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, 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?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Once again, before I go back to the hon. member for Welland, I would encourage all members to refer to their colleagues in the third person as opposed to the second person, even in a hypothetical.

The hon. member for Welland.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we voted for Bill S-11, the food safety bill. My recommendation to my caucus was to vote for second reading and send it to committee to amend it because the government's sense was for us to bring it our ideas. That is exactly what I did. We voted to send it to committee.

It is not so much the process. It is about looking at individual legislation on the merits of the legislation. We do not vote because of a process; we vote on what the legislation is about. If the legislation in our view deserves to go to committee, then we will vote to do that. Bill S-11 is a prime example of that. That is exactly what we did, but then we found out what the process was, and it was “no”.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. It works out good that my colleague spoke before me.

The first thing I want to do is read back into the record comments that were made on November 4, 2011, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence with reference to this legislation in its earlier version. He said:

As I begin my remarks, I would like to congratulate those of our colleagues, the hon. member for St. John's East, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, and the hon. member for Hamilton Centre, who worked very hard with members on our side to develop a common approach.

I thought that was a decent thing to do, early on to offer up. However, I would point out that he said that in a minority government. Whether the government was so inclined as to be friendly and wanted to work together and show a lot of camaraderie, it was really forced into it. When we get into a majority, we start to see the government's real view of the opposition. Let us just say that is less than encouraging in terms of wanting to “develop a common approach”.

I raise that because there has been a lot of discussion on all sides around process and a lot of questions about the way we view the process and why it is somewhat different than the way we voted previously.

What is really important is that the earlier version of this legislation was in a minority government. In a minority situation, there can be all kinds of preachers within Parliament. There can be coalitions, accords, day-by-day, which was the system that we lived under in a Liberal minority government and, ultimately, the Conservatives until the last election. We would have liked to have seen it more often but at times there was an element of working together, particularly on matters that were important, that had legal timeframes and that had legal implications, and this legislation was one of those. The military needed these improvements and, as we do every day, we wanted to put pressure on the government and hold its feet to the fire. At the same time, there are certain issues where we set that aside and work together because it is in the best interests of Canadians. When we are in a minority Parliament, the only way that can happen is when somebody works with the government to create enough votes to pass a law. That was one of those times.

I was given some acknowledgement because I was defence critic at the time and the reference was when we were trying to get the bill through the House at that time. The work at committee was done by my colleague from St. John's East who was the defence critic before me and continued as critic afterward when our new leader was sworn into office and created his shadow cabinet.

At that time, we had a bill that everybody had worked hard on. They put a lot of time and effort into getting a bill that they could agree on because it was important to the military. We did that job collectively. The remarks that the parliamentary secretary made at the time were in reference to the work that I was doing with him and his House leader, his minister and my party leader, our interim leader at the time, as we tried to find a way to get that bill in front of the House and get it passed because the work had been done and we had agreement.

I point that out because it is critically important to understand the context of the previous bill if we are going to understand at least the politics around the current bill.

We had this whole process. Compromises were made. Compromise is not a dirty word. That is how things get done. Everybody found language they could live with and, as far as I know, it was unanimous. There certainly was a majority, meaning our caucus and the government. There may have been others but I do not see any nod from the Liberals, but that is not relevant to this point. The point is that the bill would have been law had we been able to get it in front of the House. I do not want to point fingers. I do not know who to blame for that. There is lots of blame to go around. Everybody can have a bit. However, what matters is that it did not happen.

The government now has its majority Parliament and when we came back here, the bill came back. We had reasons. Any reasonable minded person would have reason to believe that the bill that would come back would be the bill that we agreed upon. That makes the most sense. That way it would have ensured a quicker passage through the House. We would not be standing here right now. It would already be law.

We were not about to change our minds or our position. We had made the compromises. We had put together a bill that we could live with and we were prepared to stand behind it, and dare I say, we would have been prepared to stand behind that bill in this Parliament had it been brought back in whole, but it was not.

I do not care whether it is one clause, one amendment, two amendments or a thousand amendments. When we are dealing with legislation such as this, one clause, if it creates an injustice or leaves an injustice in place, is not acceptable. It is not a question of how many amendments the government did not put in here. It is the point that it did not bring back the same bill that everyone had agreed on was in the best interests of this Parliament, and more important, of the military, and most important, of the personnel within our military.

That would have been the process that a reasonable person would have expected. It would have been one that I assure the government we would have responded to, because what ground would we have had to stand on? If we were standing here at second reading and for some stupid reason we were opposing it, the government would ask us what the deal was, and say that we agreed to it before so why were we not in agreement now.

We were not going to do that but now we, the official opposition, are in a position where the shoe is on the other foot. The government brought back a bill that is not the bill that was agreed upon. We will agree that this is a step forward. In this context I say to a number of members who have raised procedural questions about why we are not supporting it at second reading, even though we say it is a step forward, this is not a regular bill and it is not a regular situation. That is why.

I cannot imagine why we would support a bill that is not the bill we supported before and does not have the things in it that we thought were important and made other compromises and changes in the whole process. Why on earth would we now say that it is a great bill, no problem, let us whiz it through, when some of the things we fought for to make sure there was justice in there are no longer there. Why on earth would we support that bill?

Now we are left with the situation we are in right now, which is the making of the government. Government members own this situation. Had they brought the bill in that had been agreed upon before, the bill would already be law.

However, for reasons we do not yet know, government members went into that with the majority mindset that they do not have to listen to anyone anymore, they do not have to do anything, they have all the power, they have the stable majority and they can do anything they want. They could ram it through here. Hell, they control the Senate. They could ram it through there too. That is the mentality we are left with on the bill.

We are so far away from the climate of co-operation that existed in the creation of the previous bill, Bill C-41, that we have no choice but to make our principled stand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the one-minute notice. I managed to get through two of my seven points.

[Stephen Woodworth]

I can't hear you. Louder.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The hon. member does not know what my ultimate objective was.

I will wrap up by just saying that for all the government members' to-ing and fro-ing and lighting themselves on fire over what the official opposition is doing, if they had just followed through with the commitment and the compromises they made in the previous bill and brought that here, we would stand by those compromises. We would stand by that bill and we would honour our word and honour our armed forces, in this case, something the government is not doing.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre will have his five minutes of questions and comments when this matter returns before the House.

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.

[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.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I was a member of the Canadian Forces and I went through some very challenging training. My experience has shown me that soldiers are subjected to conditions that are extremely different from what is experienced in the civilian world.

People are encouraged to join the Canadian Forces in order to gain experience and come out with some incredible tools. I made mistakes, minor ones. It happens to everyone. For example, you go before a superior officer and get charged, fined, patted on the back and told not to do it again. That is part of life's lessons. We are talking about young people who enlist at the age of 18, 19 or 20 and who need guidance. I do not think that providing guidance for minor offences involves encouraging young people to join the Canadian Forces, exposing them to extreme conditions and handing them a criminal record on their way out. That does not work.

Could my hon. colleague compare the military world and the civilian world and tell me whether it is normal to mix the two?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Repentigny for his question.

As I explained, there is a glaring flaw in the current bill regarding the two systems: civilian and military. The military side is too demanding, perhaps excessively so, when minor offences are handled a certain way. It is excessive for members of the Canadian Forces to get a criminal record when they are found guilty of having committed these offences.

By comparison, there is more latitude in the civilian system. Our colleague from Repentigny explained it well. It would be ideal if we could move forward with our proposal to have civilians make up 60% of the Military Police Complaints Commission, and this would make for greater justice for the accused.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech on a very important issue. It does not receive much attention, because we are discussing the military system, to which average Canadians do not have access, and about which they know very little.

This bill concerns the concept of justice. In the NDP we often talk about this government's lack of justice. We see it in this bill, and in general in the Conservative government's platform. It appears to give priority to punishment and to victims, for example, but in fact, it makes things worse and does not help in achieving this idea of justice.

I would like to ask my colleague if he could tell us something about this, not only in terms of this bill, but also with regard to the general experience we have here in the House.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I thank my distinguished colleague for her precise comments and her question about the word “justice”. It is true that the term “justice” is subject to adulteration, confusion and misinterpretation. In fact, the end goal of justice is to render a fair decision in every sense of that word, the whole nine yards.

When there are flaws, for instance, when the judge is the accused person's commanding officer, there is a serious problem. In my opinion, that should be corrected at second reading, using the amendments proposed by the NDP.

[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.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

Here is the distinction: a person is either a soldier or a civilian. As he understands the principle, why should a soldier really be treated differently from any other citizen?