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 was 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.

The Bloc Québécois feels it is useful and necessary to reform military justice. Obviously, we have some fears and also some suggestions. As I said, the Bloc Québécois wants this bill to be sent to committee so that we can call the appropriate expert witnesses. But we feel that justice must prevail at all levels of society, and justice often depends on police work. We are afraid that because the provost marshal can be reappointed, he will not want to delve too deeply into something that could ruffle feathers among the defence staff. The Bloc Québécois will ensure that this does not happen, and we will introduce amendments to correct this situation.

Once again, when we have a complex bill before us, we need to take the time to do the necessary analyses and studies. This is the case with this bill. The provost marshal, who is the person who will ultimately be in charge of military justice within the armed forces, will have a renewable term. We need to look at that.

Why must this mandate be renewable when judges are appointed until they retire? We must then consider how this would affect the provost marshal's work. Would he give the defence staff less firm direction because his mandate is renewable? Would he be more sensitive when a case involves defence staff? It would be to our advantage to ask these questions in committee.

It is important that the listening public understands how this works. Committee work is of the utmost importance to the operation of any parliament, whether it be the British model or any other parliament in the world. Witnesses may appear before the House of Commons only in very exceptional circumstances. Generally speaking, with only a few exceptions, witnesses appear before committees.

It is therefore important that the national defence committee take all the time required to analyze Bill C-41 and examine all of its ins and outs. It is true that military justice must become more like civilian justice, simply so that citizens can understand how military justice works and relate to it. If the military justice system is completely different from the civilian justice system, citizens will not understand it and might question all the work done by our military personnel. Thus, this is a very important issue.

This work began in 1998. Some bills were deferred or came to an abrupt halt when an election was called. We must now—and I hope we will have time—deal with this issue before the next election campaign.

I am interested in responding to the questions of my fellow members. Once again, the Bloc Québécois supports sending this bill to committee for improvement. We hope to convince members of other parties of the benefits of the improvements we would like to make to it.

[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.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill to amend the National Defence Act. This bill will ensure that Canadians can maintain their trust in our military justice system. This bill will improve the speed and fairness of the military police complaints process. Furthermore, this bill will give members of our armed forces access to a faster, fairer and more flexible grievance process.

In 1998, Bill C-25 made significant amendments to the National Defence Act. One of the amendments was the requirement for an independent review of those portions of the National Defence Act amended by Bill C-25.

The late right hon. Tony Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, was appointed to conduct the first independent review, and his report was tabled in Parliament in November 2003. In his report, former Chief Justice Lamer made 88 recommendations: 57 pertaining to the military justice system; 14 regarding the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the military police complaints process; and 17 concerning the Canadian Forces grievance process.

The bill that we are debating today is the Government of Canada's proposed legislative response to recommendations made in the Lamer report. Implementing the proposed response will require changes to the National Defence Act, the Queen's Regulations and Orders to the Canadian Forces and some administrative practices.

A similar bill, Bill C-7, was introduced in April 2006 but it died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. A successor bill, Bill C-45, was introduced in March 2008 but that bill also died on the order paper.

While the bill before us today largely mirrors the contents of previous bills, some changes have been made, and I will discuss those changes in a few moments. It should also be noted that some amendments to the National Defence Act related to changes suggested in the Lamer report were made in June 2008 by Bill C-60. Bill C-60 was required to respond to the judgment of the Court Martial Appeal Court in the case of R. v. Trépanier.

Further, during consideration of Bill C-60, the minister requested members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to consider studying the provisions and operation of Bill C-60 and to provide a report on their findings and recommendations, which the committee did in May 2009.

In October 2009, the Minister of National Defence responded to the Senate committee members thanking them for their recommendations and indicating that all of their recommendations were either accepted or accepted in principle by the government.

Thus, in a nutshell, the present bill replicates most of the provisions of Bill C-45, minus some provisions implementing Lamer report recommendations, which have now already been enacted in Bill C-60, plus some additional elements arising from the recent recommendations made by the Senate committee.

I would now like to discuss the amendments we are proposing for the National Defence Act in the current bill.

In his report, former Chief Justice Lamer wrote that, as a result of the changes made in 1998 by Bill C-25, “...Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence.” He added that observers from other countries see this system as one their country might wish to learn from. However, he also pointed out that there remain areas for improvement in the military justice system.

The Department of National Defence analyzed the recommendations in the Lamer report very carefully. It undertook extensive policy analysis and consultation to determine the appropriate legislative response to the recommendations. This response is reflected in the legislative amendments we are considering today. These amendments deal with the military justice system, the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the military police complaints process, and the Canadian Forces grievance process.

I would like to look at each of these areas in turn, beginning with the military justice system.

The Canadian military justice system has been developed to deal expeditiously and fairly with service offences, while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and meeting the expectations of Canadians. It is a system designed to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces by contributing to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale. It must also ensure that members of the Canadian Forces who are subject to this process are dealt with fairly.

The proposed amendments to the military justice system would make improvements both in process and in substantive law. They would also ensure that the military justice system keeps pace with evolving legal standards in Canadian criminal law.

Simply put, the bill before us today would reinforce the continued compliance of the military justice system with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while preserving the system's capacity to meet essential military requirements.

I will now go over the main military justice amendments proposed in the bill.

The bill would strengthen the provisions of the National Defence Act regarding the independence of military judges. More specifically, the bill would ensure that judges are appointed until retirement.

The bill would increase the timeliness and flexibility of the system by providing for the appointment of part-time military judges to a reserve force judges panel.

The bill would modernize and enhance sentencing provisions of the Code of Service Discipline.

It would provide more flexibility in the sentencing process, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders, providing summary trial presiding officers and military judges at courts martial with a greater ability to tailor a sentence having regard to the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender, replicating many of the options available in the sentencing regime of the civilian justice system.

As well, a greater voice would also be given to victims by providing the introduction of victim impact statements at courts martial.

The bill will set out the sentencing goals and principles that will apply to military tribunals, promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces and uphold a system that supports a fair, peaceful and safe society.

This codification of sentencing principles and objectives in the National Defence Act would provide an important statutory articulation of the fundamental principles underpinning Canada's military justice system, as well as providing guidance concerning sentencing to all actors in the military justice system, including presiding officers at summary trials, military judges at courts martial and the appellate judges of the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. This statutory guidance would parallel that already provided in the civilian criminal justice system in the Criminal Code, with the additional specification of factors unique to the distinct military justice system.

I will now explain the key elements of the bill as they relate to the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the military police complaints process.

Although the National Defence Act establishes specific responsibilities for the Canadian Forces provost marshal in relation to the military police complaints process, neither the actual position of the provost marshal nor the full scope of its responsibilities are found in the current act.

Establishing the Canadian Forces provost marshal in the National Defence Act would bring greater clarity to the role and responsibilities of that position and to the military police in general.

We cannot forget that military police are different from all the other police entities in Canada. They can be called upon to undertake both traditional police duties, such as investigating offences, and what I would call purely military duties, such as providing security for airfields and other defence establishments or facilitating movement of troops in a theatre of operations. Bill C-41 reflects the dual nature of the Canadian Forces provost marshal's responsibilities.

It would also ensure that the provost marshal has the independence necessary to ensure the integrity of military police investigations and promote professional standards.

At the same time, the bill recognizes that the provost marshal will be directly responsible to the senior Canadian Forces chain of command regarding the military functions of the military police.

Bill C-41 would also enhance the timeliness and fairness of the military police complaints process by requiring the Canadian Forces provost marshal to resolve complaints within one year of receiving them in normal circumstances, and by protecting individuals who submit complaints in good faith from penalty.

I will now turn to the Canadian Forces grievance process.

In his report, former Chief Justice Lamer indicated that there was a clear need to improve the process for dealing with grievances submitted by members of the Canadian Forces. The proposed changes to the National Defence Act would help ensure that grievances are addressed in a fair, transparent and prompt manner.

For example, the bill provides for an amendment to the National Defence Act requiring the Chief of the Defence Staff or those he authorizes, where circumstances permit, to informally and expeditiously deal with any issues that arise.

At the same time, the bill allows for an expansion of the Chief of the Defence Staff's responsibilities as the final authority in grievance procedures.

These changes would enhance the efficiency of the process and ensure that a backlog of grievances, such as that which existed at the time of the Lamer report, does not recur.

Before concluding, I will discuss the differences between the bill we have before us today and previous Bill C-45. While the content of Bill C-41 is largely the same as that of the previous Bill C-45, some modifications have been made.

Principally, the differences between the two bills reflect the deletion of issues that have already been dealt with in the interim in Bill C-60, such as the requirement for unanimity of the panel to convict or acquit an accused person at a general court martial, the reduction of the number of types of courts martial from four to two, and the enhancement of the powers of military judges to deal with pretrial matters such as disclosure.

Other differences are related to the recent recommendations of the Senate committee. These include reducing distinctions based on rank and the composition of panels for general courts martial, amending the limitation period for summary trials to provide that a charge must be laid within six months after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed, and allowing an accused person to waive the application of a limitation period for summary trials in certain circumstances.

A further point to note relates to the independent review provision. As recommended in the Lamer report, a provision will be added to the National Defence Act requiring that portions of the act relating to the military justice system, the military police complaints process and the grievance process be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

In the current bill, as was done in Bill C-45, the timeline for conducting future reviews has been modified to seven years. This would allow for more comprehensive and useful reviews to be conducted by ensuring sufficient time to work with and assess amendments to the National Defence Act after they come into force before a review is conducted.

Finally, this bill would propose that the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board be changed to the military grievances external review committee. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board plays a vital role in the process established under the National Defence Act for members of the Canadian Forces to seek redress of grievances. The impartial findings and recommendations of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board buttressed by that organization's institutional independence from the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence helped to increase the confidence of Canadian Forces members in the grievance process.

The proposed change in name would assist in communicating the Canadian Forces Grievance Board's current role, in particular its institutional independence and mandate to all stakeholders. It should be emphasized that the bill merely proposes a change in the organization's name, at its own request, to assist in this regard, not in its mandate, which will remain unchanged.

To conclude, reforming the military justice system is just one step in a process of continuous improvement.

As Canadians, we are privileged to have a military justice system that reflects our values and respects the rule of law.

These proposals to amend the National Defence Act would ensure Canada's military justice system remains one in which Canadians can have trust and confidence. They would clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and bring greater timeliness and fairness to the military police complaints process. They would ensure that a more responsive, timely and fair grievance process is available. I am confident that these amendments would serve to further strengthen the Canadian Forces as a vital national institution.

This is a very technical bill and for that reason it would be appropriate to pass this bill quickly at second reading and get it to committee where we can hear various expert witnesses to drill down into the details that many will want to do. It is more appropriate that it be done in that setting where we time can take time to reflect fully on all the implications and suggestions that may be come up.

I request that hon. members pass this bill quickly at second reading and move it on to committee for further consideration.

National Defence Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today really on an emergency basis because of problems arising from the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the R. v. Trépanier.

The problems we are addressing with regard to the military justice system precede Trépanier. That decision came down at the end of April of this year. The problems the court was addressing in that case, and which were resolved rather summarily by dismissing the charges against Corporal Trépanier, stem from a long-standing frustration on the court's part that successive governments have not dealt with the needed reforms in the military justice system.

In this regard, it is important to recognize that Justice Lamer was commissioned almost six years ago to prepare a report. He prepared a very lengthy and detailed report of the analysis of the problems with the military justice system and set out very clear and specific recommendations on how to deal with those problems. That resolution surfaced first in a bill under the former Liberal administration and then in the form of Bill C-45 under the current Conservative administration.

The process has been very slow. We heard from the parliamentary secretary that Bill C-60, which is before us today, was a very quick process, and he is accurate in that regard.

The overall process has been extremely slow and unacceptably slow for the Federal Court of Appeal. For that reason, the court struck the section down in the National Defence Act that dealt with this part of the military justice system and, in effect, dismissed the charges against Corporal Trépanier.

Those are serious charges against him, with no reflection on whether he is guilty or innocent of the charges. The reality is, at this point, if that decision stands, then the charges will not be dealt with on their merits.

What was determined in the Trépanier decision was the system that allowed exclusive authority to the prosecutor to determine the type of trial an accused person would have within the military justice system was simply unacceptable in the context of Canada today, and in particular with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill C-60 addresses this issue. Again, the bill is the same as in the recommendations from Justice Lamer and what is still contained in Bill C-45.

The government has been very slow on moving Bill C-45 ahead. It has given priority to a number of other bills and let this one languish, and that is unacceptable. Any number of other issues may be confronting our military justice system, in terms of issues under the charter, that could find us in the same situation in the next few months or the next year or two.

We absolutely demand that the government move Bill C-45 forward rapidly so we can deal with it. It has substantial support from all the opposition parties. Some specific provisions need to be corrected and some additions need to be made to it, but the bulk of the bill is one that has wide support among all the parties. I urge the government to move rapidly on it when we come back in the fall.

With regard to the specific provision in Bill C-60, as we have heard from some of the other speakers, with the exception of a couple of the paragraphs and clauses, it had all party support. In particular, by limiting the jurisdiction or the authority of the prosecutor and giving much more democratic and civil libertarian provisions to the accused, so the nature of the trial would appear at least on the surface to be more equitable, these have all been incorporated in the legislation in the form of Bill C-60.

I point out in particular that we have done away in Bill C-60 with the former format of having four different types of trials that there could be. We have reduced the number to two, which again, to a great extent, mirrors the situation in our criminal justice system generally for civilians in this country.

If Bill C-60 is passed, we will have a system where there will be a single judge, and generally speaking that will be for the less serious offences, and the accused will have the right to choose a judge and a five member panel, which would be in the form of a jury, if I can make the analogy with the civilian system.

In addition to that, although we have had panels in the past, a combination of a judge and a three member panel, there will now be five members on the panel. As opposed to the current system, the panel will have to be unanimous in its decision if a person is to be acquitted or convicted, again mirroring the situation in our criminal justice system and generally in our society.

That is a major step forward. There were several others perhaps of less significance, but it is a bill that all the parties were prepared to support.

Yesterday in committee we made two changes to the bill. One was to delete a whole clause. There was quite some disagreement over this in terms of the discussion. In particular, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence argued strenuously at the time, as he is wont to do every so often, that by deleting clause 28 in its entirety, we would be taking rights away from the accused. I know he still believes that.

My assessment of clause 28 was just the opposite. By leaving it in, we were curtailing the rights of the accused. Ultimately we were able to reach a consensus among the opposition parties to delete it. I know I have not convinced my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, but I will continue to try to do that to establish that we were right in deleting it. In the end, the opposition parties voted that down.

Another issue came up for debate in committee, which resulted in a change, not the one we necessarily wanted or not the only one we wanted. We were quite supportive of the position that the Bloc Québécois took, its critic in particular, in wanting a sunset clause. It is simply bad legislative process to run bills rapidly through the House. We know from many years of bad experiences that when we do that, we expose ourselves, as a legislature and our community as a whole, to mistakes being made.

I know my colleague from the Bloc has been very clear on a number of occasions that he is experienced. I have had the same experience as well where we have agreed to run a bill through rapidly and then, in retrospect, have realized that we made a mistake or simply left a gap in the legislation. The Bloc member's proposal to put in a sunset clause seemed to me to make good sense. We were supportive of it and, unfortunately, could not gather enough support to press it through.

The mandatory review that the Liberals proposed, which was adopted ultimately by a majority of the committee, and is in the bill before us today, has two major problems. We know, again, from many years of experience in analyzing mandatory reviews that all too often they are never conducted.

One of the flaws in our legislative process is that there is no penalty to the legislature or the government if we in fact do not put in place a mandatory review. Even though the legislation is clear that we have to, if it is not done, there is no penalty. There have been repeated occasions where bills have passed through the House, become law and the mandatory review is never carried out, or is carried out years after it is supposed to be.

The other problem with the mandatory review, and my colleague from the Bloc mentioned this, is that even if it is done, there is no imperative on the government to accept the recommendations that come out of it. It can simply say that it will not proceed with the recommendations and the changes needed are never pursued. Whereas with the mandatory sunset clause, the government would no choice but to address the issue if in fact a major problem arose.

Although overall we in the NDP support the legislation, we have serious problems with not having the sunset clause. Beyond that, hopefully the bill will resolve the issue that Trépanier has created and we can continue with the criminal justice system within the national defence system.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and I want to indicate at the outset that the official opposition supports in principle the bill and realizes the gravity of the situation.

There is no question that these provisions of the National Defence Act are in line with the constitutional standards as outlined previously by the minister. Obviously, because of the decision of the court in April, this has led to a need to respond effectively and we on this side of the House are prepared to act reasonably with regard to the legislation.

There is no question that the legislation would reduce the number of types of court martial from four down to two. We are looking at the general court martial, which is for more serious offences, as well as the standing court martial.

We must ensure that the military justice system is in balance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the minister indicated, the decision in the Trépanier case of April 24 was a catalyst for the bill being brought to the House and being viewed with some urgency. It was indicated in that case that certain provisions under the NDA violated the Charter of Rights under section 7.

We want to ensure justice is served and that it is carried out responsibly. Therefore, when we look at that particular case, it was indicated that putting the power to choose the type of court martial in the hands of the prosecutor violated the right of the defence to a full answer and to control that defence. It certainly seemed like a reasonable decision but it leads us to this particular case on which we have to move forward.

Giving exclusive power to the prosecution to not only choose the court martial but to choose when a trial could take place was a concern. These provisions were deemed unconstitutional so the government has now brought forth specific legislation to deal with this.

We have had an opportunity to review the legislation and, as I have indicated, our caucus certainly will do nothing to impede the passage of the legislation. However, we have some suggestions and some comments that I would like to present to the House presently.

The need to provide a legislative remedy to convene pending cases is obvious. We agree with the need to modernize and change those provisions to improve its fairness and meet constitutional standards. We need to ensure the military justice system is fair, does not violate the charter and we need to provide timely and, most important, fair trials to the individuals so the victim can obtain justice.

Again, that is very important. We are supportive because we need to consider the situation with regard to the rights of the victim. The judge recommended the need for legislative reform.

Members may be a bit uncomfortable in moving quickly on this legislation but we have consent of the House to move this to a special committee of national defence this afternoon to hear from the JAG and others in terms of this legislation and, presumably, it will be reported back as expeditiously as possible and be dealt with at third reading.

The role of parliamentarians is to examine the bill and to ensure that what the government is proposing is what we will see.

We have another bill before the House called Bill C-45, which was introduced by the government back in October of last year. It is unfortunate that the bill has not moved along and that some of these amendments were not dealt with in Bill C-45 after this was introduced. It might have been appropriate for the government to have done that but it did not. It chose to deal with it separately and, therefore, we will deal with what we have. However, that would have been helpful.

There is the issue of taking leave to appeal to the court. Again, my understanding from the government is that that is another track because in the meantime we are not sure when the need for this legislation, if at all, would be heard. We understand that.

We would like to propose, however, that there be a mandatory parliamentary review, presumably, after two years. I think that within two years we would know whether or not the courts will respond. Therefore, rather than a sunset clause, for which some may argue, we think a mandatory review by Parliament would be appropriate. That has been done in other cases and it would allow parliamentarians to examine where we are at that particular junction. I think that would be a reasonable approach for us to take.

I have a couple of specific comments with regard to the legislation.

The Code of Service Discipline both authorizes the director of military prosecutions to select the type of court martial to be used in each case and requires the court martial administrator to convene the type of court martial selected, unless it clearly violates the accused's constitutional right.

If we look at section 165.14 and subsection 165.19(1) of the National Defence Act, it authorizes the director of military prosecutions to select the type of court martial to try an accused person against whom a charge was preferred and requires the court martial administrator to convene the type of court martial selected.

In the Trépanier case of April 24, these provisions were of no force, in effect, because they violated the accused. The court did not allow for any appeal. The court basically said that it stood by that decision. The government has now responded, as of June.

The legislation, as we understand it, will establish a legal framework which will govern the selection of the mode of trial by court martial, by operation of law, rather than the pursued direction of the director of military prosecutions, and this seems entirely reasonable. The accused person will have the ability to choose the type of court martial in circumstances similar to those set out in the Criminal Code. Again, that is reasonable.

Given the increased choice of the accused person as to the mode of trial, the number of types of court martial, as I indicated before, is now reduced from four to two.

The bill also will empower military judges to deal with the pre-trial matters as soon as a charge is preferred and will require key decisions of the court martial panel to be made by unanimous rather than by a majority vote, and again, that seems reasonable.

Serious offences must be tried in a general court martial by eliminating the special general court martial and disciplinary court martial, and expanding the jurisdiction of the standing court martial to include civilians, subject to the Code of Service Discipline. Again, because of the sensitivity of the legislation and given the court's decision, it is reasonable that we move forward as expeditiously as we can.

We do believe that the standing committee will have to look at the issue of an automatic review based on the fact that, depending on what happens within the next two years, we will have that opportunity to decide whether or not it needs to be extended. If there is the right to appeal directly, then obviously we can deal with it at that time, but it is important that we move forward.

There are up to 50 serious cases at the present time and we want to make sure that justice for the victims is there. Obviously, if this were delayed, this would not be the case. That is something that on this side of the House, and we join the government on this, we would not find very palatable at all.

Therefore, with the provision that we deal specifically with a review, within two years, the government can expect the support of the official opposition with regard to this legislation.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I heard the member for Lévis—Bellechasse say “agreed”. It would be fine to sit, but what has happened over the months that have gone by? What has happened in Parliament under the Conservative minority government? What will happen in the coming months?

If the bills are so important, as the Conservatives are saying, the government can guarantee that, if the motion is not passed, the House of Commons will not be prorogued. That means that in September we will come back to the House and continue to work. The Conservatives would not prorogue until October or November, as they have done before: a young government that came to power prorogued the House of Commons when we could have been debating bills.

This session, after the May break, our calendar shows four more weeks of work. Of these four weeks, two are reserved for the possibility of extended sitting hours here in the House of Commons. I cannot accept that the Conservatives are saying that we are a bunch of lazy people, and that we do not want to work, when this government has done everything possible since last August to ensure that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could not operate.

It has been at least two or three months now since the committee last sat because the Conservatives have refused to appoint someone to chair it. The Conservatives decided that the matter submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was partisan, and that is why they are not replacing the chair.

I remember that we appointed a new chair, we voted for a new chair, but the chair never did call a meeting of the committee. The chair is being paid to carry that title, but he met with the members once, and then, it was only to adjourn. Is that not partisanship? When a party refuses to hold a public debate on things going on in Parliament or with political parties, that is partisanship.

As I recall, during the sponsorship scandal, it was fine for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which was chaired at the time by an opposition Conservative member, to hold hearings and discuss the sponsorship scandal.

But now that the Conservatives are the ones who spent $18 million during the last election and shuffled money around to spend another $1.5 million on top of that, well, they do not want to talk about it. They will not talk about it. When the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was about to discuss another case, it was shut down again.

To this day, there are bills that have not been debated in committee. The Conservatives think that democracy should happen nowhere but in the House, and certainly not in committee. Parliamentary committees are an important part of our political system, our parliamentary system, our democracy. We were elected by the people in our ridings to come here and pass bills.

We cannot invite a member of the public to testify in the House of Commons, for example. We do not hear witnesses in the House of Commons. We have parliamentary committees where we can invite constituents or people from any part of the country to explain how a bill will affect them and to suggest ways to improve the bill.

For the Conservatives, the most important committee is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. All they want to do is create justice bills. They would rather build prisons and put everyone in jail than adopt sound social programs to help people work and give them a fair chance in life. For the Conservatives, you either follow the straight and narrow path or you go to jail. These are the sorts of bills they are most interested in.

These are the sorts of bills they are most interested in, yet they brought the work of this committee to a standstill. The chair left the committee and said there would be no more meetings. Experts and members of the public are being prevented from talking to us about important justice bills. This evening, the Conservatives are asking to extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons until June 20 in order to discuss and pass these bills, because they are important. If we do not vote for these bills, then we are not good Canadians. That is in essence what they are saying. They do not want any debate.

They would have us believe that if we extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons every evening until June 20, there will be a terrific debate. We will debate these bills. We will have the opportunity to see democracy in action. At the same time, they have brought the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to a standstill. I have never seen such a thing in the 11 years I have been in the House of Commons. I have never seen such a thing.

I would go so far as to say that it has become a dictatorship. Everything originates from the Prime Minister's Office. So much so that, last week, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons complained that he was tired of rising in the House of Commons. He is the only one to stand up; the ministers do not even have the right to rise to answer questions. It is always the government House leader who answers questions. He was so tired one day last week that he knocked over his glass and spilled water on the Prime Minister. They should have thrown water on him to wake him up because he was tired. He himself told the House that he was tired.

That shows the extent to which the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons as well as the Prime Minister's Office, and not the elected Conservative MPs, control the government's agenda. The MPs have nothing to say. There are also the little tricks of the Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip who told members how to behave in parliamentary committee meetings, which witnesses to invite and how to control them. If they are unable to control them they interrupt the meeting. I have never seen anything like it in the 11 years that I have been an MP.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages since 1998. We invited the minister to appear in order to help us with our work and she refused. She refused. She was asked in the House why she refused and she replied that she did not refuse. The committee was studying the Conservatives' action plan. If they wish to make an important contribution to communities throughout the country, there is an action plan to help Canada's official language minority communities—anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the rest of the country.

The action plan was being studied. We asked the minister to speak to us about the action plan so we could work with her. She refused and said she would appear after the plan was tabled. We will invite her again. I have never seen a minister refuse to help a committee.

We invited her again to the Standing Committee on Official Languages concerning the 2010 Olympic Games. The francophone community will not be able to watch the Olympic Games in French anywhere in the country because the contract, which was bid on by CTV, TQS and RDS, was awarded to CTV. We asked the minister to come to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Instead she said that it was not important for this country's francophones, and she declined. The communities have questions. This all happened in the fall.

This spring, at budget time, the Conservatives declared that money for the action plan or for official languages would come later. We are used to that. We receive an article in English and are told that the French will come later. That is what the budget reminded us of. The money will come later.

But people are waiting. They are wondering what will happen to their communities. People from Newfoundland and Labrador even came to speak to the committee. They told us that currently, minority language communities are having to use lines of credit or even credit cards to help the community. It would be interesting to hear the minister explain why the Conservatives are not giving that money to communities, as they should. They promised to help minority language communities.

I would like to come back to the environment. When we were supposed to be working on environmental issues, the Conservatives systematically obstructed this work for days. They said they had the right to do so. Indeed, they did have the right; that is no problem. We have done the same thing, we will admit. That is part of debate.

Someone came and asked me how we could stop this obstruction. I told that person that it was their right to obstruct and that, if they wanted to talk until the next day, they could. However, when that happens, the chair must not take sides.

Yet that is what happened at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We had to ask for the chair of the committee to step down. In fact, when we arrived at the committee meeting at 11 a.m., the Conservatives took the floor in order to filibuster and if one of them had to go to the bathroom, the chair adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes. That is no longer obstruction. When we asked the chair if it was going to continue after 1 p.m., he told us to wait until 1 p.m. to find out. Then, at 1 p.m., he decided to adjourn the meeting.

We have been trying since August to discuss the problem of the Conservatives, who had exceeded the $1.5 million spending limit allowed during the last election campaign. The problem with the Conservatives is that they want to hide everything from Canadians. They spoke of transparency, but they wanted to hide from Canadians all their misdeeds. When they were on the opposition benches, they counted on this, especially during the Liberal sponsorship scandal. I remember that and the questions they asked in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committee. They did not hold back.

But they do not want that to happen to them. And if it does, they try to hide it. That is why they did not allow a parliamentary committee to discuss the problems they had created, such as the story with Cadman, our former colleague. His wife said today that her husband told her that he was promised $1 million if he voted with the Conservatives. She never said that was not true; she said that was what in fact was said. Her own daughter said the same thing, that promises had been made. The Conservatives are saying that no one has the right to speak about that. Only they had that right when they were in the opposition, but not us. They are acting like gods and we have to listen to everything they say.

Today, they are moving a motion asking us to listen to them. And yet, when the House leaders and the whips met in committee there was nothing on the agenda. I have never seen the like. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was even asked if there was anything else on the agenda. He just smirked. He was mocking us and today he wants us to cooperate with him. The Conservatives are saying that they are here to work, but they have blocked all the work of the House of Commons for the past six months.

And they are lecturing us?

When the House leader of the Conservative Party tries to give us a lesson and says that we do not want to work, but they are here to work, I cannot believe it.

We have a committee that does not even sit right now. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not sat for the last two or three months. The Conservatives do not want to hear what they perhaps have done wrong. If they have nothing to hide, they should have let it go ahead.

The Conservatives said that if they were to be investigated by Elections Canada, they wanted all parties to be investigated. Elections Canada did not say that all the parties were wrong. It said that the Conservative Party had broken the rules of Elections Canada by spending over the limit of $18 million. It was the Conservative Party that did that. Right away the Conservatives filed a lawsuit against Elections Canada. Now they say we should not talk about that in the House of Commons.

Every time we went to the House leader meeting and the whip meeting, they had nothing on the agenda. The Conservatives say that they are very democratic. They want a big debate in the House of Commons on bills. BillC-54, Bill C-56, Bill C-19, Bill C-43, Bill C-14, Bill C-32, Bill C-45, Bill C-46, Bill C-39, Bill C-57 and Bill C-22 are all at second reading.

I will not go into detail about what each and every bill is, but even if we say yes to the government, we will be unable to get through those bills. If we want to get through those bills, it will be the PMO and the Prime Minister's way. The Conservatives bring bills to the House and say that members opposite should vote with them. If we do not vote, they say that we are against them. That is the way they do it, no debate.

The debate, as I said in French, should not only take place in the House of Commons; it should to take place in parliamentary committees. That is the only place where Canadians have the right to come before the committees to express themselves. That is the only place people who are experts can come before us to talk about bills, so we can make the bills better.

When a bill is put in place, it may not be such a good bill, but maybe it is a bill that could go in the right direction if all parties work on it. If we put our hands to it, perhaps it can become a good bill. We could talk to experts, who could change our minds, and maybe we could put some new stuff in the bill.

However, no, the Conservatives got rid of the most important committee that would deal with the bills in which they were interested, and that was the justice committee.

I may as well use the words I have heard from the Conservatives. They say that we are lazy. How many times did we say at committee that we would look after the agenda, that there were certain things we wanted to talk about, for example, Election Canada and the in and out scheme? At the same time, we said we were ready to meet on Wednesdays and we could meet on other days as well to discuss bills.

We proposed all kinds of agenda, and I dare any colleague from the Conservative Party to say we did not do that. We have proposed an agenda where we could meet on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and the Conservatives refused.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to move the standard motion that can be made only today. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Monday, June 9, 2008, and concluding on Thursday, June 19, 2008, the House shall continue to sit until 11:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week in answer to the Thursday statement, this is we have work to do week. To kick off the week, we are introducing the customary motion to extend the daily sitting hours of the House for the final two weeks of the spring session. This is a motion which is so significant there is actually a specific Standing Order contemplating it, because it is the normal practice of this House, come this point in the parliamentary cycle, that we work additional hours and sit late to conduct business.

In fact, since 1982, when the House adopted a fixed calendar, such a motion has never been defeated. I underline that since a fixed calendar was adopted, such a motion has never been defeated. As a consequence, we know that today when we deal with this motion, we will discover whether the opposition parties are interested in doing the work that they have been sent here to do, or whether they are simply here to collect paycheques, take it easy and head off on a three month vacation.

On 11 of those occasions, sitting hours were extended using this motion. On six other occasions, the House used a different motion to extend the sitting hours in June. This includes the last three years of minority government.

This is not surprising. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard to advance their priorities. They would not look kindly on any party that was too lazy to work a few extra hours to get as much done as possible before the three month summer break. There is a lot to get done.

In the October 2007 Speech from the Throne, we laid out our legislative agenda. It set out an agenda of clear goals focusing on five priorities to: rigorously defend Canada's sovereignty and place in the world; strengthen the federation and modernize our democratic institutions; provide effective, competitive economic leadership to maintain a competitive economy; tackle crime and strengthen the security of Canadians; and improve the environment and the health of Canadians. In the subsequent months, we made substantial progress on these priorities.

We passed the Speech from the Throne which laid out our legislative agenda including our environmental policy. Parliament passed Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, to make our streets and communities safer by tackling violent crime. Parliament passed Bill C-28, which implemented the 2007 economic statement. That bill reduced taxes for all Canadians, including reductions in personal income and business taxes, and the reduction of the GST to 5%.

I would like to point out that since coming into office, this government has reduced the overall tax burden for Canadians and businesses by about $190 billion, bringing taxes to their lowest level in 50 years.

We have moved forward on our food and consumer safety action plan by introducing a new Canada consumer product safety act and amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

We have taken important steps to improve the living conditions of first nations. For example, first nations will hopefully soon have long overdue protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Bill C-30 has been passed by the House to accelerate the resolution of specific land claims.

Parliament also passed the 2008 budget. This was a balanced, focused and prudent budget to strengthen Canada amid global economic uncertainty. Budget 2008 continues to reduce debt, focuses government spending and provides additional support for sectors of the economy that are struggling in this period of uncertainty.

As well, the House adopted a motion to endorse the extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, with a renewed focus on reconstruction and development to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country.

These are significant achievements and they illustrate a record of real results. All parliamentarians should be proud of the work we have accomplished so far in this session. However, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done.

As I have stated in previous weekly statements, our top priority is to secure passage of Bill C-50, the 2008 budget implementation bill.

This bill proposes a balanced budget, controlled spending, investments in priority areas and lower taxes, all without forcing Canadian families to pay a tax on carbon, gas and heating. Furthermore, the budget implementation bill proposes much-needed changes to the immigration system.

These measures will help keep our economy competitive.

Through the budget implementation bill, we are investing in the priorities of Canadians.

These priorities include: $500 million to help improve public transit, $400 million to help recruit front line police officers, nearly $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and $100 million for the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

These investments, however, could be threatened if the bill does not pass before the summer. That is why I am hopeful that the bill will be passed by the House later today.

The budget bill is not our only priority. Today the House completed debate at report stage on Bill C-29, which would create a modern, transparent, accountable process for the reporting of political loans. We will vote on this bill tomorrow and debate at third reading will begin shortly thereafter.

We also wish to pass Bill C-55, which implements our free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

This free trade agreement, the first in six years, reflects our desire to find new markets for Canadian products and services.

Given that the international trade committee endorsed the agreement earlier this year, I am optimistic that the House will be able to pass this bill before we adjourn.

On Friday we introduced Bill C-60, which responds to recent decisions relating to courts martial. That is an important bill that must be passed on a time line. Quick passage is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of our military justice system.

Last week the aboriginal affairs committee reported Bill C-34, which implements the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. This bill has all-party support in the House. Passage of the bill this week would complement our other achievements for first nations, including the apology on Wednesday to the survivors of residential schools.

These are important bills that we think should be given an opportunity to pass. That is why we need to continue to work hard, as our rules contemplate.

The government would also like to take advantage of extended hours to advance important crime and security measures. Important justice measures are still before the House, such as: Bill S-3, the anti-terrorism act; Bill C-53, the auto theft bill; Bill C-45 to modernize the military justice system; and Bill C-60, which responds to recent court martial decisions.

There are a number of other bills that we would like to see advanced in order to improve the management of the economy. There are other economic bills we would like to advance.

These include Bill C-7, to modernize our aeronautics sector, Bill C-5, dealing with nuclear liability, Bill C-43, to modernize our customs rules, Bill C-39, to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers, Bill C-46, to give farmers more choice in marketing grain, Bill C-57, to modernize the election process for the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-14, to allow enterprises choice for communicating with customers, and Bill C-32, to modernize our fisheries sector.

If time permits, there are numerous other bills that we would like to advance.

These include Bill C-51, to ensure that food and products available in Canada are safe for consumers, Bill C-54, to ensure safety and security with respect to pathogens and toxins, Bill C-56, to ensure public protection with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, Bill C-19, to limit the terms of senators to 8 years from a current maximum of 45, and Bill C-22, to provide fairness in representation in the House of Commons.

It is clear a lot of work remains before the House. Unfortunately, a number of bills have been delayed by the opposition through hoist amendments. Given these delays, it is only fair that the House extend its sitting hours to complete the bills on the order paper. As I have indicated, we still have to deal with a lot of bills.

We have seen a pattern in this Parliament where the opposition parties have decided to tie up committees to prevent the work of the people being done. They have done delay and obstruction as they did most dramatically on our crime agenda. They do not bother to come and vote one-third of time in the House of Commons. Their voting records has shown that. All of this is part of a pattern of people who are reluctant to work hard.

The government is prepared to work hard and the rules contemplate that it work hard. In fact, on every occasion, when permission has been sought at this point in the parliamentary calendar to sit extended hours, the House has granted permission, including in minority Parliaments.

If that does not happen, it will be clear to Canadians that the opposition parties do not want to work hard and are not interested in debating the important policy issues facing our country. Is it any wonder that we have had a question period dominated not by public policy questions, but dominated entirely by trivia and issues that do not matter to ordinary Canadians.

The government has been working hard to advance its agenda, to advance the agenda that we talked about with Canadians in the last election, to work on the priorities that matter to ordinary Canadians, and we are seeking the consent of the House to do this.

Before concluding, I point out, once again, that extending the daily sitting hours for the last two weeks of June is a common practice. Marleau and Montpetit, at page 346, state this is:

—a long-standing practice whereby, prior to the prorogation of the Parliament or the start of the summer recess, the House would arrange for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance its business.

As I stated earlier, it was first formalized in the Standing Orders in 1982 when the House adopted a fixed calendar. Before then, the House often met on the weekend or continued its sittings into July to complete its work. Since 1982, the House has agreed on 11 occasions to extend the hours of sitting in the last two weeks of June.

Therefore, the motion is a routine motion designed to facilitate the business of the House and I expect it will be supported by all members. We are sent here to engage in very important business for the people of Canada. Frankly, the members in the House are paid very generously to do that work. Canadians expect them to do that work and expect them to put in the time that the rules contemplate.

All member of the House, if they seek that privilege from Canadian voters, should be prepared to do the work the rules contemplate. They should be prepared to come here to vote, to come here to debate the issues, to come here for the hours that the rules contemplate. If they are not prepared to do that work, they should step aside and turnover their obligations to people who are willing to do that work.

There is important work to be done on the commitments we made in the Speech from the Throne. I am therefore seeking the support of all members to extend our sitting hours, so we can complete work on our priorities before we adjourn for the summer. This will allow members to demonstrate results to Canadians when we return to our constituencies in two weeks.

Not very many Canadians have the privilege of the time that we have at home in our ridings, away from our work. People do not begrudge us those privileges. They think it is important for us to connect with them. However, what they expect in return is for us to work hard. They expect us to put in the hours. They expect us to carry on business in a professional fashion. The motion is all about that. It is about doing what the rules have contemplated, what has always been authorized by the House any time it has been asked, since the rule was instituted in 1982. That is why I would ask the House to support the motion to extend the hours.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this week we have focused on the economy by debating and passing at report stage the budget implementation bill as part of our focused on the economy week.

The bill guarantees a balanced budget, controls spending and keeps taxes low without imposing a carbon and heating tax on Canadian families.

It also sets out much-needed changes to the immigration system in order to maintain our competitive economy.

It will also include the new tax-free savings account, TFSA, an innovative device for individuals and families to save money. That bill is now at third reading and we hope to wrap up debate tomorrow on the important budget implementation bill to maintain the health and competitiveness of our economy.

Next week will be we have work to do week. Since the Speech from the Throne we have introduced 59 bills in Parliament.

These bills focus on fighting crime, sustaining our prosperous and dynamic economy, improving Canadians' environment and their health, strengthening the federation, and securing Canada's place in the world.

To date, 20 of these bills have received royal assent, which leaves a lot of work to do on the 39 that have yet to receive royal assent. I know the Liberal House leader suggests perhaps we should work on only three, but we believe in working a bit harder than that.

To ensure that we have the time necessary to move forward on our remaining legislative priorities, I will seek the consent of the House on Monday to extend the sitting hours for the remaining two weeks of the spring sitting, as the rules contemplate. I am sure all members will welcome the opportunity to get to work to advance the priorities of Canadians and get things done.

I will seek in the future the consent of the opposition to have next Wednesday be a special sitting of the House of Commons. This is to accommodate the special event about which the Liberal House leader was speaking. The day would start at 3 p.m. with an apology from the Prime Minister regarding the residential schools experience. I will also be asking the House and its committees to adjourn that day until 5:30 p.m. to allow for solemn observance of the events surrounding the residential schools apology. Residential school survivors and the chief of the Assembly of First Nations will be offered a place of prominence in our gallery to observe these very important formal ceremonies in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow and continuing next week, we will get started on the other important work remaining by debating the budget implementation bill. After we finish the budget bill, we will debate Bill C-29, to modernize the Canada Elections Act with respect to loans made to political parties, associations and candidates to ensure that wealthy individuals are not able to exert undue influence in the political process, as we have seen even in the recent past.

We will also discuss Bill C-51, to ensure that food and products available in Canada are safe for consumers; Bill C-53, to get tough on criminals who steal cars and traffic in stolen property; Bill S-3, to combat terrorism; Bill C-7, to modernize our aeronautics sector; Bill C-5, dealing with nuclear liability; Bill C-54, to ensure safety and security with respect to pathogens and toxins; Bill C-56, to ensure public protection with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods; Bill C-19, to limit the terms of senators to eight years from the current maximum of 45; Bill C-43, to modernize our customs rules; Bill C-14, to allow enterprises choice for communicating with customers; Bill C-32, to modernize our fisheries sector; Bill C-45, regarding our military justice system; Bill C-46, to give farmers more choice in marketing grain; Bill C-39, to modernize the grain act for farmers; Bill C-57, to modernize the election process of the Canadian Wheat Board; and Bill C-22, to provide fairness in representation in the House of Commons.

I know all Canadians think these are important bills. We in the government think they are important and we hope and expect that all members of the House of Commons will roll up their sleeves to work hard in the next two weeks to see that these bills pass.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, in last fall's throne speech, our government presented five clear truths to Canadians.

We said we would get tough on crime, maintain our prosperous and vibrant economy, improve the environment and health of Canadians, strengthen our federation and restore Canada's place in the world. Over the past few months we have made significant progress in all of these areas with lowering taxes and debt, extending the military mission in Afghanistan, and passing the Tackling Violent Crime Act to get tough on crime.

This week is indeed stronger justice system week. We have been successful so far in moving forward on our plan to tackle violent crime with Bill C-31, a bill to amend the Judges Act which has been sent to the Senate, and Bill C-26, our anti-drug law which passed second reading.

However, we will not rest on our laurels. Today and tomorrow we will wrap up our stronger justice system week by hopefully returning our bill on criminal procedure, Bill C-13, to the Senate. We also hope to debate our bill to reinstate modified provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act, Bill S-3, as well as Bill C-45, dealing with our military justice system.

Next week's theme is “putting voters first” because MPs will be returning to their ridings to consult Canadians in their communities.

The following week, we will be examining another priority: “improving the environment and health of Canadians”.

As members already know, our environmental plan announced in the throne speech was adopted by the House last fall.

There is, however, more to be done. We will start by debating Bill C-33. This bill requires that by 2010, 5% of gasoline, and by 2012, 2% of diesel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. This bill will help reduce greenhouse gases and represents an important part of our legislative plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

In addition, we will begin debate on two very important bills concerning food safety and consumer and health products in Canada, namely Bill C-51 to modernize the Food and Drugs Act and Bill C-52to establish An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Taking together, these two bills represent an extraordinarily tough and thoroughly new approach to consumer safety. I hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure these pass through the legislative process in a quick and timely fashion.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Commons has just now voted to approve the budget implementation bill at second reading. The bill will now proceed to the Standing Committee on Finance where it will be studied by members of that committee.

I know that the Liberal Party originally said that it adamantly opposed the bill, so we welcome its change of heart yesterday with its help to defeat the NDP motion, which would have effectively killed the bill, and its kind cooperation today to make sure it passed at second reading.

As I am sure the Liberal House leader is aware, the passage of the bill is important to the stability of the Canadian economy during a time of global economic uncertainty and to reduce the immigration application backlog that is causing Canada to lose much needed talent from potential immigrants. We hope it will be dealt with quickly at committee so that we can have it back to the House for third reading, where I am sure it will once again receive the same warm greeting.

Today and tomorrow, we will continue to debate Bill C-23, which amends the Canada Marine Act; Bill C-33, which will regulate a renewable content of 5% in gasoline by 2010, and 2% in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012; and Bill C-5, which has to do with responsibility in the event of a nuclear incident, as part of Improving the Health and Safety of Canadians Week.

Next week will be a stronger justice system week. We will start by debating, at report stage and third reading, Bill C-31, which amends the Judges Act to allow the application of additional resources to our judicial system.

We will also consider Senate amendments to Bill C-13, which is our bill to amend the Criminal Code in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, and other matters.

We will then continue by debating Bill S-3, our bill to reinstate modified versions of the anti-terrorism provisions--the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions provisions--in the Criminal Code. This important piece of legislation, which has already passed the Senate, will safeguard national security while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. I hope all members of the House will work with the government to ensure its quick and timely passage.

We will debate Bill C-26, which imposes mandatory prison sentences for producers and traffickers of illegal drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children.

Lastly, time permitting, we will start debating Bill C-45, which has to do with our military justice system.

With regard to the bill dealing with aboriginal human rights, we understand, sadly, that the opposition parties gutted the relevant provisions and protections in it. Therefore, I am surprised by the enthusiasm of the opposition House leader for it. Perhaps if the members are, as they were on Bill C-50, prepared to reverse their position and support the restoration of those meaningful principles, we would be happy to bring it forward again.