Bill C-15 (Historical)

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

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;
(e) modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person; and
(f) modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods.
The enactment 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.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to talk about military justice, which is a very special area within the justice system.

Military justice differs from traditional justice in that the goal of the former is to ensure respect for the military hierarchy, while the principle underlying the latter is to ensure harmonious relationships between equals.

In military justice, a general is not equal to a private, and vice versa. This is a major problem because capital punishment still exists in military justice. Quite simply, in military law, the use of lethal force can be authorized against an unarmed individual. The individual can even be taken by surprise. A classic example of this is a pilot who attacks a supply convoy identified as belonging to the enemy. The death penalty exists in military law; it is a rule of engagement. Soldiers are authorized to use force against a group of people identified as enemies. That is serious.

Because the use of force and violence is legal, it must be strictly controlled and disciplined. We can all agree on that. The problem is that these elements of control and discipline must not strip soldiers of their basic rights. I have some examples of trivial offences.

This is an example of insubordination. A soldier returns to the base on Monday. He did not sleep all night because his children were sick, he is a little irritable and he swears at a superior. Under current military law, with a summary trial he could be given a punishment that results in a criminal record. The soldier, who has sworn at a superior, will have a criminal record.

Under civilian law, and under labour law, when a person is punished for the first time, they are given a verbal warning. A note is made in their file and after one year it is removed. That is the difference: one individual is subject to military justice; the other is subject to the standard rules of labour law.

If the operator of a tank has an accident and injures someone, he may face a summary trial and be given a harsh punishment, which can result in a criminal record.

In my province, Quebec, unless the person is found to be criminally negligent, there will be no punishment. Under insurance law, the injured person will be compensated by insurance, and it stops there. There are no penalties, not even a report, if the person who caused the accident did not do so intentionally. There is no punishment.

It is different in military law. Military personnel may find themselves with a criminal record. In Quebec, an explosives expert who sets off a dynamite charge but has miscalculated its size will face charges under administrative law. He will be prosecuted for a professional error. He may be sentenced to take courses or private tutoring. In the military, a criminal record may be the result, and that is serious. A person is thus branded because of the simple fact he or she was in the military and committed an error that any civilian might have committed, with a completely different punishment, if any.

That is where this becomes unacceptable. It is important and essential to maintain respect for hierarchy and discipline in the Canadian Forces. Still, these people, who are giving their best efforts for their country, should not be branded for life. It is not easy to leave military life and find work with a criminal record, especially for offences that would not even lead to a court appearance in civilian life.

The Supreme Court considered the issue and found some things that needed correction. Bill C-15 does offer some corrections. Are they enough? Unfortunately not. Several elements are missing. Amendments have been made, but only 28 of the 88 recommendations in Justice Lamer's report have been retained. That is not many. All 88 recommendations were worthwhile. They were essential to give all our military personnel the same protection the rest of us have in our everyday lives.

One of these essential amendments concerned the fact that 60% of the members of the grievance board should be civilians, so that the person handling the grievance is not directly involved and has some independence from the officer corps. We are not rejecting the officer corps, whose expertise and knowledge are substantial, but civilians should be in the majority on the grievance board. That is not unreasonable. In addition, more authority should be granted to the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process. If he is looking into a grievance, he must have some authority to be able to collect pertinent information.

At present, a summary trial leads to a criminal record. That is a fundamental issue on which we absolutely do not agree. In order to warrant a criminal record, a person would have to be court-martialled, in a court where he would have legal assistance and be able to present a defence. If the offence is serious enough to warrant a criminal record, a summary trial is not appropriate; the matter should go straight to the Supreme Court. Out of more than 1,800 cases that were prosecuted, only 67 went to a court martial.

If the offence is deemed to be serious enough to appear on a criminal record, offenders should be tried through a court martial, where they will have the opportunity to present a defence and justify their actions before an independent judge rather than before their immediate supervisor.

We have heard some important quotations about this, including one from retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who was the secretary to the Canadian Forces Chief of the Defence Staff for a number of years. He was responsible for writing the rules of engagement, which is a big responsibility. He said:

...until you, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted. As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

That is exactly what must be corrected, and we must do so.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I start this speech, I am reminded of several historical situations where military commissions failed a society. I go back to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in the United States and the Mary Surratt case. She had run a boarding house where the conspirators had met but had nothing to do with the conspiracy. She was put before a military commission and she was not allowed to speak, and neither were her lawyers, and ultimately she and some others were hanged. That led to a change in the U.S. at that time, which gave every citizen habeas corpus rights, the right to face an accuser to get the evidence against them.

Those who have been here for a couple of terms will know that I spoke out on behalf of Omar Khadr many times in this place, the reason being that the military commission in Guantanamo had been moved off-site to avoid the changes that had been brought in by the Mary Surratt case. From our perspective in Canada, that was seen as an abuse by some, and not so much by others.

In that light we look at our military justice and how it is applied in Canada. I in fact served in the Canadian Forces in 1963 and 1964, which seems like a hundred years ago now, but I was proud to do so. Fortunately for me, I was not in any severe difficulty but I noted at the time the difference between the administration, rules and regulations within the military compared to what civilians had to live with.

Here I would point out that his bill has been before us previously as Bill C-41. It went to committee and the New Democrats worked with the government of the day to try to improve that legislation. The bill did not return to the House and we wound up with an election, so we are back here with this bill for what is probably the third time at least. The good work done in committee the last time was not taken into account in this bill, because it does not include them.

The Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15. While it is called “An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”, the government refers to it as “strengthening military justice”. To my mind, strengthening military justice is about finding a way to balance the rights of military personnel in a similar fashion to what is done in civil society. Just prior to the time I went into the army in 1963, the non-commissioned officers could actually strike a person in the military. That changed just before I went in. There was a little trick they then used to get one's attention. They would stand us at attention and tighten our ties to the point of cutting off our breath. Of course, they were not striking the men any more but succeeded in getting their attention. While that may sound off-topic in this discussion, what we are looking at here is a justice system within the military that in many ways is a throwback to earlier times. That is something that should be addressed, and this bill goes part of the way in doing that.

While the New Democrats have stated that we will be opposing the bill, we are willing to work with the government when it gets to committee, presuming that the government takes it there, to do the best we can to improve it again because we argue that it falls short in key areas.

Our previous amendments included giving the Chief of Defence Staff authority in the grievance process to respond directly to Justice Lamer's recommendations. We felt that it was within the purview of the Chief of Defence Staff to have the authority. We also felt there should be changes in the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian representation. In a democracy, this Parliament is supreme, but the civilian authorities also have to be supreme over the military.

The Canadian military has a great history of serving this Parliament, our country and Canadians. However, when it comes to the administration of justice and these tribunals, there should be a balance between military authority and civilian oversight. Including 60% civilian membership adds a level of accountability, as originally foreseen in Bill C-41. For 10 years we have regularly heard from the government regarding its interest in accountability. Therefore, I am a little surprised that civilian membership was not included as part of the bill's provisions. Hopefully, we will be able to reason our way into that situation at committee and be allowed to add that amendment.

The provision that ensures that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subject to a criminal record is an important one because of the difference in accountability between a civilian court and a commission. The fact that some offences leave one with a criminal record in a military proceeding but not a civilian proceeding is blatantly unfair to the people who serve our country. A person in the military who has perhaps made a mistake would pay for that for the rest of their life, whereas if they had done so as a civilian they would not carry that burden.

Regarding reform of the summary trial system, the amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces can result in a criminal record. The accused are held without the ability to consult counsel. That is why I made the linkage to the Surratt case and Guantanamo Bay as over-the-top situations. Those who do not know the military or have a military background would be quite surprised to know that in a summary trial in Canada the accused cannot consult counsel. We think that is fundamentally wrong. Also, there is no appeal process, nor are there transcripts of the trials. As well, the judge could well be the accused's commanding officer. Most people would see the obvious conflict in the fact that the officer was the very person who allowed the commission to proceed. We are very troubled by that.

At committee stage last March, when Bill C-41 was before us, the NDP amendments to expand the list of minor offences were carried. Again, that goes back to our making sure that our good service people do not receive criminal records for “genuinely” minor offences. We are not proposing that people get away with what they should not be doing, but the list of punishments that might be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record could include a reprimand, a severe reprimand, a fine equal to or up to one month's basic pay, or some other form of minor punishment. The point is that it should not result in a criminal record. Obviously, if the offence were not worthy of time served, it should not be worthy of a criminal offence.

I want to go back to the question of civilian oversight and the need for 60% of the commissions reviewing these cases to be made up of civilian authorities. That balance is important; it would add to the credibility of the system. Over the last 50 years our military service has improved in many ways in this particular area of the justice system. This is an opportunity to move it further forward.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, we oppose passing this bill at second reading.

On October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill C-15 is a response to two reports. The first was issued by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and the second was released by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Our caucus believes that the bill does not meet its objective of standardizing the military and civilian justice systems. The bill also does not answer the key questions about reforming the summary trial and grievance systems. In 2003, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada tabled his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations, but only 28 of them were incorporated into the legislation.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Essentially, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of the Senate committee during the last Parliament.

Many significant reforms are proposed in this bill. The NDP caucus has been in favour of making the necessary updates to the military justice system for a long time now. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to extremely high standards of discipline and deserve a justice system held to comparable standards.

This bill has a number of flaws, which we hope will be addressed in committee if Bill C-15 is passed at second reading. It is thus very important to remember that, in the reform of the summary trial system, the amendments to Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There is no right of appeal and no transcript of the trial.

Furthermore, the “judge” is often the accused's commanding officer. We believe that this is much too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences. These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobedience of a lawful command. These offences can undoubtedly be very significant when it comes to military discipline, but they do not necessarily call for a criminal record.

I would remind the House that in committee in March 2011, the NDP proposed amendments to increase from five to 27 the number of offences that could be considered minor.

It is important to understand that a criminal record can make life after a military career very difficult. Being saddled with a criminal record can make getting a job, renting a place to live and international travel a real nightmare.

Second, there is also the question of reforming the grievance system with an external review committee. At this time, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board does not allow for external review. The NDP amendment proposes that at least 60% of the grievance committee members never have been officers or members of the Canadian Forces.

Although the amendment was adopted in March 2011, for Bill C-41, it was not incorporated into Bill C-15. It is important that the amendment be included again.

Finally, I would like to talk about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline in which the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal will be required to resolve complaints and protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith.

The NDP believes that we must do more to strengthen the commission. Giving the Military Police Complaints Commission more powers in order for it to serve as an oversight body has been very misunderstood. There should be a legislative provision to give the commission more powers so that it can be authorized to investigate and report to Parliament. Our amendments are supported by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and retired Canadian Forces Colonel Michel W. Drapeau, an expert on military law, among others.

The summary trial is by far the most commonly used form of tribunal in the military justice system. It is designed to deal with minor service offences. The objective is to deal quickly with alleged offences within the unit in order to return the member to active service as soon as possible, thereby promoting and maintaining discipline within the unit. Courts martial deal with more serious charges handled by the system and can also deal with less serious charges, depending on the decision of the accused.

This is the definition and the objective of the grievance process:

Grievances involve matters such as benefits, personnel evaluation reports, postings, release from the Canadian Forces, medical issues and harassment—all matters affecting the rights, privileges and other interests of CF members.

Unlike in other organizations, plaintiffs do not have unions or employee associations to pursue their grievances. It is vital for the morale of Canadian Forces members to deal with their grievances in a fair, transparent and prompt manner.

Finally, we want to send a message to members of the Canadian Forces. Our caucus believes that members of the Canadian Forces have to comply with extremely high standards of discipline and that, in return, they deserve a justice system subject to comparable standards.

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments deal with the actual process, something I am fairly keen on, wanting to get a better understanding myself. He makes reference to Bill C-15 and other legislation. There is no doubt that there is frustration within the Liberal Party on numerous legislation. The most recent one would have been the budget bill, where we attempted to get through literally hundreds of amendments and were constantly turned down. On other legislation such as on immigration and so forth where amendments are in fact being brought forward, the government seems to turn a blind eye to it.

Does the member believe as a result of the reaction we receive at committee ultimately should dictate how we vote on the principle of a bill going to committee? In other words, if the principle of the bill is strong enough to allow it at the very least to go to committee, should you vote for it to go to committee, or because of the behaviour of the government in terms of not accepting amendments, do you oppose all bills that would require some form of amendment?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch my colleague's whole speech, but I caught the last few minutes and there are a couple of things I want to point out.

It is not just this member but others who have said that this side had agreed to some amendments the last time that are not here this time, which is misleading the House. There were two amendments we had agreed to last time. One is in Bill C-15 and on the other one, the criminal records aspect, the minister has already stated very clearly that it will come back to committee. The members need to stop misleading the House on that.

With respect to the grievance external review board and its make-up, we did not agree to that the last time. To suggest that somehow we have changed our minds on that is simply not true.

There was a question put to me previously. Of course, I am here to ask questions and not answer them, but I will answer anyway.

There are 36 of the remaining Lamer recommendations that are in Bill C-15. There are 21 that are in fact still under study because they are extremely complex issues and they do require an awful lot of study. We have accepted 81 of the 88 recommendations, 29 have been implemented, 36 are in Bill C-15 and the other 21 are still under study.

I know it is politics, but I wish the opposition would stop misleading the House.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to address you directly, sir. I know that you would never take the opportunity to single me out. You do as you have always done and remind us all to participate in a way that we know we should. I appreciate that reminder.

Clearly, when we look at Bill C-15, we see it is about bringing justice to our brave men and women in the military for whom all in this House have the greatest of admiration and respect. I genuinely believe that. We, as a Parliament, ask them to serve Canada and they come to us voluntarily to serve.

As parliamentarians, we can disagree on what the missions are, but when a decision is ultimately taken in this House, members of the Canadian Forces serve this House and Canadians in general. This legislation should have been about ensuring that their justice system is as robust and as good as we can possibly make it. However, that is where we have let them down.

The reason we are bringing this to the government's attention is that we have such a high regard for the members of the military and hold them in such high esteem because of the service they give to all of us regardless of what role they take on here at home or abroad. We want them to have the most robust system of justice, which we know they deserve, and we should not provide anything less than that.

We have had reports that have been named many times, whether it be the Lamer report, the committee's report or the previous bill, which have been in this House before. We have had all of these things already, not necessarily in this session of the House, but certainly in other sessions. I was here last session of the House, and there was a bill here before that.

We have had all of that information, which has been studied to a certain degree, but where has it disappeared to? What happened to those pieces of legislation that folks agreed were good? Why would we lose those bits and pieces? Why would we not just say, yes, we disagree on certain aspects, but in the end, why would we not look at the pieces that are here?

There are concerns around the complaints commission. For example, a soldier who logs a grievance ends up in front of his or her commanding officer. That is the way the system works in this process. If one does not come out the other side of the process thinking one was treated fairly, then the system does not work.

The issue is not about the decision. Grievers can file grievances and not win, but if they think that the system works, then they just do not like the decision at the end of it, which is fair. Grievers quite often do not like the decision if they do not win. However, if a griever does not think the process is fair, then regardless of what happens in the decision, it is the process that is the annoyance.

I think we need to look at the grievance procedure and ask how we can make it a fair system. How do we make it a system so that those who have to enter it can say to themselves that the system works? They may not like the decision, but they would not complain that the system was unfair. This is much different from thinking that the reason they got a bad decision was that the process does not work, which ends up with two negatives and that just does not work for everyone involved. It does not work for the military as a whole or its sense of what it wants to do in making sure that justice seems fair. It is not a question of justice being done, but about justice seeming fair as well.

Ultimately, that is what we needed Bill C-15 to do, and it started down the path of taking it to a better place. However, the issue for me is: Why did we not go down the path a little farther? There is some suggestion that maybe it will happen later on. Why do we not do it now? If we were starting from scratch, I guess we might think this is a great start, but the problem is that we are not. We have started from other places. We could have built that into the bill, which is what we find disappointing on this side.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15 in spite of my colleagues across the way, who think we should just shuffle it off and not hear from people and not get suggestions, but just send it to committee and somehow, magically, that committee would work differently than all the other ones we sit on.

I have had the pleasure of sitting on a couple of committees, and I will tell the following story, because it was not in camera. I will not tell the other stories, because they were in camera and we are not allowed to talk about what should and could have happened but did not happen in those cases.

I can tell the House about Bill S-11 at the agriculture committee, where the government said, “Here is an important bill on food safety”. The official opposition said the government was absolutely right, that in principle it was a good bill, a good foundation that we could build upon and make it better. My colleagues across the way, who I have heard all day, said that we should the current bill go committee and it will be fixed there.

I can say that my colleague, the member for Guelph, and I offered about 16 amendments in total to Bill S-11 to enhance that food safety bill. They would have strengthened it, by talking about an audit and whistle-blower protection and about when the clock would start to tick on a five-year review. My colleague and friend from Guelph said that we should start the clock when we enacted the bill, and not wait six months. It was a great suggestion.

The government, in its wisdom, debated the first four amendments, argued against them, but realized that its arguments were so full of holes that it stopped. Accordingly, on amendments 5 to 16, the government members listened to us and then said, “No, no”, and on and on it went until they were all done.

Now, what should we do with that? Should we trust them and suggest that we go to committee with our amendments, where somehow a “no” will become “We are thinking about it, maybe it looks like a good idea”? Of course, the end result will be “no”.

That is why we are debating the bill here in the House, because we want folks out there to know that there are good ideas, that there are things that need to be in this bill, because they were in it before. This is not new. This legislation did not just get dropped off the shelf a few months back.

Speaking of dropping off the shelf, I hear my colleagues across the way in the government saying how they need to get these things through. This bill was introduced by them last year. If it is so urgent, why was it not equally urgent last year when the government introduced it? The government waited a year to bring it forward and now complains that we want to debate it. I thought that folks elected us and sent us here to debate legislation. Call me naive if that is not what I was supposed to do when I got here.

Clearly, if I do not sit on that committee, my only opportunity to offer input on this bill is here in the House. That is the only opportunity to say, “Listen, we have some suggestions”.

What I find really ironic about this particular bill is that it is not its first incarnation. It was here before and amended. The other side actually accepted the amendments. Then magically, after an election, the government lost those amendments and forgot about them. Something happened on the way back to Ottawa after the election. All those good amendments fell off the bus somewhere. They are out there somewhere, never to be found.

That is really disappointing, because if they were good amendments then, they are good amendments now. Why not incorporate them? Why go through this charade of, “Come on, you approve it in principle, you want to do this, so let us get it off to committee”, only then not to make any changes, but bring it back and enact the legislation because you have the majority. We accept that fact. That is the will of democracy: You won the last election, you got a majority. That is fair.

Ultimately, do not expect the committee to accept amendments when the proof so far to date has been that you do not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is some commonality in the sense that we in the Liberal Party and the New Democrats appear to support the fact that there is a need to reform our military justice system. On the surface, it would appear that the government also concurs and that is one of the reasons why it brought Bill C-15 here.

We anticipate that there could be amendments. We are being told by the government that there will be some amendments to the legislation. We in the Liberal Party have indicated that the men and women of our Canadian Forces have waited a great deal of time for this reform to take place. We believe that at the end of the day there are other things that could be done to improve and strengthen the system, but we would ultimately like to see it sent to committee. Therefore, Liberals support the bill in principle and would like to see it sent to committee with the hope that we will see the amendments.

Why does the NDP not support the bill in principle? That is where it seems a bit confusing, because if the NDP does not vote in favour of the bill being sent to committee what it is really saying is that it does not support the principle of the bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would like to start by saying a few words about my family. I had a great uncle who was a veteran of the second world war. As hon. members can imagine, he has now passed on. One of my cousins is a member of the Canadian Forces. He went to Afghanistan several times and to other hot spots throughout the world to do his duty as a soldier.

I have also had the opportunity to meet veterans in my riding, particularly at Remembrance Day ceremonies. These ceremonies are always very dignified affairs with a high level of decorum. They show a remarkable level of discipline.

In my riding, there is also a place called the Legion, where veterans go fairly often to socialize and talk to each other. This meeting place is very important for them. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to these veterans because they have welcomed me very warmly every time I have been there.

There is also another very touching event in my riding. Once a year, the ladies auxiliary—volunteers—go and get veterans with reduced mobility at the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital or other long-term care facilities. They bring them to the Legion and make them dinner so that they can all socialize. These veterans have the opportunity to meet with other veterans, some who may be a bit younger than them, and other people who are there. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the ladies auxiliary volunteers. No one asked them to do this. They do it because they have such great respect for veterans. They want to take advantage of this day to pay tribute to veterans and to give them an opportunity to enjoy some good moments together.

When we talk about veterans, we often think of people who fought in the Korean War in the 1950s, and the first and second world wars. However, we often forget the people I call our new or recent veterans, those who went to Afghanistan and other places. I cannot imagine the extremely difficult situations that these people experienced throughout the world. The same goes for all our veterans.

Some of these “recent” veterans, if I can call them that, have come to see me in my office. They often have medical problems or mental health concerns, but they are also having difficulty obtaining basic services from their government. They are completely distraught. They are having a really hard time adapting to civilian life and, once again, they cannot seem to get answers to their questions when they need them. When one feels a sense of urgency or is in distress, when one is feeling panicked, one is bound to have questions and expect service.

Those people expect a timely response, one that is reassuring. I had one very troubling case that really struck me.

I would like to talk about myself a little bit, in contrast with the people who enlist in the Canadian Forces. These people are held to the highest disciplinary standards in order to face situations that I could never face. Their world is very strict, with very strong discipline and no room for questioning. They must follow the chain of command and so on.

The bill currently before us talks about a justice system. If you will, there is a separate justice system for the military, the justice system that applies to the rest of us, and then there is the criminal justice system. The purpose of this bill is to ensure fair justice for all, whether or not one is in the military, since military personnel are citizens like the rest of us. Although military personnel are subject to specific disciplinary standards and hierarchies, justice must nevertheless be fair and consistent with that in the civilian world. This bill tries to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian system, because serious repercussions and abuses could ensue, although we hope not.

Furthermore, this bill, and also others that died on the order paper, as was mentioned earlier, were introduced in response to the existing system. In 2003, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—who is well known—made 88 recommendations, and 28 were included in the bill. I will not go over all the bills introduced. However, this shows that since 2003 there has been a desire to strike a balance so that there are no abuses of power in the military justice system.

With regard to reforming summary trials, these amendments were made because we did not want someone who committed summary offences to have a criminal record and experience its crippling effects. All these amendments will strike a balance.

With respect to the reform of the grievance system, I would like to say that if the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be seen as an external, independent civilian body, as it should be, the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that.

I see that time is passing. In short, this again is to strike a balance and ensure that members of the military have a justice system that is in line with the civilian system.

In conclusion, the NDP believes that members of the Canadian Forces must comply with extremely high standards of discipline, that in return they deserve a justice system subject to standards similar to civilian standards, and that a criminal record has detrimental effects. We must ensure that we respect this.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber, for his excellent question.

In fact—I am repeating it and I can say it as many times as people want to hear it—the NDP agrees that we should take the time, right now, to improve the military justice system. That is clear. For too long, people have demanded reforms. Still, it cannot be done in a slapdash way. Since it needs doing, let us do it well.

Right now, Bill C-15 does not remove all the flaws. My Conservative colleague said, “Bill C-15 implements most of the remaining Lamer recommendations”. Why not all the judge's recommendations? Why not listen to the experts' opinions?

My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber said it very well: we have doubts about the government's willingness to work with the opposition. These are serious doubts arising from our experience with other bills like Bill C-15. That is why the NDP is not ready to work, because it does not think the government is ready to work in good faith with the opposition.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member asked me that question, with those comments. Perhaps he misunderstood what I wanted to say.

I was not saying that the opposition will oppose all bills from the government. What I said was that several attempts were made before arriving at Bill C-15 and that some amendments had been presented to the government. Those amendments cannot be found anywhere in Bill C-15. With respect to this specific bill, the opposition has good reason to doubt the government's will to work with the opposition on the amendments needed to make Bill C-15 a good bill.

Now, I would like to add that the hon. member said himself that most of Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer's recommendations have been included in Bill C-15. Why is it most and not all of them? The Conservatives cannot answer this question. Often in committee, the experts ask questions or give their opinions, but they are completely ignored by the Conservatives. That is unacceptable and it is not the way the NDP operates.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments and the conclusion I draw is that the New Democrats will never support any bill of any kind going to committee because they do not trust the government in committee. That is pretty obvious.

I will quote former Chief Justice Lamer, who stated:

I have approached the task of writing this report from the perspective of the women and men in the Canadian Forces. These soldiers who risk their lives for our country deserve a military justice system that protects their rights in accordance with our Charter, while maintaining the necessary discipline for achieving successful missions. Further, they deserve a grievance process that addresses their grievances in a fair, transparent and prompt manner. I believe that my recommendations will go far towards achieving these goals.

Bill C-15 implements most of the remaining Lamer recommendations. Would the hon. member opposite not agree, and I suspect I know the answer, that it is time to stop playing politics and agree to move Bill C-15 to committee so that the goals, so clearly and eloquently set out by former Chief Justice Lamer, can be fulfilled for the members of the Canadian Forces?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to take part in the debate on Bill C-15, Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

This bill is closely related to a report produced in 2003 by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer. It may seem striking for us to be debating a bill relating to a report released in 2003, but the reason will be understood when I have put everything in context.

First, Bill C-15 has appeared in several forms, as my colleagues have noted as well, including Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, but they both died on the order paper. Far be it from me to accuse any party of not being concerned about this issue. Several attempts have taken shape and a lot of work has been done by all parties to change the military justice system as we know it at present. Was the work done seriously, in good faith and collaboratively at all times? I cannot say.

I do not want to accuse anyone, I do not want to say that this issue has never been important, and I do not want to seem as if I am asking why we are beginning the debate on Bill C-15 today. That is not actually the case, since several attempts have been made in the past.

Second, in the last Parliament, Bill C-41 was introduced in response to Justice Lamer’s report, as I said earlier. That bill unfortunately died on the order paper also. It contained provisions relating to the military justice system, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, the court martial panel, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and certain provisions relating to the Military Police Complaints Commission. All of those subjects were addressed in Bill C-41.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that was introduced in the last Parliament. I would point out that a number of amendments were proposed during debate on Bill C-41. Those amendments were the product of serious consideration, testimony and the work done by members and experts. Unfortunately, those amendments were not taken into consideration in Bill C-15. Why?

The reasons are still not clear to me. Why were these amendments not included in Bill C-15? Including them would have demonstrated that the government had genuinely considered them and that it was ready to work as part of a team to create a bill that met everyone's expectations and requirements. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

That makes the opposition seriously doubt the government's willingness to accept any new amendments to Bill C-15. Amendments were clearly put forward by all parties during the last Parliament. If they were not taken into consideration while Bill C-15 was being drafted, it is not because the government members were unaware of what the opposition wanted to include. This raises serious doubt about the government's goodwill and its readiness to consider the amendments that could be proposed at second reading, when the bill is sent to committee.

Having said that, I would like to continue by listing the elements that worry us the most in Bill C-15. They are the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes to the composition of the grievance committee, and a provision to ensure that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. Those are the three points that worry the opposition.

I will explain the NDP's suggestions for dealing seriously with these three elements, which unfortunately have not been addressed seriously enough or thoroughly enough in Bill C-15.

Yes, the NDP agrees that the military justice process needs serious examination. Does that mean that the NDP will support Bill C-15? What an excellent question. But no, that is not what it means.

I would like to make some additional remarks about parliamentary procedure and operations. We often hear Conservative members and ministers say that the NDP has voted against families. We often hear the Conservatives say that the NDP has voted against investment, against trade agreements or against justice, but that is completely ridiculous. Everyone realizes that. Why do we hear them say things like that? There are several reasons. And we shall see that there is a close connection to Bill C-15.

It is not true that this is just about whether the NDP is for or against exports or trade agreements with certain countries. That is not the issue. The issue is much more complex. We can vote against a bill on a specific subject without being opposed to that subject. We may simply be opposed to the approach because we think it is not the best way to address a problem or to resolve a situation. These are reasons why a party may vote against a bill without necessarily voting against the subject matter addressed in that bill. I will not discuss this point any further because it is obvious; anyone can understand it. The ministers and members who advance these arguments have to know that. They are consciously grandstanding to deceive the public. I believe it is very important to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

So is the NDP opposed to military justice? No, Mr. Speaker. The NDP simply believes that Bill C-15 does not address the issue correctly and that, if it is going to be done, we could do it much better. That is why the NDP will not support Bill C-15 at second reading.

Exactly what is the NDP's proposal for a better solution?

First, we must take a different approach to reforming the summary trial system. Why? Because we believe Bill C-15 does not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. For example, in some instances, summary trials may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the accused having the opportunity to consult counsel. In summary trials, the judge may also be the accused's commanding officer, and that can cause problems. This has to be addressed, but Bill C-15 does not do it. It is too severe in the case of minor offences such as insubordination, quarrels, drunkenness and disobeying an order. That is the first aspect.

The second aspect is reforming the grievance system. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board must be perceived as an independent external civilian body. However, people who have retired from the forces may currently sit on the board. The NDP's amendment suggests that at least 60% of grievance board members must never have been a Canadian Forces officer or member. Is the Conservative Party opposed to this amendment? We do not know. However, we do know that it has not included it in Bill C-15, but we do not know why, and that is troubling.

Lastly, there is the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Yes, Bill C-15 addresses this matter, but only with respect to the time required to resolve complaints. In the NDP's view, we should do more to strengthen the commission, but this is not addressed.

I could go on and on, but unfortunately I do not have a lot of time. However, I want to say that the NDP has long supported a necessary updating of the military justice system. That is clear. But Bill C-15 is not the way to do it. As I explained earlier, the opposition has serious reasons to doubt that the government intends to work with the opposition to rectify that. This has not been done previously, and we do not believe the committee work on this bill will be done seriously.

Why not? Because the government insists on meeting in camera, limiting debate and controlling witnesses in committee. I could continue, because the list is long. We have reason to doubt the government's desire to work as a team with the opposition.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the previous question.

We recognize in the Liberal Party that Bill C-15 does have some issues. At the end of the day, it would be nice if the bill went to committee. The government has already indicated it will bring forward some amendments, which we hope will improve the bill. We hope to hear from different stakeholders as to why we should and how we could improve the bill.

In principle, the Liberal Party supports the bill because at the end of the day we believe it is necessary to pass it on to committee.

The NDP members have taken the position that they do not support the bill going to committee. Is it safe then to say that they do not support the principle of the bill and that is the reason why they are voting this way?