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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before I proceed, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, International Trade; the hon. member for Cardigan, Search and Rescue.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to be rising in the House today. I would have been much happier rising if this were Bill C-41, from the last Parliament, and to be speaking to and supporting that very important piece of legislation. However, what the government has done with Bill C-15 is turn it into what I would have to call a prequel, which is what is there before one gets to a final bill. This should be what we had before we got to something like Bill C-41, in the last Parliament, when all of the parties participated, had a debate, and agreed to bring the bill forward in a way the parties would all have been able to support. However, that is really not what the government is interested in.

There are many important reforms in the bill, and the NDP supports the long overdue update of the military justice system.

Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline. They, in turn, deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. While this is not an issue at the forefront of most people's minds, a lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts. The way the system of justice in the military is set up right now, a soldier can receive a criminal record for very minor offences, such as insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave and even drunkenness. These matters could be extremely important to military discipline, and we would probably all agree on that, but they are not worthy of a criminal record.

A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Getting a job, renting an apartment and travelling abroad are all made far more difficult when someone has a criminal record. Our brave men and women have enough challenges re-entering civil society without a criminal record on their backs.

The NDP will fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line in the service of Canada.

The issues addressed in the bill are not new and date back, as we have heard many times today, at least to the independent review of the National Defence Act, released in 2003, by the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court.

The issues contained in Bill C-15 have indeed appeared in earlier forms. There was Bill C-7, which died on the order paper due to prorogation in 2007. We all remember that wonderful time. Then there was Bill C-45, which died on the order paper after the current government was found in contempt of Parliament.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force, simplifying the structure of the courts marshal and establishing a method for choosing a type of court marshal more closely aligned with the civilian system.

In 2009, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs considered Bill C-60 and provided nine recommendations for amendments to the National Defence Act.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 report and to the Senate committee's report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges in committees, summary trials, court marshal panels, the provost marshal and limited provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints process. In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament, minus all of those amendments.

The amendments carried over include courts marshal composition and military judges' security of tenure. However, other important amendments passed at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15. These include the following NDP amendments: the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership; and a provision ensuring that a person convicted of an offence during summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

If one member of the government would get up at this point, I would ask what in those amendments was so scary and offensive that the government would pull them out of the bill before reintroducing it. However, I doubt that I will have that chance.

I am opposing Bill C-15, as it contains shortcomings that need to be re-addressed because the amendments I mentioned were pulled from the previous version of the bill. Far too often the government takes bills that were fixed and then breaks them again before bringing them to Parliament. It is a trend that we are seeing again and again. In the next two and a half years before the next election, I wonder how many other things Conservatives are going to break anew before bringing them before Parliament.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately the unfairness of summary trials and the conviction of service offences from those trials in the Canadian Forces, which result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the accused being able to consult counsel; there are no appeals or transcripts of the trial; and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. I wonder how many of us in civilian life would ever want to be tried by our boss.

These trials are unduly harsh for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of very minor service offences. Bill C-15 does make an exception for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment defined in the act, or a fine of less than $500, so they will no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill, but it does not go far enough.

At committee during the last Parliament, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand the list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record from 5 such offences to 27. If the offences in question received a minor punishment, one the NDP amendments also extended the list of punishments that might be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a reprimand or a fine equal to one month's basic pay, or another minor punishment. This was a major step for summary trials. However, this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15. We want to see it included.

Another matter that needs to be amended relates to the external military grievances review committee. At present the grievance committee does not provide a means for external review. Currently it is staffed entirely by retired Canadian Forces officers, some only recently retired. If the Canadian Forces grievance board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it is designed to be, then the appointments process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society.

The NDP would like to see a provision that at least 60% of the grievance committee members never have been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. This amendment to Bill C-41 was passed in March 2011, but again it was not retained in Bill C-15. There seems to be no good amendment that the Conservatives do not want to see gone. It is important that this amendment also be put back in the bill.

Another major flaw in the military grievance system is that the Chief of the Defence Staff presently lacks the authority to resolve any and all financial aspects arising from a grievance, contrary to a recommendation in the Lamer report. Despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence at the time agreed to this recommendation, there have been no concrete steps taken over the past eight years to implement this recommendation. The NDP proposed an amendment to this effect to Bill C-41 at committee. Although the amendment passed in March 2011, once again this amendment is nowhere to be found in Bill C-15. It should be included.

Another aspect of the bill that needs to be addressed is the need to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends it to establish a timeline in which the Canadian Forces provost marshal will be required to resolve and conduct complaints as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although a step forward, the NDP believes that more needs to be done to empower the commission. Care has not been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions that would empower it to act as an oversight body.

I will be happy to answer some questions. I hear disappointment from the other side of the room, but I will be more than happy to include you in the conversation.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind the member to address his comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such a good speech, even though he is getting comments from the other side, and congratulate the people of his riding for electing a brilliant young man. I also congratulate him because I heard that he recently got engaged.

I have a question for the hon. member about an amendment to Bill C-41, about which it was said:

[A] key New Democrat amendment to Bill C-41 was the provision ensuring military personnel convicted of offences during a summary trial would not be subject to a criminal record. We believed then, and we still believe, that those who bravely serve our country should not be deprived of the rights and protections that other Canadians enjoy.

Can the hon. member tell me why this amendment is not in Bill C-15?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to get an answer why it is not in Bill C-15, a member of the government would actually have to rise in the House and defend this bill.

I would like to tell the member that flattery will get him absolutely everywhere, and I thank him for his congratulations on my upcoming nuptials, which will be taking place next year.

That is one of the main confusions with this bill, as with many others. The government strips away well thought out, reasoned amendments from bills and then no one on that side will get up to defend why the government did so. That is absolutely transparent on the part of government; it is as if the government were not even there.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question.

I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech, which, I think, did not receive the attention it deserves from the governing party. One cannot expect miracles every day in the House.

Many sources tell us that Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, to name a few, have all made changes to their summary trial system for their military personnel. Those are all Commonwealth countries that all have the good fortune, like Canada, to have the Queen as their monarch—and the Conservatives across the floor should be happy to hear me say that.

I have to wonder why Canada is so far behind and why it has not yet made the necessary changes to better protect our military personnel.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really confusing. We see parts of the Commonwealth making improvements to their military justice systems by taking and using best practices. We on this side have tried in previous parliaments to include best practices, as has been mentioned time and time again today. It is absolutely baffling why the government will not institute the best practices established by our allies and friends in this world.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I, too, would like to congratulate the member for Scarborough Southwest for his commitment. I listened intently to his speech, as I did the speeches of all my NDP colleagues, which stand in stark contrast to the hollow speeches emanating from the other side.

Let me reassure my colleague: I think it is a relatively new practice in the House to speak without saying a single word. That is not why we were elected, however, and the NDP intends to do its job.

I see that we have dealt with many different iterations of Bill C-15, namely Bill C-7, Bill C-45, Bill C-60 and Bill C-41.

I know that in the last session of Parliament, the NDP brought forward several amendments, including amendments to increase the Chief of the Defence Staff's authority in the grievance process, to change the grievance board's membership so that 60% of its members are civilians and to ensure that anyone summarily convicted of an offence not be unfairly burdened with a criminal record.

I would like my colleague to tell us how people, especially Canadians, will react when they find out that their military men and women, who have so bravely served our country, could end up with a criminal record because of flaws in our military justice system.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that we are not going to hear from the Conservative Party about the changes and what is going on because it is silent on the issue.

We have parliament in which we are supposed to actually debate bills and come together to present reasoned arguments on those bills, yet not one member of the government will stand up to defend a government bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise on the bill after asking so many questions.

First, as I am following the member for Scarborough Southwest, I would like to congratulate him on his engagement. I met his lovely fiancé and it is wonderful to know that they will be married soon.

I would like to begin my remarks by saying that over quite a few years in this House I have debated many bills. However, it is very unusual and rare to hold a debate in which there is basically one party participating. There is something going on here that we will have to get to the bottom of.

I appreciate that so many members of the NDP caucus, the official opposition, have taken the time today to get up in their place and debate this very important bill. They have given some substance and historical background on where this bill came from and what the problems are with the bill today.

In fact, I remember you, Mr. Speaker, debating the bill in the last Parliament. It was Bill C-41 then, a forerunner of this bill and very similar in its provisions. I have to say that we certainly miss you in the House debating bills, but we are very happy to see you in the chair as Deputy Speaker.

Bill C-15 has a long history and it is about a very important matter that is long overdue for reform, that being our system of military justice. As the member for Scarborough Southwest just pointed out, there are other countries that have dealt with this issue in a proper and adequate way, yet we are lagging far behind.

The original report by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was presented in 2003. That is quite a few years ago and it worries me that it has taken this length of time to bring forward a bill, which will presumably go to committee. We hope that it will come back from committee in a form that includes the amendments the NDP proposed so long ago.

Military justice is a very important issue, particularly the principle that members of the Canadian Forces have access to a system that is fair, balanced and that protects their rights. In fact, after reading through the bill to see what it would and would not do, there are a lot of fundamental questions about why the members of the Canadian Forces have been living under a system where their rights have basically been disregarded for so long.

Even though we support many elements of the bill and think it is a step in the right direction, there are three key issues that we have been hammering away at today because they are not in the bill. The bill does not go far enough on the need to reform the summary trial system and the grievance system and to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. I would like to focus on these three elements.

Regarding the summary trial system, what immediately jumps out at one when reading the bill is that it does not adequately address the unfairness of it. As noted by my colleagues, members of the armed forces can be drawn into some of these summary trials, as we are told, on issues that are meant to be of a minor nature. However, the fact is that they can end up with a criminal record.

They have no right to consult counsel, there are no appeals or transcripts of the so-called trial, and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This has to be the most fundamental injustice. It is very disturbing that it has continued for so long.

Dealing with the issue of the summary trial system and bringing in reforms is something that I think is imperative for members of the armed forces and for anyone in this country who has a notion of the justice, balance and fairness that need to be afforded to people.

We are very concerned that the bill does not address this fundamental question. Some of the so-called minor service offences could include things like insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absent without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. In a civil system, people could be charged with those things and if they actually went to court, they would have a lawyer, a hearing, a judge and may even have a jury. However, in this system, the summary trial system, none of those things would happen, but people could end up with a criminal offence. This is a serious problem that we face in the bill. We want to see it corrected.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, when the bill came forward in its last form, Bill C-41, the NDP worked very hard to get the bill changed. In fact, when it was at committee last March, we wanted to expand the list of offences that could be considered as not worthy of a criminal record from 5 to 22.

We worked very hard at the committee. I was not on the committee, but I am sure there were witnesses who were heard. We know there were a number of major witnesses and organizations that sent in information, like the BC Civil Liberties Association, which put forward the concerns and fundamental flaws with the bill.

Therefore, we brought forward those amendments and they were approved at the committee. That is an example of committee work that was doing something. It was constructive. Amendments were proposed that would improve the bill, which is what is meant to be done at the committee level.

Lo and behold, we come back to the House, a new bill comes forward, Bill C-15, and those amendments are not present in the bill. That is a serious problem.

As a matter of principle, we are opposing this bill at second reading. I guess it is a form of protest to say that the process here has been seriously undermined and that the government should have acted in a responsible way, looked at the constructive work that was done on earlier versions of the bill and ensured that it came back in a way that reflected the will of the House.

It is very unfortunate that none of the members on the government side have been willing to answer that question today. We have raised it repeatedly in the House. It is a very straightforward question. We have asked each other those questions, because the government members will not answer. We have asked why the Conservative members and the Conservative government did not include those amendments.

We do not know for sure. We can only suppose that it is some level of unilateralism, some level of arrogance that the government thinks it can ditch that and does not need to pay attention to it. If that is not the case, we sure wish the government members would get up and explain why these amendments are not in Bill C-15.

The second key item that we wish to raise is the reform of the grievance review committee. Again, this is a very fundamental process system that has to do with military justice. In this instance, we had amendments and things we had worked on to strengthen the bill. It is really a very straightforward principle.

It is the idea that there needs to be some sort of external, independent component. In fact, the NDP amendment that had been put forward in committee previously had specified that at least 60% of the grievance committee could not be an officer or non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. Again, this amendment was passed under Bill C-41, but is not been retained in Bill C-15. Having some independence, some broader scope on a grievance review committee seems, to us, to be a pretty important thing. It begs the question why it is not there.

Finally, our third concern is about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. We believe, and again there was an amendment to this effect, that it should be seen as an oversight body. There has to be somebody who looks at the system overall and has some independence and must be empowered to actually investigate and report back to Parliament. On that too, it is silent. It is absent.

For those three reasons, we are not supporting this bill at this time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in principle, Bill C-15 attempts to narrow the gap, as I referred to earlier, between civil court and military court. The principle of what it attempts to do is something which we in the Liberal Party do support and ultimately would like to see passed to committee.

We have a number of concerns. We, too, would like to see amendments. I am somewhat surprised that the New Democrats have decided not to allow it to go to committee. If the choice were theirs, they would defeat the bill.

To what degree does the member support the principle of what the bill tries to accomplish? Even if it does not receive amendments, would the New Democrats support it in a third reading, for example? At the very least, would the member not acknowledge that it is best to see the bill go to committee where she might get her amendments through? Could the member just focus in on the principle of the bill itself?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, finally a member from another party has stood, so I welcome him to the debate today, even at 5 p.m.

In terms of the principles of the bill, as we have said very clearly today in the House, there has been progress made under it, but there are still fundamental issues around principle concerning the military justice system that have been completely avoided and left out of it. Therefore, it makes it very difficult to support the bill in principle.

I would note, because the question came from a Liberal member, that the Lamer report came out in 2003 when the Liberals were in power. They did respond positively to the report at that time, but they also sat on it. We are really lagging in time in what has happened with this whole system of military justice.

I am sure the bill will go to committee. We have taken a position that we do not support the bill in principle because it is so flawed. However, once it gets to committee, I know our members will again try to ensure the bill is corrected and comes back in a much strengthened and better form.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with this bill. I have been Minister of National Defence now for five years. The bill has been around some nine years in various iterations.

I heard the member opposite repeat something that has been repeated over and over again by members of the opposition, and that is it somehow does not answer the 88 Lamer recommendations. Mr. Justice Lamer made 88 recommendations and 29 of those recommendations were in fact included and implemented in a previous bill.

Therefore, if the members are looking for the remaining 60-odd recommendations, they are in the bill in front of them. This is why we want the bill to go to committee, where we can further implement recommendations, not all of which will be included, as they are recommendations and some we do not believe are good policy. The opposition members have every right to disagree with the government in that regard.

However, in answer to those members stating over and over that they are holding up this legislation because they are waiting for more recommendations to be in place, it is in the bill in front of them. Let us get the bill to committee where we can have a substantive discussion about moving the bill forward to actually benefit members of the Canadian Forces, which again is an enduring theme in which we all agree. Let us get the bill moving. It has been nine years. In fact, two justices have looked at the bill and made recommendations. Now it is time to move and not play these silly games of continually holding it up in the House.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to welcome the Minister of National Defence to the debate today. It is good to see him in the House.

If he is familiar with the history of the bill, then he will know that its previous versions did not go forward because of prorogation. Now who was responsible for that?

We acted in good faith on this bill in terms of amendments that were put forward at committee under Bill C-41, so I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. We have been trying to find out all day why the government dropped the key amendments that were agreed to in committee. Why are they now not in Bill C-15?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the debate many of us are having on this side of the House, which is good to see. I am glad to see the Minister of National Defence added his two cents to the debate, but we really hope we will have other members of Parliament from other parties join in. The debate we are having is extremely important when it comes to our Canadian Forces and modernizing the Canadian Forces.

As has been mentioned, it was the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, one of our sharpest jurists, who contributed to our country in many different ways. We honoured his passing just a couple of years ago. I had the opportunity to get to know him a bit from a social point of view and he was someone who contributed to our system in so many ways. He had also examined concerns around the issues of justice in Newfoundland and helped reform some of the systems there. When he brought forward his report in 2003, it was thorough. It was also a blueprint for what we needed to do. We needed to, in his opinion, modernize the justice system within the military.

It is strange when the government talks about getting the bill to committee and getting it done. As my colleague from Vancouver East, the bill was before us in two different iterations. One of the times it went through the House with a minority Parliament, but it was stopped abruptly because of prorogation.

It comes with a qualifier when the government criticizes anyone in the House, particularly us, about slowing things down. The Conservatives pulled the fire alarm on the House of Commons with prorogation because they were worried about holding on to power.

The other thing that is important to understand in the bill and its context is the government has constantly talked about the importance of our military, the importance of supporting the troops and ensuring that is a brand of theirs. However, when we look at how that works, whether it is the reforming the justice system, as we are debating today, or supporting veterans, particularly for those who are coming back from the conflict in Afghanistan, there is a gap between the rhetoric of the government and the results.

In the context of the bill there are things like the Military Police Complaints Commission. We went through a very long debate over the role of the Military Police Complaints Commission when we debated the question of detainees. It came up in the House during debate that the government was not being responsible and responsive when it came to supporting the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The Conservatives changed the chair. They did not renew the chair's mandate because the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission was doing the job. The Conservatives were not sufficiently supporting the Military Police Complaints Commission with documentation and that led to a parliamentary crisis in the end, which someone in your chair, Mr. Speaker, had to rule upon.

It is important that we understand the context. If the Military Police Complaints Commission is not able to do its job sufficiently, then that puts the system at risk.

The reason we set up these bodies is so there will be a fair hearing, a due process. That is extremely important. However, if the executive branch interferes with that and does not support the Military Police Complaints Commission, either in the appointment of the chair or ensuring that it has all the material sufficient to do its work, then we have a dilemma. The dilemma is that the commission is no longer really independent because the independence of the Military Police Complaints Commission is compromised because of lack of co-operation from the executive branch. We cited this before in the case with the Department of National Defence and the minister in providing documents, and ultimately up to cabinet.

We need to see more clarity. As others have mentioned, this issue has been examined in other jurisdictions. The MPCC is an important institution that was set up to deal with issues like those we saw with the Somalia inquiry and what happens when things go wrong within the military. It is a different organization obviously, a different institution, and it does require different methods in terms of dealing with issues around justice, but we really do have to modernize here. We have been very vocal and clear that the MPCC needs to be given full independence. The government needs to comply with the requests it makes and not put barriers in its way.

The bill does not go far enough to really address some of the issues around grievances, as was mentioned by my colleagues.

With respect to the summary trial system, I just want to read into the record again some of the important statistics around the use of summary trials. Summary trials are seemingly the dominant disciplinary method that is being used by the Canadian military. A lot of people are shocked to note the statistics we have available. Between 2008 and 2009, there were a total of 1,865 cases, 96% of which were determined by summary trial. The other 67 were heard by court martial, 4%. It is important to note that if we do not deal with the issue of summary trials, then we are really not dealing with the big problem, and that is modernizing our system of justice within the military.

If the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are able to deal with this legacy of summary trials, then why can we not deal with it here? I have just listed Westminster models, and they are able to do that, so it is certainly not a question of our parliamentary system. The countries I just listed were able to do it. They are all within the Westminster tradition. Why is the Conservative government not able to see that, to put that forward? We have put this case forward many times. We were debating this particular bill in its previous iterations when the Speaker was a member on the floor of the House.

The government is saying it will just get it done when the bill gets to committee. Government members already know what the problem is. Why did they not deal with it before? Why did they not deal with it perhaps after the second iteration? Here we are the third time. The government could have dealt with it. If the government is going to deal with it in a fulsome way, it could have put that in place. It could have strengthened the Military Police Complaints Commission and dealt with the whole issue of summary trials and grievances.

As I stated before, the military is a different institution. My father was a sergeant who served in the second world war. He used to joke about what his role was within the military. He was at times a disciplinarian with the troops because he was a sergeant. There was a code and they had to follow it. That was then, but times have changed. It is time to modernize, and that is why at this point it is difficult for us to support the bill at second reading.

We look to the government to tell us why it did not get the job done before. We ask the other opposition parties to see the problems we have. Let us get this done right. Let us get this done well, so we can fully support our troops.