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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the Canadian Forces, I do appreciate the importance of trying to narrow the gap between the civil system and the military system, as I have referred to in the past.

One of the issues that has always come up is the issue of not being able to report in to work. There is quite a different consequence for someone in the military who does not report in to work compared to a civilian who does not report in to work. I am wondering if the member could just provide his thoughts with regard to that sort of disciplinary action. Does he recognize that there is a difference?

On the other hand, there are many different types of offences that could apply for a civil court system, such as representation for many of the summary convictions that other members of this caucus have made reference to.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, we acknowledge that when it comes to the Canadian Forces, to the military, it is a different institution, so for the example the member gave, it is obvious there is a propensity, and an understandable one, to deal with situations differently. That said, we really have to take a look, and I mentioned the stats of the use of summary trials, and see that this is an outdated method of dealing with justice for our military and it is time we respect the forces and the institution itself and modernize it.

As I said, this has been done in many other jurisdictions. The question is: Why can the government not provide that solution? Maybe Conservatives either do not want to or they have not done their homework to put forward a proposal on which we can all agree.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite happy a while ago to see a Conservative member finally get up and ask a question on the bill. The Conservative member wants to get the bill to committee.

My question for my colleague from Ottawa Centre is: Considering the fact that the House has passed dozens of bills, maybe hundreds, since the government became a majority and we have been able to make amendments to one bill, maybe two, can the hon. member tell me what the chances are of our making good amendments to Bill C-15, or are we not going to be able to do that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question because many people are wondering that. There is a question around the functioning of our parliamentary democracy right now, when we have time allocation used regularly, when we have omnibus bills brought in anytime the government wishes to get anything done, bypassing normal parliamentary scrutiny.

When it comes to committees, we have seen that going in camera is too often used. The rationale for Parliament to do its job is to be able to provide scrutiny and alternatives to bills and amendments. I sadly say to my colleague that it is very unlikely that government would accept the amendments. We have tried that. We have made the case here, and as we have said before, please take our ideas, adopt them, let us get some results happening.

Conservatives have said it will happen later. There is a certain trust on that. We have not seen support for putting forward our ideas adopted by government, so for those of us who have watched the government in a minority and now a majority, it is a matter of whether it is true that the government is really focused on getting things done for the best results for Canadians, or whether it is more about how it is using its majority power just to get things done for its own political benefit. Sadly, I think it is that.

We need to address that in our system. We need to see committees work better. We have to stop the business of time allocation and certainly stop the pattern we have seen from the government of bringing in omnibus legislation, because it is deeply affecting our parliamentary democracy and therefore the health of our democracy.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of military families across the country. Like many people in the NDP caucus, I have relatives—my grandfather and uncle—who both fought for Canada and their names figure on the memorial in downtown New Westminster, just outside the city hall. There are many members of Parliament in the NDP caucus who are strongly supportive of the immense sacrifice that military families and members of the Canadian Forces make on behalf of the country. They put their lives on the line every day. Without question, they follow the directives that are provided through the democratic framework we have here in Canada.

When we talk about veterans who have put their lives on the line, those who have lost their lives in so many tragic cases and those who are currently serving in the military, we know they are entitled to our respect. They are entitled to the respect of Parliament for what they do on our behalf every day. We have a bill that was brought forward by the Conservative government, yet another example—and I will point to a few other examples in the few minutes I have remaining—that shows a profound disrespect for military families and members of the Canadian Forces.

We have a bill that was flawed from the outset. The NDP went to work and put forward amendments that received the support of the committee and Parliament. Yet the government is trying, through a back door, to resubmit flawed legislation that was improved through NDP action but was obviously flawed when the government put it forward.

I know there are military families listening to the debate today, from some of the emails members are getting, who are very supportive of what NDP MPs have been saying in the House of Commons. I will point out one example of how flawed this legislation is, with the summary trial system that the government seems intent on ramming through. We see that a member of the Canadian Forces who may have had a few drinks one night or may have put his cigarette in the wrong place can receive a criminal conviction that will carry through for the rest of his or her lifetime. This point has been made by NDP MP after NDP MP. We have not seen one Conservative stand to defend this legislation, and we can certainly understand why. It is so badly flawed.

To say that a member of the Canadian Forces who has just a few too many drinks one night is entitled, as a reward for that, to have a criminal conviction that may last the rest of his or her life is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Yet the Conservative government is saying it does not care about the military or Canadian Forces personnel; it is going to ram this through come hell or high water. It is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The use of that term in that context is inappropriate and unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will rely on your wisdom. It is a common expression but I withdraw it.

The reality is that what we have is a government that is bent on pushing through this legislation without amendment, when the NDP amendments that we brought forward before and that were adopted by the House and by committee are obviously in the best interests of Canadian Forces personnel.

When we look at the pattern of the government and what it has done in a very clear way against the Canadian Forces military personnel and military families, what we see is a pattern of disrespect. There is no other way to put it. It is refusing amendments to flawed legislation that puts Canadian military personnel in a very awkward situation, to say the least. On top of that, we see what has been the pattern of the government, a record of disrespect for Canadian Forces personnel and for veterans.

I will give some examples. First is cutting $226 million from Veterans Affairs Canada. That eliminates 500 employees. The Conservatives can say that is fine and that they will find another way to provide services. However, as many NDP MPs have pointed out, as our critic for Veterans Affairs has pointed out on numerous occasions, there is no doubt that it has a net impact on services provided to veterans. There is absolutely no doubt that it shows disrespect to military forces personnel and to veterans.

We have seen case after case. Our team on the Veteran Affairs side, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and the critic as well, the member from Quebec, have been pointing out in the House that many veterans who need access to services are being denied those services, such as those veterans who need access to psychologists through the Department of Veterans Affairs and have seen their applications denied.

We have seen World War II veterans who were denied reimbursement for stair lifts to access the upper and lower levels of their homes because they were not considered essential living spaces. We have seen veterans who have been denied care at the veterans hospital because they were not seen as meeting very strict criteria, even though they were veterans in the service of our country. We have seen, a number of times, the personal medical files of Canadian veterans being released to the public.

This is not a series of accidents. The debate that we are having today, where the government is refusing to improve badly flawed legislation that hurts our Canadian Forces personnel, is an example of a pattern of disrespect.

On this side of the House, the NDP caucus will stand up for Canadian Forces personnel. We will stand up for our veterans because we believe it is right to do so. They put their lives on the line for our country and the least that we can do in this Parliament is to ensure that legislation respects them. This legislation does not. That is why we oppose it. That is why we are voting no.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have two and a half minutes to complete his speech when the bill is next called to the House.

The House resumed from October 23 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 the question be now put.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a second opportunity to address the bill. Earlier today, I was referred to as being a one-man filibuster. I do not know how that could be. I think I spoke to the bill for 20 minutes back in March or May. If the members opposite want to see a filibuster, they should read the transcript of the justice committee meeting that took place last March on Bill C-10 where it was necessary for me to speak for at least six or seven hours in order to get some sense brought to the members opposite in terms of ensuring that at least some discussion would take place on the massive justice bill that the government put before the House. Bill C-10 was the omnibus justice bill that brought together seven, eight or nine pieces of legislation with over 200 amendments that it sought to get through committee in one day. When members opposite talk about getting a bill to committee, they are talking about a committee where they have the hammer and they can control procedure in any way they want.

I am not opposed to the bill going to committee because it needs to go to a committee. We have a new committee and, as with all committees, there is a majority of members opposite on that committee. There are new members, both from our side as well as from the other side, who were not part of the debate in the last session. However, what we are seeing in the chamber on this bill is a tremendous amount of interest by members in our party to talk about the concerns we have with respect to military justice.

I only have a few minutes but I will outline some of the principal ones. One concern is with the function of summary trial procedures before military tribunals. A summary trial takes place without a great deal of formality, as opposed to a court martial which is a much more significant judicial procedure. The reality is that more than 93% of offences that members of the military are charged with are dealt with in a summary trial proceeding. They appear before their commanding officer who listens to what they have to say, hears witnesses, makes a determination and imposes a penalty, which could be anything from incarceration, loss of rank or a fine equal to a month's pay. Many of these penalties are in breach of the Criminal Code. If I had a lot of time I would get into that. However, some of the offences are as simple as being absent without leave or being drunk in a facility which could result in a criminal offence. The nub here is that a procedure of a summary nature could result in a criminal offence.

What is wrong with that is that people do not have access to a lawyer nor do they have a lawyer present for these hearings. It is not an independent tribunal. The CO knows the person, the witnesses and probably a bit of the history of the case because he or she may have heard about it before the person appears before him or her but there are no rules of procedure or evidence. Therefore, it is very unlike the kind of trial that people would have in a civilian court if they are charged with an offence by the police. As there is no transcript, it makes it impossible to appeal under the law and yet the decision could still result in criminal record. That is wrong and it offends our sense of justice in this country.

In the committee in the last Parliament , we sought to make some significant changes to that. In the end, there was an amendment made principally to clause 75 of Bill C-41 which took a series of offences away from the criminal record circumstance. It was not enough, in our view, but some progress was made in the last Parliament. The bill came back to the House and there was a willingness to pass it in the dying days of the last Parliament.

Despite the Conservatives' alleged anxiety today and over the last number of weeks to have this bill passed and sent to committee, even though it was in the last Parliament and had reached various stages, they did not, for some reason, call it before the House. We were ready to see it passed through Parliament because there was an anxiety to have these measures put forward. We were co-operative even though it was a minority Parliament but the government did not see fit to call the bill for debate and have it passed.

Now we are back again and the Conservatives have a majority. A whole series of amendments were brought forward in the last Parliament. Were they in the new bill? No. They were stripped out after having deliberations at committee, listening to all the witnesses, having debate and passing reasonable amendments, although not all the ones we wanted. The Conservatives say that want to make progress. If they want to make progress, why did they not put back the bill that was ready to be voted on in Parliament? It is because they decided that they wanted to remove the progress that had been made in the last Parliament.

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

Why did you force an election?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I hear some noise from across the way. I know the member for Ajax—Pickering wants to participate in the debate. If so, I would encourage him to stand when I finish and give a speech and let us hear what he has to say about this.

The principal problem is that the government has gone back on the progress that was made and yet continues to say that it is trying to make progress. It is not making enough progress and we want to assure the people of Canada and the military that we intend to try to have a better system of military justice. There is a whole series of clauses that were amended in the last Parliament that are missing from this.

The other principal area that we have concern with, although there are several others, is the grievance procedure. The grievance procedure is unwieldy. Some improvements have been made. The military people who file grievances have the right to grieve. We put forth amendments to have civilian representation on the grievance board. Most of the grievances are really of an employment nature as opposed to a military nature and could be properly handled with the right kind of civilian oversight and participation. However, the government continues to fill the military board with military personnel, mostly of the officer class, and it is a long and unwieldy procedure.

The CDS, in the end, has the final say, except there is one major problem. The CDS can say that he or she agrees with an individual's grievance but then, if the individual is complaining that the $1,500 moving allowance that he or she was supposed to get was denied to him or her, the CDS, who is the final authority, may agree that the person is entitled to the money but the $1.500 cannot be awarded. What happens then? The grievance then has to go to lawyers at the Department of Justice to determine whether the person has a legal case against the Crown for the $1,500. What do we have that for? It makes no sense.

A good example that has been going on for some time is the home equity allowance that military members are entitled to. If they move from one place to another and lose money on the sale of their home, they are entitled to have that reimbursed from the military. Guess what? Somebody in Treasury Board has decided there is no such thing as a depressed market for real estate in Canada and people who have lost between $70,000 and $80,000 on the resale of their home can only get a maximum of $1,500. Despite the Chief of the Defence Staff agreeing with the grievers and saying that it is wrong and that they should get the money, it is no dice. It cannot happen because, despite the final say going to the Chief of the Defence Staff, we have the lawyers, the Treasury Board and others holding this up.

Those are some of the things wrong with the bill. We want a fulsome debate and a willingness on the part of the government to try to change those things.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He mentioned, obviously, that this bill contained a number of flaws, including the use of summary procedures resulting in a criminal record. In these cases, the accused cannot even consult with counsel, and there is no appeal and no transcript.

Could my colleague talk about the negative and harmful impact this will have on individuals transitioning from military to civilian life?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is twofold. We do not have any objection to a summary procedure. Most people may want to plead guilty, get it over with and recognize that they will not necessarily be treated terribly harshly. That is all well and good, and military discipline requires the availability of a summary procedure. What I object to and what I think most people object to is that if an individual ends up with a criminal record after that, it can interfere with the person's future life.

People cannot even get a pardon anymore because the government has changed the Criminal Records Act so that there are no more pardons unless they have a cabinet pardon. The royal prerogative of the Crown can still grant them a pardon. Somebody famous might be able to get a pardon from the cabinet if they are important enough, but there are no pardons for ordinary citizens, including ex-military.

The government would call it a record suspension, whatever that means in the minds of Canadians. Therefore, when people have a criminal record and cannot have access to a pardon, it can affect their employment status and their travel to other countries. It could affect any number of opportunities they might have, and we think that is very detrimental.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite once again alternates between regretting that amendments have not been included in the bill, which can only be made, discussed and brought forward in committee, where he refuses to allow the bill to go, and regretting that an election took place, which his party helped to force in 2011.

I understand that he may regret that members, like myself, elected for the first time in 2011, are here. I am sorry but he will just have to live with that. Time does move on. However, when it comes to amendments, he has heard our Minister of National Defence and he has heard our side say that we are prepared to introduce at least one of those amendments and to discuss the others that he has raised today.

We have had this discussion repeatedly in this House on this issue. His statement comes very close to being dilatory because we have heard all those points before. However, there was one flash of insight, of potential for progress in his speech. He said that he has no objection to moving the bill to committee. Would he not agree with all of us on this side that now is the time for the bill to go committee? As Chief Justice Antonio Lamer said in his report:

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.

They do not have that at the moment until the member for St. John's East releases his grip on our process and allows the bill to go to committee.