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

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

moved 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind the House that, although Bill C-16 was sent to committee, we could have moved forward much more quickly if the member for Richmond—Arthabaska had acted differently this morning. It is not up to him to decide who forced the Standing Committee on National Defence to examine these very urgent measures for the second time, something that is unnecessary. I think that all members in this House understand these measures and understand how this member wasted the time of the House and the Standing Committee on National Defence.

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.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not plan on making a habit of interrupting the parliamentary secretary. However, I must correct one thing: not one of the 308 members in this House is wasting anyone's time. Every member has the right to speak and to give their opinion. Obviously, some members are not happy with some decisions, for various reasons. Yesterday there was a decision that went against us and that we strongly disagreed with. We will get over it, and the parliamentary secretary should too and should not say that a member of the House is wasting the House's time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska knows full well that he has drawn out the procedures and the debate on this issue. It had nothing to do with the substance of these matters, which are urgent for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We are ashamed for him. Even if—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Is the parliamentary secretary continuing with debate, or is he responding to the point of order?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am continuing debate, a debate that is urgent, on measures that have been before this House three times. This is the fourth time. It is important that members of this House understand the urgency of these measures and the level of consensus that has been reached by successive Parliaments on these measures. That is the reason for my remarks.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The Chair appreciates the clarification and would be pleased if the hon. parliamentary secretary continued with his remarks regarding the matter before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we have had great collaboration from all three parties represented in this House.

I want to pay particular tribute to the three members I mentioned earlier. The member for St. John's East made a couple of remarks about the LeBlanc case which probably, if they were heard by members of the Canadian Forces, would have them regretting that he chose to pursue his legal career not in the Judge Advocate General's office but in civilian life. He clearly understands the importance of the system, the importance of a strong defence, the importance of independent judges and professionals at every level of the military justice system.

I thank the member for his clarity on the issues. I also thank his party and the Liberal Party for their constructive contribution to advancing these bills.

I rise now in support of Bill C-15 , the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada bill, which concerns an important aspect of national defence, that of military justice in the broad sense.

Maintaining the integrity of the military justice system is the responsibility of government and should concern all Canadians. The military justice system is an essential tool to maintain the discipline, morale and operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces.

Without such a system, our men and women in uniform would not be able to focus on their number one priority which is to protect the interests of Canada and Canadians.

For that reason, the government, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Constitution recognized the importance of maintaining a robust military justice system.

This government also recognizes, as did Chief Justice Lamer in his 2003 report, that there is room for improvement. The principles and procedures of military courts martial and summary trials must remain consistent with Canadian values and the evolution of Canadian criminal law. After all, a legal system can only remain strong if it evolves alongside the society it serves. Otherwise, an outdated system could risk undermining not only the legitimacy of military law, but also the health and vitality of the forces themselves.

This government has tried three times since 2006 to introduce the necessary legislation to do so, but each bill has failed to progress as a result of the unpredictable nature of a minority Parliament. I do not think it is worth going into the details again of those stories from previous Parliaments.

In 1998, when the National Defence Act was last updated, an independent review of the act every five years was made mandatory. In the first review, in 2003—the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was right to mention that it was some time ago—Chief Justice Lamer made several important recommendations about how to improve the act.

These recommendations focused on the administration of military justice, the role of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the head of the military police, and the system by which grievances of Canadian Forces members were addressed. All of these recommendations were studied in detail, both inside and outside the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence. A wide range of stakeholders--civilian, military, government, non-government--were consulted and, as a result, this government brought forward legislation on two separate occasions to update the National Defence Act. Members know them well. They were Bill C-7 in 2006 and Bill C-45 in 2008, both of which, as we are aware, died on the order paper.

Then in 2008, the ruling of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada in the case of Regina v. Trépanier forced the government to introduce legislation on an urgent basis. In response, the government rapidly introduced a targeted bill, Bill C-60, to rectify this problem. Thanks to many hon. members still present, this legislation was passed by Parliament.

In 2010, the government once again tried to update the National Defence Act, this time by following up on recommendations from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs as well as the latest recommendations from Chief Justice Lamer.

That bill, Bill C-41, was introduced during the final session of the 40th Parliament and was both studied and reported on by the Senate committee.

Some of the amendments that were submitted by the Bloc and discussed in committee were included in Bill C-41.

However, that bill died with the dissolution of Parliament in March. Since that time, we have had the Court Martial Appeal Court ruling, already discussed today, which assessed the process by which military judges were appointed, currently on a five-year basis, and we started to deal with that issue with Bill C-16. However, that bill does not address other important amendments included in Bill C-15, a bill that aims to reinforce military justice by bringing the National Defence Act up to date. This is an act that is evergreen, that requires constant updating, as many pieces of legislation do, on which the institutions of our country depend.

We have given careful consideration to the recommendations and proposed amendments put forward by members of the House, when Bill C-41 was studied in committee.

Bill C-15 would address various problems regarding military justice through a series of important amendments to the National Defence Act.

First, it would strengthen the administration of military justice by allowing for the appointment of part-time military judges to serve in times of large-scale operations and other search periods, thereby providing flexibility in the courts martial system. We hope this is not a provision that will be needed soon or often, but it needs to be there and it is a former chief justice of our country's Supreme Court who endorses that view.

In addition, it would lower the minimum rank requirement for the senior member of a court martial panel from colonel to lieutenant colonel in most cases and reduce the minimum rank of serving panel members on courts martial of non-commissioned members from warrant officer to sergeant. This fight simply widens the pool of those eligible to serve on these panels.

It would also allow for one more non-commissioned officer to serve on the panel when the accused is a non-commissioned member, as well as allow for increased participation of non-commissioned officers, without undermining the requirement for leadership and experience in the maintenance of discipline. It is the experience of non-commissioned members, as well as officers, on which this system depends.

This bill would clearly define the objectives, intent and principles of sentencing in the military justice system.

By articulating the purposes of military justice, we would be giving increased clarity and transparency to all those engaged in its delivery. This is perhaps the most exciting and compelling aspect of this bill. The National Defence Act had not previously articulated the purposes of military justice. They are implicit and known but now they would be explicit and this would provide Parliament's guidance to the military judges, officers and Court Martial Appeal Court justices presiding over courts martial, summary trials and appeals, just as Parliament has already done for the civilian criminal justice system in the Criminal Code. Of course, this guidance would expressly recognize the crucial elements unique to the military system necessary for it to fulfill its vital function.

The bill would also introduce a broader range of sentencing options to help ensure that the punishments handed down by courts martial or summary trials are appropriate, both in terms of being appropriate to the offence committed as well as being broadly comparable to the range and type of sentences available within the civilian criminal justice system. Criminal justice evolves. Military justice must reflect the best of the evolution of the civilian criminal system.

Bill C-15 would also improve how victims are treated by the military justice system. The bill includes the option of presenting victim impact statements before courts martial and would give military judges the authority to order restitution.

Victim impact statements are very important to the whole justice system, something that is recognized on the civilian side but which now needs to be enacted on the military side for us to continue to be as proud of and confident in that system as we have been to date.

The bill would set an additional limitation period for holding summary trials, requiring that charges be laid within six months of an alleged offence being committed, to accompany the existing requirement that the summary trial be held within one year of the alleged offence. And, Bill C-15 would legally empower the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada to suspend sentences handed down by courts martial where deemed appropriate.

In addition to resolving issues related to the administration of military justice, Bill C-15 would strengthen the military police system by officially establishing the position, duties and responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, who is the military police chief, and by speeding up the military police complaint process and making it more fair.

The provost marshal, just to be clear, is not yet recognized officially in the National Defence Act. Mr. Justice Lamer recommended that he or she be so, and the position would be so under Bill C-15 when it is enacted.

With respect to addressing grievances in the Canadian Forces, Bill C-15 would permit the Chief of the Defence Staff to better delegate his power as the system's final grievance authority, thereby helping to resolve grievances more swiftly and efficiently in the interests of better administration and morale.

The bill would also formally change the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, at its own request, to the military grievances external review committee to reflect the actual status of that committee. This would better reflect its independence and increase the confidence of Canadian Forces members in its impartiality.

Finally, this bill would improve the existing statutory requirement for a periodic independent review of selected provisions of the National Defence Act. It would clearly establish that requirement in the act itself, setting out both the scope of review and the mandate of review period which would be adjusted from five to seven years to ensure the quality and effectiveness of each independent review.

In conclusion, the government recognizes that the changes proposed in this bill are extensive and, in some cases, complex. However, it should be noted that, in most cases, the need for these changes has been recognized for years and most of the proposed changes have already been addressed and analyzed in committee.

Our men and women in uniform are counting on us. This government acknowledges that regular attention and review is necessary to ensure the continued relevance and effectiveness of any legal system, military or civilian, and through Bill C-15, we will ensure that this is the case for military justice in the years to come.

Canadians depend on their government to build and maintain a justice system that reflects our national values and respects the rule of law. This government has been given a strong mandate from Canadians to do that. The House has a mandate to act in this area as well. I therefore call on the House to support this important effort by moving this bill forward as quickly as possible.

It may seem to some of us in the House that the measures in the bill are distant or obscure. Not all of us have had direct contact with the military justice system, but we all understand that the roughly 100,000 Canadian men and women in uniform, regular force, reserve force, depend on these measures for their morale, for their discipline, for the framework of justice, action and order in which they operate in Canada, and which they take with them abroad when they are deployed as they have been so often in the history of this country.

We have a responsibility to them, eight years after the Lamer report, to move forward with these important measures. The measures in Bill C-15 go well beyond those provided for in Bill C-16, and will indeed supersede that of the bill we dealt with earlier today if that bill passes into law earlier.

We hope that we have the support of all members of the House in moving through an expeditious debate on the bill, efficient consideration at committee, and early implementation and enactment of the bill into law.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks from the hon. parliamentary secretary. My question involves the review that was done by the hon. Mr. Justice Lamer submitted in 2003. That review contained some 88 recommendations, a few of which are covered in Bill C-16 and some in Bill C-15, but it seems the government has substituted its judgment for Mr. Justice Lamer in omitting some of those.

As well, in his report there were many things in the recommendations the government could do without legislation, including increasing resources to the military justice system which apparently the government has failed to do in that intervening time period.

Why have there been these omissions of recommendations from the bill and why has the government not acted on those recommendations which do not require legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has acted on many of the recommendations that do not require legislation and we would be happy to review those in detail with the hon. member and his party at committee or outside of the House. Within the confines of an answer to this question, I cannot provide that level of detail.

The vast majority of the recommendations contained in the Lamer report of 2003 have been translated into legislation in the bill. I think the member will agree, as many members in his party did in consideration at committee, that these are the right ones and that not all were appropriate for translation for inclusion in the bill at this time.

There are larger issues related to the Military Police Complaints Commission and the grievance process which are still subject to policy review, still subject to decisions pending outside of the House, which we hope to translate into legislation at a subsequent date. But keep in mind that Justice LeSage is leading another review of the military justice system, which is due very soon, which will have recommendations. The House will have a chance to return to these issues relatively soon because of our delay in implementing the recommendations from the Lamer report over eight long years.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, in the many reiterations of this bill, one of the debates was around the independence of the police to conduct investigations. The independence of the police is as important to the rule of law as the independence of the judiciary.

As I said earlier, the tension between the independence of the police and the command structure of the military is what creates something of a hybrid system for military justice in this country, and for that matter, in all other countries.

There exists a tension in the military system of justice that does not exist in the civilian system. Where police would be assumed to be, both factually and in appearance, independent of supervision from, say, an authority like a mayor or other political authority in a military justice system, that is not entirely a warranted assumption.

Hence, my question is with respect to subsection 18.5(3), which states: “The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation”.

I would be interested in the government's view with respect to the ability of the vice chief of the defence staff to actually issue instructions on a unique and discreet investigation. That does not auger well for the independence of the police to pursue an investigation, where it might take the police.

Does the hon. member have some concern that this particular section could be both used, but more ominously abused, by senior brass, for want of a better term, in order to shut down an investigation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government, after long consideration within the Department of National Defence, and on the basis of consultations with many, inside and outside of government, has come to the conclusion that it can be confident that those measures, mentioned by the member for Scarborough--Guildwood, are required. Abuse can come in many forms. We rely on the professionalism of the senior leadership of the Department of National Defence, and all our public servants, to prevent it. By and large they do.

I would remind the hon. member, there are also safeguards in the bill. The number of times that the vice chief of the defence staff has recourse to this provision is subject to review. This provision itself is subject to review, as are all the measures governing military justice. It is currently every five years. We are now proposing every seven years.

Let us be clear, there are institutions within the Department of National Defence. The superintendence of military justice is in the hands of the judge advocate general's office. Investigations and police work are in the hands of the provost marshal. They have their own logic and their own autonomy. That is enhanced by the bill, given that the provost marshals will for the first time be recognized, and the purposes of those officials' work recognized in the National Defence Act, thereby strengthening their ability to do their job without interference.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Given that the time for government orders for today is about to expire, the hon. parliamentary secretary will have four minutes remaining in questions and comments when the House returns to this bill.

In view of the ruling made earlier today, there will be no private members' business hour today.

Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 14, 2011 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 4, 2011 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 at second reading. This is a law that has to do with military justice. It is an act to amend the National Defence Act in order to strengthen military justice.

First, I need to make some general remarks about the whole notion of military justice in our law. As some members know, I served as defence critic in Parliament prior to October of last year. We had Bill C-41 before us in the last Parliament, which was intended to bring some changes into the military justice regime in Canada.

It is important that we have a good look at our whole military justice structure because there are a number of problems that need to be resolved. Military justice needs to fit in with our entire justice system. We need to ensure there is conformity between the kinds of laws we have in relation to military justice, as well as our general justice system, certainly in terms of the fundamental principles of law.

We need to understand that there are differences between military law and our general legal system, and there are good reasons for that. We have a military justice system that recognizes the relationship between the justice system and discipline within the military.

There is a significant importance to discipline in the military. I will quote an expert in military law, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who is a lawyer in private practice and has considerable experience in the military. In fact, he is the author of the only significant military legal text in Canada used in law schools and has an annotated book on the military aspects of the Department of National Defence Act. It is quite a useful source of knowledge. This is what he says in relation to the importance of discipline in military law:

Few professions are as dependent on discipline as is the military. Discipline is fundamental to military efficiency, cohesion, esprit-de-corps permitting commanders to control the use of violence so that the right amount and type of force can be applied in exactly the right circumstances, the right time and the right place. At the personal level, discipline ensures that at all times of great danger and risk, the soldier can and will carry out orders even if his natural instinct for self-preservation and fear tells him otherwise. Likewise, group and individual discipline ensures adherence to laws, standards, customs and values of civilian society, even during combat operations.

He went on to say, “Therefore, discipline is integral not only to the maintaining of an efficient armed forces, but also ensuring that the rule of law predominates within the military, particularly when engaged in great peril and danger in combat”.

We see that it as important for two reasons, not only for maintaining discipline so that when someone violates the law there is quick action and a speedy response to breaches of discipline but also that there may well need to be procedural differences available in the military context. However, it is also extremely important that when engaged in combat there always be an adherence to the rule of law.

Our country certainly wants a military force and troops who are capable of carrying out their use of force in a lawful manner, regardless of the circumstances of great peril that others take. Therefore, we say that not only the military justice system exists to punish wrongdoers, it is also a central part of command discipline and morale.

We have a voluntary military and the military justice system must be seen as equitable and fair. Otherwise, we will not only have a justice problem but could also have an operational and recruitment problem. We must recognize that people who volunteer for military service must know that they have to be treated fairly. Therefore, we must also emphasize the justice side as well as the military side. We want, expect and need a high level of morale in our system among our troops and we demand loyalty, but that is a two-way street and the system must be seen as fair.

When Bill C-41 was before the House, we brought it to the defence committee where our party sought to do two things. First, we sought to ensure that the procedures in the military justice system were effective, insofar as it was possible and consistent with the need for speedy resolution of disciplinary matters in some cases. Moreover, we also sought the protections, as far as possible, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, we did not want the fact that we needed efficient military justice to take the place of fundamental principles of justice for people just because they happened to be in the military.

Therefore, we focused on making changes to the proposed legislation that would see the summary trials provision conform as much as possible to the existing law for civilians. Where that could not be done, we recognized that we would use this procedure, which could involve people going to detention for up to 30 days or having substantial fines levied against them and, under our current system, result in a criminal offence, even without the protections of the charter, without the right to counsel, to make full answer in defence or having an impartial tribunal. These ought not to be regarded as criminal offences, which after service would require a person to go through the parole board and seek what was then available, a pardon. It is not available any more, because the members opposite have decided that pardons are no longer available through the parole board. That is all the more reason we have to make sure this is done right.

We did take some measures. We introduced a series of amendments in committee. Some of them were accepted. In fact, some those accepted were even proposed by the Judge Advocate General and his advisers. Bill C-41 did not pass but died on the order paper when the election was called last year. We had gone through first and second reading, committee and third reading, but it did not get passed in the dying days of the last Parliament.

Therefore, we are back at it again with a new bill, Bill C-15. However, a number of amendments that were accepted by the committee and would have ameliorated some of these problems do not appear. They are gone, out the door. So we are back to square one now with respect to a number of provisions that were in Bill C-41 that were fixed and improved, and some that were even proposed by the Judge Advocate General as a compromise to fix the system in an acceptable way, taking some of the offences and adding some more offences, in fact, back to the list of those that would not result in a criminal record. However, these offences are back in again.

I do not know why we are doing this. Is there any respect for this Parliament by the government? Are the Conservatives saying that now they have a majority they can do what they want? Never mind what they did last time or what they agreed to last time, never mind the compromises and the proposals that came from the Judge Advocate General's office, they are going to go back to square one and not do it.

These are important matters because we are not talking about simple changes to legislation. We are talking about people's fundamental rights, and when I am talking about rights I am talking about the Charter of Rights. When section 11 of the Charter of Rights states that a person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with law, in a fair and public hearing, by an independent and impartial tribunal, it means just that. However, if their commanding officer who knows them, knows all of the witnesses and everyone else, has the file and is not even telling the accused what is in the file, that is not a fair and impartial tribunal.

I am not saying we cannot accept that if we are dealing with an administrative disciplinary system, but we should not add the extra piece of saying that it would result in a criminal record, which he or she would have to deal with that later on and pay $600 to the parole board, hope for the best and maybe get what is called a record suspension. These are serious matters.

Some would say that the Charter of Rights should not apply to the military. When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being drafted and adopted as a fundamental part of our Constitution in 1983, the drafters contemplated whether or not the military justice system should or should not apply. It was thought about because there is one section, for example, were the right to a trial by jury is being discussed in the Charter of Rights. For anyone who is interested, it is paragraph 11(f) of the Charter, which talks about when one can have a trial by jury, and states:

except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.

It is equating a military tribunal in a court martial to a jury. Therefore, they thought about military law when they were crafting the Constitution. There is no exception for a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. There is an exception for a jury trial because a trial by a military tribunal is considered to be equivalent in the charter to a jury.

Why are we doing this? It is beyond me to understand why a government that takes such great pride, we hear, in our troops and looking after our service men and women and military personnel who volunteer for service and risk their lives and, in some cases, sadly, give their lives in defence of their country and in doing their country's work, does not treat them and give them the same rights that the Charter of Rights provides for citizens of this country.

We tried to fix that. It is a fundamental problem in military justice. It does not just affect a few people. I do not have the latest statistics but I cited the statistics for 2007-08 and 2008-09. There were over 2,600 offences in 2007-08, and 2,600 in 2008-09, the vast majority of which were dealt with by what is called a summary procedure, a procedure that does not have those protections. Someone would be tried by his or her commanding officer and, in most cases, would end up with a criminal record if found guilty.

These are essentially a lot of discipline offences having to do with going AWOL, et cetera. I will not bore members with a list of the number of offences for each one, but we have things like conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. These are there to try to keep everyone in line and to keep morale up. There are offences such as being AWOL, which could be as much as being 10 minutes late after a night out on leave. In fact, 29% of the offences are absences without leave. However, these are offences against the National Defence Act. Drunkenness is another one, accounting for 6% of the offences. For soldiers, it is amazing that only 6% of the 2,600 offences we are talking about here from five years ago relate to drinking. Soldiers are supposed to be famous for going to bars and drinking, but obviously we have very disciplined soldiers in our Canadian Forces, of which we are very proud.

Nonetheless, we are talking here about fundamental justice and the need to ensure that our military justice has the same respect for fundamental justice as does our regular legal system.

I am hoping that we are not going to hear from the other side that, “This is the NDP going on again. It loves criminals. It even loves criminals when they're in the military”. Instead, I am hoping that we will hear from the other side that they have enough respect for our military that they want to ensure that even when military personnel act in a manner that gets them into trouble with their commanding officer, they will respect the rights of these personnel, they will recognize that they need to maintain morale, that they need to maintain discipline but that they also need to ensure that they are not saddling someone with a criminal record when that person does not have the protection of the fundamental rights, the fundamental justice, contained in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that very constitution that we are asking our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, to go and fight for and defend. They are being denied the protection of that in a fundamental way.

What we are trying to do and what we have tried to do in the committee in the past is as I said.

Here I see the parliamentary secretary who, unfortunately, was not part of that committee the last time. He was not even in this Parliament. When this comes before the committee again, maybe I will join him to talk about the motions we passed the last time and the sections we changed. I have a list, which I can give him, of the ones that were actually passed, amending the bill and ensuring there was better protection for our soldiers, sailors and air men and women, and are now missing from the bill. The member was not there when they were passed.

If this is just an error, a mistake, or they just went to back to the drawing board and produced the same bill we had before, I hope he will willing accept those changes. I am looking for some signal to that effect from the member when he speaks to this legislation.

We do have an important task at hand, and that is to ensure that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are treated with respect and dignity and given the protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is another aspect of this bill, which I will touch briefly on. It is the issue of grievances. There is a significant problem with the grievance procedure within the military. This legislation deals with it, but not well enough. We did amend clause 6 of the National Defence Act in that regard. There was a series of amendments that were important, giving the Chief of the Defence Staff the power to settle a grievance. It passed the committee, but I do not know if the Chief of the Defence Staff wants it. The government does not seem to want to give it to him.

He is the person who makes the final decision, but he cannot say to people who were denied overtime or a certain special pay, which cost them $1,500, that they would get the $1,500. He cannot decide that. It has to go to some legal people in the Department of Justice. It does not go to the Judge Advocate General.

The CDS cannot say “Give that man the $1,500 that he was denied”, whether it be for work or moving expenses or whatever. That has to go to somebody in the Department of Justice part of DND who can say “Well, we do not think it is really appropriate to give money in this case”. Then that person cannot get his grievance resolved.

We made changes that ensured the CDS could resolve that problem, being the final voice and being able to settle a grievance. That is something that is necessary and desirable. I hope we are able to get that change made once again.

We also wanted to ensure that are some timelines on grievances that need to take place. There was also a series of amendments with respect to oversight by civilians, a whole series, including the amendments we made to clause 11, which would enforce and allow the grievance committee to deal with grievances in a proper manner, with civilians rather than just military people.

There are a number of changes that have to be made. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not accept in their new bill the changes that were already made.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend, the member for St. John's East for his very learned speech on this important issue.

The member asked for a signal from our side. I am not sure, but I think Signal Hill is in his riding. I am not absolutely sure of that. It is close to it, so I am not surprised by the request. The signal is given that we on this side are looking forward to consideration of this bill in committee, consideration of his arguments, and we hope to see him there as we have seen him in previous Parliaments on these important issues.

My question for the hon. member is the following. Given the urgency of this bill, given the fact that some of these changes have been pending since the Lamer report in 2003, given the fact that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have considered this bill in different forms three times, Bill C-7 in the 39th Parliament, Bill C-45 in the 38th Parliament, Bill C-41 in the 40th Parliament, and now Bill C-15, would the member not agree with us, and this is really an appeal to his common sense and his sense of duty to do right by our men and women in uniform, that the best place to discuss the details he has proposed, the very technical aspects of this bill that deserve discussion, is in committee and that we as members of Parliament have a duty to get it to committee as soon as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to represent the district of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly for many years. Signal Hill itself used to be part of St. John's East. It is not now and may be again after the new boundary changes. The signal I am looking for is the signal that the government is prepared to respect the fundamental rights of military personnel.

If that were the case, I would have expected to see that we would get the bill back this time, that the improvements that had already been made would still be there and that they would be willing to seek more improvements. Not all the things New Democrats wanted in committee in the last Parliament were taken. Yes, some things are technical, but the real issue that should be debated in the House is whether the government is going to respect that the men and women in the uniform of this country are entitled to the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the fundamental rights we are asking them to serve and fight for.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Bagotville military base is located in my riding, I am well aware that the brave men and women who are serving their country in the Canadian Forces must comply with extremely high standards of discipline. In return, they deserve a justice system that also meets similar standards.

We know that a criminal record can make post-military life very difficult. Criminal records complicate everything when the time comes to find a job, to rent an apartment and to travel.

I wonder if my colleague could tell us what the NDP has found lacking in this bill that would otherwise have allowed our party to support it?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns we have is that when service men and women actually leave the service, they have the challenge of adjusting to civilian life and getting jobs. We do not want them to have the baggage of a criminal record. We are talking about 2,600 a year and if we add that up year over year, we see that a large percentage of members get involved in some sort of disciplinary matters, which make it more difficult to integrate into civilian life. We want to remove that barrier. They are entitled to have the service record, yes, but the service record can be dealt with as an administrative thing. Criminal law is something employers look at to see whether people have criminal records, which are barriers to employment. If they do not have the rights and protections, it is going to make it a lot harder after they leave the military.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite does not want soldiers who go before military tribunals to have criminal records. The member knows full well that there are incidents that occur on military bases that involve domestic violence. These incidents can be brought before military tribunals. My question is this. Why does the member opposite not want soldiers who have been convicted of beating their spouses to have criminal records?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is bringing up something that is one of the details that my colleague opposite was talking about. Not every offence under the act would fall into that category. We are talking about summary conviction offences. There is a protocol and this was discussed with the Judge Advocate General. There are certain cases that in fact should not be dealt with under military tribunals and should be dealt with by civilian courts. A sexual assault on a spouse, or circumstances like that, is one of them. That is not a military offence. It does not involve their job but may be incidental and, therefore, should be dealt with by a civilian court. In a civilian court, military personnel would have all of the protections, civilian laws and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are talking about two different things, but I understand the member's point.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for St. John's East for explaining our party's concerns about this legislation so clearly and in such detail.

Summary trials are among the issues that I am very concerned about. Indeed, and unfortunately for Canadian Forces members, a large number of minor offences result in a criminal record. This is very important because it is a well-known fact that, in a way, members of the Canadian armed forces are marginalized. Indeed, when they quit the forces they must reintegrate into society, and this can be a major challenge.

Given the incredibly long list of minor offences that can result in a criminal record, can the hon. member tell us whether, instead of introducing this bill in such a hurry, it would have been better to introduce it in a much improved fashion after consulting with the other parties?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously this issue is extremely important, but we would have hoped that the bill as it was passed the last time would have been presented and then we could seek to make improvements to that.

The reality is that more than 90%, I think some 97%, of offences are tried in the summary conviction manner, and the military tribunal that the previous speaker talked about is actually the court martial, which is a different place. In the court martial, individuals have all the protections of right to counsel, full answer and defence and a criminal record attaching to that. We do not have a problem with that.

It is the summary trials, which do not have the legal protections that are available if one is before a provincial court in any of the provinces of Canada and one is a civilian. This is the area we need to work on and fix, and I do not hear at this point yet the signal from the government that it is prepared to fully explore that and try to find out what is the best way of achieving that goal and still maintain the importance of military justice for the purposes of efficiency, operational efficiency, morale and discipline that is essential to a military force of any kind.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP believes that the bill is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, the bill does not at all answer the key questions about reforming the summary trial and grievance systems and about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

My NDP colleague asked the hon. member for St. John's East to provide specifics about summary trials. I would ask him to also tell us more about what the NDP did not see regarding the complaints commission and to talk about the mistakes related to the grievance system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have a short time to respond.

There are a number of problems with the grievance system, the principal one being the length of time it would take to have grievances processed. Some work has been done on it and it has been shortened, but it has become militarized to a large extent. This is not the case with other countries.

We have a grievance system. Most of the grievances actually have to do with the terms and conditions of employment, with benefits and entitlements and that sort of thing, human resources matters.

We believe there should be civilian predominance in the grievance system. In fact, I think 60-40 was what was passed in the committee in the last Parliament. That has been stripped out of the bill and we do not have that, so we have to make all those arguments again, bring all those witnesses again and have that discussion again. It is a bit unfortunate, but it has to be done.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

I understand that members' minds do not seem to be on this bill at the moment. The budget will be tabled in 10 minutes, and I understand where people are coming from.

My colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, has outlined in previous debate in quite a comprehensive way the Liberal Party's thoughts on this bill. There are three key messages that I would leave with members.

The Liberal Party understands the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. We believe that Canadian citizens who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose part of their rights before the courts. In part this bill is about ensuring there is some balance between the military courts and the criminal justice courts.

As well, the Liberal Party believes that the addition of new sentences, including absolute discharge, intermittent sentence, and restitution, are important if we are to have that fair system I talked about a moment ago.

There are a number of disparities between the military and civilian justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. Bill C-15 has been introduced as a way of addressing these differences.

As it currently stands, sentencing in military law is much harsher than in the civil justice system, and it is very much less flexible. Provisions in Bill C-15 that would amend the National Defence Act are critical to ensuring that our military justice system is fair, efficient, transparent and consistent with Canadian values and legal standards.

My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, spoke a moment ago about how important it is that it should be under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We certainly agree with his point.

However, there are a few minor provisions within this legislation that we have substantial concerns with. One would be proposed subsection 18.5(3). We are very concerned about this subsection. It really concerns the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation. There have been a number of witnesses and a number of submissions before the committee on this particular issue. I will refer to a couple of them.

This clause is very problematic because it goes above and beyond the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to provide general supervision, instructions or guidelines to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and potentially challenges to the validity and integrity of investigations by giving a very high-ranking member of the military explicit statutory powers to interfere with a police investigation.

As members well know, personalities become involved. If there is interference in a police investigation, it becomes a very serious matter. For that reason, the Liberal Party would like to see that proposed subsection removed.

I want to emphasize what others have to say about that proposed subsection. Mr. Glenn Stannard, the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, MPCC, had this to say on this proposed subsection:

In summary, in the view of the MPCC, the proposed authority in s. 18.5(3) for directions by the VCDS, in particular MP [military police] law enforcement investigations should be deleted from Bill C-41 for the following reasons.

It was Bill C-41 then; it is Bill C-15 now.

It is contrary to Canadian law and traditions on the independence of police investigations from the executive, which is an underpinning of the rule of law.

It is without precedent in Canadian policing legislation.

It is based on an erroneous analogy by the drafters between the relationship of the VCDS and CFPM with that of the JAG and the Director of Military Prosecutions.

It represents a significant step back from efforts since the 1990s to enhance and safeguard the independence of military police investigations....

It does not respond to any recommendation of the Lamer Report or to any other public study on military justice or military policing.

Those are the complaints outlined by the chairperson of the Military Police Complaints Commission. We would certainly hope when this bill gets to committee that that subsection would be removed.

To add further evidence, Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto prepared a report on police independence relating to the military police, in which it is stated:

The author concludes that s. 18.5(1) and (2)...recognizing the Vice Chief of Defence Staff's (VCDS's) general supervision of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) and allowing the former to issue general and public instructions or guidelines to the latter which is consistent with the balance that must be struck between military police independence and accountability, policy guidance and the management responsibilities of the general command. At the same time, however, the author concludes that s. 18.5(3) violates core concepts of police independence as recognized in Campbell and Shirose by allowing the VCDS to issue instructions and guidelines in specific cases that can interfere with military police investigations. He also notes that this section would be inconsistent with the 1998 accountability framework between the VCDS and the CFPM and if enacted might result in various legal challenges.

To sum up, the bill has a lot of good points. It needs to be moved forward. It needs to go to committee. However, there is a major problem backed by fairly substantive evidence that subsection 18.5(3) violates the principles of police investigations, and as a member said previously, could be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We support the bill moving forward to committee. We recommend that the proposed subsection be removed.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this important matter of military justice, there is obvious urgency given that four successive Parliaments now have considered this issue and the bill in different forms.

Would the member opposite agree it is absolutely high time the bill be moved to committee? Then we could discuss the amendments he has proposed. We could discuss the composition of courts martial, limitations on sentencing and other issues addressed by this bill. Would the hon. member agree that moving this bill to committee expeditiously would be the best course of action?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly pointed that out in my remarks. It is absolutely essential to get this bill to committee to deal with it and implement it into law.

The member said there were three previous incarnations of the bill, but I would remind him that the bill has never gotten as far as we would like it to go, partly because of the actions of the previous minority government and the proroguing of Parliament. Otherwise, this legislation may have been implemented long ago.

The other point I would like to make is the same point the member for St. John's East made, which is that in the drafting of this bill, some of the recommendations that were agreed to previously at committee were not incorporated into this bill. They should be.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member from Prince Edward Island raised the issue of prorogation, I wonder if he could elaborate a bit more for all of us in the House and those who are listening across the country as to why, when the Conservatives seem so interested in this bill, they themselves would try to defeat it through the act of prorogation?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 7, concerning the budget presentation.

The House resumed from March 29 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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will let the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke know that we will have approximately three minutes remaining in the time allocated for government orders, so I will need to interrupt her at that time.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, which is currently at second reading.

The bill addresses a variety of issues contained within the National Defence Act and aims to reinforce the military justice system. It has been discussed at length in the House, the Senate and at committee. It gives careful consideration to Senate committee recommendations stemming from the study of Bill C-60, as well as to the recommendations and proposed amendments put forward by the members of House when the bill's predecessor, C-41, was studied in committee. It would bring the National Defence Act up to date by addressing the recommendations made in Chief Justice Lamer's 2003 report, which itself was a result of an extensive review of the issues at hand.

In this regard, Bill C-15 would ensure our military justice system remains in keeping with Canadian values and in harmony with the Constitution and it would continue the maintenance of order and good discipline within the Canadian Forces.

The government recognizes that the proposed amendments in this bill are broad and, in some cases, complex. However, it should be noted the need for these changes has been recognized in most cases for years and that most of the proposed amendments have already been discussed and analyzed in committee.

This is the third time that this proposal has been put before the House of Commons since 2006. I move:

That this question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Given the time, we will go to the questions and comments time for the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke at the next opportunity.

We will now move to private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 5 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.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act. This bill would amend the structure of the Canadian Forces military justice system.

I would like to explain that members of the military are subject to two justice systems: the civilian system and the military system. Although most of the time they are subject to the military system, on some occasions and for some offences, they are subject to the civilian system. However, I will not address these issues in my speech on this bill.

Because of the nature of the soldier's job and the role members of our military play, the Canadian Forces, of course, sometimes need rules that are specific to that job. However, even though the military justice system has specific rules, we must not forget that it is part of the Canadian justice system as a whole. The two systems must therefore be compatible, and we must ensure that our soldiers are obviously treated fairly and equitably.

We must therefore ensure that even though the military justice system differs from the civilian system, it is consistent with our overall system of justice, which reflects what Canadians want. This means that the rule of law must always be respected. The military justice system exists not only for members of the military who have committed offences that have to be dealt with, but also as a command element to ensure that the rule of law is respected in all circumstances.

In addition, the Canadian Forces rely a great deal on discipline, which is certainly one of the pillars of a soldier’s job. The military justice system therefore reflects the need for discipline, and that is why we need it. Military justice is not perfect, however, and it needs to be updated when problems are identified. We must also not forget that members of the military are citizens, and that while their role in the military calls for a distinct justice system, that system should be as close as possible to the civilian justice system.

Obviously, military justice must reflect the protections guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as closely as possible. Although we recognize the need to have distinct provisions within the military system, that need must not outweigh the fundamental principles of justice.

Proceedings in the military justice system have to be efficient, so that discipline problems or issues can be resolved speedily when the situation calls for it, so the member can return to work as quickly as possible, for example. Speed does not, however, mean overstepping the fundamental principles of justice and the law.

I think we owe it to the members of our military, who put themselves in harm’s way for our country, for Canada, and for their fellow Canadians, to provide them with a justice system that is fair and just. We cannot expect the discipline and dedication that we need from our military without a military justice system that is completely fair to them.

Bill C-15 is in fact a step in the right direction for reforming the military justice system and making it a system that, for one thing, is more in line with the civilian system. This bill has its limitations, however, and it does not solve certain important problems, such as reforming summary conviction trial proceedings, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

During the last Parliament, reasonable and fair amendments to the equivalent bill, Bill C-41, were negotiated in committee, including by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. Unfortunately, those amendments have disappeared from this new version of the bill. They were approved by the committee, by parliamentarians. What is more, some had been proposed by the judge advocate general as compromises to correct the system in an acceptable manner. Now, because of the government, we have to redo the work that was done during the previous Parliament.

One purpose of those amendments was to remove certain offences from the list of those that result in a criminal record. That is mainly what I will be talking about.

Military justice includes a number of proceedings. Everyone has seen clips of trials by court martial on television. Those shows are fictional, but they give a good idea of what a trial by court martial is like. However, there are other types of trials, namely summary trials where the military's chain of command is authorized to judge soldiers under its responsibility directly. These trials are held without lawyers, without a jury, without a system of evidence, and without solid witnesses as in a formal court.

This proceeding is useful in a number of cases. It is used for minor offences regarding discipline in the army and does not require any intervention by a court.

Nonetheless, with a summary trial, soldiers can end up with a criminal record that they will continue to have once they return to civilian life.

I will elaborate on these minor offences, which include absence without leave and drunkenness.

Here is a simple example. One of your colleagues on the base is celebrating his birthday, and, like all his colleagues, you offer him a drink to celebrate. You are young. This also happens in civilian life. It is not unusual to be offered a birthday drink. Unfortunately, the next day, your colleague, who might have accepted a few too many drinks, is absent because he is sick. Or maybe he was caught drunk by one of his superiors when he returned to the dormitory.

On a military base, this is a breach of discipline. It is natural to expect exemplary discipline from our men and women in uniform, in light of the job they do.

I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I understand very well that discipline is part and parcel of our everyday lives. We adapt and it is fine. However, from time to time, for example, on a birthday when we party too much, there can be breaches.

In civilian life, this person would likely call his boss in the morning to say that he could not go to work. He would take a taxi home that night and go to sleep in his own bed.

Such conduct on a military base is dealt with by summary trial. I am not suggesting that a guy who calls in sick because he partied too hard the night before is behaving responsibly. People can be reprimanded, suspended or even fired if this kind of thing happens too often in the civilian world. That makes sense because the behaviour is not acceptable. Still, I am sure we can all agree that a guy who misses work because he drank too much on his birthday probably does not deserve to have a criminal record. But that is what happens to soldiers.

This soldier, who might have been 19 or 20, did not really understand what was going on. He did not understand the military justice system. He got his summary trial. Fifteen years later, as a civilian retired from the armed forces, he had a criminal record. His case was treated the same way as other much more serious offences that do deserve that kind of treatment.

A soldier should not end up with a criminal record for an offence that is nothing more than lack of discipline and certainly not a criminal matter.

He will end up with a criminal record without ever getting a real trial as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His basic rights will not be respected. This kind of trial happens very quickly.

Bill C-15 does not take into account this kind of problem that, in practice, can have consequences.

I think that such cases are not rare. I do not have the latest numbers, but I reviewed the numbers in the annual reports of the judge advocate general to the Department of National Defence on the administration of military justice in the armed forces and the statistical reports on summary trials.

In 2009-10, 20,054 trials took place. Nearly 95% of them—the vast majority—were summary trials. During that same period, 98% of summary trials resulted in a guilty verdict. Charges of absence without leave accounted for 28% of the summary trials and drunkenness for 7%.

These are things that, in civilian life, do not deserve a criminal record. Although it warrants a slap on the wrist, it does not warrant a criminal record.

In the previous version of this bill, which was the subject of a compromise reached in committee during the last Parliament, the section on exemptions for a criminal record listed 27 sections of the National Defence Act. The current version contains only five exemptions.

In short, for Bill C-41:

(1) A person who is convicted of any of the following offences, or who has been convicted of any of them before the coming into force of this section, has not been convicted of a criminal offence:

(a) an offence described in section 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 101.1, 102, 103, 108, 109, 112, 116, 117, 118, 118.1, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126 or 129 for which the offender is sentenced to

(i) a severe reprimand,

(ii) a reprimand,

(iii) a fine not exceeding basic pay for one month, or

(iv) a minor punishment;

In Bill C-15, however, we see that many of these sections are suddenly missing. It reads:

(a) an offence described in section 85, 86, 90, 97 or 129 for which the offender is sentenced to a minor punishment or a fine of $500 or less, or both;

It quickly becomes clear that a lot of things have unfortunately disappeared from the bill that should have remained.

Members will recall that there was consensus on Bill C-41 and that both the opposition parties and the government had reached an agreement.

I want to remind members that the offences and excluded penalties for inclusion in a criminal record would be far more broad under C-41, and the fine included did not exceed one month of basic pay and minor penalties.

Currently, the exemptions include only fines of less than $500 and minor sentences. In most cases, it exceeds a minor penalty or a $500 fine. The restrictions are too limited and will mean that that too many military members will end up with a criminal record.

For example, in one of the cases mentioned in the 2010 JAG report, one case of absence without leave was penalized by five days behind bars and a $1,500 fine. In others the sentence was 30 days in prison. These cases would not qualify as exemptions to inclusion in a criminal record, and yet they constitute cases of absence without leave.

Other cases concerning drunkenness—still from the same report–were punished with a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine. Once again, this does not fall into the category of permitted exemptions. These exemptions are no longer as broad. The previous version, negotiated in committee by my colleague from St. John's East, must be consulted.

I should clarify that I am not questioning the appropriateness of the commanders' penalties. I have had the experience of discipline in the Army. I understand that discipline is important. However, there is a big difference between a disciplinary case on a military base and having a criminal record, which normally signifies a criminal offence. In this particular case, ending up with a criminal record for something that is more akin to foolish behaviour, is not a path that I want us to go down.

According to a Department of National Defence publication, the guide for the accused and officers designated to help them, “Summary trials are designed to provide prompt and fair justice in dealing with service offences that are relatively minor in nature but which have an important impact on the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency...”

This is not referring to criminal offences or major offences. It refers to minor offences that have an impact on military discipline.

Military discipline is something quite unlike what is found in civilian life. It is a mistake to put breaches of military discipline and civilian criminal offences on the same footing.

If a civilian did something equivalent to the vast majority of cases of breaches of military discipline, he would not be subject to any legal ramifications. It is not fair to impose consequences on the military that will have repercussions in their civilian lives, when most of the facts involve solely military issues.

Furthermore, the summary trial can cause notes to be made in a criminal record, even though the process has no judge who is adequately or professionally trained, nor a sound process for evidence and witnesses, nor defence counsel. It is not right that a summary trial for a minor offence should lead to a criminal record.

It should also be mentioned that a procedure that guarantees none of a person's fundamental rights, as is clearly the case with summary trials, should not have consequences that are as serious as a criminal record for the person who committed the offence. The procedure followed in a summary trial is simplified for the obvious reason that, in a conflict situation, military justice must be swift and efficient. Discipline must be administered smoothly so that things get back to normal very quickly.

In the case of minor offences, a breach of rules or a breach of discipline, a soldier’s chain of command— his superior—has the authority to judge. This is a swift and efficient procedure. However, the superior knows the accused and is therefore not entirely neutral. He may feel favourably toward him, or he may have an unfavourable bias against him. Even though he has some training, it does not change the fact that the superior knows the accused. There is no system for verifying the evidence and hearing witnesses. In the case of minor offences, the commander also knows the witnesses very well, and is therefore able to give more or less credibility to the witnesses according to his judgment and the esteem that he has for the people involved. There is no counsel to ensure that the rights of the accused are respected.

However, these courts, these summary trials may lead to fines as high as several thousand dollars, and especially to up to 30 days imprisonment or even a demotion. I think that one month’s imprisonment, without an impartial court or an adequately trained judge, is important enough that we should pay some attention to what the bill will do.

These procedures, which are found in a civil trial, are there for another purpose: to ensure that an individual's fundamental rights are respected. I can already hear members opposite claim that the NDP wants to protect criminals. I was a member of the military and I know that there is nothing criminal with most breaches of military discipline or rules. As a soldier, one has to abide by military discipline. However, as a civilian, one should not be exposed to consequences such as those that currently exist.

I also want to point out that an individual should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We have to respect the impartiality and the independence of the judiciary. We should not be guided by impressions and biases and we should not rush to judgment. We must let the facts speak. An impartial and independent justice system is essential to people's confidence.

In the military, knowing that one cannot be judged impartially is not conducive to putting our trust in the military system. We accept that system and we trust that our superiors will be fair and just. Most of the time, they are to the extent that it is possible. However, we must set strict and strong limits to these summary trials and to the impact they will have later on in civilian life. Bill C-15 obviously does not do that, or does not do it any longer, because the sections added by Bill C-41 are not included in it.

I would like to conclude by reminding hon. members that having a criminal record makes things very difficult in civilian life. Once they go back to civilian life, soldiers will have to appear before the Parole Board of Canada, request a pardon, wait for five years after the summary trial and incur costs to erase their criminal record.

I think that is unacceptable, and I sincerely believe that the current bill should include amendments and other measures to avoid the situation described in my speech.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech tonight. She can speak with a measure of authority that many of us cannot because she has been in the Canadian Forces. She is also a young person who can understand the issues that relate to minor variances from discipline in the forces.

We ask a lot of our soldiers, our young men and women in uniform. Many of them come from regular working families right across Canada, from big cities, small towns or rural municipalities. They are in this situation and we expect a lot from them.

As we have heard many times in this House, veterans of our military are faced with very tough times. I wonder if my colleague could comment further on the detrimental effects of the use of summary trials when young people end up with these criminal records, and how they have to deal with that later on in life and the difficulties they could have.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to provide an answer to the hon. member for Davenport by giving the example of a recruits' course.

We often have recruits who may be 16 or 17. They have just begun their adult life. A recruits' course is intensive. It is very demanding. It tests soldiers, who are often very tired and even exhausted. They can make unintentional mistakes that will lead to a summary trial. For example, it can be the accidental discharge of a firearm. Nobody does it intentionally, but it can happen. The individual will have a summary trial and may even end up with a criminal record.

I once knew a colleague who was really tired. He was not paying attention and, unfortunately, he raised the flag upside down. He really did not do that on purpose, but he ended up with a summary trial. What he did was a mistake and it is something unacceptable in the military. That was simply caused by fatigue. That offence may also lead to a criminal record.

A 16- or 17-year-old does not understand the justice system. They do not think about what will happen when they leave the armed forces in 20 years. They leave 15, 20 or 30 years later and finally realize that they have a criminal record because they did not really understand what was happening.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, the military is often like a world of its own. With summary trials, military officers are thinking of one thing, discipline, and how to make sure the incident does not happen in the ranks again. That is fine for the military. However, those young recruits leave after putting in their tour, and some of them leave with a criminal record. I would think that would have a very strong psychological effect on young people who have given of their time to their country.

Would the member care to comment on the downside and the ill effects, and the recurring effect, that would have on these young people leaving the military with a criminal record?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, after serving in the armed forces for a certain period of time, a member may decide to leave and return to civilian life, so they apply for a job. Most people know that you have to declare whether or not you have a criminal record. Most employers ask for that information. So, the soldier has to say yes.

Naturally, the prospective employer will ask what happened. That is, if they look at the application, because simply checking yes may mean that the CV will not even be kept. The employer will have the person explain why they have a criminal record. It can be embarrassing to tell a future employer about a silly mistake that was made. Furthermore, the employer may have a slightly unrealistic view of the veteran, the former soldier trying to return to civilian life.

It can be very detrimental. Everyone knows that, for any job, even to work at McDonald's, you are now asked if you have a criminal record.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too spent some time in the military, on both sides of the justice system, and I did not leave with a criminal record. I disciplined a number of people under my command in my time in the service, for things the member suggests would carry a criminal record. None of them are carrying criminal records. The member is overstating that case tremendously.

Another colleague on the other side mentioned that it is all about discipline. It is not. It is about efficiency. Discipline is part of efficiency, with the emphasis on efficiency not discipline.

If I heard my colleague correctly, and I may have heard her wrong, she thinks the summary trial system somehow takes away the constitutional rights of the accused person. In fact, we have Supreme Court decisions that point out it does not. Charter rights and freedoms are preserved under that system. A member gets to choose whether he or she undergoes summary trial or court martial.

I may have heard my colleague wrong. I am not sure.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make it clear that I do not believe that a summary trial violates the fundamental rights of a soldier. However, I believe there is a problem because being tried for a minor offence as a civilian would not result in a criminal record. However, this summary trial for a minor offence does result in a criminal record for the soldier, who may not be very aware of the potential consequences. We must try to improve Bill C-15 to prevent such situations from occurring.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her rather informative speech. I am not as aware as she is of the reality of the people serving in the Canadian Forces. She brought up some very interesting points.

Can the hon. member tell us, if she knows, how receptive members have been, to date, to the potential amendments to this bill? Could she provide us with an example of another relevant case that would help us to better understand the scope of the amendments, such as the ones she proposed?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, to date, I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues on the government side what amendments they would be prepared to accept. However, I would like to believe that, since a consensus was reached on the amendments that were submitted during the previous examination of Bill C-41 and everyone seemed to agree on them, the government members will be prepared to go back to the same point where we were before with this bill. We are therefore prepared to deal with the same situation as with Bill C-41.

With regard to examples, there is just one thing that I would like to clarify for people who do not know what a summary trial is. The way it works is very impressive. When a person is young, they are lined up with four people who accompany them to the commander's office for the summary trial. The soldiers have to march at a rate of 120 steps a minute. The accused has to remove his beret but those accompanying him do not.

Even the way we enter the commander's office is rather impressive. This can be pretty interesting for a young soldier. When we were lucky or unlucky enough to accompany some colleagues before it was our turn, at least we knew what to expect. However, when we did not know what it was like, it was very impressive and we were already a bit unsettled when we entered the commander's office.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. As per its title, Bill C-15 is intended to amend the National Defence Act on matters related to military justice.

There is a substantial context to the bill. It has a fairly long history and iterations of the bill have come before this House, many iterations in fact.

The bill is a legislative response to the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and subsequent to that, the May 2009 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Chief Justice Lamer's report was a very comprehensive and independent review of the National Defence Act, which arrived at 88 recommendations pertaining to the military justice system, suggesting there are a lot of issues that need to be corrected.

However, to date only 28 of these recommendations have been implemented in the form of legislation, regulations or even change in practice. Clearly, much work remains to be done.

Other efforts to respond to the chief justice's report preceded the bill before us tonight. Bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper, in 2007 and 2008 respectively.

Bill C-60 made a dent in Chief Justice Lamer's recommendations, in 2008. Bill C-41 was introduced in 2010. It went through committee stage with agreement for some positive amendments, but it too eventually died on the order paper.

This bill, Bill C-15, seeks to accomplish a great deal in response to Justice Lamer's report and the Senate committee report.

Among other things, the bill would provide for greater flexibility in the sentencing process; and additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It would modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person, modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation period. It clarifies the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, and, finally, it make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

The bill is a step in the right direction, in that it would move the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. This much is true. However, it falls too short on some of the key objectives, those being reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system, and strengthening the military complaints commission.

Curiously, the bill even falls short of Bill C-41 as amended by the committee. In our view, it is not worthy of the support of this House as currently drafted.

This view is informed most fundamentally by the principle that the men and women of our Canadian Forces are entitled to the same rights that we send them to fight for around the world. What a terrible and bitter irony it would be if we, as Canadians, were to stand aside and allow the men and women of our Canadian Forces to become effectively second-class citizens in our midst, particularly when we have intervened around the world in deadly conflicts to uphold basic human rights and systems of rule or law that ensure such rights are protected.

These rights to which we are so committed, for which we are prepared to put at risk the lives of young Canadians, in fact do not permit the kind of treatment to which we subject the men and women of our Canadian Forces under our current military justice system.

This requires a bit of an explanation about military systems of justice, in that military justice is a bit different from the justice system that prevails in the rest of civil society because of the primacy attached to the issue of discipline and efficiency in the military.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau is an expert in military justice and law and is the author of the only really significant military legal text in Canada. He had this to say about the implications to military justice of the centrality of discipline to the functioning of the military:

Few professions are as dependent on discipline as is the military. Discipline is fundamental to military efficiency, cohesion and esprit-de-corps, permitting commanders to control the use of violence so that the right amount and type of force can be applied in exactly the right circumstances, the right time and in the right place. At the personal level, discipline ensures also that in times of great danger and risk, the soldier can and will carry out orders even if his natural instinct for self-preservation and fear tells him otherwise. Likewise, group and individual discipline ensures adherence to laws, standards, customs and values of civilian society, even during combat operations.

Another statement reads, “Therefore, discipline is integral not only to the maintaining of an efficient armed forces but also to ensuring that the rule of law predominates within the military, particularly when engaged in great peril and danger in combat.”

In 1980 and 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the constitutionality of certain aspects of the military justice system. On both occasions it affirmed that a separate system of justice was needed to meet the unique requirements of military discipline. This is especially so because certain actions, like being absent without leave, which are offences in the military, are not obviously civil offences.

However, there is a tension here in the military justice system that must be resolved through legislation. There must be, on the one hand, speedy response to breaches of discipline. On the other hand, there must be adherence to law and as far as possible, that means adherence to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and principles of natural justice. That is, principles that suggest that any system of justice should be heard and decided by a neutral impartial body and that, in the most general terms, the hearing be fair. That is, provide notice, the opportunity to examine evidence, to speak, to answer and so on. At this point this tension remains unresolved.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association commented on the interests influencing the system. It said that military officers who give out sentences in summary trials are concerned with showing unit discipline and deterring future violations, not the effect they impose on an accused in the civilian world with a criminal record, for example.

We believe this tension is resolvable. We do not believe that the need for an efficient military justice system is inconsistent with, and therefore needs to take the place of, fundamental principles of justice for the members of our Canadian Forces. We believe that the bill is potentially salvageable with the necessary amendments at committee.

At the core of the issue before us is the matter of summary trials. In the context of the Canadian armed forces, summary trials are disciplinary actions which are generally less serious than courts martial. They are designed to deal with minor service offences with limited possible punishments. Offences can range from insubordination and drunkenness to being absent without leave. Actions like this, while destructive to the flow of military life, are less serious in the civilian world.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau testified before the national defence committee that summary trials continue to be the dominant disciplinary method used to try offences by the Canadian military. In 2008-09, there were a total of 1,865 cases determined by summary trial, and only 67 heard by court martial.

A 2008 CBC study found that military charges against Canadian Forces members had risen dramatically in the years since Afghanistan. Post-Afghanistan, disciplinary charges had increased by as much as 62% in certain areas.

Just 10 years previous, there were only 1,300 summary charges laid, compared to 2,100 in the midst of the Afghan conflict in 2006-07.

Most Canadians are likely unaware that the summary trial procedure exposes soldiers to penalties, including imprisonment and even more seriously the potential that following convictions they will have a criminal record that will continue through to their civilian lives.

While subsequent Judge Advocate General annual reports have indicated that the frequency of convictions has declined since the high point of the Afghanistan conflict, what is being left behind and what continues are convictions under this very inadequate form of justice. Canadian Forces personnel were still punished, and depending on the sentences, will have criminal records for the rest of their lives.

It is not news that having a criminal record can make life after the military very challenging. Ordinary things like getting a job, travelling, or renting an apartment become very difficult. Most Canadians would be shocked to learn that our soldiers, who bravely served our country, can get a criminal record from a system of justice that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

The objective of summary trials is to promote and maintain unit discipline. Therefore, the focus is on dealing with alleged offences expeditiously and returning the member to service as soon as possible. Fairness and justice, which are guaranteed in civil criminal trial, take a back seat to discipline and deterrence. In summary trials the accused do not have access to counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer.

Through proposed and accepted amendments to Bill C-41, an iteration of this bill in the previous Parliament, we had gone much further down the road of reconciling this tension in the military justice system of expediency and the inclusion of fundamental legal principles. For example, 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.

It should be noted that Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a limited number of offences, if they carry a minor punishment which is defined under the act or a fine less than $500, to no longer result in a criminal record. This is a positive aspect of Bill C-15, but it does not in our view go far enough.

A New Democrat amendment to Bill C-41 also expanded the list of offences that could be considered less serious and would therefore merit less severe punishments and no carry-over of records to an individual's civilian life. That too had been accepted through committee with Bill C-41. This is one of the amendments that we would like to see included in Bill C-15.

Another area in which Bill C-15 falls short is with respect to grievance committees. In his 2003 report, Chief Justice Lamer described for us the grievance process in the military. Having spent about 20 years involved with grievance proceedings in the workplace context, I was surprised to learn about a grievance process in the military. However, Chief Justice Lamer stated in his report:

Grievances involve matters such as benefits, personnel evaluation reports, postings, release from the Canadian Forces, [et cetera] all matters affecting the rights, privileges and other interests of CF members.... Unlike in other organizations, grievors do not have unions or employee associations through which to pursue their grievances.... It is essential to the morale of the CF members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent, and prompt manner.

That is not happening presently in the Canadian Forces.

The grievance committee, under this system, is a group which is intended to be an independent civilian oversight body to be composed entirely of non-Forces members. In fact, it is composed entirely of retired Canadian Forces officers, and some just recently retired. Like the summary trials system, there is obviously an apprehension of bias in this system. As it is the purpose of this body to have an outsider perspective on matters such as benefits and personnel evaluations, it should be obvious that former Canadian Forces soldiers are not capable of bringing, or are not seen to bring, an objective and independent viewpoint to their task. This seems like a very obvious breach of the rule against bias.

The New Democrats have proposed that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This amendment, too, was accepted as part of Bill C-41 and should also be a part of Bill C-15.

Finally, Bill C-15 would fail to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. While Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces provost marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints as well as protect complainants from being penalized for filing good faith complaints, nothing has been done to effectively empower the commission to act as an oversight body. We believe it is necessary that the Military Police Complaints Commission be empowered by a legislative provision that would allow it rightfully to investigate and report to Parliament.

In conclusion, I will bring it back to Colonel Drapeau for the final word on this matter. He said, in part:

...I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial. If Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland have seen fit to change the summary trial system, it begs the question: why is Canada lagging behind?

I will leave the government side to ponder that question.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest, and I do believe they are trying to make the system better. I do not dispute that. However, I will point out a couple of things that may have been glossed over or misrepresented a bit.

When the member talks about the number of charges during a period of very active conflict, versus a period of peacetime, it is natural that the number of charges would increase in that period. Chief Justice Lamer, whom he puts great stock in and I agree, said:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation’s security.

And, I would add, threats to themselves, while they are in a conflict.

The member brought up the fact that only 28 of 88 recommendations by Lamer had been enacted. That is true. However, what is also true is that 72 were accepted by government, 11 partially accepted and only 3 rejected. The reason that the others have not been carried is because we have been trying since 2006 to get this legislation through and, as happens with minority Parliaments, governments fall and we are back to square one.

I believe this to be the case. I hope it is the opposition's intention to simply pass this and get it on to committee where the issues that my colleague brought up, and other issues that people may want to discuss, can be dealt with quickly and efficiently, and let us get on with it.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified that my colleague listened with interest and not amusement, as he commented previously with one of my colleagues.

With respect to the numbers, I raise the issue of the numbers to show how much of the military justice system is processed through summary trials as opposed to courts martial. Over 95% of the issues are dealt with by way of summary trial. Therefore, the issue of the summary trial looms large in this discussion. Obviously, many amendments need to be made to that process.

With respect to the fact that these charges are being laid in the context of battle, literally in the heat of battle, I think that it is understandable and agreeable that there be limited exception to the kind of justice system that is imposed in the context of battle. However, the real challenge here is that so much of the military justice system lays these charges and processes discipline through the summary trial process outside of battle where there is no excuse in fact for the kind of exceptionalism that prevails in the summary trial system.

On trying to get the legislation through, what puzzles me is that we have already been down this path a number of times. We went to committee and at committee we agreed to a number of amendments. As a matter of good faith, if the government were really interested in moving this legislation, why would it take out what we had already agreed to in the committee process in the last Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, being an ex-member myself, I have seen trials that colleagues and friends have gone through and the impact they can have to ruin careers and leave people looking at the military in a certain way but not necessarily understanding the system. I have seen summary trials put onto military personnel in such a way that they were used as a training tool. I think there is a serious problem with this.

The question that goes through my mind when I see the attitude of the government is where its desire is to actually get something more constructive into play.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I cannot explain the absence of desire to move this through.

The Lamer report goes back to 2003. A subsequent statutory review was completed by Justice LeSage recently. I cited the substantial historical context leading up to Bill C-15. If the government were truly interested in moving this through in an expeditious fashion, one would have thought it would have picked up Bill C-41 in its post-committee state, with agreement from all parties on some amendments, and put that back in front of the House so that we could move forward on something that we had all agreed to already.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out one quick thing that I pointed out to the previous speaker. Yes, the majority of cases are settled by summary trial because in the majority of cases that is the option chosen by the soldier, sailor, airman or airwoman.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. If these things are done by choice, which may be the case, I would question whether it is an informed choice.

One of the challenges with the military justice system is that soldiers who are going through discipline do not even have a right to representation. I think they are provided access to another officer to assist them but that officer is not legally trained and would seem to be in no better position to provide advice on what are obviously complex legal matters with very lasting effects on the men and women of the armed forces going through this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Justice LeSage's report. In it he says that he went around the country and was shocked to find that many of the Canadian Forces members and lawyers he talked to were not even aware that service offences could attract criminal offences. He noted that, even for minor service offences, there was the requirement of a three-year wait before someone can apply for a pardon because it is under the Criminal Records Act. The government says that pardons can no longer be granted, that it can only be a suspension of record.

Does the member find it surprising that in this day and age, with the expectations about disciplinary matters, that is still the case, as Justice LeSage pointed out?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. I was surprised, when I wrapped my head around this issue and this bill, to discover that criminal convictions can come out of summary trial proceedings. That is a very serious consequence for the careers of people within the Canadian Forces and, obviously, after a career in the Canadian Forces as well.

In the context of the absence of representation and absence of informed choice, those have very serious consequences in our country where we adhere to the principles of natural justice, one of which suggests that when people go into legal proceedings there is a legitimate expectation of what will transpire and what the potential outcome will be. Frankly, I do not think in this century in Canada there can be a legitimate expectation that people go into summary trials with so very few protections, no guarantee of a fair hearing and come out with such a serious consequence.

To answer my colleague, yes, I in fact do find it extremely surprising that this state of justice actually exists in our military system today.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I am very honoured to participate in the debate today on Bill C-15, which would strengthen the military justice system, for a number of reasons.

I had the honour of being elected as the member of Parliament for the riding of Saint-Jean in Quebec. I realize that I have never had the opportunity to talk about this riding, which has many ties to national defence.

First, I will say that it is because of the military installation at the base, for example, with which all Canadian soldiers are familiar due to an important part of their basic training that takes place and also the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean, from which most of our senior military personnel graduated. Second, Saint-Jean is also an important centre for the defence industry, including Rheinmetall, Cadex and Mil-Quip, which contribute significantly to the regional economy.

Finally, for historical reasons, this year we will commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812, part of which took place in Lacolle, in the riding. In November 1812, a very small group of 200 Canadian regulars were able to hold off more than 1,200 American soldiers and were eventually able to chase them back into the United States. We are fortunate that the wooden blockhouse, which is called the Lacolle Mill, which protected the Canadian soldiers is still standing and is one of the most significant and interesting historical buildings in Canada. If members or people listening are in the region this summer, this building is absolutely a must see.

On a more personal note, I worked in the military exactly 20 years ago, from 1992 to 1993. I did mandatory military service in the French army. As a signaller in the signals company of the 4^e Régiment d'hélicoptères de commandement et de manoeuvre of the French army's Force d'action rapide, I was directly confronted with the reality of military discipline and with the consequences that arise if anyone disobeys the kind of rules we are debating today regarding Bill C-15.

I can say that I feel privileged, compared to the majority of members who have had a chance to examine this bill, either to debate it in the House or to study it more carefully in committee. I and my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, have worked in the military.

Let us get back to Bill C-15. This bill is substantive in terms of both quantity and quality. It has 90 pages and addresses complex legal notions.

This is actually the fourth time this bill has been introduced. The third time it was introduced, as Bill C-41, it was referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence, which studied the bill during eight sessions lasting over two hours each, the last of which took place not long ago on March 23, 2011.

It is important to point out that, in addition to the 16-plus hours of formal meetings during which witnesses were called and questioned by members of the Standing Committee on National Defence, hundreds of hours of work were devoted to finding reasonable solutions to real problems. Now that is all being thrown in the trash.

During the 40th Parliament, Bill C-41 included specific clauses about the independence of military judges. This is now the 41st Parliament, and given the urgency of the matter, the government decided to remove those provisions to create a new bill, Bill C-16, which the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence studied last fall and the NDP supported at all stages.

Clearly, Bill C-15 is not an omnibus bill, like the ones introduced in 2011 and 2012, but it nevertheless amends several parts of the National Defence Act. First of all, it amends part III of the act, which serves as the Code of Service Discipline. There is also part IV, which has to do with complaints concerning the military police, and finally, there is an addition regarding the position of the Canadian Forces provost marshal.

I would like to begin by addressing one very important aspect of this bill, that is, the question of discipline. In an excellent speech delivered on March 29, 2012, the hon. member for St. John's East did a fine job addressing the issue of discipline, reminding us how important it is to any military organization, because soldiers' lives depend on it. He quoted retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, and I quote:

Discipline is fundamental to military efficiency...permitting commanders to control the use of violence so that the right amount and type of force can be applied in exactly the right circumstances, the right time and the right place. At the personal level, discipline ensures that...the soldier can and will carry out orders even if his natural instinct for self-preservation and fear tells him otherwise.

As a non-commissioned soldier myself once, I was trained to understand that military justice is inexorably different from civilian justice because it must fulfill two additional requirements: discipline and swiftness.

I can say that people who wear a uniform are subjected to pressure that does not exist in the civilian world, if only because of the existence of a chain of command that must be obeyed—obviously, as long as those commands are lawful. During my military training, in fact, I remember learning about the particular problem posed by illegal commands. Even so, experience shows that when an individual is subjected to this particular pressure, he can be motivated to commit acts that he would never commit in civilian life.

Next, I would like to speak a little about the procedural aspect of the question we are addressing today. Our role as parliamentarians is to study bills in detail, however complex they may be. Our responsibility as elected representatives, however, is also to summarize our work and explain to Canadians how their government is conducting itself in a specific case. When we provide Canadians with those explanations, they do not understand why their government, the same government that sets itself up artificially as a good manager of the money that Canadians have earned with the sweat of their brow, could be trashing the hours of work that have been put into improving this same bill on three occasions. Instead of starting from the last version of this bill, the government is using its position of power and starting over from zero. That is what Canadians do not understand.

The saddest thing is that the last version of Bill C-41 was the product of discussion, dialogue and consensus. Unfortunately, we get the feeling that this government does not understand the word “consensus”, and that is what is sad.

I would like to start by talking about points that the NDP believes are a step in the right direction. I will then address the points where we disagree, or rather where we think improvements should be made.

In general, we support all the measures that are designed to create greater uniformity between the military and civilian justice systems.

A typical example is the question of the jurisdiction of the court. Sometimes, offences, or crimes, are committed in a military precinct. In that case, the military court will have jurisdiction, although the crime is in no way connected with the operational side of the job performed by a member of the military. Instead, the case should go before a civilian court, so the accused has the benefit of all the civilian protections guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What are the points on which we think the government can do a better job in its reforms? There are three main points. There are the summary trial system, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board and the MPCC, which is the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Let us first talk about the summary trial aspect. This is a very important one, because, as we have heard in various speeches, 90% of military offences are dealt with by summary trial. The concern raised by my colleague from St. John's East in his work in committee is that, contrary to what happens in the civilian justice system, the proceedings in summary trials do not protect the rights of the accused adequately. He also introduced amendments to address this point.

As he pointed out, one of the general principles of natural justice lies in procedural fairness, and one of the things this means is the right to be tried by an impartial person. It will be agreed that in a summary trial, when a person is tried by their superiors, that is not the case.

Another interesting case and one which we should take as an example is the case of countries whose legal system comes from the common law, but that have had to change their legislation to achieve that well-known procedural fairness. The reason for it is that the European Court of Justice has ruled that military summary trials violated the European Convention on Human Rights. This is the case in the United Kingdom, a country that had to amend its legislation.

As was mentioned earlier, if Commonwealth countries, such as Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, have been able to make these legislative amendments, why should Canada still not be able to do so?

To end on this point, I would say that we cannot discuss summary trials without looking into the issue of criminal records. I will take a few minutes to speak about this particular issue.

One of our main concerns is that military personnel should not be treated less fairly than civilians are and that the treatment a soldier receives should not have unfair repercussions in his civilian life. Why? Because after a certain period, our military return to civilian life once again.

What we are concerned about is the direct link that currently exists between a summary trial in the military environment and the risk of a criminal record under the Criminal Records Act in the civilian world. It was mentioned earlier that a criminal record is becoming even more important in everyday life, not only in crossing a border, the case that first comes to mind, but also in looking for work. It is a good thing in itself, on condition that the process that led to the criminal record has been as rigorous and as fair in the military context as the equivalent in the civilian context.

One of the solutions to this issue could have been to provide that anyone found guilty in a military context during a summary trial may not have a criminal record in the civilian environment. Unfortunately, the solution was not accepted.

Let us take the example of being under the influence of a drug and behaving in a manner that is likely to discredit Her Majesty's service. This is a punishable offence in the military, while in civilian life, it is not even an offence.

We could look at the example of someone claiming to have an illness that they do not actually have. This can be punishable by life imprisonment in exceptional operational circumstances, for example, if it put the lives of other soldiers at risk. However, in the civilian world, this is not even punishable as a criminal offence.

These are practical examples that would result in a criminal record for a criminal act committed in the military world, but that would not have a consequence in the civilian world.

The second item that should be improved in this bill is the Canadian Forces Grievance Board.

At present, this board consists exclusively of retired members of the Canadian Forces. We would like to have more civilians on this board.

Initially, we even supported having only civilians on the board. My colleague from St. John's East introduced an amendment in that regard. During discussions in the previous Parliament, members of the committee had found a compromise solution whereby at least 60% of the members of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board would be civilians. That amendment was adopted by the committee. We wonder why the Conservatives deleted this particular provision from Bill C-15.

Another issue that was debated in detail during the meetings of the Standing Committee on National Defence was the Chief of the Defence Staff's authority to make financial decisions.

This has been a problem for many years and Justice Lamer asked that it be rectified in 2003. That was almost 10 years ago. This issue has been raised on a regular basis not only by the Canadian Forces ombudsman, but also by the chair of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board.

For the sake of clarity, I will try to explain what is meant by that. What we find unfair is that National Defence's Chief of Defence Staff does not have the authority to render a decision. He only has the authority to issue a notice that the applicant must use to try to get paid by National Defence. That is what we want to correct because we find it to be unfair.

Next, we would like the Military Police Complaints Commission, the MPCC, to become a real oversight body. I noticed that we have not talked very much about the MPCC during the various debates because we were focused on the summary trials, which are the most important aspect. However, I would like to provide a bit of historical background. The MPCC was established by the Parliament of Canada in the wake of the Somalia inquiry because MPs felt the need to strengthen civilian control over how the army operates.

We think that this reform is not ambitious enough and does not go far enough.

I would like to come back to the question that the hon. member for Edmonton Centre asked the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue as to why summary trials are not constitutional at this time.

I will simply read a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which confirmed in Wigglesworth:

If an individual is to be subject to penal consequences such as imprisonment...then he or she should be entitled to the highest procedural protection known to our law.

That was the ruling made by the Supreme Court. I do not know whether the hon. member for Edmonton Centre will have the opportunity to say more about this, but that is indeed why we are in this position regarding summary trials.

In closing, I would like to say that, for all the reasons I have mentioned, the NDP will not be supporting Bill C-15 at second reading, not because we are opposed to most of the provisions in the bill, but because we cannot condone the government's strategy of deliberately ignoring the recommendations that had been made by parliamentarians during the previous sessions.

We are asking the government to amend its bill, in order to take into account the hundreds of hours of work done in the Standing Committee on National Defence during previous parliaments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, having served in the Canadian Forces for a number of years, I understand and appreciate the differences between civilian life and military life. Many members of the forces see that. There is a great dependency on discipline within the military and a need to follow orders. People in the military have an obligation unlike people outside the military.

People outside the military if they do not feel like working, they can leave, but they might not have a job at the end of the day. They can call in sick without any real consequences. If they do not like what the boss is saying, they can quit or in some instances talk back.

People in the military do not have these options. There needs to be a consequence in order to have an effective force. The discipline factor and the need to follow orders is absolutely critical for the Canadian Forces sheer existence.

There is a need for changes to the legislation. It needs to be modified to the degree where it would probably be more effective.

In principle, why would the NDP prevent the legislation from passing? There is a need to make some changes to it and amendments would most likely be welcome, but why would that party oppose the bill in principle and its passage?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his interesting question. He mentioned the example of malingering, and the fact that there must be consequences.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, discipline is one of the pillars of the entire military organization because the lives of the other soldiers depend on discipline and its enforcement. We do not deny that. No one is denying the importance of discipline nor the fact that, as he said, anyone found guilty of malingering or faking must suffer the consequences.

We are not saying that there should be no consequences to lying. What we are saying is that when a soldier is charged for faking an illness, for example, the military justice process that applies must not be less fair than the same process that would operate in the civilian world, under the Criminal Records Act.

It is not a question of removing the guilt associated with the act or playing down the seriousness of it, since as I said earlier, the act of malingering can result in the loss of other soldiers' lives, because one soldier did not honour his commitment to stand guard, for instance. The best example is standing guard. If a soldier falls asleep or pretends to be sick in order to leave his guard post, his fellow soldiers could be killed as a result. We are not denying that. What we are saying is that it is a question of processes.

Once the act is committed, regardless of the consequences, and the soldier has been arrested, the process must be as fair as the corresponding process in the civilian world.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He is a very eloquent speaker. This is very interesting, especially coming from someone who represents a riding that has many military institutions and who knows military institutions, having served in the military himself in Europe. It was very interesting for a neophyte like myself to learn a little more about how things work internally.

My question will be very simple. I found my colleague's comments very interesting and I would like to know a little more about the whole issue. Knowing that amendments could be proposed, how does he think this bill could be improved?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for her question.

As I mentioned, this is the fourth time this bill has come before the House. We have therefore had plenty of time to discuss it. There have been negotiations and discussions. However, I should note that during the previous Parliament, the Conservatives who were members of the Standing Committee on National Defence did not have a majority, so they were forced to agree to a certain number of compromises. Now they are in a position of power and they have a majority on the Standing Committee on National Defence, so it seems to me—I am speculating here—that they want to use their position of power to thumb their noses at all of the negotiations that took place in committee during previous Parliaments.

To answer the question about what can be done, I would say that we should pick up where we left off with Bill C-41 during the 40th Parliament and not remove the amendments that were negotiated and agreed to by members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we hear so much rhetoric and blather from the other side about law and order and lock them down, punish them and pick them up by their bootstraps and all the other baloney. It is nice to hear from a member who actually knows what he is talking about, who has served in the military, who understands that an institution is not just some hollow vessel but it is filled with people, in many senses, young people who are in a context, and it is a bit of a rarefied context. We are asking them to do things and to give of themselves in a way that is really extraordinary. When they occasionally run afoul with the law, they are not given the kind of due process that anyone would expect. I think many Canadians would be surprised that in this context, and for certain infractions, those in the military are not given due process.

Would my hon. colleague comment on the general context in which the government is tabling the bill, stripping out some of the more reasonable amendments that had already been negotiated and leaving just the ones that follow its lock them down law and order baloney?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really feel the government, the Conservative Party, is using the position it holds right now to take a completely different approach from what it had taken under the previous legislation just because it has that majority. The Conservatives are claiming that they have a strong majority, but this is not true. Forty per cent of the votes is not a strong majority. Therefore, if we take the perspective of the voters, this is not a strong majority. It is not a majority at all. It is just here in this place that the members of the Conservative Party are using and abusing this position.

I am very sad. The Conservatives could have taken the previous amendments that had been negotiated under the previous legislation. Now they are scrapping all that and starting anew. Frankly, Canadian taxpayers do not understand why we have to pay so many people and spend so many hours doing things and redoing them.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight to this important bill, Bill C-15, more commonly referred to as the military justice act. It is a bill that should have been dealt with Parliament long ago, but was delayed numerous times by the vagaries of the Canadian electoral system.

Unfortunately, as the bill stands now, I will not be speaking in favour at second reading. Despite still agreeing that the bill does represent a step in the right direction, this version omits key recommendations from the mandatory review process and it also omits recommendations that had already been accepted by all parties in the previous Parliament during debate on its predecessor, Bill C-41.

Certainly both sides of the House recognize the importance of the major reforms to our military justice system that took place in 1998. One of those important progressive provisions was the requirement that there be a mandatory five-year review of the impact of those changes in our military justice system.

The first review was completed by the very distinguished former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Lamer, in September 2003. His conclusion was that our military justice system was generally working well, but it was not without room for improvement. Therefore, he then submitted 88 recommendations for improvements to that justice system.

Since that time, by most counts, only about 28 of those recommendations have been dealt with, either in legislation or in administrative changes. That still leaves 60 recommendations outstanding.

Mr. Justice Lamer made recommendations in three main areas. The first of those was action to increase the protection for the independence of military judges. The second area was for actions to improve the current grievance process. The third area was actions to address efficiencies in the overall military justice framework.

Tonight I want to talk largely about how well Bill C-15 does in terms of implementing those outstanding recommendations made by Mr. Justice Lamer. When we look at Bill C-15, what we find is a very mixed record.

The recommendations in the first area of independence of military justice were dealt with last fall with all party support. They were separated out into Bill C-16, due to the deadline Parliament had been given by a decision of the Military Court Martial Appeal Court in the case of Regina v. Leblanc, and that deadline was met with royal assent last November.

I mention this specifically because it demonstrates that with goodwill on both sides of the House, we can get reforms that are needed through the House of Commons in a timely fashion. What I see missing in this draft of the bill is that goodwill to respect opinions on all sides of the House.

The second area that Mr. Justice Lamer made recommendations in was the area of improvements to the current grievance system. Lamer judged the current process unsatisfactory, largely due to its failure to deal with grievances in a timely manner and then the resulting backlog of grievances that came about as a result of that untimely dealing with problems.

His conclusion was that the basic principles of the grievance system were sound, but that its operation was not sound. At the time of his report, there were over 800 grievances outstanding and he pointed out the fact that grievances were often stuck at the office of the Chief of Defence Staff for more than two years.

Lamer suggested a 12 month limit be placed on grievances, that they would have to be dealt with within that time period. However, he also suggested some ways that deadline could be met, but it required several things to happen.

If the Chief of Defence Staff were able to delegate responsibility for some grievances to subordinate officers, that would speed up the process. That provision is in Bill C-15 and has been in all the previous bills.

The other two things are not actually legislative action and unfortunately they have not taken place.

The second of his recommendation on grievances was that adequate resources needed to be made available so that grievances could proceed in a timely fashion. The main reason for the delay was not enough people and not enough resources to deal with those grievances.

His third recommendation was providing additional training to those members of the Canadian Forces who were actually dealing with grievances, so they became more skilled in getting resolution of the grievances at a low level and were able to therefore move on to deal with more serious grievances.

As I said, only the first of these is in the bill. The other two would be very difficult to manage now, in view of the large cuts to the DND budget this year. They require more resources for the grievance system and they require more resources for training. I have my doubts about whether those would be available, given the large cuts in this year's budget.

The other reform not included in this bill to do with grievances was one which was adopted as an NDP amendment to Bill C-41, the previous version of this bill. That was an amendment to add critical balance to the representation on grievance committees. Therefore, I am at a loss as to why the government would not have included this amendment, which was already accepted in the previous Parliament, and which would go a long way to helping restore credibility to the grievance committee system by having a good representation of difference kinds of members of the Canadian Forces on those committees.

In his third area of recommendations we probably have the most important recommendations for redressing the balance within the military justice framework as a whole. In talking about these, Justice Lamer set out four principles to guide that system. I want to take a moment to talk about those principles because I think it is important to keep them in mind as we are talking about this bill.

The first of those, and I shall quote Mr. Lamer, was to recognize that “maintaining discipline by the chain of command is essential to a competent and reliable military organization”.

What he is pointing out there is that discipline depends on a well-functioning grievance and justice system. Therefore, it is not a challenge to that system to have a good grievance system; it is a support to that discipline system. It is not a challenge to have a good justice system; it is a support to discipline within the military.

The second principle he raised is that it was necessary to recognize the particular context of the military justice system. I will quote him at length here because what he said was that we:

...need to have a system that will properly operate under those special conditions that our men and women are placed in, often abroad, under conditions from peacekeeping to peace-making, in what is often a hostile environment, and indeed sometimes outright war.

Mr. Justice Lamer did not say there should not be a system for summary convictions or expedited justice. He recognized that sometimes these things are necessary. However, he also recognized that we can do these things within the framework of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and within a system that is just and fair to all the members of the Canadian Forces.

The third point or principle underlying these reforms to the framework that he mentioned was that those “who risk their lives for our country deserve a military justice system that protects their rights in accordance with our Charter” of Rights and Freedoms.

What he is saying there is that, like all other Canadian systems, but in particular because members of the Canadian Forces risk their lives in the service of their country, they deserve the protection of the rights that are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because that is what we are asking them to defend as members of the Canadian Forces.

His fourth principle said that it was necessary to recognize that any doubts about the military justice system and any lack of confidence in the military justice system would have negative impacts not just on discipline but also on morale within the Canadian Forces. Therefore, it becomes very important to deal with concerns about injustice in a timely fashion in order that the esprit de corps and the sense of common purpose can be maintained in the Canadian Forces.

By laying out those four principles, what he was saying is that the context that the military justice operates in makes it particularly important that we operate a model system.

Bill C-15 does make progress in two areas. I am prepared to acknowledge that.

One is in placing limits on the power of arrest without warrant under the existing sections 155 and 156 of the National Defence Act. Two court cases had already brought these wide powers of arrest without warrant into question, and Bill C-15 addresses this problem by incorporating Mr. Justice Lamer's recommendations.

The second area in which it makes progress is in providing for more flexible sentencing. Again, as recommended by Lamer, this would bring military justice in line with civilian justice in Canada by adding new sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders.

Those are two areas of progress I am prepared to acknowledge. Unfortunately, some of the most significant recommendations from Mr. Justice Lamer's report are missing from Bill C-15. That is why I am unable to support the bill at second reading.

One in particular I would like to highlight from Mr. Lamer's report deals with section 129 of the National Defence Act. That section establishes a general prohibition against conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. That is something no one could disagree with, given the context the military operates in. Unfortunately, as Mr. Justice Lamer noted, there is a lack of clarity in that section as to what the requisite elements of an offence are under this section or, in common language, what it is one has to do to violate this section is not clear. We might ask why Justice Lamer would focus on such a technical matter involving a single section of the defence act.

What he pointed out was that in the last year before his report, 44% of all charges in the military justice system were under this single section, where exactly what one has to do to be in contravention is unclear, and that this section also generated a large proportion of the appeals in the military justice system. This is what I would call a very major problem in terms of acceptance of the justice system, in terms of discipline and in terms of morale, and resulting from this lack of clarity it is not dealt with in Bill C-15, and it is a major omission.

It is so major, in fact, that it raises the general question of why most of the other 60 recommendations have not been included in Bill C-15. What was the standard by which the government sorted through and decided some of these deserve to stay and some of them have to go?

The second major omission that many of my colleagues have spoken about is the failure to reform the summary trial system. Again, the summary trial system, according to Mr. Lamer, in normal times accounts for about 96% of all cases in the military justice system. The major concern we have noted here is the possibility of summary trial convictions leading to criminal records, something that has a great impact on the future prospects of those convicted, both their prospects within the military and their prospects should they choose to leave the Canadian Forces. Again, in its last incarnation as Bill C-41, NDP amendments were adopted to expand the number of offences considered minor from 5 to 27, and this would reduce significantly the number of convictions that could result in a criminal record.

A further failure of Bill C-15 is its failure to address the need to strengthen the role of the Military Police Complaints Commission so that it can act as an effective oversight body with full investigative powers and the unfettered right to report to Parliament.

There is one other concern that Lamer had, which is perhaps not surprising, but is not addressed in this bill. He did acknowledge that all the solutions are not legislative in nature. This concern was the general under-resourcing of the military justice system. Lamer pointed in particular to the under-resourcing of the defence counsel services, where the number of defence lawyers in the Canadian military was equal to the number of judges and that number was four. So not having enough people to provide defence counsel contributed to these lengthy delays in the actual justice system in getting cases through the court.

A further particular concern with resourcing came about at CFB Esquimalt in my riding. That is the cuts that have been made to alternative dispute resolution programs. These cuts that have been made in this budget would result in the phasing out of the alternative dispute resolution program at CFB Esquimalt by March 2014.

Now why am I talking about this as part of Bill C-15? I would say we have had a proven success rate in reducing the number of grievances and the number of behaviours that result in discipline by having an effective alternative dispute resolution program operating on the base. We can look at the number of cases that were dealt with in alternative dispute resolution and we can look at the number of grievances and see that the number of grievances has gone down. We can look at the number of cases dealt with in alternative dispute resolution and see that the number of discipline cases has gone down. Why on earth would the government want to cut the funding to alternative dispute resolution at the base? What the Conservatives say is that there is no explicit mandate for alternative dispute resolution services anywhere in the National Defence Act.

However, as I said, it flies in the face of the proven results of the alternative dispute resolution program in having a significant impact on reducing recourse to formal grievance procedures and in reducing the incidence of behaviours that would result in formal discipline proceedings. It is a great shame to see this program being phased out at the base.

I conclude my remarks about this bill by saying, once again, that I believe Bill C-16 last fall demonstrated the ability of all parties to co-operate to get important reforms adopted quickly in the House of Commons. Once again, I am perplexed as to why this bill ignores previously agreed upon amendments and ignores key recommendations from Mr. Justice Lamer. For that reason, I cannot support this bill at second reading.

Let me restate the importance of improvements to our military justice system. As I said, it is extremely important to one of those fundamental principles, and that is maintaining discipline in a chain of command.

It is extremely important to maintaining morale within the Canadian Forces, but it is also a right of those who serve. Therefore, we owe nothing less to the members of the Canadian Forces than to give them the same rights and the same protections, albeit in a special context, that are given to all other Canadians.

Members of the Canadian Forces are held to a high standard of discipline. They are asked to risk their lives, and therefore our judicial system should reflect those sacrifices they make on behalf of all of us. Those who risk their lives for our country should not be denied their charter rights when facing things like summary trials.

Other countries have recognized this issue and have changed their summary trial process. I heard my colleagues previously listing countries like Australia, Britain and Ireland. It is time for Canada to catch up in this area.

Ensuring that our military justice system ranks as a model system and a system of which all Canadians, both members of the Canadian Forces and the public at large, can justifiably be proud of should be the goal of Bill C-15. Once again, I have to question the government's motives in putting forward a bill that rejects those previously agreed upon compromises that help us accomplish that goal.

My final remarks go back to the important innovation we had in 1998, a five-year review. We had that review from Mr. Justice Lamer. We had a more recent review completed. We know what needs to be done here in the military justice system, and it is left now to us to find a way to come together in Parliament to get that done. We on this side of the House have said we will not support the bill at second reading. We would urge the government to take another run at this, one that recognizes the things that had already been agreed upon.

I want to go back to talk a bit more about the grievance system. It would be an easy thing for the Chief of the Defence Staff to adopt a 12-month limit for dealing with grievances, if we had that provision that allowed him to delegate some of that responsibility to his subordinates. It would not be so easy for him to do so in the context of cutbacks to the DND budget for this year. Therefore, those adequate resources for dealing with grievances will not be available, I am certain, and adequate resources for training those who deal with grievance procedures will not be available, likely, because of these large budget cutbacks.

I wonder where the consistency is in the government's commitment to the military and the commitment to improving the military justice system, when it is proceeding with such large cutbacks on an annual basis. I just cannot square that circle. Once again, if they are concerned about efficiency, I would go back to programs like the alternative dispute resolution program at CFB Esquimalt in my riding and ask why that program, instead of being cut, is not being piloted at all the bases across the country as a way of trying to get the problem solved at the lowest level without resorting to the formal processes that take so long and consume so many resources and without leaving Canadian Forces members so unhappy that they often engage in behaviours that provoke discipline and then invoke the military justice system.

We have some good alternatives here. We have some good ideas. We know where we need to go in reforming the military justice system. Again, I just cannot understand the lack of goodwill of the government in introducing Bill C-15 in this form when we have had so much experience in previous Parliaments and we know what it takes to get all of us on to the same page and improving the military justice system for the benefit of all the members who serve in the Canadian Forces.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, near the end of my colleague's speech, which seemed as if it went on for much more than five minutes, more than he should have had, he said something about squaring a circle. I have been in the House now for about six and a half years and I have watched his party time and time again. Virtually every time we have had any measures put forward to improve the safety of our men and women in uniform, to provide the resources that our men and women in uniform need to do their job well and to return home to us safely, almost every single time, this colleague and his party continue to vote against those initiatives.

My question is very simple. Maybe just for once could the NDP put aside its ideological opposition to supporting our men and women in uniform and get the bill to committee where it can be studied in depth?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a colleague of his on the other side who likes to start his responses by saying, “Utter nonsense”. I would like to quote that hon. member.

I gave the example of the bill last fall dealing with the independence of military judges. In that instance we worked together on all sides of the House and passed it through the House in record time in order to meet the deadline that was set in the court martial appeal court decision of R. v. Leblanc . We were able to do that.

With good will, as we have already demonstrated, we can co-operate on certain aspects of military justice to get things through the House of Commons.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to button the impression that my colleague from across the way seemed to want to give, the impression that we do not support our military.

We do support our military; we would just like to do it the right way. That is it. The right way, we feel, is to have dialogue and discussion with the members across the way so that we could put forward some of the concerns we have, and hopefully have those concerns listened to. The committee process has proven very limiting in that respect.

Could my hon. colleague just expand on some of the issues that we have with this bill? Obviously it is not with the whole bill, but there are enough concerns that we cannot give it our full support. Would my colleague care to elaborate on that?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I thank my colleague for that question, because I have already expanded about as much as I can.

I would like to go back to what he said at the very beginning. It has been my tendency not to take the bait from the other side when they say we do not support the military. Can they actually demonstrate that?

One of the things I would bring to the Conservatives' attention is that if we look at the ridings across the country that have large military populations and check which parties won in the last election in those ridings, we can see that most of the major military ridings across the country are represented by New Democrats.

The members on the other side can claim that we do not support the military, but I think the members of the Canadian Forces and their families know that we have been there when it counts. They know we can be counted on for the issues that are important to them and their families. They voted accordingly.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very troubling, because Conservatives say one thing and do the opposite.

I have been sitting in the House for over a year now, and Conservatives would have us believe that they actually support our veterans and our military. However, when it comes to the budget for veterans and military personnel and their medical needs, Conservatives do the opposite. They cut those budgets.

Over the year, and my colleague could enlighten me on this, I have seen many bills introduced in this House, and I have seen many amendments offered by a number of opposition parties, including the NDP. Not one amendment to any of those bills has been accepted.

I would like to ask my colleague this question: am I on the right track when I say that Conservatives do one thing and say another thing?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously late in the evening and late in the debate. I always like the first part of the question better than the last part, because I am not sure I can remember the last part of questions as they come to me. Perhaps it is important to make notes.

I always said, in my previous life as a city councillor, that when the government shifted from Liberal to Conservative, one of the things that I thought would change was the way the police and the military were treated by the Canadian government. One of the great disappointments, for me, when the Conservatives became the government was to find that they have the same bureaucratic bean-counting approach to members of the Canadian Forces that was used by the Liberals.

At the beginning, yes, there was a little increase in some salaries and some improvements in conditions, but what we have seen most recently in the budget is a very large cut to DND, which means that a lot of civilian contractors in my riding will probably actually lose their jobs.

The other thing we have seen is this attack on veterans' benefits. When people who are veterans' advocates raise complaints about that, we see a consistent pattern of violation of privacy rights and use of military and military medical records against them as advocates for members of the Canadian Forces.

As I said, I really did expect that the military and the police would be treated better by the Conservatives than they had been by the Liberals. It is sad to see that the same kind of treatment has continued.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was particularly interested in the grievance process. Members opposite are not speaking, so it is hard to ask them to justify why certain things are missing from the bill. For example, in the last Parliament, Bill C-41 was amended to provide that the Chief of the Defence Staff would be given the final authority to grant relief, including financial compensation if somebody was not properly paid, for instance, or given the right benefit. That is not in Bill C-15. That was taken out of this version of it.

There was also a recommendation that the name of the grievance board be changed to the military grievance external review committee to emphasize that it was supposed to be outside of the military, an external review, and that it be populated by people without a military background. That has been taken out. Mr. Justice LeSage, who studied this issue, recommended that the change be put back again and also that there be a time limit of one year for dealing with grievances. In the last Parliament, the government rejected that idea, but Mr. Justice LeSage, in reviewing the act, says that it should be put in.

I do not know if the member can answer this. I am wondering why members opposite in the government have failed to recognize the importance of having a grievance procedure that is fair, effective and speedy.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, because it is the same thing I was musing about in my speech. It is hard to understand why some things are in the bill and some things are not, and what standard was used to make decisions about what should have been retained or not, in particular those things on which compromise had been reached in the previous Parliament. If the government is looking for support from the opposition parties for this bill to move forward quickly, why would it not include the things that had been in the previous bill?

When it comes to the grievance system, which I emphasized a lot in my speech, it is really important to both discipline and to morale within the military to have this well-functioning grievance system operating. I am at a loss to explain why the government would omit that from this bill, and it is one of the reasons that I am not supporting it at second reading.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the last word, especially since a comment was made that I was really itching to talk about.

My colleague made an excellent speech that was eloquent and easy to understand. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and we have spent a lot of time studying the grievance system in our prisons. When he spoke about the grievance system in military justice, I could not help but make the link to the problem with the grievance or complaint system in prisons.

I find it rather strange that there is a double standard in both cases. Resources are being taken away from these two systems, but they are needed for the grievance systems in both of these places. That is just a comment that I wanted to share with my colleague.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question, because I think my colleague is onto something.

The government came up with a bill to label some prisoners as vexatious and problematic and to not accept complaints on the same basis. Maybe there is something about the idea that somehow complaints are a problem and are not about fixing problems. Perhaps there is that common attitude that would explain why a government that would support a private member's bill in the corrections area, a bill that would limit the right to complain, might also leave these things out of the bill.

As one of my colleagues said, it is probably an attitude of shooting the messenger who raises the problems rather than dealing with the problems themselves. I thank the hon. member for drawing that very interesting parallel.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of other bills that I have had to speak on in this Parliament. I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on this one, but I will speak strongly in opposition to the bill going through as presented.

It is quite clear that Bill C-15 includes some significant reforms that we can support and in fact encourage all members to support. However, on the question from the member for Winnipeg North about why we would not support the bill in principle, I want to be very clear that I am never going to vote for a bill that would treat our military people unfairly.

The second reason for opposing the bill at this stage is the lack of trust that we have in the government to make the necessary amendments to the bill at committee. The Conservatives have clearly shown bad faith regarding Bill C-15. They have shown bad faith regarding our military personnel.

We have heard from everybody who has spoken this evening on the bill in its previous incarnations about recognizing the necessity of having a criminal justice system within the military context that would have to take into account the military discipline system at the same time. There is no dispute about that. Everybody accepts that on all sides of this House. However, if we are going to respect our military personnel and all that they contribute to this country today and all that they have contributed to this country historically, that system has to be one that is administered with firmness but very clearly with fairness.

There are aspects of Bill C-15, the part regarding criminal records in particular, that are grossly unfair to our military personnel. We would be treating them as very distant second-hand citizens with regard to the rights that all the rest of us enjoy and that this bill is prepared to take away from them. Again, our party is not prepared to support the bill as it stands because of that particular section as well.

The other point I want to make, and it has come up in the last few speeches, is that we have gone through incarnations of the bill twice before: once as Bill C-7 in 2007 and once as Bill C-41 in 2008.

Bill C-41 did get to committee in a minority government situation and had a number of amendments applied to it. We have to set that in the context of the report from Mr. Justice Lamer in 2003, the work that was done on Bill C-7 initially and then all of the work that was done and the evidence taken for Bill C-41 in committee.

Amendments were presented. They were accepted. There was a lot of negotiation, and that is not just me speaking on the information that I have of how the defence committee functioned at that time; Mr. Justice LeSage, who did his report in 2011, made similar comments about the amount of work that was done dealing with, in some cases, fairly complex issues.

There were not a lot of amendments—probably 10 or 15, or something in that range, and some of them fairly innocuous—but If we go back and look at all of the amendments that were made, we see that every single one of them has been stripped out in Bill C-15.

One of the changes we made was on the title of the grievance board, which is what it is still called. The committee wanted to be clear about the culture of how we should be dealing with grievances. A recommendation was made, adopted at committee stage and sent back here to the House at report stage.

We changed the title to military grievances external review committee because that more clearly reflected the context in which grievances were being dealt with, the personnel who were dealing with the grievances and the culture in which grievances should be addressed.

The bill came back as Bill C-15 and the title had gone back to grievance board, for no reason whatsoever except the Conservatives are absolutely determined to do it their way and no other way. In spite of the fact that all those negotiations went on in committee when it was Bill C-41, changes were made. With regard to that particular title, Mr. Justice LeSage agreed when he did his report.

Let me spend a couple of more minutes on Mr. Justice LeSage's report. He was appointed by the government to review the military justice system. In his report he said he did not specifically look at Bill C-15 because he was not asked to do that. It was not within his mandate. He did look at Bill C-41. He looked at the history and at Mr. Justice Lamer's recommendations, and he came up with a number of his own recommendations.

That report was presented to the government in December 2011. The bill itself came before the House shortly before that. It had very little debate, one to two hours, and one speech by my colleague. The bill has sat there since that time.

The report also sat in the hands of the government. I am going to suggest that it sat in the hands of the government because there were so many recommendations in that report that copied the amendments we did on Bill C-41.

The government finally tabled the report in the House earlier this month, on June 8. It did that because it did not want somebody with the reputation and stature of Mr. Justice LeSage agreeing with all of the amendments done by the collective parties in the last Parliament on Bill C-41. The government kept it hidden and finally, under pressure from the official opposition, brought it to the House.

I now want to take members to the major concern we have with the bill, and that is with regard to the criminal records. Mr. Justice LeSage, on pages 28 and 29 of his report, goes into some detail, and I want to read part of it:

The Criminal Records Act provides that a person is ineligible to apply for a pardon for ten years for a service offence under the National Defence Act for which the offender received a fine of more than $2,000...

What we will have is that our military personnel who have been fined $2,001 will have to wait 10 years before being able to clear their record. If they were in detention for six months, they will have to wait 10 years. That is not the standard we have set for other people in our society who have committed criminal offences that are much more severe than these. They would not have to wait 10 years.

Similarly, for the very minor ones, with a fine of less than $500, military personnel will have to wait three years before their record is cleared. If they were in the general civilian population, that would not even be a consideration. It would not be a criminal record. It would be quasi-criminal, and they would not have a record under the Criminal Records Act.

Justice LeSage goes on to say that we have to change this. He makes specific recommendations, and he does make reference to Bill C-41. He says that this was looked at, that it was very complex, but specific recommendations and amendments were passed at committee.

Section 75 of the bill provides for section 249.27 of the National Defence Act. The government put in a new section that says a criminal record would not apply. It then said it would not apply to five sections of the National Defence Act. It would not apply for a fine of less than $500, but it would apply for anything over $500.

Bill C-41 came back to the House as amended at report stage, in March 2011, just before the government fell and we had an election.

The Conservatives did have time. If they had called that bill, with everybody who was in support of it at that point, we actually would have had it passed. There was time in late March and early April, before the election was called, for that bill to get through the House. If they were serious about it, we would have had the bill in place. It would be the law of the land at this point.

However, that is not what they did.

Much like this bill, which has sat on the order paper since late last fall, we are only finally getting back to it this week.

The amendment that was passed at that time at committee included a number of sections. I will not do the mathematics right now, but it was roughly 15 to 18 sections. If military personnel committed an offence under these sections they would not have a criminal record. They are small items. It is things like being intoxicated on duty. Again, it is minor stuff, which in civilian life people would not have a criminal record for, at all.

With a lot of work, the committee went through these 15 to 18 sections and said these should not invoke a criminal record.

As I said a few minutes ago, what we see in Bill C-15 is that all of those sections, except five of them, are stripped out. We have all sorts of offences now—and Mr. Justice LeSage again confirms this in his report—that would not be offences in civilian life, that would not invoke a criminal record, that will now have an impact on our military personnel. It is not fair. It is going to produce really negative consequences.

It was interesting to hear a couple of the members saying, “Well, no, you are wrong about this. There really is not a criminal record.” Mr. Justice LeSage, in his report, said he was not surprised the member said that. When he spoke with Canadian Forces members across the country, he was surprised that many people, including lawyers, were unaware of the very real potential to acquire the equivalent of a criminal record if convicted of a minor service offence. Even the lawyers who might be advising military personnel as to whether they should, in a summary trial situation, admit their offence and plead guilty to it, did not know they would acquire a criminal record.

I wonder if my colleague knows that he may in fact have a criminal record under the provision.

That was the level of the lack of knowledge the committee saw under Bill C-41, and that Mr. Justice LeSage identified as he went across the country and took evidence. He made it very clear of the absolute need for all those sections of the National Defence Act to be exempted from attracting a criminal record.

However, the Conservatives stripped it out and reduced it down to five offences that would not acquire a criminal record. Another 10 to 13 offences are going to acquire a criminal record.

We are going to have military personnel, after they leave the service, trying to get employment.

One of the points Mr. Justice LeSage makes in his report is getting across the border. I know, coming from my riding in Windsor, how difficult the Americans are being, how very rigid they are on enforcing denials to Canadians who have any kind of a criminal record. They are going to get caught. They are not going to be able to go into the United States. In effect that would have a major impact on their ability to earn.

There are a lot of people who live on the Canadian side of the border but work on the American side. They will not be able to pursue that employment if they have these kinds of criminal records from their military service.

We need the government to give its head a shake and look back at what they did in Bill C-41. It made sense.

Mr. Justice LeSage is a very well-recognized person. He has strong stature. He understands the military justice system. He is one of the experts in the country. He did not make these recommendations lightly. Neither did the committee make those amendments lightly when it was doing its work on Bill C-41. The committee studied it and said, “This is a much better solution than what the government proposed at that time. This is the way we should go.”

That is where we should go back to now.

I have no particular faith in the government. I see some of the other silly amendments that the Conservatives stripped out, and I mean silly in the sense of their willingness to take out what were fairly minor changes. They were important changes. I do not want to downplay those. But when they have stripped every single one of them out, including the title of the grievance board, we know we cannot trust the government to deal fairly with our military personnel. The Conservatives have to get that message. We will continue to oppose the bill as long as we possibly can, until we get those amendments.

I want to move on to a couple of other areas. One of the recommendations from Mr. Justice LeSage was about disclosure, both with regard to summary trials and court martials.

I want to make a comment. It is very clear that 96% of all military discipline cases are dealt with by summary trial, so the Conservatives are saying it is obvious they are satisfied with the system.

If one can imagine, an individual either has minimal counsel from somebody who is not a lawyer, or none at all. Their commanding officers, who will ultimately be their judge in a summary trial, say they could either have a court martial, which would probably take six months to two years, or a summary trial. It is obvious why individuals end up electing to go the summary trial route 96% of the time.

With regard to the point of disclosure, both with regard to summary trials and with court martial proceedings, we made the recommendation very clearly that we had to have full disclosure. This is not dealt with at all. It was not dealt with in Bill C-7. It was not dealt with in Bill C-41, and it is not dealt with in Bill C-15. In spite of the fact that the government has known of that recommendation for six months, it has not done anything to amend Bill C-15 to include the requirement that full disclosure be given.

The point that Mr. Justice LeSage made when he made that recommendation, and I suppose the advocacy he was putting forward with regard to it, was that especially in a court martial the evidence is not given to the person in advance. When they get the evidence shortly before the trial, or in some cases at the trial, it will end up in a delay, an adjournment. On the other hand, if it is given early, the evidence they have against the individual is quite clear. Oftentimes it ends up in a guilty plea and a quick resolution of the matter.

In terms of the good faith of the government in this regard, it has known about that since December 2011. It has had six months to propose the amendment from the opposition parties to that section of the National Defence Act. It has done nothing about it whatsoever.

I could go on. There are any number of other fairly small amendments. We heard them from other members of my party this evening.

Let me deal with one that would allow the acceptance of the grievance. Rather than have it go over to the Justice department, which is the way it works now, it would stop at the Chief of Defence Staff. This would be financial compensation. An individual might say, “I was on this duty. I am entitled to danger pay. I am in a high-risk situation. I am entitled to an extra $200 for this month of employment”. The person dealing with the grievance says, “Yes, you are”.

Right now after that decision is made, it then goes over to the Justice department. Its lawyers look at it for as long as six months to another year before it is dealt with. It is grossly ineffective. It is inefficient. Again, it is unfair to the military personnel who are entitled to that $200 or $400.

The recommendation is that it stay at the military level, that the Chief of Defence Staff makes the final decision and allows for the compensation. The Conservatives stripped that amendment out too.

We will continue to oppose the bill as long as we possibly can. We are calling on the government to agree to put back those amendments that were in Bill C-41. At that point we can get this over with and get that firmness but fairness that we would apply to our military personnel in good faith.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer of long standing and great experience, the member's comments on these matters mean a lot.

I just want to add that Mr. Justice LeSage of the Ontario Superior Court, who did this report, said that the amendments that were in Bill C-41 took away the criminal record for certain offences but that, “I am of the view that the language contained in Bill C-41 is too narrow and should be expanded”.

He went on to say:

Suffice it to say I have very real concerns about obtaining a criminal record from a summary trial conviction. The issue of criminal records flowing from convictions at summary trial must be reviewed. The very damage that flows from a criminal record and the potential effect on a person's life is far too severe a consequence for most offences tried by summary trial.

He made the same arguments that we are making, which are that although it is constitutional it does not provide the safeguards of a civilian criminal trial and that the unintended consequence of acquiring a criminal record at summary trial should only occur in exceptional circumstances.

Is the member suggesting that the amendments that we had in Bill C-41 when it came back was the starting point for a further review and that we would expect members opposite to take it from there and in fact improve on the amendments that were made the last time instead of shipping them away?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was a bit uncertain but that is certainly the most logical interpretation to make of the comments of Mr. Justice LeSage, that even those 15 to 18 sections that BillC-41 had amended and had been added by the committee at that time were still too narrow. There were still too many low level inconsequential charges and convictions under the summary trials and that in fact that list should be expanded even greater. That is the most logical interpretation.

I have to say that there is a possibility that he may have been referring to Bill C-41 before it was amended, the original government version which had much fewer sections. However, he clearly had looked at Bill C-41 by the time it had come back to the House for its final report at that stage, so I think he was saying that even the 15 to 18 sections were too narrow.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and take advantage of the fact that he is an eminent legal expert to share with him a statement made by a witness in the Standing Committee on National Defence during the last Parliament. I want to share what Jean-Marie Dugas, a retired lieutenant-colonel with the Canadian Forces, had to say:

There's also the problem that you don't have that many lawyers on the city streets who are able to take care of our soldiers. Military law is military law, and there are regulations nobody has ever read or heard of before.

I would like to hear the member's comments on the availability of lawyers who are able to deal with military matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear. There are not enough lawyers. In my city, there are between 300 and 500 lawyers, and not one of them knows how to defend someone charged under this law. The same is true across Canada. Michel Drapeau is one of the experts in Canada. He wrote about this bill and he said the same thing. There may be a hundred or so lawyers in Canada who can defend our military personnel with some degree of expertise.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his presentation. He applied his vast knowledge and made a real impact on this debate.

I would like him to say a few words about what Colonel Michel Drapeau said in February 2011, before a committee:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and 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.

This seems to pose fundamental problems of natural justice. Why would we have double standards? I understand that the soldiers are in a unique situation, but are there no improvements that could be made to avoid this type of situation? Should we not be improving the bill before us because it does not satisfy these concerns?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. It is very clear that the government's response is not enough for military staff.

There are no transcripts and no defence lawyers. The judge gives the orders. Decisions cannot be appealed. I want to be clear: this does not pose a problem for most investigations. The charges are not too serious and the punishments are even less so.

However, when the defendant acquires a criminal record for very simple charges, it is clear that this law is not a satisfactory response for military staff. These amendments are essential.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to avail myself and this House again of my hon. colleague's deep knowledge of the law. We have heard, through some of the questions from the government side, that somehow due process and discipline are mutually exclusive terms. I wonder if the member could shed some light on why this is a false route for the government to go down, not just in this instance but in many others.

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

Mr. Speaker, the argument that the Supreme Court has said that the summary trial process is an acceptable one is accurate. Then to extrapolate from it that there should not be any due process, that they should not have the right to avoid criminal records in any number of other areas, is pervasive with the government. Unfortunately, it is all too pervasive in some of the upper echelons in the military, which is not the case in any number of other militaries. We have heard several times this evening that Australia, which is probably the closest to us, has gone a great distance to guarantee just about all of the same civil rights and civil liberties within the military justice system as it has in the rest of its criminal justice system. We are nowhere near close to doing that.

When we see this kind of bill and see that particular section that would impose these criminal records on our military personnel for no good reason whatsoever, other than it is their way or no other way and the opposition is not allowed to have any input. If it has any input, the Conservatives will strip it out, and it is too bad if our military personnel suffer. That is the result of this.

Again, we can point to other military establishments, such as Ireland and Australia again, where they have done this. It has not had any negative impact on discipline within their military. In fact, since they shifted to treating their military personnel with firmness but fairness, it has actually reduced the number of charges.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today against the second reading stage of Bill C-15. Before my colleagues across the way start saying that I do not like the military and all of those things, I will stress that it is because I so strongly support the men and women in our military who sacrifice so much to serve our country and put themselves on the line that I find it very difficult to support this legislation. Surely, our men and women who serve us at home and overseas in unimaginable circumstances deserve due process, and that is what this is all about. It is about transparency, accountability, t doing the right thing and natural justice.

When I look at Bill C-15, I do acknowledge that the government has taken a baby step in the right direction. However, it is only a baby step and does not go far enough.

As I look at the legislation, I experience déjà vu. Not too many days ago I stood in the House and talked about another bill, Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which was legislation that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism praised as being a miracle. It was legislation that all political parties worked on and together they included elements that would address human smuggling, put processes in place that would speed up processing times and short-term detention for people who did not have identification verification, all of those things. I want to acknowledge my colleague from Trinity—Spadina who did such an amazing job on that file. The government side and the other opposition party also praised that legislation.

Then, lo and behold, out of the blue we then had legislation that went backward and undid so much of the work that was done. Bill C-11 was the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and we ended up with Bill C-31 in its place, which undid all the work that was accomplished in Bill C-11. That is exactly the déjà vu I am experiencing now.

Once again we had legislation that was in Parliament, Bill C-11, which had been acclaimed but was still not fully implemented, and then it was undone. On the other hand, Bill C-15 undoes the amendments that were accepted in Bill C-41. Once again, we need to look at what the drive is behind this. The drive behind it seems to be the majority my colleagues are experiencing across the way. I was really hoping that after a year of being a majority government it would have gotten over that and gone on to do the work of Parliament in a way that respects the role of the opposition and, of course, the contributions the opposition has to make when it comes to legislation.

As I was saying, I was experiencing déjà vu. Here we are with this iteration of Bill C-15, and none of the compromises, amendments that were made in Bill C-41 are in it. Why? It is so tiring to hear about how the Conservatives are all about the military and how the opposition does not care about the military.

When I look at this legislation, I wonder how much my colleagues sitting across the aisle really care about the men and women who serve in our military and put their lives at risk and why the Conservatives have chosen to ignore key recommendations from a critical report written by Antonio Lamer, which was issued in 2003. There were 88 recommendations in that report. Out of those 88 recommendations, only 28 have been dealt with to date.

I am not fully blaming my colleagues across the aisle. The other opposition party also had an opportunity to implement the recommendations that were made in the Lamer report and it chose to sit on them. I do not know why, maybe it was dealing with a lot of other issues. Surely, no other issue can be as important as ensuring that the men and women who serve in our military get justice and get treated fairly.

We have all of these things going on. One good thing that I suppose we could say, as could my colleagues across the aisle, is that Bill C-41 was never acclaimed.

My colleague who spoke just before me is such an eloquent speaker. I just hope that one day in the future I can emulate even 10% of what he is able to express so clearly and so succinctly.

As my colleague said, the government had the opportunity, because the bill was at the report stage, to deal with it before Parliament was shut down for the last election. However, it chose not to.

Here we are a few days before Parliament closes and, again, through bullying tactics, we will sit until midnight every night this week. Why was the legislation not introduced earlier so we could have dealt with it? It could have gone through all the stages.

Here we are at 10:50 p.m. on the Tuesday night, before Parliament recesses on Friday, debating the treatment of our men and women who serve in the military to give them the kind of fairness that we expect as civilians. Where are the priorities of the government? Certainly not with the men and women in the military. The government seems to have other priorities.

When I looked at all of this, and I will go through this in detail, I was struck by a quote from the Minister of National Defence in February 2011, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence, the same defence minister who occupies the seat today. This is what he said when he endorsed the summary trial system:

—the summary trial system strikes the necessary balance between meeting the unique disciplinary needs of the Canadian Forces and the needs to respect the rights of individual members of our military....Canadians similarly need to know that their country's military system will treat those who serve fairly and in a way that corresponds to Canadian norms and values.

Does the minister still believe in those words? If he does believe them, why is the minister not accepting the fact that the summary trial system is tainted with undue harshness? Sentences are resulting in criminal records for minor offences. Why is the minister ignoring the need for greater reform than the baby step that is being proposed in this legislation?

When we look at all of this, we really begin to question the motives and what drives the government.

In the previous iteration last year, the NDP put forward some amendments. Quite a few were accepted. Other important amendments that were passed at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session are not in Bill C-15, although a couple are. The ones that are not there include the following.

First, the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation, is not included in the bill. Second, changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership is once again not included in the bill. Third, a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted for an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. Once again, that is not included.

What would address some of our concerns with this legislation? We absolutely need further amendments and we need to ensure that the summary trial system is fixed. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial. The bit that I find very hard, maybe because of the background I have had, where I have always believed that if people are accused of something, they have the right to representation. Then they have the right to go before a person who is fairly neutral. In this case, people end up having to go in front of one of their commanding officers. If they go before one of their commanding officers, I am not sure how independent that is and what kind of pressure that puts individuals who are there to advocate for themselves without legal counsel. This absolutely puts undue pressure on our armed forces when they can be convicted for very minor service offences.

I am sure that some members previously had employers somewhere, other than the Canadian people. Perhaps they had some kind of an accusation against them, or maybe they came to work late or whatever and before they knew it, there was a grievance. They then had to defend themselves, in other words, put their case forward. First, they could not get representation. Second, they had to go before their employers. Imagine the kind of depressing effect that has on people when they have to go in front of someone who has that much power and authority over them? That actually has a chilling effect on even the accused's desire for justice because they are afraid of the kind of impact that could have on their career and so on.

The kind of minor offences we are talking about, and I think I could often be accused of these, are: insubordination, and I think I was born with that one; normal quarrel and disturbances, almost everyone in the House would have to be charged at some time or other; absence without leave, imagine all those young people at school ending up with criminal records because they were away without leave; drunkenness and disobeying an officer's command.

This is a very serious business. I really do not want to make light of it because it actually affects our military. However, at the same time, when I am reading some of these trivial things, I am thinking that we are going to give our men and women who serve our country, without holding anything back, a criminal record for these. If they end up with a criminal record, once they are out of the army, crossing that border could become almost impossible.

I deal with cases of people who were stopped, had charges of drinking and driving even 10 years ago and were still finding it difficult to cross the border.

Is that the way we want to treat our men and women when they go looking for certain jobs? As members know, there are jobs where people deal with the public and there is a requirement for criminal record checks. If we did any of these things, as long as we were not too far out there, we would not end up with a criminal record. Military members are already held up to such high standards, so why are we, in the idea of criminality, stooping so low as to give them a criminal record? We really need to pay attention to this.

It is not easy living with a criminal record, but I will not get into that. The members know that anyway. If they have not experienced it themselves, I am sure they have had constituents who have come and talked to them about it.

Regarding reform of the grievance system, I absolutely understand grievances and I also understand accountability and transparency. Whenever we have professionals, whether the RCMP, teachers or any other profession that we hold to account, one of the key things is that civil society has engagement. Once again, this bill fails to address that. It is really critical when grievances are under review, there be a representation from civil society on the panel. This would give it that authenticity that we often talk about, and the accountability.

At this stage, I will read a quote from the Lamer report. It is quite amazing. I did not know this gentleman, but he is very learned obviously, because he gets to the heart of the matter. He writes:

Grievances involve matters such as benefits, personnel evaluation reports, postings, release from the Canadian Forces...all matters affecting the rights, privileges and other interests of CF members...unlike in other organizations, grievors do not have unions or employee associations through which to pursue their grievances...

I want to stress this. He says:

It is essential to the morale of CF members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent and prompt manner.

That becomes really critical when we take a look at reforming the grievance system.

I will read a quote from Colonel Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel from the Canadian Forces and military law expert. In February 2011, before the committee, he said:

—I find it...odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial. If Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland have seen fit to change the summary trial system, it begs the question: why is Canada lagging behind?

I plead with my colleagues across the way to see the light of day and please address and give fairness to our military men and women who serve us so unselfishly.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is sincere in wanting to see this move forward, then we need to move it to committee where it can have the kind of discussion and work that needs to be done. We can have witnesses called and the bill can be studied.

This report goes back to 2003. The bill was brought to the House a number of times: we had it as Bill C-7 in 2006, as Bill C-45 in 2008 and as Bill C-41 in 2010. Going back to the recommendations of 2003, this has been too long in coming.

If the member is serious about wanting to get it studied and done, then why not let this pass to committee so that we can look at it and make the necessary changes?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would laugh if I did not want to cry at this stage.

The bill has been through committee. It was amended. I read out some of the elements that were addressed. That work was done by all sides of the House. Yet the government, because it is not serious despite the rhetoric, has presented the House with a bill that is stripped of the amendments that were made.

Absolutely, we are serious. We moved those amendments and they passed. It is a shame that the government is playing games with such an important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is more of a comment. We have been debating this now for over two hours. We have had a number of speakers, even some from the other side. Not a single member on the opposite side who wants this to go to committee has indicated that one single amendment would be presented or accepted in committee.

What we know so far is that the amendments that were accepted and the consensus that was developed in committee the last time were stripped out of the bill. Now we have the bill as it was when it was first presented to Parliament several years ago. It came back to the House and the government did not even call it. The Conservatives were so anxious to get it passed, they did not even call it. That is what we are left with here. We are left with a government stonewalling this by saying that we should bring the bill to committee so that we can study it. Well, the Conservatives have a majority on the committee. We know that, they know that. Is this a game?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the last five or six weeks I have spent more hours in committee than I care to count dealing with different pieces of legislation and with amendment after amendment that were defeated. I sat in this House looking at the Trojan Horse budget bill where over 800 amendments were accepted, but not one passed in this House. It is very difficult to think that when this bill gets to committee the amendments we bring to committee will pass.

However, I am an optimist. I am still hoping that my colleagues across the way will see the rising sun and light of day and do the right thing.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all the fine work she does back in her riding.

Certain individuals may very well be facing summary conviction without the benefit of professional legal counsel. Does the hon. member have any thoughts on that?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the presence of my colleague in the House always brings some calmness. His thoughtful input is always appreciated.

One of the basic concepts that we have in the western world is the right to representation. When we see that someone may end up with a criminal record, that right to representation becomes critical.

Members of our military do not have access to lawyers to represent them in summary trials. They also have to appear before their commanding officer. That has a chilling effect when one is advocating for oneself. I would say that it does a great deal of injustice to our men and women who serve us tirelessly.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech tonight and many of her other speeches. They are some of the more memorable moments in this place.

We hear noise from the other side about bringing this legislation to committee. Yet, as my hon. colleague pointed out, not one amendment put forward by our side has been deemed worthy of the government's meat grinder when it comes to legislation. Committee has looked at this legislation in the past and some sound amendments were passed.

My colleague says she lives in hope that the government will see the light of day. Does she not think that light of day is probably in 2015?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always been called an optimist. No matter how bleak things look I always have an absolute belief in the human spirit. I hope we will begin to see some light long before 2015. The Canadian public needs to see some hope, it needs to see some light. The Canadian public needs to see a government that does not use its majority like a hammer to shut down Parliament constantly and not address legislation in a fair and balanced way.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from a process point of view, I just want to know if the member could illustrate other times during second reading where a government, whether it was us or a previous government, stood in its place and accepted amendments prior to an item going to committee?

The process that works here is that at second reading we have a debate. The bill would then go to committee where amendments can be put forward. The bill would come back to the House at report stage to be debated. This is what we did ad nauseam last week. The bill then goes to third reading. That is the process.

Could the member give me any examples when the government of the day accepted amendments to a bill at second reading prior to it going to committee?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my experience in the House is not lengthy. I have only been here just over a year. However, my experienced colleague sitting to the left of me tells me there absolutely have been times in the past when the government has indicated it will accept--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

When? Name them.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member should at least give me a chance to answer the question, please.

There have been times when a government in power has said at second reading stage that it would accept amendments.

There seems to be a refusal to accept reality. The reality is that this legislation has been through second reading, has been through committee stage. Amendments were accepted and now it is back here, stripped bare of all the amendments that were accepted.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening and speak to this bill, but I have to say that I am really getting tired. It has nothing to do with the hour of the evening, but rather listening to the lobotomized government on the other side talking to us about process.

Let us talk about process. In its previous iteration in 2007, this bill died on the order paper. Why was that? The government prorogued this place. That is why it died on the order paper. If the government wants to continue talking about process, then let us talk about process. In 2008 it died again. Why did it die again? The government closed the shutters on this place. It broke its own fixed election laws in 2008 and that is why it died then.

What about 2011 and Bill C-41? That died too because the government fell, in part due to contempt of Parliament. At such a late hour of the evening, clearly I have woken up the sleeping hyenas. It is too bad that the Conservatives cannot actually defend their government in a fulsome way. What do they do? They throw out these pithy remarks about process.

However, we ask a lot of our soldiers, our men and women in uniform. I would like to ask the members on the other side if they think that the kind of remarks and the questions that they are bringing forward tonight are suitable within the context of the conversation we are having. What we are talking about tonight is how we support our men and women in uniform and how we project the image of Canada to the world through our men and women in uniform. If we cannot guarantee for them the kinds of rights in terms of due process that we expect for everyday, ordinary Canadians, then we are doing them a disservice.

Too often, we hear the government using our men and women in uniform as cover for the egregious decisions and laws that it is foisting upon the Canadian public in the guise of a majority in the last election. Thirty-eight percent is not a majority. It has a parliamentary majority here, but we will leave that aside. I may need it a little later in my 20 minutes.

We have a situation here where the government has let down our men and women in uniform far too often. For example, in my hometown in Toronto we have homeless veterans. How can we ask the men and women in the Canadian Forces to do the most extraordinary things on behalf of the rest of us when the government refuses to properly look after our veterans when they are finished their service?

We have a tax on veterans' benefits. There is an inability for many men and women veterans to get the kind of treatment they need for post-traumatic stress disorder. We have a government that tables legislation that strips out of the legislation some of the wise counsel, the wisdom and the compromises that were hashed out in previous Parliaments.

I would like to echo my colleague from Saint-Jean's comment earlier in this debate where he questioned the government's wisdom and decisions in this regard as a waste of taxpayer money because we have debated and put together some very sensible amendments.

Members opposite say to bring it to committee and we will study the amendments. I sat on the committee looking into the copyright legislation, Bill C-11, where a member on the opposite side said, “I'll bet you $10,000 we're going to move amendments”. Every single amendment that we brought forward was rejected, including an amendment that would have enabled those with perceptual disabilities, those who are deaf, those who have vision impairments, to access works that they otherwise would not be able to access. Even an amendment like that was voted down.

Therefore we have no trust in the government's interest in looking at reasoned amendments from our side.

The issue of process is really a concerning question for us here on this side because we see, time and time again, the government playing games with the process, in fact gaming the process, actually.

Tonight is a perfect example. We have seen the government go through time allocation, limiting debate throughout this year that we have been here in this Parliament, time and time again. In fact, with its pooled pension Ponzi scheme, the debate was limited to an hour or two. Then it says, “Okay, we've limited debate. Now, we're going to extend Parliament because we're going to ram all this stuff through in the last minute”.

That is the kind of respect the government has for process in this place.

Now I will go back to Bill C-15.

We believe there are elements of Bill C-15 that are a step in the right direction. However, unlike the member from the corner party there who asked us, “If there are some things that you agree with, why don't you just vote for them?” I think he wanted to go home early, which is the kind of culture to which his party subscribes. We cannot swallow that.

As my hon. and esteemed colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, commented earlier, we are not going to vote for a bill that does not support the men and women in our armed forces.

I have sat and listened to the debate, and it is an honour to do that, I have to say. It really is, because I have a chance to listen to some of the acquired wisdom of some of the members here. I started to think, as I was listening to the debate tonight, about some young people I had the good fortune to interview many years ago in Toronto. These were high school students who had decided to sign up for a high school co-op course. The co-op course was, essentially, to join the reserves. That was part of the course. Now, these were young kids. They were 16- and 17-year-olds. They told me they had decided to join this co-op program to get into the reserves, for a variety of reasons. Some of them just did not like school. Some of them had a tough time at home. Some of them were from families where the socio-economic situation was such that they could not see where the future was going to lead them. They thought that maybe the military was an option, and so they joined. They were young kids.

We have a situation where, not too much further down the road, these individuals, 20 years old, 21 years old, could be full members of the Canadian Forces. Maybe they get into a dust-up one night and they get a reprimand or they go before their commanding officer in a summary trial and end up with some kind of criminal record for which, depending on the infraction, it could take them 10 years down the road to clear their name.

The fact is that they would have no recourse to representation. There would not even be transcripts of the procedure. On our side, we see this as a huge problem. It is a judicial issue, but it is also an issue of morale, and we take this issue of morale seriously. That is why we advocate tirelessly on behalf of veterans of the forces, because if we do not do that, then we set up a culture where we are saying that we want the forces to do all this stuff, but then when we are done with them, we do not want to hear from them again.

We adamantly oppose the creation of that kind of culture within the military, and we believe that it is paramount, as parliamentarians, to ensure that kind of culture does not creep in.

We see that time and time again with the government. The Conservatives like to wrap themselves in the flag, but when veterans come to them in need of help, too often there are roadblocks put up in their way.

When I start to think about these kids I interviewed, they were fresh-faced but a little confused. They were young, and one could see that, depending on how luck went, they could get into trouble. We want to make sure that, in those situations, they are accorded the same rights, the same access that any other Canadian citizen would expect. It is amazing that many Canadians, and we heard tonight that many members of the military and lawyers, are surprised to know that members of the forces do not and cannot access some of these.

We have heard as well that the bill has gone through several different iterations and that some of these amendments have been kept in, and there are some that we can support, but like so many bills that the government puts before this House, we cannot swallow this bill whole. We simply cannot.

It needs to be noted that over the last year the government has, as a way of excusing this anti-democratic practice of serial use of time allocation to shut down debate in this place, tried to say that since we have debated some of these issues in previous Parliaments, we do not need to give them full airing here, yet this is a case where the Conservatives had a bill ready to go, and as my colleague earlier attested, they could have passed it in March if they had wanted to, but they chose to let it fly, and here we are again.

People must be wondering why the Conservatives would strip out some of these amendments. Why would they reduce the numbers of minor infractions that would potentially lead to criminal records?

We have heard overheated rhetoric from that side too often that they want to use the issue of crime and criminality as something with which to beat people over the head. One has to wonder when we look at the bill whether this is part of a piece of the government. This is about locking things down. This is about crime and about punishment. That is what we are seeing here.

It is really hard to understand why the government would not have retained the amendments proposed by the NDP, which passed at the committee stage last spring after long hours of debate and seemed to have resulted in positive steps forward. By failing to include those amendments in Bill C-15, the Conservatives are undermining the important work of all members in the national defence committee and the recommendations of Canadian Forces representatives during the last session of Parliament.

In other words, the government is not building on the work of past Parliaments. It is not taking best practices or wise counsel. It is not looking at the ways in which parliamentarians have come to mutual consensus. That is what Canadians want to see from this Parliament. They want to see mutual consensus, not dictatorial edicts from a parliamentary majority masquerading as a majority of Canadians who support it, which as we know, is not the case.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau has been quoted before in this debate, but I am going to quote him again:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year.

That is very interesting, because he particularly calls out those of us in Parliament. Nothing is more important than for Parliament to focus on fixing a broken system as opposed to breaking it even further. This is what we are called on to do in Parliament. This is our job.

In fact, Canadians do not understand the amount of time that has been spent stripping away and undermining the work of Parliament in order to push flawed legislation through. There was an example earlier this year of a piece of legislation on which the government refused to acknowledge any amendments, but then it realized at the final minute that maybe it had better introduce some of the amendments. It missed the deadline and the Speaker ruled that the amendments were inadmissible. This is the kind of government we in the House and Canadians are faced with.

Unfortunately those in the military are also faced with a government that does not like to listen. It is the government's way or the highway, even if the highway is a highway to hell. That is the problem with the government. It is obstinate in its refusal to listen to wise counsel. It would rather drive the bus over the cliff than gear down, look at the map and maybe even ask someone it is driving with if there is a better way forward. That is what New Democrats are saying.

Members on this side of the House have spent years engaged in issues of Canadian justice and fairness within the military. It is fair to say and I think members on the government side would acknowledge that we are reasonable in our issues and our demands. What we are asking the government to do and what all Canadians are expecting is for the government to be reasonable too. That is the Canadian way, and we would like the government behave the way Canadians expect it to behave and Parliament to work.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was amused by the comment about process, to which my hon. colleague referred.

In the budget debate, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster used up virtually 98% of the time that was available to members of the House by continually speaking about the budget. He did not even allow his own members to discuss the budget, let alone members on this side. I guess that shows a bit about the NDP's respect for process.

The other night we were here for roughly 23 hours, voting time after time, and saw how New Democrats actually slowed down the process that should be expedited in the House, by their trademark arthritic voting pattern when they rose slowly from their chairs.

I would ask my colleague if he would finally, on behalf of the NDP, support the legislation and get it to committee, so it can be studied, and actually stand up for the men and women in uniform.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard and understood the member correctly, he characterized our expressing the concerns of Canadians on the Trojan Horse budget bill that guts Kyoto, that guts environmental oversight and that guts oversight of CSIS as arthritic voting. I think that underlines the cynicism that has crept into the government.

What we are actually trying to do our own side is do what we were elected to do, which is express the concerns, hopes and dreams of Canadians and to hold the government's feet to the fire. If the member calls that arthritic voting, I say shame on him.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member has more to say about the new-found respect for processes and procedures that the Conservatives are professing on the other side.

I notice that they made reference to the speech by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster on the budget where the time was limited. What it illustrates to me is that the Conservatives did not listen to anything he said. The member used his time to invite Canadians to send their input through emails and Twitter. He used that time to express Canadians' concerns in the House of Commons.

It is very obvious that the Conservatives did not listen to what the member was saying during that 12-hour period because they are not very interested in process or listening.

I would just like the hon. member to comment on both legislation by exhaustion and the lack of listening skills on the other side.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when members on the government side listen to their constituents and express the concerns of their constituents, they get shut down by the government. We have seen this time and time again in this Parliament. We saw it around the budget implementation bill where on the one hand members of the government are in their ridings saying that we need an environmental assessment for something like a quarry, which the bulk of the community does not want, but, “Oops, wait a second, I am about to vote with the government to gut environmental assessments”.

That is what members get on the government side for listening to their constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another half measure. We are fed up with them. How can the government take Canadians for complete fools and continually hide behind all sorts of statements without ever actually getting anything done?

I simply cannot understand why, after having the opportunity to do a thorough job, the Conservatives are hiding behind a committee when the work should have been completed. For the last 10, 15 or 20 years, professionals, members of the military and experts have been requesting changes that should be made.

These amendments were brought forward and agreed to during the previous Parliament. Everyone agreed. Now the Conservatives are proposing half measures by saying that they are going to send the bill to committee for review, but they are not giving any guarantees.

I cannot understand why the government is so arrogant and why it does not take the time to listen to what we are telling it yet again: its work is incomplete and it should have done it right from the outset.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my hon. colleague more.

The government shows a lack of respect for Parliament far too often. We have members working in good faith, and I think that most of the members, even on the other side, would agree that at the committee stage members try to come to the best possible solutions around important matters.

We can battle our partisan battles till the Speaker tells us to stop, but what I think Canadians want to see is good legislation that is fair and balanced. What we are arguing for tonight and what we have been working on since this was Bill C-41 and before, is something that does not just come from our side. There are experts and studies that support our position, especially around the issues we raised tonight.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives talk about procedure and rules of the House, one of the rules I learned in a hurry, because I am fairly new here, was this thing called time allocation. The first time someone mentioned that we were having a time allocation motion, I asked what it was. I was told that it was basically shutting down debate on the very legislation that was in front of us. Not only that, the government has used that over 25 times now to shut down debate in Parliament.

Now the Conservatives are lecturing us about the due process that we have in this place, yet they are the ones who have been constantly using time allocation to shut down debate. In addition to that, if debate is being shut down, how am I supposed to represent my constituents from my riding?

That is one part of it. The other part is the amendments. That is where in committee people bring forth good ideas that could work better for the laws that we are making here. However, there has not been a single amendment from the opposition that the Conservatives accepted.

When the Conservatives talk about due process or the process in this place, are they speaking out of both sides of their mouth?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my father would say, they are speaking through their hat. It is true that they are playing two halves against the middle most of the time. They like to talk about due process and they like to hector us and all Canadians around process in this place, yet they subvert it and play tricks with it on a constant basis.

I will double back to the beginning of my little speech tonight to say that had the government not prorogued Parliament in 2007, we might have had a decent bill then. Had the Conservatives not broken their own fixed election laws in 2008, we would have had something then. Had they not been in contempt of Parliament in 2011 we might have had something then. They could right some of their sins of the past by actually looking at this thing in a sensible way, looking at what they had in Bill C-41 and listening to some of the good advice and wise counsel from our side and from others across Canada.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to join with my many competent and capable colleagues who have spoken tonight. I want to recognize and pay tribute to some of the wisdom we have heard on this side of the House. It has been a truly stimulating debate. There have been a lot of good points and well argued.

If I could, I will pick up and preface my remarks to Bill C-15 by following through on the theme that was introduced most recently by my colleague from Davenport. I will focus on one word in the same context that he was speaking, and that word is “consultation”. We have members of our caucus on the front bench here who are experienced lawyers, and they know that the word “consultation” has legal weight. It is not just as simple as a conversation between two people. There is the duty to consult, and the Supreme Court of Canada has spoken at length to the meaning of true consultation in the context of first nations and aboriginal people. What the Supreme Court has arrived at is that true consultation not only includes the conversation and exchange of ideas, it includes the accommodation of some of the reasonable concerns brought forward by the other party.

I have been here 15 years now and I have noticed a couple of colleagues who have been here as long as I have, six terms. We used to do that extensively, even in majority governments. The majority government would consult with the opposition. If the members were sincere about moving a piece of legislation forward that they knew had merit and that there was a real public interest in achieving success of that legislation, the House leaders would meet and maybe even the leaders of the parties would meet and they would discuss what it would take and what was needed to make this work. It was not quite Camelot. It was not beautiful or anything, but it was functional. Parliament used to function that way.

What we are experiencing today, and my colleague from Vegreville will probably agree, is unprecedented. I do not think there is any precedent in Canadian history. I have talked to former leaders of our party going away back. Ed Broadbent shared with me how that was a not uncommon occurrence, that they would have dinner together. The leader of the NDP and the prime minister of the day would have dinner from time to time and talk over the legislative agenda coming up for that fall session. There would be some horse trading and some feeling out of each other. Accommodating the legitimate concerns brought forward by the other parties is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of maturity and the public would welcome it, the public expects it and I think the public misses it in this Parliament.

I caution my colleagues on the Conservative side. I am not a scholar or an academic but I have been here long enough to ascertain that our parliamentary democracy is a fragile construct. When it operates well it is the best system in the world. However, all parties have to stipulate themselves to a certain set of rules and part of that is accommodating one another's legitimate concerns because the very nature of our electoral system is that no one party represents all the people. However, when a party is lucky enough to form government, it has an obligation to represent all the people, even those who did not vote for it.

I learned from my friend Gary Dewar that the first thing a smart government does when it forms government is to try to convince the people who did not vote for it that it is not such a bad thing, that it is not the end of the world that their side lost and our side won because the government will accommodate some of the voters' legitimate concerns in the process of governing. There is no evidence of that whatsoever in this Parliament and that leads to the frustration felt on our side.

We, on this side of the House, represent roughly 60% of all Canadians. They elected us here to speak on their behalf and to bring their legitimate points of view into the debate for consideration by the ruling party. It has an obligation and I argue that it will do irreparable harm to the integrity of our democratic institutions if it fails to accommodate those legitimate concerns that we bring forward.

The integrity of our institutions is not like some kind of a light switch that can be turned off for a while and then turned back on at will. It cannot be corrected that easily.

At the same time that the government is undermining the integrity of our democratic institutions, it is fueling the cynicism of an already jaded electorate who already has a fairly low opinion of government and a lack of confidence that government can and should play an active role in the well-being of the economy and their quality of life issues. The neo-conservatives have told them time and time again that government is bad, that government should be reduced. The Conservatives are an anti-government government. The Conservative government is a government that does not believe in playing an active role.

I notice my colleague who was elected the same year I was is somehow still with us. We keep asking ourselves how we both keep getting re-elected. He believes firmly that less is more when it comes to government, that there is no role.

If that message is continually pounded home, more people will ask themselves why they should even bother voting because governments are bad things, governments never listen to legitimate concerns anyway. It is an unvirtuous, whatever that term is, downward spiral.

[An hon. member]

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

A self-fulfilling prophecy, Mr. Speaker. That is right. I would like to know what the government's end plan is, the conclusion. Where does that lead us when we undermine the ability of governments to play an active role? I do not know who we leave it up to.

In the context of this legislation, the legitimate concerns brought forward in the previous Parliament were accommodated by committee and they were stripped away. Why should we believe the government? The Conservatives ask why we have to be up until midnight. If we are serious about moving the bill forward, we will let it go to committee. They say they will let it move forward. We do not believe them. They have not earned our trust or our confidence. There are no tacit agreements. There are no deals. There are no handshakes in this Parliament. The 41st Parliament is handshake-free. That is a real shame and a real loss.

I am starting to sound like an old guy. I lament and I miss the common sense of purpose that we enjoyed at one time when we were all elected to Parliament, yes to different parties, but moving forward, paddling our canoe in the same direction in the best interests of the country, especially in this matter, in the best interests and the well-being of our men and women in the armed forces. Surely this is one example of where we could extend the goodwill to make this particular bill work. We have been burned in the most egregious possible way.

I was wondering how I was going to use my time in this debate. To understand why we behave the way we do, we have to scratch the surface a bit and back up and take a look. I hope members can understand the level of frustration.

I represent a lot of armed forces personnel in my riding: the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry that was at the Kapyong Barracks until recently when it was moved to Edmonton and the Cameron Highlanders Reservists at the Minto Armoury in my riding. A lot of people do not realize that Winnipeg has a navy but the HMCS Chippawa is based in my riding of Winnipeg Centre. The 17th Wing Air Command is in Winnipeg. The Sgt Tommy Prince Cadet Corps, Canada's newest cadet corps named after the most decorated soldier in the Canadian armed forces, a first nations man named Tommy Prince affiliated with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, is in Winnipeg.

When I enter debates about the military I like to make reference to my own father who was a lieutenant colonel by the end of his career and secretary treasurer of a Canadian military intelligence association, what he called his spy agency. He served in Italy in the liberation of Holland. He often spoke about the veterans who came home from war and were promised so much and treated so badly. It was a recurrent theme throughout his life. He spoke of the veterans as we licked the envelopes, all of us kids around the dining-room table stuffing envelopes for the dues for the Canadian military intelligence association. That is how I started as an organizer, I think.

He often commented on the “deemed never to have served” for the 14,100 veterans of the Second World War. In the demobilization of a million-some-odd soldiers, some of them did not get to the office in the correct period of time to hand in their papers. In fact, when some went, the lineup was so long that they were told to come back in a couple of months. They went back to the farm and did not return in time, so they were deemed AWOL.

The way the government solved that problem was that instead of dispatching military police to round them up, the government passed an act of Parliament to deem them never to have served. Their military records were erased and their benefits were erased, 14,100 of them. It was a terrible injustice.

Many had to come back to try to have their service recognized now that they were not 21-year-olds any more. They were getting married and having children, and they wanted the benefits due to a veteran, whether it was housing or education. Of course, by then Parliament had deemed them never to have served.

My father was adamant that this was one of the greatest injustices to his colleagues in the Second World War. I am trying to imagine what he would have to say on this today. Colonel Drapeau reminds me of my dad physically and in the types of issues that he champions.

I believe that an awful lot of World War II veterans, were they alive today, would be of the same mind as the debate that we heard on this side of the House for the last couple of hours. The idea of the morale of the armed forces being compromised, undermined and jeopardized by a system that is simply not fair and the lack of a grievance system that meets the test of natural justice and the justice afforded to people outside of the armed forces would be galling to the sensibilities of anybody who served and wore the uniform.

I am a trade unionist. The combination of things that describe me in my CV are the things that the Conservatives probably most loathe. I am a socialist, a trade unionist and an NDP member of Parliament. I served as a union leader, to make me even more unpalatable to my colleague for Vegreville—Wainwright.

I was a union boss, I guess one could say, so I know the need for a fair system to deal with grievances in any kind of institutional setting, be it a large workforce or the Canadian military. There is not only an advantage but also a need to have an avenue of recourse for those who feel that the system has not treated them fairly.

That avenue of recourse has to meet certain tests. It cannot be arbitrary and it cannot be biased. It has to meet the same tests as our justice system. The very system that use to measure the health and well-being of our democracy is the health and well-being of our justice system.

How can anybody think that the current system is fair if it is one's commanding officer or one of his subordinates who rules on the grievance? There is no arms-length in the process.

These legitimate issues, brought forward by some of the most respected jurists in the land, led to the amendments in two previous incarnations of the bill. One was the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and another was Patrick LeSage of the Superior Court of Ontario.

These people know what they are talking about, and their observations and recommendations deserve implementation. They do not deserve to become a political football, subject to whims and vagaries. They should be handled better. This is one example in which I urge the government of the day to perhaps try something new.

We have three years that we have to live together before the next federal election. If the Conservatives continue with their bully tactics, they are not only doing irreparable harm to the integrity of our democratic institutions, they will watch themselves plummet even further in the polls.

Canadians have pretty much had it with these guys. Canadians are getting fed up with the way they conduct themselves. That is starting to resonate. Now that people are getting some idea of who these people they elected really are and how they conduct themselves, they do not like it.

The impression is that they are a bunch of bullies and thugs. They may not realize that. Some of them are nice people. Individually, they are nice people. I am the first person to admit that. Collectively, the persona they have put forward to the Canadian people is that they are a bunch of thugs who will get their way and they do not care what they trample on or who they trample over to get it. They will never accommodate a single issue or a single legitimate concern by the opposition because they view it as a sign of weakness and that is not the way these guys behave.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will have four minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed from June 19 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 now read a second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to offer a few observations with respect to Bill C-15.

At the outset, the Liberal Party will support the bill. However, there are some issues that we wish to raise in a collegial fashion as much as possible in this place. There are some questions that do bear some exploration. Hopefully that will take place at committee and that the committee will be given a fulsome amount of time to discuss it.

The bill has been kicking around for a while, somewhat like the previous bill. Its previous iteration was Bill C-41 and before that I have lost track of what numbers it has seen over the course of several Parliaments.

I will confine my remarks to basically three points: first, with respect to sentencing; second, with respect to judges; and third with respect to the supervisory power of the vice chief of the Defence Staff as it relates to the provost marshal.

The first observation has to do with military sentencing generally. It is beyond arguable that military sentencing is harsher and less flexible than is civilian sentencing for comparable offences. The bill does make some effort to reconcile the sentencing that would take place in a military tribunal with sentencing that would take place in a civilian tribunal. That is by and large a good thing. We recognize that flexibility in sentencing is to the benefit of the justice system. It is to the benefit of the Crown and the accused.

However, I would note that it is somewhat ironic that the government on the one hand is introducing flexibility in sentencing with respect to Bill C-15 and military personnel, while simultaneously in other legislation introducing more and more minimum mandatory sentences, all of which takes away from flexibility in sentencing where a judge, Crown and defence may arrive at a better sentencing option than possibly a minimum mandatory does.

To be consistent, the Liberal Party agrees there should be greater flexibility in sentencing, such as in Bill C-15, and where appropriate, the sentence should be more flexible and possibly less harsh.

We do hold our military personnel to a higher standard than that of civilians. There are cases where the sentence should reflect not only the civilian component, but also the code of discipline that applies to all military personnel. It is one thing to go running around the countryside as a drunk driver in a civilian motor vehicle, but it is another thing altogether to be drunk with a military vehicle, which could have far more serious consequences and is clearly a breach of discipline. The law should recognize that concern as it is an additional responsibility that a person in the military takes on. It should recognize that these are very serious accusations and breaches of not only the Criminal Code, but of the code of conduct expected of military personnel.

The second point I want to make is with respect to judges. It is a good idea that part-time judges be made available in various tribunals. There is, after all, a population of only about 68,000 serving personnel, while the gross population of the military is roughly 100,000. The availability of part-time judges is a good idea.

Interestingly, the bill maintains the retirement age of 60 years of age. Where I come from, judges are actually just coming into their judicial career somewhere between 55 and 65 years of age, because of the argument that not only does it takes quite a while to accumulate the knowledge base for reviewing Criminal Code offences, but also to arrive at wise and intelligent judicial discretion.

It is somewhat counterintuitive that we do not limit civilian judges until they are age 75, but we limit military judges to age 60. The argument is that the judges need to be deployable. At one level, that is probably a good argument. At another level, I do not know that they need to be terribly deployable while actually sitting as a military judge in places like Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto or any other base in Canada, where the issue of deployability is not as necessary.

It strikes me as counterintuitive when we walk away from some very capable people who are, in fact, quite able to administer justice to those members of the military who find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

The final point I want to make has to do with section 18.5, which concerns the Canadian Forces provost marshal. In the ranking, the vice chief of the Defence Staff is, in effect, the second most powerful military figure in our hierarchy. He or she, as the case may be, under subsection (2), “may issue general instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of the responsibilities described in paragraphs 18.4(a) to (d). The Provost Marshal shall ensure that they are available to the public”.

As a general proposition, the vice chief may issue guidelines. Those guidelines are communicated to the provost marshal and the provost marshal in turn is able to make those public. This is the military police. This is telling the police officers what they are supposed to do in terms of investigations as a general proposition, which, if it were left there, would be perfectly acceptable.

However, there is a further section with respect to the same issue. It says, “The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation”. What is objectionable about that?

Let us cast our minds back to Somalia. We will recall that as a blight on the otherwise exemplary record of our forces operating abroad that led to an inquiry. It was not a happy outcome for any of the parties involved, particularly the military.

This section, in effect, gives the vice chief the option of shutting this whole thing down, shutting any investigation down on his or her say so. That, I would suggest, is a significant departure from what we expect of civilian police officers.

The analogy is imperfect but is an analogy which may help people appreciate the significance of this section. It is as if police officers were faced with an investigation and the mayor came along and said, “Don't do it”, or the premier came along and said, “We don't want you to do that one”, or the Prime Minister came along and said, “We don't want you to conduct this investigation”. That is inconsistent with the general independence of police officers, the independence that they have from political supervision.

The government from time to time will rightly say in question period and elsewhere that it has no authority to intervene if a case is under police investigation. That is a recognition of a file called Campbell and Shirose, the case that was decided by the Supreme Court, which gives an enormous amount of protection to the independence of a police officer to pursue a police investigation in the fashion and the manner and with the distance it requires in accordance with the views of the investigating officers. That, however, is being pulled back in this particular case, and it will be potentially circumscribed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, presumably on the instructions of the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Therefore every investigation that potentially could get launched and investigations that could go in directions that maybe the CDS or the Minister of National Defence or the government of the day does not want it to go, could be yanked. The way it could be yanked is through this particular section. It would violate some of the core concepts of police independence. It would allow the vice chief to issue instructions and guidelines in specific cases.

That is possibly one of the more difficult sections of this particular bill, which should be explored at committee. I am hoping members will be given a real opportunity to mine into this issue. For those who hold the independence of the police as, for want of a better term, sacrosanct, this is a very significant pullback of the authority of the police to do their job. Anytime the state intervenes in a police investigation, whether it is through a vice chief, the CDS, the military, the government or the minister, it is potentially a bad thing for our system of government and probably quite offensive to our way of government and our way of life here. Allowing the second highest ranking officer in the Canadian Forces to shut down a military police investigation, in our judgment, would not be the way to go.

We need to understand that we respect the RCMP, for instance. I am just using the RCMP as an example. There is no comparable section in the RCMP legislation, which would allow the minister of the day or the deputy minister of the day to shut down an RCMP investigation, and were it to happen, there would be a political price to pay.

We agree that, on the sentencing aspect, there should be a significant overlap between the code of discipline and the Criminal Code. We question the advisability of limiting judges to age 60. We really want to ask some questions with respect to Section 18.5(3), which gives the vice chief what I would argue are extraordinary abilities to limit investigation.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 provides a statutory articulation of the objectives, purpose and principles of sentencing in the military justice system. This would provide military judges presiding over courts martial, presiding officers at summary trials and appellant judges in the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada with parliamentary guidance similar to that which is provided to their civilian counterparts, while recognizing the unique characteristics and requirements of the military justice system.

Does the hon. member agree that providing statutory articulation of the objectives, purpose and principles of sentencing to these important actors in the military justice system is something that should be supported by all members of the House?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that is what I just said in the last 15 minutes. I take it the hon. member missed the opening sentence of my speech, which was that the Liberal Party will be supporting this.

Frankly, we think articulation of the principles of sentencing is nothing but a good idea. If we go to the Criminal Code, we see there is an entire section on the sentencing guidelines appropriate to a particular offence. We think, as much as possible, there should be a parallel between the Criminal Code and the code of discipline, recognizing that the military has a unique and special role in our society, and that role still has to be recognized in a code of discipline that may impact on a sentence in any given case.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood's answer. I would like to ask him if that amounts to the Liberal Party giving the Conservative government a blank cheque for the passage of Bill C-15.

Fairly recently, when a similar bill reached committee stage, the Liberal Party agreed that it needed a lot of amendments. There was also a Liberal government in place when the Honourable Justice Lamer presented some 95 recommendations, of which only a few dozen are being implemented in Bill C-15. I hope the Liberal Party is not giving the Conservative government a blank cheque.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is far from a blank cheque. I think I have articulated at least three areas where there are legitimate questions to be raised. I do not think that is an exclusive list by any means.

I agree with the hon. member that the bill has seen a number of reiterations.

Mr. Justice Lamer's report was a good report. It was quite useful. I think a lot of the justice's recommendations see their way into Bill C-15. Without having my arm twisted behind my back, I would commend the government for actually recognizing that. I do wish, though, that it were not quite the last item on the government's agenda in each and every Parliament. However, we are here and let us hope we can get it into committee.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this bill has seen many iterations. Unfortunately, many important amendments that the NDP moved in the last Parliament are not present in this current iteration.

We ask enormous things of our men and women in uniform. Many Canadians would be surprised to know that important due process is not granted to them in these summary trials.

I would like to know how the hon. member in the corner squares that circle.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I like our little corner down here. It seems to me that in another life this hon. member might have seen this corner as well, and maybe in the future.

Actually, there is a squaring of this particular circle in that there is, in effect, a merger of the sentencing guidelines that apply. First, we would have a military person who is charged, the standard of evidence would be heard in the normal fashion, the conviction would be entered or not in the normal fashion and then we would get to the sentencing. Up to the point of sentencing, it was actually a fairly parallel system.

Where it ceased to be parallel was in the harshness and inflexibility of the sentencing. I like to think that the Criminal Code guidelines that are applied to Criminal Code sentencing would actually be the guidelines for the military, unless either on the balance of probabilities or even beyond reasonable doubt, we can show that the code of discipline is something that should override in a particular case.

I also take note that there is a reconstituting of the panels, so that members of similar rank are, in effect, doing a peer review of each other. I do not want to call it a peer review because that is not quite the right language, but sergeants will be sitting in on corporals and privates, and colonels will be addressing issues with respect to officers. Therefore, I think this bill actually moves the yardsticks quite substantially toward a Criminal Code system.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the member has said, when we get into summary trials there are no transcripts, no record, and for members of the military who are tried on some minor variances and are stuck with a criminal record that could be harmful to them in the future, this is an issue we think is of serious concern. I wonder if the member agrees.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually I think the hon. member does make a legitimate point, and there are minor things that happen to a member of the military where there is no record and no ability to appeal that. It is in effect a double jeopardy. I do not disagree with that. However, it also is a function of being a member of the military, and when someone takes on that uniform, he or she in effect takes on a level of responsibility that civilians do not take on. The consequence of that is, when someone gets in a bit of trouble, the consequences are potentially more serious than if it were a parallel civilian offence.

I agree with the member as far as transcripts go, whether a record can be viewed or not viewed, particularly by a potential employer, and the relevance it has to any other aspect of the military person's life.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide comment in regard to Bill C-15 and what he perceives as one of the shortcomings of the bill, maybe something the government could have done, either in a more timely fashion or in general with regard to the bill. Does he have any thoughts in regard to that?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my main comment had to do with the supervisory function of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff as it relates to potential police investigations. Some very thoughtful people, and I think of the late Kent Roach as one, have given a great deal of thought to the issue of a vice chief being able at any given time in a point of investigation to issue “guidelines”. Guidelines is a nice word, but it can be used in a very expansive way. So we can actually circumscribe an investigation in a manner that is far more extensive than any other civilian police officer or civilian police would put up with. That is the main criticism of the bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-15.

First, I would like to congratulate our national defence critic, the hon. member for St. John's East, who is doing an amazing and remarkable job on a file that can be difficult, given that we are dealing with a government that would rather act like G.I. Joe than seriously examine the country's national defence needs, analyze the cost to Canadian taxpayers and have a comprehensive view of Canada's defence role as it relates to the deployment of military personnel in our country and abroad.

I have tremendous respect for the Canadians who work for our Canadian Forces. I have met many of them, since there are obviously a number in my riding, it being in the national capital region. In my riding, it is not unusual for people to frequently come across Canadian Forces members. I really admire the work that they do, here, inside our borders, and around the world, especially in light of what has been going on. It takes a special person to put his or her life in danger to protect our values, rights and what we stand for every day.

That is why we cannot afford to let the government take so many years to introduce this bill. I said “so many years”, because in 2003, retired Chief Justice Lamer was asked to produce a report on the situation and to make recommendations regarding the bill.

The summary of Bill C-15, which was produced and which I will give a little background on shortly, states the following:

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.

As I said a moment ago, I believe this quite lengthy bill has been long due since 2003. However, “long due” does not mean we should hand out blank cheques, even though the bill concerns national defence and our men and women working for the Canadian Forces. The NDP is not in the habit of handing out blank cheques.

This bill has previously appeared in a number of forms, as bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007 and when the election was called in 2008. In July 2008, Bill C-60 was introduced and it came back with a vengeance. Bill C-60 simplified the structure of courts martial and established the method for selecting the type of court martial that would harmonize best with the civilian justice system. In 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs examined the bill and recommended nine amendments to the National Defence Act.

This happened after 2003, when the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer tabled a report on his review of the National Defence Act, a report that contained 88 recommendations concerning military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces provost marshal.

Looking at Bill C-15 as it currently stands—because that is the one we have to consider—we realize that it is supposed to be a legislative response to those recommendations. However, only 28 recommendations have been included in the bill.

I will say it right away—and the critic said this—we will not support this bill at second reading because, in any case, the government will be referring it to committee. However, there are so many flaws, serious flaws, in this bill, and it is not because it should have been introduced so long ago that we should adopt any such poorly constructed legislation. That is our position on the matter.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced in response to the 2003 Lamer report and to the Senate committee's 2009 report. It contained the military justice-related provisions respecting, for example, sentencing reform, judges, military panels, summary trials, the court martial panel, the Canadian Forces provost marshal and certain provisions respecting the Military Police Complaints Commission.

It can nevertheless be said, for those who were here at that time—I was not—that bills C-41 and C-15 resemble each other and are similar to what was introduced by the Senate committee during the last Parliament.

The amendments stood included those concerning the composition of a court martial panel, and security of tenure for military judges until retirement.

However, other important amendments—and I want to emphasize this—adopted at the committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15. That includes the NDP's amendments respecting the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process—a direct response to a Lamer report recommendation—changes in the composition of the grievance committee so that 60 % of members would be civilians and the provision to ensure that a person guilty of an offence on summary conviction would not unfairly be given a criminal record. That is the amendment under clause 75 of Bill C-41.

We have been in favour of bringing the military justice system up to date for a long time now. There is no doubt about that and I do not want to hear anybody say otherwise in this House. Members of the Canadian Forces are known to be subject to extremely strict rules of discipline and they deserve a justice system that is subject to comparable rules.

I remember when I first started out as a lawyer, doing criminal law, that there was a judge in the Outaouais district—he is still there–near Gatineau, where I am a member of Parliament, who used to tell us, because he had a military background, that nothing could be as secret and closed as military justice. This is understandable, because it operates in accordance with a very closed system of discipline. It is understandable. I think that members of the Canadian forces voluntarily submit to these extremely strict rules of discipline.

They often have absolutely critical work to do, and the chain of command is not very tolerant of exceptions. All of that is understandable and yet, sometimes there are certain types of behaviour problems—I repeat, “behaviour problems”. And those who are not accustomed to this environment can be completely flabbergasted at what can lead to a criminal record for a member of the Canadian Forces. Anyone practising criminal law in civil society, or dealing with labour rights or grievances, will find provisions in these bills that are rather surprising.

To begin with, they mention reform. For us, the problem is that the reform under discussion is of the summary trials system. The amendments in bill C-15 do not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. At the moment, a summary trial conviction in the Canadian Forces means a criminal record. Some might say, “good for them”. However, summary trials are held without the accused being allowed to seek legal or other counsel. They have no recourse and there are no transcripts of the trial. Moreover, the judge is the accused's commanding officer. This is too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for minor offences. Once again, some may say that there is no room for exceptions, but there are times when it is completely ridiculous.

I have had people come and consult me, but the problem was that everything had already been taken care of.

Let us put ourselves in the place of a member of the Canadian Forces who has committed an offence, for example, absence without leave or a quarrel with another member. The member’s own commanding officer tells him he will have a summary trial. We cannot seriously think that a member of the Canadian Forces is going to go against what his own commanding officer suggests. We cannot really call this transparency. That may be too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences. I will say it again, because it is important to know what we are talking about. These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness, disobeying a command, and so on. This is certainly very important for military discipline, and I am not saying otherwise, but does it call for giving someone a criminal record? It is important that we ask ourselves that question.

Having a record will have an effect when the member leaves the Canadian Forces. He may have trouble finding a job once he rejoins the civilian world. Bill C-15 does provide an exemption so that if there is a minor sentence handed down under the act or a fine of less than $500, certain offences are not entered on the person’s record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill, but we think it does not go far enough. We hope the committee will do its job. I do not know whether the Standing Committee on National Defence is as extraordinary as the justice committee. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, even when self-evident amendments are moved, they are not adopted.

Last March, at committee stage, the amendments to Bill C-41 proposed by the NDP called for the list of offences that could be considered to be minor, and so would not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed for the offence in question, to be increased to 27 from five. The amendment also adds to the list of sentences that a tribunal may impose without them being entered on the record: for example, a severe reprimand, a fine equivalent to a month’s salary and other minor sentences.

This was an important step forward for summary trials. However, the amendment to Bill C-15 was not accepted. It is therefore entirely to be expected that we would want to include it again. A criminal record can make life after a person’s military career very difficult. It can mean losing a job, being refused housing, having trouble travelling, and so on. If Canadians knew that members of the military who served our country so courageously are being treated this way for the kinds of misconduct I have referred to, I think some of them would be in shock, as I was when I read the bill and what had gone on over the last 10 years in this regard.

There is also the question of reforming the grievance system. As a labour lawyer, I have always advocated the greatest possible transparency and independent arbitrators, because it affects the labour relations between the parties. The same is true when we talk about a Military Grievances External Review Committee. At this time, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board does not allow for external review. The people who sit on the Military Grievances External Review Committee are retired Canadian Forces employees and some very recent retirees. So if the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be seen as an external, independent civilian body, as it should, the appointment process definitely needs to be amended to reflect that. The committee should therefore be composed, in part, of civilian members.

The amendment that the NDP suggested, and that it will certainly suggest again when the bill is examined in committee, is that at least 60% of the grievance committee members never have been officers or members of the Canadian Forces. I repeat: it is the Military Grievances External Review Committee. The amendment was adopted in March 2011, for Bill C-41, but it was not incorporated into Bill C-15.

It is extremely important that people from the outside be part of the external review committee, and I am persuaded that my colleagues will agree with me. It is therefore important that the amendment be included again.

There is the whole question of the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance resolution process. There is a major weakness in the military grievance system. The Lamer report contained a recommendation concerning the fact that the Chief of the Defence Staff does not have the power to settle financial claims in grievances. In spite of the fact that the Minister of National Defence approved the recommendation, no concrete action has been taken in the last eight years to implement it.

The ministers responsible for certain portfolios who come before our committees need to agree to the amendments we recommend. When it comes time to amend legislation, those ministers need to remember what they have said.

During committee examination, the NDP proposed an amendment, which was adopted in March 2011. Nonetheless, the amendment was not incorporated into Bill C-15. If this bill is referred to committee, the NDP, under the leadership of the official opposition’s national defence critic, the member for St. John's East, will continue to fight for this.

There is also the question of strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Very little has been said about granting that commission greater powers so that it acts as an oversight body. The commission’s powers must be expanded by legislation so that it is able to investigate legitimately and report to Parliament.

The NDP is not alone in making the case for the need to amend Bill C-15. A number of organizations support our positions, including the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which has said that fundamental fairness requires that systems that impose serious penalties on individuals provide better procedural protection.

In R. v. Wigglesworth, the Supreme Court of Canada, an arm of our democracy, confirmed that, if an individual is to be subject to penal consequences such as imprisonment, he or she should be entitled to the highest procedural protection known to our law. I believe that will come as a shock to no one.

That is often where the problem lies. Military justice is often opaque or not very transparent. No one knows exactly what goes on, except those curious individuals who want to know more. It is important that justice indeed be done. That is even more important for the members of our Canadian Forces who dedicate themselves body and soul to each and every one of us, to all the Canadians we represent. They go to other countries to promote fundamental values and rights, democracy, the right to a fair trial and so on. And yet, once back in Canada, those members, for all kinds of reasons, are sentenced without receiving the advice of counsel or being able to obtain a transcript. When a former Canadian Forces member consults a civilian lawyer, that lawyer has trouble representing the member because the member’s file contains absolutely nothing other than what he or she has said.

I would not go as far as my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, who spoke before me, but I believe that is a small step. Many years have elapsed since the Lamer report, and I believe the members of the Canadian Forces deserve a lot better than Bill C-15.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important in this place that we remember why the previous iterations of this bill died. In first instance, it died because the government decided to prorogue Parliament, and in the second instance it died because the government was found in contempt of Parliament. That is why these iterations of this bill died.

We supported those iterations. They were better than what we have right now. The reason they were better is that the government was listening to wise counsel from the opposition, something it would be well advised to do in this instance.

The reason we are not supporting the bill at second reading, though there are some things in it that we do support, is that we want to see this go to committee and see some of the issues rectified that my hon. colleague laid out in a very clear fashion.

Why does the government consistently waste taxpayers' money continually redoing these bills and actually watering them down and making them less effective than they were in the first instance?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The problem lies in trying to answer it for the Conservative government. That is impossible for me. I absolutely fail to understand the logic behind three-quarters, if not all, of its decisions.

On the one hand, the Conservatives tell us they are tough on crime, and they make bad decisions that are overturned by the courts. On the other hand, they tell us they stand behind the members of our forces. We constantly hear that from the Minister of National Defence. Listening to him, you would think he is the only person concerned about the members of the Canadian Forces. However, when it comes to protecting them by means of a major amendment in a major bill such as Bill C-15, the minister abandons the members of the Canadian Forces, sacrificing them on the altar of false promises.

And yet he should be protecting them. After all the service these people have rendered to their country, it seems to me the least we can do is to be fair with them.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last time the House debated the matter, much was said about the fairness and administration of summary trials in the military justice system.

I served in the military, including in Afghanistan, and I would point out that Justice LeSage's review concluded that:

The summary trial system is vital to the maintenance of discipline at the unit level and therefore essential to the life and death work the military performs on a daily basis.

He also concluded that:

—regarding the constitutionality of the summary trial process, I am satisfied, as was former Chief Justice Dickson, that “the summary trial process is likely to survive a court challenge as to its constitutional validity”.

Given the strong endorsement for the place of summary trials in the military justice system by Justice LeSage, will the opposition support the government in passing this key piece of legislation at second reading so that it can be studied in greater detail at committee?

In view of the urgency of this matter, I think we should go forward.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so urgent that we have been waiting to see major changes to the National Defence Act since 2003.

It has become urgent because the government in power has allowed the situation to continue. As my colleague from Davenport said, the problem is that the government prorogued Parliament when the time came to pass the bill with proper amendments. In one stroke, prorogation erased all the work that had been done in committee, everything that had been adopted, and everything that had been agreed upon between the parties in a minority government context, in which political parties should work together, something the government does not do.

In his report, Chief Justice Patrick LeSage does not give the government a blank check. He agrees with many of our positions, that a lot of things should be changed to make Bill C-15 palatable.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau; among other things, she made an important point about the terms used in the two previous bills.

Most importantly, there is the term “external” as, for instance, in the Military Grievances External Review Committee. In fact, if there are too many non-external members on such a committee, its external nature may be questioned.

The last time such a bill was studied, the MPs on the Standing Committee on National Defence concluded that a committee with 60% of its members from outside the military would be a good compromise. The Conservative members, however, thought it would be a serious mistake to limit the military presence to 40%.

I would like my colleague to give us her interpretation of the reason the Conservatives were opposed to making this committee more external.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to steer clear of impressions.

What I have noticed, in actual fact, is that the Conservative government likes to do things in a very contained and isolated way.

When we are discussing an external committee but no one from the outside is accepted, and everything is being done by people from the inside, alarm bells start to ring, and I am extremely concerned.

The value of having a committee composed of external people is that it makes it possible, as in a jury trial, that a group of peers, not experts, studies the situation and make sure that the system is working well.

Why did the Conservative government not retain this amendment, which had been negotiated and discussed, and which was a generous compromise? There is no logical explanation except that the government does not like transparency.

As in the popular film, A Few Good Men, “They just can't handle the truth.”

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, there have been repeated assertions by the hon. members opposite that none of the amendments made at committee to the predecessor Bill C-41 were retained in Bill C-15.

Is the hon. member aware that in fact two of the amendments made at committee are present in Bill C-15? They are found in clauses 101 and 135 of the bill. Could the member please clarify?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware if my esteemed colleague was present throughout my speech, but I never once referred to “all our amendments”, but to very essential and important amendments. The member is correct that there were some amendments incorporated.

However, the point is not the fact that no amendments were accepted or reproduced in the bill, but that some very fundamental points have been tossed away by the Conservative government. It does not seem to like anything that asks for transparency and fairness for the people who are at the top of the line and who will be affected by the end result of the work toward Bill C-15.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate. I thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau, for a very interesting presentation that I enjoyed very much.

I will be sharing my time with the capable and hon. member for Sherbrooke, who will likewise participate in this debate and enlighten all members as to just how this affects him and his constituents and what we think needs to be done to this bill as it relates to the Canadian Forces.

There is a large population of Canadian Forces members in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which I hear from on a fairly regular basis on a number of different matters relating, for instance, to community volunteer activities; to what is going on at the market; to our support, as the official opposition, for a proper procurement process to make sure that our Canadian Forces women and men who are asked to serve on behalf of this country are provided with the best equipment to do their job in a safe and effective manner.

We also are standing with our Canadian Forces women, men and their families as it relates to the government's support for the members when they return from active duty from various spots around the world. It is certainly my commitment and that of my party that if we ask our women and men, our brothers and sisters, our fathers and mothers, our uncles and cousins and community colleagues to risk their life and limb, the least we can do is to ensure, whether or not they return to this country, that they or their families are properly cared for. That is certainly my commitment to the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I know that feeling is shared by my colleagues in the official opposition.

It would be fair to say that most Canadians only have a glimpse of the nature of justice in the Canadian Forces. Frankly, I think that 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. We know there is an incredible need and requirement within the armed forces for a strong disciplinary system. However, we also need to recognize that the women and men who work for and serve this country should, at the very least, be subject to the same rights and benefits under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as civilians. That is simply not the case as it relates to issues like summary convictions and the grievance procedure. I will talk a bit about the concerns we have with respect to those systems.

As has been described, Bill C-15 is the latest iteration of the bill as a result of a recommendation from an internal review of the National Defence Act in 2003 by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer. Contained within the report were 88 recommendations relating to military justice and the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal.

It is important to recognize that Bill C-15 is the latest response to these recommendations and that only 28 recommendations thus far have been implemented in legislation, regulations, or via a change in practice. As the NDP critic and deputy critic have said so well, it needs to be underlined that it is important that we do this better and that we do more. Even in previous Parliaments more was done.

All parties on the defence committee worked very hard on the recommendations by the Lamer inquiry and a number of changes were passed in previous parliaments. Unfortunately, those amendments to the National Defence Act did not find their way into Bill C-15. Frankly, not moving forward with those amendments is almost a sign of disrespect to the hard work of the members of the defence committee.

If immediate passage of this bill were as important as some government members have suggested, why did they not bring this bill in forthwith when the new Parliament began? Why did they not bring in the bill that was accepted by all members of the House but that died on the order paper when the government decided to hold an election last year? If it were so important, and we believe it is, why did they not bring forward the bill that we had all agreed on? Undoubtedly, that bill would have found its way through committee and been passed into law by now. That is an indication of how big a hurry the government is in. It tabled Bill C-15 in October of last year. It does not seem to be a priority because the bill has not received the attention it deserves.

Other important amendments passed at committee include the following. One dealt with the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding specifically to Justice Lamer's recommendation. It related to the ability of the Chief of Defence Staff to levy a financial award in one shape or another. That does not exist now but it was recommended that it be done.

A second dealt with changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership. Right now the grievance committee generally consists of Canadian Forces members, often at the officer level or, at the very least, recently retired Canadian Forces members. That needs to be changed to bring in some greater external oversight.

Third, there was a provision ensuring that a person who was convicted for an offence during a summary trial would not be unfairly subject to receiving a criminal record as a result. That is a serious problem. The summary trial system needs to include some of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it will not as onerous and potentially damaging a system as it is now to the future of many of these women and men in the Canadian Forces.

This is a important issue for New Democrats and the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We want to make sure that the right thing is done and the proper changes are made.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Search and Rescue; the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's, Employment Insurance.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Québec.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain you have once again made the right choice.

I would first like to thank my distinguished colleague for his very interesting speech. He was able to highlight our concerns regarding Bill C-15, on military justice.

One of our greatest concerns, in fact, is the chance of someone ending up with a criminal record following a process that is not entirely fair and equitable, without the benefit of legal assistance, before a tribunal that is not totally independent. This structure worries us.

My colleague surely knows that the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, whose military justice systems resemble Canada's, have seen fit to change their summary trial system in the interests of procedural fairness.

Why are we depriving the Canadian Forces of such positive changes to the summary trial system? That is my question.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Québec for her insight into a key part of our opposition to the bill, the summary trial process, which is completely closed. It is often presided over by a Canadian Forces member's commanding officer. There is no record of the process, no appeal process, and no opportunity for the person subject to the trial to have access to counsel. The penalty may very well be a criminal record, a Criminal Code violation for offences without there being due process. We believe that is wrong.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I also have a question for him.

In his opinion, how did our soldiers feel when parliamentarians once again dragged their feet on this issue and put off correcting this injustice, namely excessively harsh penalties enforced in military discipline?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces members I talk to in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour get extraordinarily frustrated from time to time. They stop me in the market or on the street or come to my office and we have a conversation about the way they feel they are being treated by the government and previous governments regarding things like returning from the fields of battle. When it comes to issues like dealing with matters of justice, having the right of appeal, getting an answer from the Minister of National Defence, they get discouraged sometimes. I would not say everyone is, but I have heard this from Canadian Forces members in my constituency. They do get frustrated when the government talks with great relish about how it honours the women and men who fight for our country, yet it will not move with the necessary speed to provide them with the rights and benefits they are duly entitled to.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for sharing his time with me. I am very grateful.

It is a great pleasure to speak about this issue, as the city of Sherbrooke is proud to be home to two Canadian Forces reserve units, two institutions, the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke and the Sherbrooke Hussars. I have had the pleasure and privilege to meet with them many times over the last year or so. I have great respect for them and am eternally grateful for the work they do day after day. My respect for their work is why I feel a duty to rise today to speak to Bill C-15. Our men and women in uniform protect our lives, so I have a duty to protect their interests in the House of Commons.

I would like to give some background about the legislation we currently call Bill C-15, which has had many past iterations. On October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-15 will strengthen military justice. It is a direct response to the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and subsequent to that, in May 2009, work done by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The NDP believes the bill is a step in the right direction to harmonize military justice and civilian justice. It has gone off course, however, just like a defective submarine. There will be a few colourful expressions in my speech. I sometimes enjoy expressing myself that way. Our summary trial and grievance systems are in urgent need of an overhaul, and the Military Police Complaints Commission needs to be strengthened.

I would like to delve into the background a little to better illustrate the need for reform. In 2003, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, submitted his report on the National Defence Act. It contained 88 recommendations aimed at demining various areas, including military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission and the grievance process. Only some of the mines were cleared, however, as only 28 recommendations have been implemented. I think we would all agree that a partly demined field remains quite hazardous.

Bill C-15 has donned many types of camouflage. First off, Bills C-7 and C-45 both died honourably in combat because of prorogation in 2007 and the elections in 2008. It is our contention that we would not be here debating this bill right now if the government did not have a nasty habit of hitting the panic button and proroguing Parliament.

Later, Bill C-60 was sent to the front lines wearing slightly different camo. It simplified the court martial structure, bringing it more in line with the civilian justice system. In its report, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made nine recommendations regarding potential amendments to the National Defence Act.

In 2010, Bill C-41—we have amassed a number of bills, making things somewhat complicated, and I hope everyone is able to keep track of the numbers—was sent out to the front lines in response to the Lamer report and the Senate committee. Bill C-41 proposed reforms to sentencing, military judges and commissions, and summary trials, among other things. We could say that Bill C-15 is the brother-in-arms of C-41. The amendments brought forward cover the composition of the court martial panel and the appointment of military judges with security of tenure to a fixed retirement age.

However, some basic amendments made at committee at the end of the last session of Parliament were not included in Bill C-15, and that poses a problem for us. Is it by chance that three amendments that were very important to the NDP are not included in today's version, Bill C-15?

The three amendments relate to: the chief of Defence Staff's authority in the grievance process, which was a direct response to one of the Lamer report recommendations; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership, as discussed earlier today; and the provision ensuring that a person convicted for an offence during a summary trial is not subjected to a criminal record, which we also discussed earlier. I will talk about these three amendments, which—we do not know why—are not included in Bill C-15, the bill we are debating today.

Bill C-15 does not deal effectively with the unfairness of summary trials.

Right now, a conviction during a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. What is sad for our troops is that those who are accused are not able to consult with counsel. There is no right of appeal and no transcript of the trial. Everything is off the record. What is more, the judge is the accused's commanding officer. So much for an impartial hearing.

An expert in military law, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, said the following in February 2011:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year....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.

A soldier slips up because of ongoing stress. We are not talking here about major offences but about misconduct, absence without leave or disobedience of a lawful command. We recognize that a soldier's code of ethics and code of conduct are the fundamental pillars that have become the pride of the Canadian army, but first and foremost, soldiers are human beings. They go through things that few people in our society experience. They live in a state of perpetual stress. We are not asking for military immunity but simply to put into perspective these acts of misconduct, which do not in any way warrant a criminal record and everything that goes along with that.

In committee in March, we proposed to expand the list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record from 5 to 27 in order to give soldiers more latitude. This amendment was abandoned and we want it to be restored. We do not want this amendment to become the unknown soldier of the bill. We want it to be acknowledged. When soldiers who have a criminal record as a result of a minor misconduct finish their military service, they will find it difficult to find a new job or even to rent an apartment.

While our soldiers ought to be held to the very highest standard of behaviour, the reality is that soldiers are human and thus imperfect. Soldiers are also entitled to a fair and equitable justice system, just like all other Canadians. It is a constitutional right to be represented and to have access to a fair trial.

The second amendment concerns the reform of the grievance system. The current grievance board does not allow for external review. Are we still living in the fearful cold war era when everything must be hidden? Retired Canadian Forces personnel serve on that board. In fact, almost everyone on that board is from some kind of military background. We think that is not at all reasonable. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board should be seen as a civilian, external, independent body. That is why we proposed that 60% of the board or committee’s members should be neither officers nor enlisted personnel in the Canadian Forces. That amendment was approved for Bill C-41, but it is not included in Bill C-15 before us today. We wonder why not.

The third amendment that had been included in the previous bill, C-41, and that we would have liked to see in this bill is the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission. The idea of giving this commission more powers so that it could act as a watchdog has been almost ignored. Its scope of action must be broadened so that it can legitimately investigate and report to Parliament.

The question must be asked: why have the Conservatives not kept the amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted by the committee in 2010 when Bill C-41 was studied? These amendments were good soldiers that could have protected the interests of our military personnel. The Conservatives are continuing to undermine the progress made by all members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and the recommendations made by the representatives of the Canadian Forces.

Such good soldiers as those amendments must not be abandoned. Even our allies—the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland—have decided to modernize the summary trial process. Why has Canada—having dithered so long on the issue—not got down to the task of finding the necessary tools to ensure that our military personnel are properly represented and judged?

As we have said many times, we are opposed to Bill C-15, because we see it as a tank without any firepower and without armour, one that makes it impossible for our soldiers to get a fair and impartial trial.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech on this critical matter and for trying to keep us awake and alert in the House because it is an important matter to be paying attention to.

There is a lot of material that has come forward here and in committee. Many experts have testified, including Colonel Michel Drapeau who is a renowned Canadian lawyer, professor and author on military justice. His commentary on the way that the government has proceeded with this legislation is along these lines. He has said that what the government is bringing forward is still deficient in major areas and “requires more than tweaks and tinkering to bring it into the 21st century”.

It has been made clear today that in the last iteration of the bill, of which there have been many since 2003, there were substantive changes brought forward to the bill tabled by the government, which were agreed to by all members of the committee. The concern is that the majority of those amendments have disappeared.

Is the member concerned that it becomes a pointless exercise in the House when the government is simply going pro forma through the process of going to committee? What is the likelihood that the Conservatives will actually accept the amendments this time around and make it a proper bill?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the likelihood is close to zero. Since the amendments proposed in 2010 to the earlier version of Bill C-15 were rejected at the Standing Committee on National Defence, we wonder what chance there would be to get them adopted in committee when the 2012 version of Bill C-15, when it was the Conservatives that introduced it. It would be astonishing to see the government members change their minds. As we have seen in many files, the Conservatives rarely accept the opposition’s recommendations. I cannot see why they would change their minds today.

Of course, we are using our time today to suggest these amendments to them. Moreover, we hope to light a little candle that may show them it is a good idea.

Today, we are showing them that recommendations coming from outside their party can sometimes be very good and worthy of deeper consideration.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we stand shoulder to shoulder with our men and women in uniform. When they come back from service, which we as parliamentarians have asked them to serve, we want to ensure that they have access to all of the instruments and rights that every other citizen has and we also want to support them in terms of how they retire, reintegrate and get back into the workforce. Those are areas which many members of the military have complained about with the current government in terms of access to retirement, pensions and those sorts of things.

In this legislation, we see another example of a way in which the government would fail to stand in support of our men and women in uniform. Would my hon. colleague care to talk a bit about the process here and how the Conservative government has failed Canadians in terms of the process that has gotten us to this bill?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Davenport for his question.

There are a number of questions we might ask about this bill and the process that now applies within the Canadian Forces.

It is a very opaque process and the government has the opportunity to introduce a bill that would improve it, but it refuses to do so, and so we react. We do find it very sad.

Of course, we would have liked it to be amended because, as I mentioned in my remarks, I think it is a very unfair process.

Naturally, there must be different rules because these people are in the Canadian Forces, where all the rules are different. They must obey orders and commands. For everything to work smoothly, some small details have to be different.

I think members of the Canadian Forces deserve our utmost respect. As such, we must give them the right to be represented during legal proceedings and to have the same constitutional rights as other Canadians, in other words, the right to a fair trial.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-15 on military justice.

As a former member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the work done by the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. I believe that these exemplary citizens deserve nothing but the best.

Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice. The military justice system is a separate yet parallel system of justice within the Canadian legal framework. It is distinct from, but similar in many ways to, the civilian criminal justice system.

I would like to say a few words about the importance of military justice in the proper functioning of the Canadian Forces. The Supreme Court of Canada has, on more than one occasion, recognized and confirmed the requirement for a separate system of military justice to maintain and enforce discipline. A clear articulation of the court's view on this point was expressed by Chief Justice Lamer in 1992:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the armed forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the armed forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently.

This excerpt addresses several basic themes of military justice. Discipline is the cornerstone of a professional military. It is critical to the success of Canadian Forces operations. However, when we talk about military justice, there has to be an emphasis on the justice side as well. We want to be able to count on excellent morale among our troops and we demand loyalty.

However, it is a two-way street. The system must also be seen as fair for the members of our armed forces. In the two areas of our military justice system that I want to focus on today, that fairness is somewhat lacking. I will therefore focus on summary trials and the issue of grievances.

In our military system, grievances are written into the National Defence Act. Our armed forces are subject to military discipline and are in a rigid, chain-of-command, top-down structure. Their only recourse when it comes to dealing with issues affecting their pay and benefits, their release, medical issues, getting adequate medical treatment and issues of that nature is through a grievance system. This grievance system is in disarray, and the proposed changes in the legislation do not really deal with that.

I would like to quote retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who is very familiar with the military and the armed forces. Here is what he had to say about the grievance system:

Given the mounting number of grievances by CF members and the current state of disrepair of the CF grievance system, the last thing the CF leadership ought to do is attempt to mitigate problems related to grievances. In the Armed Forces, the submission of a grievance is normally seen as a measure of last resort imbued with significant career risks.

I think that when a member of the Canadian armed forces decides to submit a written grievance to his or her commander, it is because he or she sincerely believes that the issues in question justify filing a grievance and that they will be dealt with non-judgmentally. But as it stands, the grievance committee does not allow external reviews. If the Canadian Forces grievance committee is to be seen as an independent, external civilian body, as it should be, then the appointment process must be amended to reflect that reality. The committee should be made up of some civilian members. The NDP suggests that at least 60% of grievance committee members must never have been an officer or non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was adopted in March 2011 for Bill C-41; however, it was not retained for Bill C-15, and that is unacceptable.

Another major flaw in the military grievance system is that the Chief of Defence Staff has little power to resolve financial aspects related to the grievances.

The NDP proposed an amendment in order to resolve this problem at committee stage for Bill C-41. Unfortunately, once again, this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15.

The second aspect I would like to talk about is summary trials. Summary trials are a suitable and fair means of dealing with minor service offences. A commanding officer or someone delegated by him or her may preside over a summary trial. These officers attend a training seminar, but often they do not have the necessary skills to preside over trials similar in nature to civilian criminal trials. Conversely, the court martial is in some ways a civilian court with military jurisdiction. A set of rules, including the rules of law, apply in courts martial.

The following quote is from the annual report of the Canadian Forces' Judge Advocate General:

A total of 1,998 service tribunals were held during the reporting period, representing 1,942 summary trials and 56 courts martial.... [The number of summary trials represents] approximately 97% of all service tribunals held in a given year.

Summary trials are therefore the norm rather than the exception. They can result in fines, imprisonment or a period of detention for up to 30 days, if the trial is presided over by a commanding officer. In addition, a number of military personnel dealt with by summary trial and found guilty could end up with criminal records similar to ones they would receive had they gone to trial before a civilian court, with all the applicable rules and procedures.

We do not oppose having a summary trial system in order to maintain order, discipline and morale, but we must nevertheless ensure that members of the Canadian Forces do not end up with criminal records that they must attempt to have expunged through the parole board after leaving the military. Imagine that. Our concern is that, in the military justice system, we need to have speedy trials, as former Chief Justice Lamer said. However, the trade-off should be that members of the military do not get a criminal record unless they are tried by a court that has the required support.

What is worrisome, at the end of the day, is that people could find themselves with a criminal record at the conclusion of an inequitable proceeding, without a lawyer, before a tribunal that is not independent. We still fear that the summary trial structure and process are a far cry from their civilian counterparts.

As I was saying earlier, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, whose military justice systems resemble Canada’s, deemed it appropriate to change their summary trial system to provide a more equitable judicial process.

Why then deprive our Canadian Forces of the constructive amendments that could be made to summary trials? That is the question.

To conclude, Canadian military law is essential for the maintenance of discipline and order among the troops. However, our soldiers deserve a military justice system that is above all fair and equitable for the accused, while remaining sensitive to the need for military discipline. Although Bill C-15 includes a number of legislative provisions, some of which are welcome because they strengthen military justice, I, like my colleague the member for Sherbrooke, believe that it is a leaky old boat and that soldiers deserve much better. Frankly, we could do better.

The government's bill also includes too many provisions that do not go far enough or that are simply useless for dealing with the pressing problems within our military justice system. As I said previously, and having been a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, soldiers deserve better than to find themselves with a criminal record after having served their country with pride and dedication. The government says that it is thinking of our veterans’ transition to civilian life, but what kind of shadow or cloud hangs over them when they are told that they may end up with a criminal record? Frankly, it makes no sense. These are not the kind of conditions that would allow us to say that we love our veterans and will take care of them. It is not true and it is wrong.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the composition of the grievance board. It has been talked about this afternoon that 60% of the board should be made up of other than ex-military participants and they should not have a military background. In the defence act, clause 29 (16) refers to establishing the board by the Governor-in-Council. Then further on it says how every member, before commencing the duty of office, takes an oath. That says to me that the board perhaps should be made up of military participants. We know the integrity of the members and participants cannot be in question because they take an oath. Plus, being ex-military personnel, they could apply their expertise on the tribunal. This expertise and experience would be beneficial.

Could the member please comment on that and the makeup of the board and why she would not put her trust in ex-military participants on the grievance board.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that I do not have confidence in the women and men who have served our country. Not at all. I believe in fact that it should consist of 60% civilians, but that these people should also be able to provide the benefit of their experience. I believe it to be a good and useful compromise.

I would also like to add that my thoughts are with the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which is meeting at the moment, as they are questioning Mr. Harold Leduc, who sat on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and was ignored by this government. He was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I would really like the government to show more sympathy towards extraordinary veterans like Harold Leduc.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's overview of the bill and the concerns of our party. One thing that disturbs me is that the bill had many former interventions. The report came from 2003. Then there were Bill C-7 Bill C-45, which died on the order paper. Then there was a prorogation. Then we had Bill C-41 in 2010. What is very interesting is that under Bill C-41, the NDP actually did make some very good amendments in the committee, which have now been left out of the new bill.

There was a process to acting in good faith on the bill. Now all these amendments have been left out. Could the member comment on that?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with this bill as with other bills, we see a number of recommendations coming from experts, members of our party and other parties and people in the field with relevant expertise and something to contribute. But the government chooses to turn a deaf ear and to just ignore everything.

I even see, sometimes, recommendations from former Conservatives saying the government should do something about this issue. But again, the government does not listen. The fact is, we are serious and we are trying to study the recommendations more thoroughly. However, I have noticed that, as soon as we are close to being right, they shut down the debate, which is not necessarily any better. We do not get a chance to study issues thoroughly, to try to understand why they disagree or why a more thorough examination would be preferable. This kind of attitude makes it tough for us to do a good job of representing constituents from our ridings, of representing Canadians.

I see the same thing happening from one bill to the next. They are steamrolling us. That is not a very constructive approach, in my opinion, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-15.

I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces for a few years. When I joined the forces, the last thing I thought about was military justice. There is no real explanation for the difference between military justice and civilian justice. The difference was never pointed out or anything of that nature.

After being in the forces for a relatively short period of time, I grew to believe that there was a need for a military justice system. Members of the forces face unique situations and, under those types of situations, there are dispositions that they would not get in a civil court system. The whole concept of respect, support and listening to our superior officers is a good example of that.

I was posted to two bases in Edmonton, Griesbach and Lancaster Park. I was living in Lancaster Park but Griesbach is where the military jail was located. Quite often I would be commuting between the two military sites and I would pass through the Griesbach jail. It was interesting, even though it was highlighted within the military, I think we need to put it into perspective.

At that time, the Canadian Forces consisted of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60,000 personnel and many more participated in our reserves. However, the numbers fluctuate. We do not have a huge force today nor is it really necessary. We do not need to have 100,000 members. I think there is a growing dependency on our reserves and I do not know whether that is good or bad. A lot depends on our obligations and how that structure is put in place at a time when there is a greater demand. Right now, the numbers are relatively reasonable. Many would argue that we should be looking at expanding our regular force. There are some concerns related to that.

We have been talking all afternoon about some of the technicalities of what is within the law. What we are really talking about is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 to 60 individuals in the forces who might require some sort of judicial intervention known as a military court martial of some form. The types of offences vary significantly, just like in a civil court. At the end of the day it is a fairly small percentage of military personnel who are on the other side of the bench where they must defend themselves or get someone to defend them. I would suggest, and many would argue, it is a relatively small network but it is a growing network.

Colonel Drapeau authored a book on military justice, which was about 2,000 pages. We could probably all learn a great deal by reading what he was talking about. I must be honest and say that I have not had the opportunity to read it. It is a fairly extensive read. However, for those who are interested in getting a better understanding of some of the intricacies of military justice, I would suggest that they give some serious consideration to reading this book.

It is important to note that the government has not been successful in making the necessary changes. Many individuals for a number of years have been arguing and suggesting that the government be more proactive at making some of the changes that are being proposed today. We could go back to 2006 and Bill C-7, to which one member made reference. I was not here at that time but I understand it was a bill of a similar nature, which the government was unable to get passed. Afterward, it came up with Bill C-41, which again the government was unable to get passed. Then it brought forward Bill C-45 and it failed to get that legislation passed.

We have a different and new dynamic with the majority government and we now have before us Bill C-15. The Liberal Party has been very clear on the issue. We plan to support the bill because we see the merit of having a system that is more effective, fair and more transparent. We think that at the end of the day Bill C-15 would do all three of those things. As such, even though we have other concerns related to the legislation and we will have to wait to see after it goes to committee what ultimately happens, there is strong merit for this bill to go to the committee stage.

As has been pointed out, a series of amendments have been proposed over the last number of years. It was implied that some of those amendments would ultimately be incorporated into the bill. I should acknowledge at the very least that the government took into consideration a couple of the amendments but there was a sense that the government could have done more in terms of acknowledging other amendments. Now that there is a majority government, we anticipate that the bill will pass.

However, it can be very frustrating being in opposition when we have thoughts and ideas that make sense, we bring them forward in the form of amendments at committee stage and the government shies away from them. It is, indeed, unfortunate. We have seen a negative consequence of the government shying away from Liberal Party amendments in particular. I am thinking of bills like Bill C-10, where the Senate had to reintroduce Liberal Party amendments because at the committee stage the government did not see the merit in passing them. I suspect that, unfortunately, very few amendments will be received well enough to pass. However, we are hopeful that the government will recognize that we are trying to support and enhance this legislation. That is one of the reasons we felt it was important to support this bill going to committee.

It is also important to recognize some of the sentences being proposed in the bill: the concept of absolute discharge, intermediate sentences and the whole issue of restitution. If we can narrow the gap between military law and civilian law, we would see that as a positive thing. We want to ensure as much as possible that we are dealing with a system that is fair and, in part, this bill moves us in that general direction. It is fair to say that military law is quite often harsher and has less flexibility. In certain situations, one can understand that and see how it could be justified.

I just want to highlight two very important points as we continue to debate this, whether it is inside the House or in the committee. First is the importance of trying to narrow the gap between the military law and civilian law, thereby ensuring more rights, transparency and a sense fairness within the military structure. Second is to realize that a vast majority of members of the Canadian Forces are outstanding and there is never a need. As I indicated, we talking about 40 to 60 cases a year.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech.

He mentioned at one point that he was optimistic and believed that the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on National Defence were going to agree to the recommendations made by the opposition. At least, that is what he thinks.

I would like to know what prompts that optimism, given that at the committee in the previous Parliament, when Bill C-41 was examined, the main amendment that meant that 60% of members of the grievance committee would be civilians, and that was accepted by all of the opposition parties, was rejected by the Conservatives. They were the only ones who rejected it. And we can see exactly that, with that amendment having been deleted in the new Bill C-15.

What prompts my colleague to be so optimistic?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat optimistic in the sense that the bill has had a couple of modifications from its original format of years ago. It does not necessarily mean that I hold out very much hope that when it goes to committee the government will be receptive to opposition amendments. However, I do believe that even if the bill passes as it is being proposed currently, it will improve upon the system.

Unfortunately, if the government does not make additional necessary changes, it will be selling the system short. There are some things the government could do that would make the bill even stronger. What is being hurt the most is the institutions and the need to bring the system closer to civilian law, which non-military personnel have to go through.

I am very much concerned and aware of the issues of harshness and fairness. The best way to deal with that is to at least try to make some progress. I would like to think the government would make more progress on the issue but it has far more—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member the question I posed to the NDP earlier. I am asking that member particularly because he talked about having a military background. Does the member think that should preclude him from being a participant on a grievance board? There have been a lot of comments this afternoon that 60% of the board should be made up of non-military personnel.

Does the member think he could be fair or impartial, especially under the circumstance where he would take an oath, and that he would not by any means be taking an oath if he felt for one moment that he could not do a very good job of being part of this tribunal and ensuring that he could apply his expertise to this particular area of law?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a mistake if we were to attempt to exclude individuals who have military experience from the process.

The actual percentage is something I would be open to hearing about in terms of what people who are much more familiar with the process actually have to say on the issue. Hopefully we will get a greater insight on that very issue once it goes to committee.

I do believe that it would be a mistake if we were to draw the conclusion that individuals with military experience do not have a role to play. I do not necessarily think that is what I am hearing from the member.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all who have risen to speak to the bill, particularly my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who are making a valiant attempt trying to persuade the government that we should be respecting the hard work at committee and the consensus that was reached.

I have to say at the outset that I appreciate the optimism of the speaker before me, but frankly, my experience since the Conservative government gained majority control has been that the hard work done in committee seems to be for naught. I hope the government will take heed. However, I would think it is an indication that, since the government chose not to include the consensus amendments, it is going to be an uphill battle to get them back in. However, we look forward to being surprised.

Canadians would be shocked to discover that under the current law, and even with the passage of Bill C-15, many who have bravely served our country, supporting the democratic processes, due process and rule of law for this nation and others, may obtain a criminal record through a system that lacks the due process that is available in civilian criminal courts to other Canadians.

Bill C-15 is the most recent of more than half a dozen tabled iterations, which the government let die. From that standpoint, what is the rush? We should spend time in committee, and if the amendments were previously valid, then let us discuss if they are still valid.

The changes that were previously brought forward and that we continue to call for were put forward not just by opposition members but by Justice LeSage; a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada; Professor Michel Drapeau, from the University of Ottawa; a noted author and military lawyer; members of the armed forces; and many legal experts and defence counsel for military members.

While some of the needed reforms are included in Bill C-15—and we have been clear about that—regrettably, many of the most important ones are not.

In 2003, retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Lamer provided a report outlining 88 recommendations to reform the system of military justice and bring it into the 21st century. He was retained to undertake a review of the court martial procedures under the National Defence Act and he did issue a report, again, with 88 recommendations relating to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance procedures and the provost marshal.

As one of my colleagues has stated, Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction, yet no rationale has been provided by the government as to why, at this point in time with this iteration, it has now thrown out the majority of the agreed amendments.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, noted legal expert and author on military justice, has commented that the National Defence Act “requires more than tweaks and tinkering to bring it into the 21st century”.

However, this is what we have before us today. Yes, there are some amendments and, yes, they are worthwhile, but it is still tweaking and tinkering rather than bringing forward a bill that is appropriate for this century.

In this century, is it not time that the military courts and grievance procedures were amended to instill independence of the decision makers, judicial independence, trial by peers and penalties on par with those in the civilian courts for other Canadians?

I wish to echo the sentiments of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who clearly presented his rationale for opposing Bill C-15. As he stated in the House: “...I am never going to vote for a bill that would treat our military personnel unfairly”.

That is the stance of all my colleagues in the official opposition.

The member stated that the second reason he was voting against the bill was that, despite the efforts of the committee members in the last Parliament to agree on amendments, the experience under this majority government has been continually, where we seek all-party consensus, that the PMO overrides and rejects that consensus.

Many in the House have noted the many iterations prior to this bill. We had the Lamer report in 2003, outlining significant, thoughtful changes to bring military tribunals into this century. In 2006, we had Bill C-7, which died on the order paper. In March 2008, we had Bill C-45, which died on the order paper. In 2008, we had Bill C-16 on courts martial. That was given royal assent. We had a little tinkering and it was good that one change was made, but it did not do overall reforms as had been recommended by Justice Lamer. There was a Senate report on equal justice for court martials in May 2009. Again in 2010, we had Bill C-41. The government tabled one amendment, but it died on the order paper. Then we had Bill C-16 in 2011. It passed narrow provisions to improve the appointment and tenure of military judges, but again it was just a tinkering at the edges. In March 2011, the Minister of National Defence commissioned yet another review by Justice LeSage.

It is time for a full, all-encompassing reform of the military justice regime. It is not merely the opposition saying this; it has been senior judges, military law experts and representatives of the military. It has been said over and over again. It has been agreed to by all party members of the committee.

Despite the six iterations since 2003, including this one, little concrete action has been taken to expedite a more just and equitable trial process for military accused. As my colleagues have reiterated to questions from the other side of the House, we do agree that Bill C-15 does provide a number of measures, including greater flexibility in sentencing, more sentencing options including absolute discharge, restitution and intermittent sentences. These are good measures. It modifies the composition of court martial panels and changes the power of delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff for grievance procedures. Good on the Conservatives for agreeing to make some of those changes.

Unfortunately, the bill falls short in key issues: in reforming summary trials, in reforming the grievance system and in strengthening the Military Complaints Commission. Only 28 of Mr. Justice Lamer's 88 recommendations to improve military justice, the Military Complaints Commission, the grievance procedures and the provost marshal have been addressed.

Many amendments tabled by the New Democrats and put forward by the armed forces and passed at committee have been excluded from Bill C-15—for example, the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in grievance processes; changes to the composition of grievance committees and, as my colleague previously mentioned, to include 60% civilians on panel reviews; or to ensure that the persons convicted at summary trial are not unfairly subjected to a criminal record, particularly when we are dealing with minor offences.

Some of the critical reforms we brought forward previously and that have not been included provide the reasons that we cannot support the bill, including the reforms to the summary trial system; reforms to the grievance system; and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Again, these are matters that were tabled at committee and agreed to, but they are not found in Bill C-15.

Reforms to the summary trial system would include removing the criminal record for an expanded list of minor offences. In other words, there are a good number of offences where a young member of the military could be given a criminal record, where it is deemed inappropriate and would not happen in the civil system. Again, there is no right of appeal, no transcript, no access to counsel and often the judge is the accused's commanding officer.

As I mentioned, major reforms to the grievance system include reconstituting the panels with civilian members and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission to provide oversight.

In closing, it is a question of justice and equity for our dedicated military.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to put a question to my colleague, who asked me one just a little while ago.

The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have decided to change the summary trial process. Why is Canada lagging behind on this issue?

Does she think, as I do, that the process needs to be improved? If so, does she hold out hope of seeing those amendments adopted by the government, which had agreed to them at the Standing Committee on Defence when it was in a minority in the previous Parliament? Does she hold out hope that these three amendments, including the one concerning the judicial process for summary trials, will be adopted by the government, or does she hold out little or absolutely no hope of seeing them adopted?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue about hope is not for the members of the opposition, but for the members of the armed forces. Can they possibly have hope that this time the government will do the right thing? This time, in the sixth iteration of reforms to this legislation, why in heaven's name have the Conservatives not simply taken it upon themselves to listen to the testimony, including by military personnel, and brought forward a full, encompassing reform package to the military justice system?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona spoke about the fact that we want a summary trial process that is fairer and more just.

We want the military process, which may lead to a criminal record in the civilian world, to be just and fair in the military world as well. That is not the case at present.

I would also like her to speak to another aspect: this process must be not only just and fair, but also comparable in the military justice system, because the military process has consequences when it comes to a civilian criminal record, for offences that would not themselves be offences in the civilian context.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, essentially, as many of the members in the House have been remonstrating, we are finding it hard to see why we cannot apply the same kind of system, to which we as civilians in this country have the right and privilege, to the members of our armed forces, who put their lives on the line and are actually sent to other nations to try to protect democratic institutions struggling to have a rule of law and a fair, just process. We have yet to hear any genuine defence from the Conservatives as to why they think that members of our armed forces should be made second-class citizens in access to due process. Surely they deserve and merit the same judicial processes, definitely in summary conviction, that we do as civilians.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is another very interesting aspect. Other Commonwealth countries have changed their summary trial legislation. That is the case for England, which was mentioned earlier, and for Ireland and a number of other Commonwealth countries.

The reason is that the Court of Justice of the European Union had ruled that the manner in which summary trials were conducted at present in the United Kingdom did not comply with rights legislation in Europe.

Given that Australia and New Zealand, which are not bound by European law, have changed their legislation to make it consistent with the demands of the Court of Justice of the European Union, then why is Canada not doing so?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. He provides really difficult questions. Surely it is obvious. We simply look at the recent military mission in Afghanistan, where our armed forces are serving alongside soldiers from many other countries. Surely it makes sense when they are in the field of war that they be subject to the same kind of regime and processes for justice. Frankly, I cannot present any rationale for why we would be out of step with most of the democracies of the western world. I guess we have to put that question to the government.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-15, which is an act to amend the National Defence Act, or as the government calls it, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

While there are many important reforms in the bill and the NDP supports the long overdue update to the military justice system, as the official opposition we believe that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system, and strengthening the military complaints commission.

Members of the Canadian armed forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and in turn they deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can end up with a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

A criminal record can make life a lot harder for military members after service. It can make getting a job, renting an apartment or travelling very difficult. The NDP will fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in service of Canada.

Bill C-15 basically amends the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

In 2003, Lamer presented his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contains 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal.

Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations. Thus far, only 28 recommendations have been implemented in legislation, regulations or via a change in practice.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the versions of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. However, other important amendments that were passed at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15.

These include the following amendments that were introduced by the NDP regarding the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding to Justice Lamer's recommendations; changes to the composition of a grievance committee to include at least 60% civilian membership, which was amended clause 11 in Bill C-41; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted for an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

Those are some of the amendments that were introduced by the NDP in the previous bill but are not part of Bill C-15.

The summary trial is by far the most commonly used form of service tribunal in the military justice system. It is designed to deal with minor offences in a forum where the possible punishments are limited. The objective is to deal with the alleged offences in a fast manner within the unit and return the member to service as soon as possible, thereby promoting and maintaining unit discipline.

Courts martial deal with more serious charges prosecuted within the system and are also available to deal with less serious charges at the option of the accused person.

In the last Parliament, the committee heard from Michel Drapeau, who said that summary trials continued to be the dominant disciplinary method used to try offences by the Canadian military, and that in 2008-2009, a total of 1,865 cases were determined by a summary trial. That is 96% of the total. He also said that only 67 were heard by court martial. In other words, only 4%.

The current grievance process is also flawed. Unlike in other organizations, grievers do not have unions or employee associations to which to pursue their grievances. It is essential to the morale of the Canadian Forces members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent and prompt manner.

There are some shortcomings in the bill that we hope we can address at the committee stage if it passes second reading. More specifically, these are reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. I will briefly talk to those three points.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes an undue harshness on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for minor service offences.

For example, some of these minor service offences include: insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline but they are not worthy of a criminal record. Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine of less than $500, to no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill but it does not, in our opinion, go far enough.

At committee stage last March, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record from five to 27. The amendments also extended the list of punishments that may be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal to one month's basic pay or another minor punishment.

This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, the amendment was not retained in Bill C-15 and we want to see it included. A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult.

The military grievance external review committee at present does not provide a means of external reviews. Currently, it is staffed entirely with retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces grievance board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society. The NDP amendment provided that at least 60% of the members of the grievance committee must never have been an officer or non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces.

In regard to strengthening the military complaints commission, Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces would be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith.

This is a good step in the right direction. However, the bill does not go far enough in addressing summary convictions or the complaints commission.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken in some of the debate today. I know this is a bill that has been in front of Parliament, this Parliament and previous Parliaments. I think we are actually on our third or fourth iteration of this particular bill.

The latter comment from my friend opposite seemed to indicate that the NDP's position is that they will let the good get in the way of perfect. We are in a situation where there is an opportunity to send the bill to committee. We have in fact, and I want to be very clear, accepted some of the recommendations of previous attempts to bring the bill to fruition. In fact, some of them are found in this very bill, Bill C-15. Some of the opposition amendments were incorporated.

I want to debunk any myth that suggests there has not been compromise and a willingness to bring some of these elements of the bill forward. I would like to make just a few comments, if I might, with respect to confusion on this issue of criminal records.

To be clear, this important matter of criminal records flowing from convictions for service members, as found in clause 75 of Bill C-15, appears to be causing a great deal of consternation with members opposite. The members should be aware that what we have here is a bill that actually provides for specific service offences in minor circumstances, so that these would not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Code.

Further, former Chief Justice LeSage in his review of the National Defence Act indicated in his recommendation that there ought be a full review of the issue of criminal records. We have had three justices who have looked at this particular issue and found the summary trials process to be perfectly acceptable, workable, with some of these amendments.

In conclusion, in light of that recommendation, I would say, and I make this comment very openly here to the official critic for the NDP, their defence critic, the member for St. John's East, that the government is willing to bring in an amendment to clause 75 to match the committee stage amendments made to Bill C-41. That is on the record.

As far as this being harmful to our military or that there are different expectations of Canadians who served in Afghanistan alongside our NATO allies, our military justice system is the envy of our allies. We have, in fact, I would suggest, one of the best military justice systems—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I will allow the hon. member to have time to respond. The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments by the Minister of National Defence.

There was not really a question in there but he was talking about the previous versions of the bill. I was not part of the last Parliament, but it is my understanding that the bill was passed with a number of amendments from different parties and that the bill was left on the table either because Parliament was prorogued or the election was called at that time.

The minister is right. There are a couple of amendments that were brought in from the last bill, however, the majority of the concerns that were addressed in the last bill have still been left off the table. Here we have other governments, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, that have reformed the summary trial process, and yet we have a government and a minister who have been ignoring the issue for a very long time.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to ask my colleague a question.

The summary trial is the most frequently used disciplinary method to deal with offences committed by Canada’s military personnel. In 2008-09, some 1,865 cases, or 96%, were decided by summary trial, and only 67 cases were tried through court martial. I am not sure who said that, but it has been mentioned.

What is my colleague’s opinion of summary trials and the other bills? The amendments passed during study of Bill C-41 have not been retained by the government in Bill C-15. The defence minister talked a little about them today. We wonder why the government would now agree to the amendments that were not included in the current bill.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a high standard for members of the military when it comes to discipline, their duties and justice. It is only fair that we give them a grievance process, a comparable process, so that the process we have will serve them. Clearly, the process that we have in place now is not working.

The member for Sherbrooke is absolutely correct. Most of the grievances, 96% in fact, are resolved by summary trial. The other 4% are through court martial.

The men and women in uniform deserve a process that is fair and effective and accountable to them.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-15. It appears that there are many shortcomings and problems with this bill. I believe the issue of criminal records is one of the main problems.

There are many others. I will begin with the others, but I will come back to criminal records shortly. We find the system of grievances and the Military Police Complaints Commission very worrisome.

This bill has been before the House many times in various forms. It was introduced in 2006 and died on the order paper in 2007-2008 because of the election.

We must not forget that this is a new version of the same bill that was passed by the previous Parliament in March 2011. The new version—the one before us today—implies that the will of the House, expressed only a few months ago, is being totally ignored.

In the opinion of the official opposition, one of the criteria is very troubling. We want 60% of the members of the Military Grievances External Review Committee to be neither officers nor enlisted personnel. We want civilians to have oversight over military procedures in Canada. We have often heard this opinion expressed by our constituents. The military must be subject to the will of the people and not the opposite; it is just common sense.

The NDP is adamant that 60% of the members of the Military Grievances External Review Committee should be civilians. Passing Bill C-15 without this element is unacceptable.

The part of this bill that worries me the most is the one dealing with criminal records. The people who defend our country deserve better than to have a criminal record based on ordinary behaviour.

Clause 75 of the bill, recently mentioned by a government member, lists the cases in which a person might acquire a criminal record. A new section will be created in the law, section 249.27. In it we see that a person who commits an offence under sections 85, 86, 90, 97,129 and 130 of the Contraventions Act may have a criminal record. This aspect that might give a person a criminal record must be carefully studied.

Clause 85 deals with an act of insubordination, such as a threat or verbal insult to a superior. This means that someone could have a criminal record for nothing more than a verbal insult. Having a criminal record is a big deal. It can hinder a person's access to employment. That person could be forced to live in poverty their entire life because they threatened or verbally insulted a superior. Frankly, it is a little much.

The legislation talks about quarrels and disturbances. Anyone who quarrels or fights with another member of the military—unfortunately it can happen—or uses provoking speeches or gestures toward a person so subject that tend to cause a quarrel or disturbance is guilty of an offence.

This includes not only quarrels or fights that do happen, but also the risk of quarrels or disturbances. This could all lead to a criminal record. Once again, this goes too far.

Absence without leave could lead to a criminal record. The same is true for drunkenness and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

Working in the military field is a very risky and very stressful job. It would therefore not be surprising if military personnel shouted insults at one another, especially if they were drunk.

In my opinion, those are not reasons to potentially subject someone to a criminal record. It is important to remember that only summary trials carry that risk. We agree that, if a real trial were held before a judge, at least people would have a chance to defend themselves. They would be judged by someone who knows the law and who is trained to be fair and equitable.

“The Code of Service Discipline and Me: A guide to the military justice system for Canadian Forces members” is posted on the Department of National Defence's website. It explains what a summary trial is. I would like to quote from it briefly.

Summary trials are designed to deal with relatively minor service offences that are important for the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency at the unit level. Summary trials allow a unit CO, delegated officer, or superior commander to effectively administer discipline and return the member to duty as soon as possible.

The important thing to remember from this is that the purpose of a summary trial is not to punish people by giving them a criminal record. The guide says so. According to the Canadian Forces, it is very clear that the reason for a summary trial is to have a fast and effective justice process designed to reintegrate the person into his military unit. A criminal record has nothing to do with that purpose. If the summary trial were to be used for that purpose from now on, then such use would contradict the information on the Canadian Forces website.

The website also indicates the following:

Courts martial are formal military courts established under the National Defence Act that are presided over by military judges. A military prosecutor is assigned to prosecute each case and the accused is represented by defence counsel, either military or civilian.

In the case of a court martial, there is a person who is defending himself, a prosecutor, a judge, lawyers and a full defence. The problem with the summary trial is that it is the commanding officer himself or herself who will decide what punishment to impose on the person who broke the rules. And let us not forget that a verbal insult is one of the offences.

Clause 75 of Bill C-15 goes much too far. It is not just a matter of possibly amending it. This goes beyond the very purpose of summary trials. It completely disregards their purpose. We might as well abolish summary trials and go directly to court martial if we are going to give such serious penalties.

I want to say that in the past, the NDP requested that the list of offences that could be considered minor be expanded, so that in summary trial cases without a criminal record, offenders would have a better chance of being reintegrated, as the directives state on the website.

When people enlist in the forces, they will see what to expect. They will see what the Department of National Defence itself says and what new recruits can expect. Now the government is misleading them about what could happen to them once they join the forces. They are the ones who defend our country and who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. That is not a respectful way to treat our armed forces.

I urge the government to withdraw this bill and to rewrite it so that it better reflects Canadian values.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to some of the input put forward by the official opposition members with regard to the bill before us and some of the inferences that members of the military do not have recourse in their grievance procedure. We have a grievance board, the Military Police Complaints Commission and the Military Ombudsman. Further, I notice that several of the members of the official opposition have questioned the soundness of our military justice system.

How does the member reconcile this misguided notion with the fact that in the First Independent Review Authority, former Chief Justice Lamer, stated, “Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence”.

Further, another chief justice, Chief Justice LeSage, stated in another independent review, “Although there are some areas where the military justice system and the grievance system can benefit from improvements, overall the system is operating well”.

Two chief justices of our country say that our system is functioning well although it could stand some minor improvements, and that is what this bill would do? How do the members opposite reconcile that?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. In 2003, Justice Lamer produced a very interesting report. It contained 88 recommendations, and the government has acted on only 28 of them. I suggest that the members opposite read the report to see what it says; they would be surprised. By keeping only one-quarter of the recommendations, the government is not showing military personnel the respect they deserve.

The Right Honourable Chief Justice Lamer made 88 recommendations and only 28 were accepted. Justice Lamer did his job and made his recommendations after giving much thought to the issues. Once again, the government has hastily put forward an ill-considered bill that seeks to punish people. The Conservatives believe that if they continually hammer away at people, those people may vote Conservative later on.

That is not at all what I want in a bill. I want a bill to be well-thought-out and useful. The objective must be to return our military personnel to their units, not to alienate them.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for his very interesting speech. I would point out that three very important Commonwealth countries—Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand—have reformed their systems. Does my hon. colleague believe that this is the path that Canada should also take?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot to learn from other countries. Canada used to serve as an example to other countries. It was always on the forefront in terms of criminal penalties, but it no longer is today. We have a lot of catching up to do.

We must first determine the targeted objective, which we have lost sight of. The objective is not to put people in prison or impoverish our military personnel by saddling them with a criminal record. I repeat: having a criminal record can hinder access to employment. Some people live in poverty their whole lives because they have a criminal record. If that is really what the government is proposing, I do not think it is giving our military personnel the respect they deserve.

The government should rethink Bill C-15 and withdraw it. It should introduce a new bill that will benefit Canadian society, instead of harming our military personnel by saddling them with a criminal record.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for almost a year and a half, I have had the opportunity to debate in the House a number of issues that are dear to me. At times, we must also debate issues with which we are not as familiar. You will agree that we cannot be interested in everything all the time. However, that does not mean that the issues are not very interesting, and I do not doubt their importance. For many Canadians, everything to do with the military is somewhat of a mystery. The public definitely knows that Canada has an army and many people are very proud of it. However, the internal workings of the armed forces are a mystery to mere mortals.

A year and a half ago, that was the case for me. Since arriving here, I have had the opportunity to meet many members of the armed forces and I have become aware of the issues that are important to them. I have also asked the veterans in my riding many questions, and they have kindly and patiently answered them.

Bill C-15 is about military justice and it is a truly interesting subject. I will summarize the bill in order to provide some context. Bill C-15 is the Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. True to form, the Conservative government gave it an optimistic short title—Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Coming up with such upbeat titles is a new trend. I would not put it past the Conservatives to introduce a bill to diminish the rights of aboriginal peoples and name it “encouraging the legal and economic autonomy of first nations”. The cheerful words are a bit much.

Bill C-15 addresses some very clear problems and, in a way, proposes some clear solutions. This bill originated in 1998 when the Liberals were in power. During the 1990s, it was determined that the National Defence Act absolutely had to be modernized and achieve a better balance. It was significantly amended in 1998, after the release of three different reports that questioned its effectiveness. The Liberals introduced Bill C-25, which contained clause 96 stating that, every five years after the bill is assented to, there would be an independent review of the amendments made to the National Defence Act to see whether they were effective and whether any adjustments were needed.

This brings us to 2003, when the Lamer report came out with its 88 recommendations. Everyone agreed that the Lamer report was an effective tool and that it clearly indicated the steps to follow to improve and modernize our National Defence Act.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they inherited the Lamer report and its recommendations. The Conservative government was aware that it had to continue reforming the National Defence Act. Under the Conservatives there were all kinds of disappointing twists and turns. In the first two minority, and rather unstable, Conservative governments, the two attempts to pass legislation to comply with the Lamer report recommendations died on the order paper.

In 2008, there was a turn of events. On April 24, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, in R. v. Trépanier, declared unconstitutional the provisions in the National Defence Act enabling the director of military prosecutions to choose the type of court martial for a given accused. This essentially meant that, from then on, in certain cases, accused persons had the right to choose the type of court martial to be convened.

The Conservatives had to react to this event as quickly as possible. Their legislative attempt failed in the wrangling of minority governments, and suddenly there was a court case that they needed to respond to. Their response was Bill C-60, which made minor changes to the military justice system. The Lamer report definitely remained the foundation for future legislation, but it also led to a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled, “Equal Justice”. That report, commissioned by the Minister of National Defence, was agreed to in principle by the government when it tabled the report.

At this time, we have an abundance of studies and information to guide the whole legislative process of amending the National Defence Act. However, the tone has already been set. It will never be applied as a whole, but rather in bits and pieces. That is not necessarily a bad thing. We cannot change everything at once, unless the government decides to throw an omnibus bill at us concerning the National Defence Act, but I think the staff at the Prime Minister's Office, based on the two huge tomes that we have seen in recent months, are burned out. You see, the first victims of these paving stone expeditions are the legislative and political staff in the Prime Minister's Office.

Significant progress was made in 2010. Bill C-41, which was the direct forerunner of Bill C-15, was introduced in the House on June 16, 2010. It made it through the entire legislative process, was debated and discussed, and several of the NDP's proposed amendments were included. Unfortunately, Bill C-41 died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved during the last federal election.

Not long after a new Parliament was formed, in June 2011, there was yet another twist. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, in R. v. Leblanc, declared unconstitutional the provisions regarding the appointment of judges and the length of their terms.

The Conservatives wanted to fix the problem as quickly as possible, so in came Bill C-16, which was introduced and assented to in the fall of 2011. At the same time, at the very beginning of the 41st Parliament, the Minister of National Defence appointed the hon. Patrick LeSage, retired Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, to conduct the second independent review of Bill C-25, passed in 1998. His report was recently tabled on June 8, 2012. And that is where we are now.

This topic has been debated in Parliament for 13 years. We have the Lamer report and we have the report from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, all of whose recommendations the Conservative government accepted. Now we have Bill C-15. So what is the problem?

As I said, Bill C-15 in itself is relatively well done and addresses specific urgent problems. Except there was a bit of a sleight of hand. All of the recommendations that the NDP had managed to get accepted for Bill C-41 magically disappeared.

We were not kidding around when we proposed amendments during the previous Parliament. We were being serious. They were discussed in detail and they were accepted. The NDP wants to see these amendments in Bill C-15 as well.

If I may, I would like to quickly describe the purpose of those amendments.

First, there is one very important thing: we believe that Bill C-15 fails to properly address the problem of reforming the summary trial system.

A summary trial takes place when a member of the Canadian Forces is guilty of a lack of discipline in a strictly military setting. That person will be judged by his or her commanding officer on site, without a transcript, in order to maintain military discipline. That is fine in and of itself. Members of the military are subject to rigorous discipline in the course of their duties, but since they are only human, they may make mistakes and commit minor offences. Unfortunately, right now, these minor offences lead to a civilian criminal record.

The NDP does not believe that this type of purely military insubordination should result in a criminal record. I am somewhat disturbed that soldiers who bravely put themselves in harm's way for my safety and who are under an unusual amount of pressure must, when they return to civilian life, carry a criminal record that could prevent them from travelling or getting a bank loan all because of a simple matter of insubordination.

In February 2011, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association said that military officers who impose sentences during a summary trial often want to make a show of discipline for the unit and discourage future offences, not impose on the accused the consequences that go along with having a criminal record in the civilian world.

We are talking here about really minor offences, and in the last Parliament, the NDP sold the committee on expanding the list of so-called minor offences from 5 to 27. We want this amendment to be put back into Bill C-15. If it is not, we will not support the bill.

This is not a conspiracy. The countries with which we have everything in common have already done so. It is a fairly powerful list: Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.

If they have done this, I do not understand why Canada would not.

The second point pertains to the reform of the military grievances system. Right now, the grievance board does not allow external reviews. However, the grievance board should be an independent, external civilian body. Right now, only retired members of the Canadian Forces are on the board. I am not saying that they are not doing the job properly, but the system is not working. A change must be made.

Do we have to wait for another Court Martial Appeal Court ruling for things to be done right?

We suggest that at least 60% of the members of the grievance board be civilians. This amendment was agreed to in the last Parliament, but is not included in Bill C-15. We are right about this, and we want this amendment to be included.

Once again, for these reasons we will not be supporting this bill.

The third amendment that is missing from Bill C-15 concerns the Military Police Complaints Commission. It is a minor point, but the NDP believes that much more should be done to strengthen this commission.

It should be granted more powers by means of a legislative provision and it should be able to legitimately conduct investigations and report to Parliament. It is for the good of the military. We want this amendment included as well.

In the end, it is quite gratifying to be part of this long process that began in the late 1990s under the Chrétien government.

I am quite aware that such important statutes as the National Defence Act cannot be amended by only three or four pieces of legislation. Change will inevitably take many years. The work is well under way. The Conservative government has dealt with this matter rather appropriately, which is quite rare. However, as always, the NDP must be vigilant in order to put the finishing touches to the bill. The Conservatives want to act too quickly, and they have not got all the details right.

If the valuable and important amendments that we won acceptance for in the last Parliament are not restored, the NDP will unfortunately vote against the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think we have enough time for one question and one answer.

The hon. Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, does the member believe that people who have served in the military would make good participants on the tribunal because of their expertise in applying the law. They would definitely have the background and the knowledge.

The opposition is asking that 60% of the participants be non-military. I would like to have a better understanding. Does the member not trust those who have served with integrity and protected our country? I wonder why the NDP and the opposition are so against that particular part of the legislation.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

In fact, it is not that we do not trust them in this case. Rather, it is because these people absolutely must be completely independent. We are talking about grievances. The person must be external and not biased about the situation, in order to be able to have an overall picture and hear both parties.

In any case, we are not proposing that no military personnel be involved. Approximately 40% would come from the military community, which would be more than sufficient to ensure that their perspective is included. However, the majority would come from outside the military.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

If the hon. member so wishes, she will have three and a half minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed from October 22 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.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to rise in this House and speak to Bill C-15 because justice is more than just a system of laws and regulations; it is also a fundamental value for me and for my NDP colleagues, as it should also be for the military system.

This bill is step in the right direction, but it does not address the key issues related to reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

That is why, although the bill's primary objective is laudable, it does not satisfy our objectives. Much more needs to be done to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We on this side of the House want a comprehensive bill that adequately addresses the problem. No justice system is perfect, but that should not stop us from trying to improve our system as much as possible.

Many elements have been left out of Bill C-15: reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The fact that the NDP included these three elements in amendments of the previous version of the bill and that those amendments are now absent cannot be a coincidence. As I said, the NDP is not opposed to the spirit of this bill. We want to work with the Conservatives to get it right in order to ensure that the bill is relevant and that it has a broad enough scope.

I do not understand why the government did not include these elements in the bill. They are important in a consistent military justice reform.

Let us look specifically at the grievance system. We must understand it in order to appreciate the importance of the improvements proposed by the NDP.

I would like to quote the directive on military grievances, which is found on the Department of National Defence website. It indicates:

The DND and the CF shall manage all grievances through the Canadian Forces Grievance System...and ensure that:

all grievances are processed as efficiently and expeditiously as possible;

a CF member is not penalized for submitting a grievance; and

assistance is made available to a CF member in the preparation of a grievance.

The last point is important: the Canadian Forces has the responsibility to help its members because they do not have a union-type association to defend them. This lack of counter-balance is another reason why it is important to ensure that we have an effective and impartial system.

The NDP proposed two improvements. First, we proposed that at least 60% of grievance board members must be civilians who have never been an officer or a member of the Canadian Forces and, second, that the Chief of Defence Staff be given more authority to resolve the financial aspects of grievances.

The first improvement, namely, that the grievance board strike a balance between military and civilian membership, is important to ensure that this process is perceived as being external and independent. When it comes to the military, perception is very important for Canadians. Everyone in the country should be able to see that the system is independent and fair. Members of the military have a great deal of experience in managing such situations, so it is rather important that they are truly involved in the process. However, the presence of civilians is also important to dispel the idea that members of the military are subject to a different kind of justice than ordinary Canadians.

I would like to once again quote a Canadian Forces document. This time, I will be quoting an excerpt from chapter 34 of the “Military Administrative Law Manual” to demonstrate how this process, which may generally seem strange to Canadians, works. Point no. 24 of the section on the CF grievance board states:

The CF Grievance Board...is an external body independent from DND and the CF that has been established by section 29.16 of the NDA. The role of the CFGB is to provide findings and recommendations on grievances referred to it by the CDS. It does not have the authority to grant or deny redress regarding any grievance.

Article 25 states:

There are certain grievances for which the CDS is required to request CFGB findings and recommendations. These grievances relate to:

a. administrative action resulting in the forfeiture of, or deductions from, pay and allowances, reversion to a lower rank or release from the CF;

b. the application or interpretation of CF policies relating to expression of personal opinions, political activities and candidature for office, civil employment, conflict of interest and post compliance measures, harassment or racist conduct;

c. pay, allowances and other financial benefits; and

d. the entitlement to medical care or dental treatment.

Article 26 states:

The CDS is also responsible for ensuring that any grievance that concerns a decision or action of the CDS is forwarded to the CFGB for its findings and recommendations.

As the policy states, such an important board must be effective and beyond reproach. The NDP believes that a significant civilian presence on this board would help maintain this perception. When we look at how to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission, the merits of this idea and our position are quite obvious.

Police officers, as agents of social control, have a key role to play in our society, which is based on the rule of law. They are effective not only because they have the manpower and equipment, of course, but also because of their perceived legitimacy by the public. The military police is no exception. For a police force to operate properly, whether it is military or civilian, it must have the approval of those under its authority. A police force gains legitimacy through its perceived integrity. This perception is built on the actions of the police force and the perception of fairness and justice in its operations.

There is no better way to prove the integrity of a police force than by having a strong monitoring body. A Military Police Complaints Commission that is legitimate and reports to Parliament is the best way to ensure fairness in the actions of military police and, just as importantly, the perception of fairness and justice by Canadians.

The second improvement is that the Chief of Defence Staff should have more authority to resolve financial aspects related to grievances. This is a simple requirement to ensure that the grievance system is consistent. If the Chief of Defence Staff does not have the ability to resolve financial aspects, it calls into question the relevance of the grievance process.

I should point out that Canada is not the only country to be reviewing its military justice system. Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland have recently done the same. We are in an excellent position to pass a comprehensive and effective bill while taking into account what has been done in other countries. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the bill as it stands. As I already said, the NDP proposed amendments to the bill in its previous form. But those amendments are no longer part of the current bill. We would like to see something constructive if and when the bill goes to committee.

In conclusion, although I focused mainly on the grievance system, it is important to note that this is just one thing missing from this bill. The NDP will continue to work to include the essential measures that it had passed in the former version of this bill. There is no reason for the Conservatives not to admit the relevance of these measures. Their hiding of this fact reeks of partisanship.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question I want to ask the hon. member opposite is a very simple one. I feel the need to ask it because there is a specific fact she did not mention in her speech and showed no awareness of.

Does the hon. member realize that most of the amendments proposed in this bill were suggested in 2003 by Chief Justice Lamer, who has since retired?

These amendments are absolutely essential if we want to improve and modernize Canada's military justice system.

The best, most appropriate and ideal place to consider changes to these amendments is in committee, as the Minister of National Defence suggested yesterday. Indeed, we should examine this rather complex bill in committee as soon as possible.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

In fact, the Lamer report contained 88 recommendations, and this bill addresses only 28 of them.

On top of that, the NDP amendments on the previous version of the bill in a previous Parliament had done nothing but strengthen the bill. It was the subject of hard work and consideration by all parties and those amendments have not been included in this version of the bill.

Those amendments were with regard to the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, which was a direct response to the Lamer recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilians; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. These were important things worked on in the previous Parliament. My question for the member is why those things are not included in this version of Bill C-15 in this Parliament.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech and, above all, on her reply to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

My colleague rightly mentioned that some recommendations were made by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She pointed out that only 28 of his 88 recommendations had been accepted. We want this bill to be amended in committee.

Furthermore, my colleague mentioned that the NDP also proposed amendments in previous legislatures. She expressed concern about the fact that the government is refusing to consider the earlier recommendations, as well as amendments previously accepted in the House.

Could my hon. colleague explain why she is concerned about the government's failure to co-operate?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I want to be quite clear. The NDP believes that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction but it does not address all the issues. The problem is that the Conservatives have undermined the important work that all members did together in the previous Parliament in the defence committee and have ignored the recommendations made by Canadian Forces representatives during the last session of Parliament. That is my concern.

Why are they doing that? What is the point of taking something that was well-worked, well-rounded and thoroughly examined, and now go back to step one? I do not understand the point of that. It is going to make the process more complicated for us as members and it will take longer to go through. In fact, we could have done this much faster if they had introduced the bill as it was amended.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House and represent the people of the region of Timmins—James Bay, who have put their trust in me to represent their concerns.

The discussion we have before us this morning on Bill C-15 is really what this Parliament should be doing, which is to ensure that the people who put themselves on the front line of defence for the Canadian people have their rights protected when they return from overseas or from whatever work they are doing, whether they are in the army, with the RCMP, or in the various federal police forces across our country.

That is an obligation we have to those men and women and their families, regardless of political stripe. Unfortunately, there are times when the government and Parliament have failed those front-line workers.

I am looking at Bill C-15, and I understand the government's intention to address the serious shortfalls in terms of military justice. However, I am quite concerned that the government has decided to ignore numerous recommendations that came from the Lamer report. This whole process is supposed to be a result of the 80 recommendations brought forward by the Lamer report. The government cherry-picked them down to 28.

This bill is also a follow-up to Bill C-41, from the previous Parliament. Numerous amendments were actually passed by a parliamentary committee to ensure that we were improving the system of military justice and representation for our armed forces personnel. Yet the government, in the present Parliament, has taken those amendments passed by a parliamentary committee and thrown them out the window.

That is highly problematic. If we look at some of the amendments the government walked away from, they had to do with the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, which was amended under clause 6 in Bill C-41, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation.

There is also the issue of changes in the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership, which was amended in clause 11 in Bill C-41. There was also the provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence at a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. That was amended in clause 75 of Bill C-41.

What we are talking about is basic justice and basic fairness for those who put themselves in harm's way.

The 80 recommendations from the Lamer report remind me of the 80 recommendations that came down after the Kashechewan prison fire, where Ricardo Wesley and Jamie Goodwin burned to death in a makeshift police cell in 2006, in a federal facility, under Nishnawbe-Aski police.

I was at the funeral for those young men. There was trauma within the community and within the police force among the men and women who were hired to represent Canada and protect communities in the far north. The Nishnawbe-Aski police, like the military, sometimes face extreme circumstances. All they ask for is fairness.

Unfortunately, what I see in the far north in our policing services, which are funded 52% by the federal government and 48% by the provincial government, is that they are often facing combat conditions and third-world conditions.

In Kashechewan, one of our police officers had to live in a tent. The jail cells did not have a basic water sprinkler system. On any given day we have maybe 30 officers out of 150 off on stress leave. We have suicides. We have an incidence of post-traumatic stress among our front-line officers at the level of combat casualties.

These are officers who dedicate themselves to ensuring the health and safety of communities.

The government ignored almost all of the recommendations in that report, in the same way that they are ignoring the Lamer report.

I think that is unfortunate, because once again, it is about our obligation as legislators. The most serious job we do in this House is make a decision on whether to put someone's life on the line, whether we send them into combat or on peacekeeping missions or whether we send them to represent justice and the protection of civilian life in the far north.

When those officers, those men and women, find themselves in trouble, they should have a system in place that ensures a level of fairness. I was thinking about the various opinions we have heard on this bill . Once again, people want to see the military justice system improve, but they are concerned that the government is clearly walking away from key provisions that will ensure fairness and the right to due process.

Colonel Michel Drapeau, military law expert, said that the issue of summary trials must be addressed, because “[t]here is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a broken system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year”. He continued that “I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of those charter rights when facing a summary trial. If Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have seen fit to change the summary trial system, it begs the question: why is Canada lagging behind?”

Why indeed? As I was preparing for the discussion this morning, I was thinking about the situation of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and Harold Leduc, who was drummed out of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board for making waves. The waves he was making were in defence of the needs of soldiers who are coming before the appeals board. He was ruffling feathers within the bureaucracy and the government. The story of his being drummed out as a representative of the armed forces is very disturbing, because we are talking about allegations of harassment and corruption at the board. Mr. Leduc was targeted. His privacy was violated. The issue of post-traumatic stress was used against him, which he took to the Human Rights Commission. He won. It found that he was facing harassment for speaking up for the men and women who put their lives on the line and are only asking for fairness.

When the government decided to remove Mr. Leduc from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, he said that he was not surprised. He said, “To me, it speaks to the overall corruption I've witnessed”.

That is a pretty disturbing allegation against the board whose job is protecting the needs of those who serve. Just as we see in the far north with the Nishnawbe-Aski police, who have a right to ensure that if they put themselves at risk or they get injured or have post-traumatic stress there will be services for them, so too should the soldiers who come back from Afghanistan or from other duties have a right to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Yet we see the government shutting down the veterans' spokesmen, the people who are defending those in need.

We see the same system in the criminal justice system the soldiers face, where they do not have proper counsel or civilian intervention. They have to go sometimes before what essentially could be seen as an old boys' club. This is not fair. The need to reform this has been spoken about. Yet the government has once again decided, for whatever purpose or whatever reason, to ignore the key recommendations on transformation, key recommendations that would actually ensure some fairness. It will go with this bill that is quite simply insufficient for the purposes at hand.

We want to work on reforming military justice in this country. We will not be supporting a bill that so clearly ignores the key recommendations.

The issue of summary trials is key.

There is the issue of having civilian involvement in the review process. The Lamer report talked of the need for 60%. There is a need for the grievance committee to have an external review process. It is presently staffed by retired 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 was destined to be, then the appointments process needs to reflect that reality. Once again, we are saying that it cannot be just internal. It has to have outside voices so that we do not see the same kind of harassment of veterans as at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, with the shutting down of the people who are actually there to stand up and speak for veterans. We need to have some sort of system of external fairness.

Sometimes when soldiers are charged, they could face having a criminal record for something that in civilian court would be considered minor. If they leave the army with a criminal record, it would affect them for the rest of their lives.

Once again, those who are serving our country should be entitled to due process. That is a fundamental principle. We have seen reform happen in England and Ireland. The question is why the government is ignoring key recommendations of the Lamer report. Why is it not working with us to ensure that we have a system that ensures fairness for those men and women who put themselves at risk for our country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite really needs to recall what this government has committed to at every stage of this debate on Bill C-15 to update our military justice system.

We have accepted 83 out of 88 of the recommendations. Several of the member's colleagues have tried to argue that we have accepted only 29. We have actually implemented 29 and have accepted 83 out of 88. We want to move faster on implementation, but we need the bill passed to do that.

Could the member explain to this House why, instead of talking about the bill and what could possibly be preventing the opposition members from wanting to move it into committee, he is talking about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is not talked about in this bill and is not governed in any way by the military justice system?

He mentioned Mr. Leduc. If he wants to talk about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, would he care to comment on the very good appointments to that board made by this government over the past week? They are people who represent a combination of civilians and former senior serving military officers.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my hon. colleague a memory lesson regarding Bill C-41, which was passed at committee, and how the government stripped the key recommendations from it.

Does my hon. colleague want to talk about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and how it took out a veteran who spoke up, who was harassed, and whose internal documents were exposed in terms of his post-traumatic stress so that he had to take it to the Human Rights Commission and win a case of harassment? How does this member now have the nerve to stand up and talk about the good work of the board, when a man who stood and defended this country is talking about corruption on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board?

If this member cannot see the link between how our veterans are being harassed at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and a failed system that is ignoring the key recommendations of the Lamer Commission and the key recommendations on Bill C-41, passed at committee in the Parliament I was in, then the hon. member needs a better sense of history.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the principle of narrowing the gap between civil court and military court is something most people would support. It is something the Liberal Party sees great merit in. It is the essence of why we are okay and comfortable with this particular bill passing to committee.

The member made reference to minor offences. One example given at times is that of not showing up for work. It is quite significantly different in civil society as compared to the military community.

Can the member provide comment with regard to the difference in the obligation to show up for work when called to work and what he believes would be an appropriate way of dealing with this? Should civil and military be treated equally?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's excellent question. Certainly within the military, we understand that the issue of not showing up for work can sometimes lead to catastrophic situations. For example, if individuals on a front line decide not to do their duty, people could be put at risk. We understand that there are times when there are charges. However, if the boys are out at the base one night and stay up drinking too much and do not show up in the morning, we do not believe that they should necessarily be faced with criminal convictions.

As my hon. colleague points out, there are extreme differences in attitude toward not showing up for work. For example, if a young soldier does not show up for work, he can face a criminal conviction. Dalton McGuinty can decide not to show up for four months, and it is called revitalizing the Liberal brand. Perhaps we need to reconsider where we put charges for this to ensure that people do show up for work.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech and on the replies he gave.

My colleague was there previously when there was Bill C-41. Why is the government not working with the opposition parties? Why is the government not listening to what was done previously in the defence committee?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental problem in this Parliament. We have done the work. We had the committee work together. Yet we get a majority government that comes in and cherry picks and pulls out recommendations that were good recommendations that defended the needs and rights of our soldiers. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Conservatives have such an adversarial attitude toward a basically fair and just process.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, a bill that would change the nature of the National Defence Act and, in some ways, improve the military's system of criminal justice.

This legislation has been a part of ongoing debate in Parliament over a number of years. We have some serious concerns with this legislation and will be opposing it at second reading. Committee stage has not been all that fruitful over the last year and a half of the majority Conservative government, but I suppose that if we did get some amendments that brought the legislation back to the state it was in the previous parliament, then we could get onside with that. Here we are debating this legislation in the House of Commons, recognizing that committees have not been doing their due diligence on many of the bills that have gone forward. The government has been using its majority in committees to block many useful amendments. That problem, we all recognize, has been changing our ability to provide good legislation for Canadians.

I want to talk about the summary trial system and the fact that a conviction of a service offence in a summary trial of a Canadian Forces member may result in a criminal record. I am concerned about the vast number of Canadians who may end up with a criminal record for offences that are relatively minor and the fact that we do this at a higher rate than many other civilized countries in the world.

We have a system that puts a criminal record on the backs of Canadians for a variety of offences, including in some cases for very minor and victimless offences that really do not warrant the kind of long-term impediment to a convicted person's lifestyle that a criminal conviction entails. That impediment includes getting a job, getting a place to live or travelling to other countries. Having a criminal record in Canada seriously impedes the progress of someone's life, and we here in Parliament should take it seriously. A conviction becomes part of a citizen's history and affects his or her life going forward.

Now we have summary trials in the military tradition. The NDP worked hard on the previous bill to get an amendment that would strike off a great number of the offences under the National Defence Act that can result in criminal records. In the previous bill the government was going to remove five of those offences but we managed to get that number up to 27. I am not familiar with precisely which five offences still remain in this legislation.

When I look at the offences under the National Defence Act, such as disobedience of a lawful command, for instance, should that carry forward in every instance in a summary trial? Remember that we are talking about a summary trial where there is no obligation on the part of those conducting the trial to provide legal counsel to the people standing in front of them. We are dealing with a hierarchical system where the complainant in the military tradition has the upper hand over the defendant.

Providing prompt but fair justice in respect to minor service offences contributes to the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency. However, given that our military personnel are under great stress and have to deal with being away from home for long periods of time under a very strict command and control structure, they are likely to offend in some way if, under the command system, they are identified as a problem. That is the nature of military service.

We have to think about what we are doing with or creating for these people when they come out of the military into the general population. That is very important. It is a very serious situation for them if, from a summary trial, they have a criminal record for some minor service infraction. I think this goes on quite often In Canada. We give people a criminal record for a variety of small offences in the military, which I do not think is appropriate to do there or in the general justice system. We need to reform all of our justice systems so that we not too easily burden people with a criminal record designation.

Under the National Defence Act we have offences such as abuse of subordinates, connivance at desertion, absence without leave, cruel or disgraceful conduct, insubordinate behaviour, quarrels and disturbances. These are all part of life. They are things that happen to one degree or another. How is something like a quarrel or disturbance designated? I hate to think that by quarrelling with the government here over the bill that I could be up on a summary offence by some trial in the House of Commons. However, that is what happens in the military.

We must maintain military discipline and there are reasons to have summary trials, but the sentencing that goes along with that is what we are talking about here. That is at question. Should minor offences have a long-lasting impact on a person's life? This is why the NDP is taking a strong position here, because we do not want to see this happen. We did have good results in the last Parliament in getting 27 of these offences removed, and I think that would make the bill more palatable.

It is not every day that we discuss the nature of military justice. This is our last shot at it. Once the bill has gone through the process, it may not come before Parliament for another decade. There may be many instances where people end up with criminal records for relatively minor offences over the next decade, if the bill passes during the course of this session.

We have important work to do here and want to see this done right. We want to ensure that the kinds of penalties given for offences in this regard are well thought out and are not punishing Canadians unduly for things that may occur under the conditions of military service.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we get our facts straight in this debate.

I want a clear acknowledgement by the member opposite that he understands that Justice Lamer and all the other senior members of our judiciary who have reviewed the military justice system accept that the summary trial system is appropriate for the military justice system in Canada's armed forces.

Second, could the member set the record straight on behalf of his colleague from Timmins—James Bay who said that the idea there be 60% civilians on the grievance board had come from Justice Lamer. It did not come from Justice Lamer, nor did it come from Justice LeSage or the other senior members of our judiciary who painstakingly reviewed the military justice system. The idea actually comes from the NDP. It is not justified in our view and we will not be accepting it on the basis of the weak arguments put forward by the NDP.

Could the member set the record straight that this proposal does not come from a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada but in fact from somewhere within bowels of his party?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear in my discourse that I agreed with the idea of summary trials. What we are concerned about here is the kind of sentence that is passed under those summary trials. That is why we want to see changes made, so that these types of summary trials have appropriate punishments attached to them and do not lead to many people ending up with criminal records in the country for relatively minor offences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for his speech.

As he pointed out, the NDP will be voting against the bill at second reading because of its many flaws. He specifically referenced the summary trial system.

I would like him to tell us a little more about the harmful consequences for individuals who wind up with a criminal record because of a minimum sentence.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things that go on there. For instance, having military service in one's background is normally a plus on a resumé. It really represents time that someone has invested in the country, perhaps putting one's life at risk and having agreed to serve in a diligent fashion under the orders of others. That person has made a contribution. Now he or she ends up with a criminal record for a relatively minor offence. That goes on the resumé as well, in a real sense. It is there as part of that person's life record.

However, when that person wants to get an apartment, a nice place, and have a good life in a good way and a criminal record check is done of them, the person checking will find that criminal record for a very minor offence, even though the ex-military member had served their country well. They would not be allowed to stay there. Perhaps that might upset their partner. Perhaps that might end up with their being less comfortable in their own lives. Those things happen and are the realities of life for someone with a criminal record.

If someone goes to the border to go to the United States, will they be turned back for a minor offence? I get phone calls in the middle of the night from guys from my riding who have driven down to the Alberta-Montana border to go across with their kids to take them to a hockey tournament and they are turned back. Imagine what that does to that family. Because someone had a minor criminal record from 30 or 40 years ago, they get turned back when taking their children to a hockey tournament. That is the kind of thing that happens to someone with a criminal record.

I do not want to see Canadians have criminal records unless they have really done something wrong and really stepped well past the boundaries of civilized society.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Like broken the law, right?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That does not mean creating a disturbance. We have all created a disturbance at one point or other in our lives.

Someone is creating a disturbance here in the House of Commons. I am not going to ask him for his criminal record check. I am willing to accept sometimes that people do not always act in the best possible way.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 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 amends the National Defence Act to strengthen and alter military justice following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the right hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Among other things, the bill would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process and additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It would modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person and modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials. It would also allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods. The bill would clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and, finally, it would make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

New Democrats believe that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming a number of required aspects of the military justice system, including the summary trial system, the grievance system and the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I will provide some background. In 2003, the right hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, presented his report to the independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal. Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations, but thus far only 28 of those recommendations have been implemented in legislation, regulations or via changes in practice.

This bill has appeared in earlier forms. First, Bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper due to prorogation by the Conservative government in 2007 and an election in 2008. In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force simplifying the structure of the court martial system and establishing a method, which was more closely aligned with the civilian system, for choosing the type of court martial. In 2009, the Senate committee consider 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 Lamer report and the Senate committee report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the provost marshal and limited provisions related to the grievance process and the Military Police Complaints Commission.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. There are a number of amendments that carry over, which include the court martial composition, military judges' security of tenure and provisions relating to the appointment process and the age of judges. However, other important amendments that passed at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session are not included in Bill C-15. These include the following, which were also presented by the New Democrats as amendments to that piece of legislation.

What is missing from this bill is the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, which responds directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership; and finally, a provision to ensure that a person who is convicted of an offence during the summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. It is this last point that causes particular concern to all Canadians who care about the justice system in this country.

There are many important reforms in this bill and the NDP supports the long overdue update to the military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and they, in turn, deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. The NDP will be opposing this bill at second reading. However, there are shortcomings in this bill that we hope can be addressed at the committee stage if, in fact, it gets that far. Here are some of the amendments that we hope to see passed.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials, though, are held without the ability of the accused 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 causes undue harshness on certain members of the Canadian Forces who can be, and are, convicted of very minor service offences, offences that would not otherwise be criminal offences.

For example, some of these minor service offences include insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline, but they are not necessarily worthy of a criminal record. Certainly drunkenness is not a criminal offence, and many members of the House would probably attest to that.

Bill C-15 also makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine less than $500 to no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill but it does not, in our opinion, go far enough.

At committee stage last March, the NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not necessarily worthy of a criminal record. We would increase that number from five specified offences to 27, if the offence in question received a minor punishment.

The amendment also extended the list of punishments that may be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a reprimand on its own, a fine equal up to one month's basic pay or another minor punishment.

This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15, and we want to see it included here.

We also believe it is important to reform the grievance system because at present the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. Currently it is staffed entirely of retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society.

The NDP amendment provides that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. Again, this amendment was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41 but was not retained in the bill before the House. We think it is important to see that amendment retained in the bill.

Finally, the NDP believes we must strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. The bill amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces provost marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints as well as to 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 this commission.

Care has not been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions empowering it to act as an oversight body. This commission must be empowered by a legislative provision that will allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament.

Let us talk about what some independent people have said about the bill. I want to quote Colonel Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel from the Canadian Forces and a military law expert. Here is what he said in February 2011:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed.... There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and 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.

Colonel Drapeau also said:

—I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial. If Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland have seen fit to change the summary trial system, it begs the question: why is Canada lagging behind?

I believe all members of the House want to see members of the Canadian Forces guaranteed the very charter rights that we send them into harm's way to fight for on our behalf. One part of those rights is that when people face potential criminal sanctions, they have a right to counsel. They have a right to a judge that is independent. They have a right to transcripts and a meaningful right to appeal. Bill C-15 does not allow this and I urge all members of the House to work on this bill to address those serious problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, the draft before us absolutely does guarantee those measures that the member for Vancouver Kingsway mentioned at the end of his speech, because it has been designed by Canada's leading judiciaries over decades. Of the 88 recommendations made by a former chief justice that are embodied in the bill, 83 have been accepted on this side of the House as much as on that side.

We have not heard anything new on the bill from the member opposite. We still have not heard an answer from him or his colleagues about a point on which they have been misleading the House.

The member for Timmins—James Bay, others among his colleagues and now the member for Vancouver Kingsway have implied that this requirement for 60% of the grievance board to be civilians comes from a recommendation of Justice Lamer. It does not. Will the member opposite acknowledge that it is not part of the 88 recommendations?

We, on this side, do accept that civilians should be eligible. However, we do not accept that there should be a quota of civilians on that board because military experience is relevant to the hearing of grievances for the Canadian Forces. Also, it has not been recommended by high judicial authorities.

Will the member for Vancouver Kingsway come clean about the origins of this proposal, which absolutely had no place in his party's position during the last Parliament?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting when the government pivots off to another issue instead of addressing what are really the square and central problems and issues of a particular piece of legislation.

I never heard the member provide the government's response to this. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Right now in the Canadian Forces, summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial. The judge is the accused person's commanding officer. Why will the hon. member not address those points?

We all know the serious implications of a criminal record. Why will the government not explain why a Canadian Forces member who is charged with an offence that could result in a criminal record would be deprived of the simple right to consult a lawyer, which is a charter right? Why will it not explain why it proposed legislation that does not allow a simple transcript to be kept of the proceeding so that if there were a wrongful conviction, there would be a basis from which to launch an appeal?

I am a lawyer by training and I know the importance of having due process. The real question is this. Why will the government not give due process to our men and women of the Canadian Forces to make sure they have the charter and constitutional rights that all Canadians deserve?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague, who made a heartfelt speech on Bill C-15.

He spoke of strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. That is a step in the right direction for the government.

It goes without saying the Canadian Forces provost marshal will resolve complaints and protect complainants from being penalized for having made a complaint in good faith, but what more could we do to increase the Military Police Complaints Commission's authority?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one measure we can take to strengthen the complaints commission process is to protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. This is known colloquially as whistleblower protection. It is something that the government and provincial governments across this country have been slow to embrace. It is the practice of making sure that people who see wrongdoing feel free to come forward and make those complaints, of course in good faith, so that they do not risk career retribution or other forms of punishment for doing so.

It is particularly difficult for people in government agencies and very tight-knit organizations such as police forces or the Canadian Forces to actually feel free to come forward and report wrongdoing when they see it, because there can be such serious ramifications to their own careers. This is particularly the case when one's commanding officer may be the judge who is hearing the complaint against him or her.

We need to reform the system to bring it more in line with the norms of civilian justice and make sure that all people in this country have access to charter and constitutional rights.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be speaking about Bill C-15. I will begin with a brief history of this bill.

In 2003, the right hon. Antonio Lamer, 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 concerning military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces provost marshal. Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations.

We must mention, however, that only 28 of the 88 recommendations have been included in this legislation. Thus, the response is incomplete. Bill C-15 is not a full response to the Lamer report.

Bill C-15 has appeared in a number of previous forms. First there was Bill C-7, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007—an act that, by the way, was undemocratic—and then Bill C-45, which met the same fate when the 2008 election was called.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came along, simplifying the court martial structure and establishing a system for choosing the court martial format that would harmonize best with civilian justice.

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

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced as a response to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 report from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

It included provisions related to military justice, such as reforms to sentencing, military judges and committees, summary trials, the court martial panel and the Canadian Forces provost marshal, as well as provisions pertaining to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Essentially, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 tabled by the Senate committee in the last Parliament. The accepted amendments included the composition of the court martial panel and the appointment of military judges during good behaviour until their retirement.

Some important amendments were adopted at the committee stage, at the end of the last parliamentary session. Unfortunately, they were not included in Bill C-15. It is really strange, because many of these amendments were suggested and supported by the NDP and by others. For example, one amendment dealt with the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff relative to the grievance process. That was a direct response to a recommendation in the Lamer report, and it is missing. There was also an amendment regarding changes in the composition of the grievance board, so that 60% of its members would be civilians. Once again, it is not in this bill. Finally, there was a provision to ensure that a person found guilty of an offence at a summary trial would not be unjustly burdened with a criminal record. That, too, is missing.

What the NDP wants are simple and important things that affect military justice and show respect for the people who serve the country by defending our rights and freedoms.

This bill does propose a number of important reforms. The NDP has long been in favour of the necessary updating of the military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to very severe discipline and, thus, deserve a judicial system that is governed by rules comparable to those in the civilian system.

This bill has many shortcomings that we hope will be discussed in committee if the bill is passed at second reading.

The first thing that must be reviewed is the reform of the summary trial system. It is a serious problem. The amendments in Bill C-15 do not deal adequately with the injustice of summary trials. There is a true injustice in these trials. At present, a guilty verdict from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. Summary trials can cover many things, some of them insignificant.

They may apply not only to such serious charges as insubordination, but also to less serious offences such as drunkenness or the like, which have nothing to do with the criminal offences that would be found on a criminal record. This is a serious problem that must be reformed, and it must be done immediately.

For example, summary trials are held without the accused being able to consult counsel. There is no recourse and no transcript. We can imagine how a trial is conducted when there is no transcript of what was said. The name says it all: “summary trial”. It is summary, with no real justice and no recourse to a real, fair justice system. Summary trials are held for minor and major reasons, and there is no logic to them.

Moreover, the accused person’s commanding officer acts as the judge. That is much too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor infractions. The fact that the commanding officer is also the judge raises questions about the impartiality of the process. Therefore, changes are needed.

These minor offences include insubordination, as I said, but also quarrels. “Quarrel” is a pretty big word to describe someone raising their voice to someone else. We have to look at the definition of “quarrel”. We are not talking about striking and injuring someone here. Accordingly, we do not see why this should result in a criminal record. Misconduct, again, is very broad. As I said, it is the commanding officer who decides all of this.

Absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a command are all undoubtedly very important for military discipline, I agree, but they do not deserve a criminal record, particularly since these soldiers have lives after their military service. Someone who quarrelled with one of his colleagues and who returns to civilian life could find himself with a criminal record because of this.

It then becomes difficult to find a job, to travel outside Canada and to find housing. This creates a whole host of problems for people who, let us not forget, serve the Canadian public and defend our rights and freedoms. Because of some of these measures, their own rights and freedoms are being trampled on somewhat by this military justice system. This process needs to be revised.

I could touch on many other aspects that need to be revised, but I will not have time. A lot of competent people have looked into this. Bill C-15 does not properly reform the military justice system.

To conclude, we in the NDP believe the Canadian Forces already have to meet extremely high standards when it comes to discipline. We know the strict discipline this job calls for. Members of the military are entitled, in return, to a judicial system that is required to meet comparable standards. A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records complicate the process of finding a job, renting an apartment or travelling.

Accordingly, the NDP will fight to make the Canadian military justice system fairer for the men and women in uniform who have risked their lives in the service of Canada. For that reason, it is very important that this act be revised, to respect and honour our soldiers.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member across the way understand that, by giving his speech, particularly on the subject of criminal records, he is perpetuating the system he hopes to change? Does he realize the Minister of National Defence rose in the House yesterday to indicate the government's willingness to propose an amendment that was first proposed during consideration of Bill C-41 in a previous Parliament? The amendment deals with criminal records arising from summary conviction trials. It would add 25 new offences to the two offences currently in the bill, bringing to 27 the number of offences that do not lead to a criminal record, in the hopes of modernizing the summary trial system.

These amendments need to be considered in committee. Does the honourable member understand that by prolonging debate in the House, we are perpetuating the system he hopes to change?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question. If he is willing to propose amendments, then I encourage him to do so. We are still debating Bill C-15 because it remains flawed, as I have pointed out in my speech. I spoke of the flaws relating to summary trials, but there are several more. I do not believe the Conservatives fixed all those flaws. In fact, here is what Colonel Michel W. Drapeau said about summary trials:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year.

If my honourable friend says he has resolved the issue, good, but Bill C-15 remains flawed. That is why it is important to discuss it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague on his speech. He talked about improving military justice and how important that issue is to the NDP, and he mentioned that we need to reduce the differences in how military and civilian courts handle cases.

Could my hon. colleague tell us more about the need to reform the sentencing process for summary trials?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. Indeed, summary trials are problematic. I hope that everyone in the House recognizes how important it is that our troops be able to have another life after serving in the military. We need to help them transition to civilian life. Serving Canadians and protecting their rights and freedoms is not an easy job. Military personnel have to make major sacrifices and submit to a very strict discipline. Therefore, it is only natural for us to make their lives easier, as a way to thank them for their services. A person should not have a criminal record because of something that is not a crime. That is why Bill C-15 is inadequate and needs improvement, as I pointed out during my speech.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this House on the subject of Bill C-15. We have before us a bill that is a recognition of a serious problem in the administration of military justice. In this regard, we are unfortunately lagging behind many other countries that have identified the same problems as we have, but have made faster and more effective efforts to fix them.

What is strange is that while our Conservative friends acknowledge the problem, they have deliberately chosen to fix only half of it. And that is why we have a problem; that is why we oppose this bill.

My colleague has talked about the first problem: summary trials that are held in circumstances that do not allow for the accused to make a fair defence. Summary trials are really the nub of the problem. The vast majority of offences committed by members of the military are dealt with by summary trial. One of the statistics we have here seems frightening to me: in 2008-09, a total of 1,865 cases—96% of all cases—were disposed of by summary trial. Obviously it is a euphemism to say “seems”, because 96% says it all.

What this system means is that the accused does not enjoy rights that are otherwise considered to be fundamental in an ordinary justice system: the right to be represented by counsel; the right to appeal; a transcript of the trial so the person can appeal based on the trial; and the right to an impartial judge. As it stands, the person’s commanding officer is the judge. That situation is clearly unfavourable.

What if there was judicial error? What if the decision was tainted by personal tensions between the accused and the judge, for example, who happens to be the person’s immediate superior? Anyone who works in an ordinary situation will agree that these are certainly not ideal circumstances for making an objective decision. There is no organization in which such a structure exists without the opportunity to have the decision reviewed.

The expression “criminal record” is probably the one that most clearly expresses something that can harm and weight down a person’s life. The circumstances in which that record is created are therefore a matter of concern for us. It is in fact a very good thing that we are trying to address this issue. Once again, we are expressing this kind of confidence in our parliamentary system so that we can find concrete solutions for people having to deal with this problem.

When we consider the consequences of having a criminal record, we can say that the decisions of these tribunals in fact have very serious consequences. These are decisions that harm a person’s entire life. In the first place, having a criminal record will certainly harm the person’s entire existence, jeopardizing all his opportunities to gain access to certain positions, certain jobs, certain countries and so on.

Imagine you are enrolled in the army and are told to go and fight for your country, for noble values and so that young girls can go fly kites. You are given a weapon, sent into mine fields and left to live in misery, sadness, loss and anger. After all those tribulations and the incredible stresses to which you are exposed, you are given a criminal record for a breach, a breach of discipline, a breach of some barracks code of conduct, for example. That is not even a serious crime, an abuse of power or a violent act, but rather an act of disobedience or insubordination, or merely the result of one pint too many. And you are unable to defend yourself adequately at your summary trial. Imagine that later on, years later, you travel to the United States for a one-week vacation and are turned back. You are in the car with your daughter, and the customs officer says you cannot enter the country because you have a criminal record. One can see the heresy in that situation, when someone who has served his country clearly suffers an injustice.

In the spring of 2011, the NDP proposed many amendments in committee, one of which in particular comes to mind. We proposed that there be 27 minor penalties, that is to say penalties not resulting in a criminal record. There are currently only five. That is definitely a step forward that should be looked at more closely, since this is clearly a form of injustice. This seems obvious to a novice, since I do not claim to be a legal expert.

These exceptions must absolutely be brought back to the table in order to put a stop to the injustice of giving military members criminal records for inconsequential offences.

Now I would like to talk about respect for the standing committee and its work. It is surprising that the majority in this House did not want to adopt the amendments we introduced last spring. These are not partisan proposals. Instead they are an appeal to common sense and show respect for our military members. This is even a matter of respect for the standing committee’s work. The committee worked long and hard, as many of my colleagues can attest. We can also attest to the enormous amount of work that is done in the committees and that generally appears to remain a dead letter.

This committee heard evidence and thoughts, recorded appearances and heard many speeches. What about the result of its work? Is it merely good for the shredder? One would think so.

Ultimately, the committee thought it was good and wise, when Bill C-41 was introduced in spring 2011, to adopt the proposal made by the members of my party, who felt that special attention should be given to cases in which an offence does not deserve a criminal record. Why not respect the committee's work and restore that proposal, which was made in good faith and in a non-partisan manner?

I would also like to note the importance of the Military Police Complaints Commission and of enhancing its work capacity, which is absolutely necessary. Limited by the fact that it cannot examine cases that arose before 1999, the commission is designed to handle those in which doubts are raised about the military police's work. I have seen cases in which the commission appeared to be powerless in difficult situations where lives were at stake; I hope to have the time to discuss them. For the good of military personnel and the credibility of the military police, it is essential that the commission be able to operate efficiently in a manner respectful of the players who constitute it.

Lastly, we believe that, to be relevant, the grievance committee that examines the rights of military personnel respecting their benefits, their release, internal issues, harassment and medical matters must be independent and stand outside the Canadian Forces. We have previously suggested, for what I believe are obvious reasons, that 60% of the committee members should be individuals who have never served in the Canadian Forces. This is a reasonable proposal that, like everything we are discussing here, is a matter of natural justice and of aligning military justice with civilian justice.

The members of the Canadian Forces obviously have no association or union to which they can turn. That is why we want the committee to receive and hear the grievances of Canadian Forces members in the rigorous, impartial manner characteristic of an independent outside agency.

This is a matter of natural justice. No one can dispense justice on his or her own behalf. I am going to act like an intellectual and translate that sentence into Latin: Nemo iudex in causa sua. I have quite a Latin accent; I am trying to entertain my colleagues.

Everyone has a right to be heard, and that includes the opportunity to appeal a disputed decision or apply for a review of a decision that appears to be incorrect. As that first rule was very popular, I am going to add a second: Audi alteram partem. This is a reference to our basic system and to the Latin language. These are rules of natural justice commonly in effect in civilian law courts in Canada. They are also in effect in military courts in many countries such as Great Britain—which, it must be acknowledged, the government likes so much—New Zealand, Australia and Ireland.

Why do these rules and rights not apply in our own military courts? Are we saying, “Join the army, sign here, and lose all your rights”? That is a good question.

What I find most disturbing is the extent to which these people devote their lives to defending their country. It seems almost old-fashioned to say it, but they have to be effective, not drag their feet and solve a problem. They are doing it for us. Honestly, as a parliamentarian, I am embarrassed that it has taken so long to move forward on this issue; we are dragging our feet. I hope we can show some collegiality and resolve these matters as soon as possible so that our men and women in uniform feel they are being heard by civilian society.

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

Mr. Speaker, as every member well knows, two former chief justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Dickson and Justice Lamer, both agree that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as natural justice are protected by the Canadian Forces' current summary trial system. According to some well-respected leaders in the field of justice, this system works fairly well.

There are currently 27 offences leading to a criminal record in the summary trial system that we are hoping to remove from the list after the committee has concluded its study.

By prolonging the debate, which has already lasted a year, and preventing the committee from proceeding with its study, the member is perpetuating a system that all of us want to change.

I have a question for the member about criminal records. Does he agree the time has come to send the bill to committee in order to speed things along?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

There is indeed a time to fix things, but let us not misdiagnose the problem. That is essentially what I would say.

Here is a concrete example. A certain individual in my riding, who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons, has come to see me on several occasions, complaining that he was ignored by the military justice system and that his life was torn apart. I do not blame my colleague.

It is clearly time to do some housecleaning. No need to parge the walls if the whole foundation is sinking. It is important to get a good read on things and properly assess the situation before getting to work.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague on his excellent speech and, above all, on his use of Latin.

One thing I find rather strange is that, in this bill, the government does not take into account previous recommendations and things that were accepted in a previous session.

And now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is telling us there are more amendments. First the government does not take into account the very important amendments my colleague mentioned, then it introduces a bill and improvises by proposing other amendments. There is an issue of trust with this government, especially when it comes to the way it does things and handles amendments.

Could my colleague explain why this government's actions are a cause for concern, since the government seems to be improvising without taking into account the excellent work done by the committee and other non-partisan committees that came up with real solutions?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Brossard—La Prairie for his question. God knows he is right to be unhappy that the government has so little regard for the committee's recommendations and witness testimonies.

In the committees I work on, there have been many occasions where we felt we were making a sincere and real effort to do good parliamentary work. We kept in mind we were serving Canadians. Taxpayers pay us and hope that Ottawa uses public funds as wisely as possible to manage situations.

Sadly, the government's editorial strategy and the way it uses its majority as a steamroller create the impression that any arguments we make are dismissed; everything is presented with a partisan flavour, so the government can feel it has solved the problem and is the possessor of the absolute truth, which is really unfortunate.

There is no Latin quote I wish to add.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 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. The NDP believes that this bill is a step in the right direction in order to make the military justice system and the civilian justice system more uniform. Still, it does not address the key issues needed to reform the summary trial system and the grievance system. Today I will speak to the grievance system.

Significant amendments were made at the committee stage at the end of the last session of Parliament, but have not been included in Bill C-15. These include the NDP’s amendments concerning the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes in the composition of the grievance board, and the provision that a person found guilty of an offence through a summary trial would not be unjustly burdened with a criminal record.

I want to say something about the last point. This bill proposes many important reforms. The NDP has long advocated the updating of the military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to very high standards of discipline and, as Canadian citizens, they deserve a justice system that is subject to the same standards as those that apply to other Canadian citizens.

With regard to reforming the summary trial system, the amendments in Bill C-15 do not properly address the unfairness of summary trials. At present, a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. The accused is not able to consult counsel. There is no appeal and no trial transcript. In addition, the judge is the accused's commanding officer. That is unduly harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for minor offences.

Among those minor offences are insubordination, quarrels and disturbances, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. They are very important for military discipline, but not worth a criminal record.

Bill C-15 provides an exemption so that some offences—with minor punishments or fines under $500—would not be put on a criminal record. This is one of the bill’s positive aspects. But we do not think it goes far enough.

In committee, in March 2012, the NDP proposed amendments to Bill C-41 that would have expanded the list of offences that could be considered minor and thus would not attract a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also would have expanded the list of penalties that could be set by a tribunal without being noted in the criminal record.

That was progress in terms of summary trials, but since that amendment was not included in Bill C-15, we want it to be included now.

I want to mention Colonel Drapeau, a retired Canadian Forces colonel and an expert in military law. He testified before the Standing Committee on National Defence in February 2011. This is what he said about summary trials:

...I'll get right to the point. The answer is yes...Decriminalize the summary trial system. End of discussion. Remove today the custodial power of the commanding officer to send somebody to detention. If that needs to be done, then that person ought to be tried by court martial where all the rights are provided. So you remove that in the same way as Ireland has done it, as Australia has done it; you decriminalize it. There's no record.

The individual would not have that stigma attached to him just because he didn't shave that morning or he showed up late. Whether he gets a fine or a suspension of leave or he has to stay on the ship when alongside, I can live with that, and that would apply in Canada and abroad. And if there really is a requirement to prosecute someone because of the severity of the offence, then a court martial, and a court martial can be held any place in the world.

That results in a criminal record.

A criminal record can make life after a military career very difficult. Having a criminal record can make it difficult to find a job, lease an apartment, travel or obtain insurance.

I researched the effects of a criminal record on persons who do not go to court and found that it can affect a number of aspects of the person's daily life: employment, entering another country and insurance.

That is right. We can be refused insurance coverage if a member of our family, perhaps a child who was a soldier, has a criminal record because he did not shave his beard one morning.

People with criminal records have difficulty finding work, especially in security. Who better than a former soldier to work for a security company? But he would not get the job.

In general, two out of three employers require a criminal record check.

Under the Criminal Code, civilians can have a criminal record for such offences as assault, extortion, harassment, kidnapping, identity theft, murder, homicide, abuse and theft. That is not the case for our soldiers.

We are severely punishing certain Canadians. Our soldiers, members of our armed forces, receive harsher penalties.

The list of crimes against justice is a long one and includes corruption, failure to report a crime, obstruction and perjury. These are all good reasons to be in such a situation, but a young soldier arriving late for his shift is not a good reason.

Another witness at committee, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, said that military officers who impose penalties during a summary trial are often trying to set a disciplinary example within the unit in order to discourage future infractions, rather than burden the accused with the consequences that come with having a criminal record in civilian life.

The goal is to achieve discipline within our armed forces. I do not believe that the officer imposing the sentence necessarily wants to punish a young man who makes a mistake for his entire life. Soldiers simply want discipline within the military, and that is a good thing.

We therefore have a problem of basic fairness dominating a system that imposes harsh sentences on people who need increased procedural protection.

Colonel Drapeau went on to say:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and 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.

The summary trial is by far the most commonly used form of service tribunal in the military justice system. The summary trial is designed to deal with minor service offences.

The NDP believes that Canadian Forces personnel must comply with extremely high standards of discipline and that, in return, they deserve a justice system that also meets standards similar to those applied to other Canadians.

Having a criminal record can make post-military life very difficult. It complicates everything from finding a job, to renting an apartment and so on.

We really want to see this bill improved and to ensure that the committee members' amendments will be included in the bill. That is why we plan to oppose it in the upcoming vote.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague aware of the changes that Bill C-15 would bring about with respect to time limits of the laying of charges that are dealt with at the summary trial? The National Defence Act currently provides that an accused person cannot be tried by summary trial unless the summary trial commences within one year after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed.

Bill C-15 would also require that “the charge is laid within six months after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed”, ensuring timeliness for the summary trial process.

Does the member not agree that ensuring a speedy trial for relatively minor offences ensures that less serious matters are dealt with quickly and fairly?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is not the issue. My criticism is not about short versus long trials. The trial must be clear, so the person involved can receive a sentence appropriate to the offence or wrongdoing. That is why we say a summary trial can be problematic. A quicker trial is not necessarily more effective. We want to be more effective, yes, but above all we want to achieve justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her remarks. She mentioned that the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and other countries have decided to change their summary trial process.

That begs the question. We are debating Bill C-15. Why did the government wait so long before coming back to these issues?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we wonder the same thing, and I also wonder about something else. Why did no one listen to the very important recommendations made by criminal law experts working in the military? They know the members of the armed forces. Of course, these young people need discipline, since we are preparing them to defend our country. But that does not mean they should be punished for any reason whatsoever, using any method whatsoever.

In that context, why are we lagging behind, when other countries have been able to move forward and eliminate some internal problems at the legislative level? I believe we should be able to say, when we see these other countries, that although we are behind now, we too have what it takes to go forward and bring justice to our young soldiers.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really have trouble with happy mediums and balanced approaches. One place where this is obvious is in the area of foreign policy, but we also see it in legislation. Just this week, we have again been presented with a mammoth bill that covers pretty much everything but the kitchen sink. And yet on a subject as important as military justice and the rights of the men and women who defend our country, the Conservatives have brought forth a mouse. I think there is room, somewhere between the mammoth and the mouse, for legislation that is a little more worthwhile.

In 2003, as we know, Justice Lamer submitted his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. He made 88 recommendations relating to military justice, the Complaints Commission, the grievance procedure and the Canadian Forces provost marshal. We are talking about 88 recommendations. And here we are with a bill that covers only 28 of those recommendations. Once again, this is the approach the Conservatives always take: to pick and choose only the things and the testimony that suit them.

A lot of things are missing in this bill and I will not address them all, since that would take too long. However, I am going to focus on one aspect in particular where the bill does not go far enough: summary trials and the mark they leave on the lives of soldiers, in the form of a criminal record, even after they return to civilian life.

We know that a summary trial can be debatable. It is a judgment dealing with matters that can be as trivial as a quarrel or absence without leave. It may relate to misconduct, insubordination, and so on. But the point is this: someone can be convicted of a relatively minor offence and end up with a criminal record for the rest of their life. This is particularly troubling when the accused in a summary trial cannot be represented by counsel and cannot appeal. There is no transcript and the judge is too often, and very often, the accused’s commanding officer. In other words, the people who defend our rights and freedoms are not entitled to the protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at summary trials. If this were merely a question of internal military discipline, we could always debate it, but the problem is that summary trials leave indelible marks on people’s lives in the form of criminal records.

We recognize that the bill makes a vague attempt to remedy the situation. However, it really does not go far enough. It proposes that five offences be considered minor and not result in a criminal record. That is all well and good for the offences in question—and I will not continue to harp on it—but much more could be done. In fact, Bill C-41, Bill C-15's predecessor in the last Parliament, was debated in committee and amended to expand the list of offences and the types of sentences that would not result in a criminal record. I do not know why the Conservatives did not keep this amendment.

What we want is to expand the list of offences from 5 to 27, and the committee already agreed to this. It is so important. As retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, an expert on military justice, said:

There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year.

Why? Because unless and until we, 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.

We must stand up for and respect our soldiers. As Colonel Drapeau went on to say, “From where I stand, I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial.”

Why should the consequences of relatively minor offences related to military discipline extend into the civilian lives of our men and women in uniform? Once again, we are not the ones saying this. I would like to quote the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

“Presiding officers in summary trials...are military officers...and their primary concern is likely to be unit discipline and deterring future violations, not the effect the sentence they impose will have on an accused in the civilian world.”

In short, we have a system that is not working and that needs to be reformed. This bill clearly does not go far enough to do that. Furthermore, in terms of reforming the system, our greatest allies—Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand—have changed their systems.

Our soldiers often participate in joint missions with the soldiers from those countries and are able to see first-hand the injustice that is being done to them, an injustice that this Parliament must agree to remedy today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my honourable friend. First, does she agree that Justice Dickson and Justice Lamer, former chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, have said the Canadian Forces' current summary trial system manages to protect charter rights as well as the principles of natural justice?

Second, given we all agree on the need to modernize the system, does she agree that the best way to reduce the number of convictions leading to a criminal record is to send the bill to committee and pass it? We have even offered to remove 27 offences that can lead to a criminal record upon summary conviction, which is quite a lot.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my honourable colleague for the question.

Fundamentally, as several observers have pointed out, the issue here is that the military's internal disciplinary system has repercussions on civilian life. The rules that apply in that system are not the same as the rules that apply in regular civilian life.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has also stated that fundamental fairness requires that systems that impose serious penalties on individuals provide better procedural protection. Having a criminal record for the rest of one's life is a serious penalty in itself. Yet, the system that allows such criminal records to exist is lacking procedural protections.

The government is always talking about efficiency, saying we should cut debate short and move things along. This bill has been studied in committee and some perfectly adequate recommendations were made, but the government ignored them.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. I want to touch on what the member just said about committees. When we look at the former version of the bill, Bill C-41, we can see that a number of amendments were not only proposed, but were also passed by the committee representing members from all parties.

Although there was no legal obligation to retain these amendments once the bill died on the order paper as a result of the election, the government retained some amendments and got rid of others. I wonder why. Did the government change its mind all of a sudden? Did it decide to make fewer changes to the system because it now has a majority? Was it just appeasing the opposition at the time? We have a hard time understanding why the government would do this, especially since almost all of these amendments were in the report.

I would like my colleague to speak more to this lack of respect for the importance of committees.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

This is not the first time that the government has introduced a bill that ignores lengthy discussions in committee—a committee that heard from witnesses and whose members agreed to amend a bill. But the government does not respect that. We have to wonder whether the government respects the institution of Parliament, since committees are an essential part of that.

When we see something like this, combined with the fact that the government tries to muzzle us and accuses of requesting silly emergency debates, it raises some big questions.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-15.

By way of introduction, it is worth noting that, as members of the House of Commons, we not only have the great honour of representing Canadians, we also have the opportunity to learn a little more about matters under federal jurisdiction that were perhaps addressed in previous parliaments, but that, for one reason or another, we are not familiar with.

For me, military justice is one such matter. I am no expert when it comes to this issue. However, since I now have the opportunity to discuss it, I did my research. I tried to look at what other Parliaments have done. It became clear to me, when reading the 2003 Lamer report, that reform is necessary. Anyone who has studied the recommendations therein can see that a lot of work was done and that much progress was made in the context of the previous Bill C-41. It is apparent now, however, when considering Bill C-15, that a lot of work was unfortunately done for nought. There is no other way of putting it.

I will speak about this work and the reason why a lot of it has gone by the wayside. To begin with, one of the best opportunities for a member of Parliament to speak about a bill or an issue is to take part in the work of committees. It gives us an opportunity to discuss issues with witnesses, who are often experts in their respective subject areas. At the end of the day, we cannot be experts in everything. Asking witnesses questions and listening to their testimony is an extremely important exercise in our legislative and democratic process. We also have the opportunity to carry out clause-by-clause consideration of different bills and to propose amendments.

Clearly, the party in power enjoys a majority in the House. When there was a minority government, however, the work of committees held more sway. That is certainly what we are increasingly witnessing today as we see the government attempt to take away committees’ power. But that is another debate for another day.

Having said that, several amendments were proposed at the time—in February 2011, unless I am mistaken—at the Standing Committee on National Defence. These amendments were passed by all parties. It must be understood that committees represent all elected representatives and parties. The committee, therefore, made amendments that were in line with the most important recommendations in the Lamer report. This was done in an effort to reform the military justice system.

Some of the amendments to Bill C-15, which is before us today, have been scrapped and others retained. I am asking myself the same question that I just asked of my colleague, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. Unfortunately, given the dearth of speakers on the government side, I will not have an opportunity to ask the government this question. I nevertheless wonder why—after being proposed democratically in committee, where the bulk of the work in our parliament was done on this—certain amendments to the bill were retained and others scrapped.

After a bill legally dies on the order paper, there is no obligation to keep the previously adopted amendments when the same bill is presented in another form. Nevertheless, as a democratic and moral principle, and as matter of principle in general, one wonders why the government did not decide to keep these amendments in place, especially since they were not of a partisan nature, and were in line with the ideas put forward in the recommendations of the 2003 Lamer report.

Allow me to speak to a number of these recommendations. After all, the amendments that were not included in the bill in its current form are, unfortunately, reason enough for the NDP to oppose this bill. One of the most important questions concerns summary trials. All citizens of law-based societies such as ours want a balanced system of justice that affords citizens protection.

That said, it is important to understand that the system that exists within the military is not exactly the same. That is precisely why the necessary reforms are meant to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We want to bring these systems more in line with one another to ensure that the members of our armed forces enjoy adequate legal protection, since they deserve our utmost respect, for reasons that I do not need to repeat here. We know the importance of the sacrifices they make. They do incredible work for our society. It is important that they have adequate legal protection.

When we look at summary trials, one particular aspect is extremely problematic. A number of my colleagues have talked about this aspect, the fact that people can be saddled with a criminal record for violating military regulations. In normal proceedings, such behaviour, while certainly unacceptable, would not be sufficient reason to burden someone with a criminal record.

It is important to maintain discipline within the armed forces. We understand that it is important for commanders who make the decisions in these cases to maintain discipline. We are not saying that any of the regulations themselves should change. The penalties must be strict enough to ensure that offenders understand the seriousness of their mistakes. At the same time, however, we must not saddle them with judicial baggage that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

All of the members of this House understand how careful we need to be about burdening people with a criminal record, because it will stay with them forever. It will follow them everywhere—when looking for a job, when signing a lease, basically, it affects all aspects of everyday life. Such measures could force someone into a precarious situation.

I am being very careful. I really want to be clear that we are talking about minor transgressions. We know that people who commit serious crimes deserve a criminal record. We realize this and we obey the laws of our society. We respect the fact that the punishment should fit the crime. However, we really are talking about transgressions that do not warrant a criminal record. When we take a look at this process, what is really problematic is that summary trials are often overseen by a commanding officer who, for understandable reasons that I mentioned earlier, wants to instill discipline in the armed forces. This sense of discipline is so very important in our traditions and also in the work of the men and women of our Canadian Forces.

When we realize that the commanding officer, understandably, may not really be interested in the concerns pertaining to criminal records, we have to bring clarity to the regulations. I believe that this must be one of the reforms we have to make. One of the amendments that we proposed was establishing a more complete list of the circumstances where a criminal record is, or is not, warranted.

In closing, I would like to make one last very important point. One thing dropped from this bill is the composition of the grievance committee.

I would like to make a comparison. In the United States, the founding fathers ensured that the commander in chief, or the U.S. president, is a civilian, not a member of the army. The objective was to balance the importance of a hierarchy within the armed forces and also within civilian society. Another recommendation we hoped would be adopted was that civilians make up 60% of the committee membership. That is another important measure that is unfortunately not in this bill.

Unfortunately, my time has expired and I will not be able to go through the list. However, I am certain that I will have the opportunity to do so during questions and comments.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my young colleague seems to have understood that members of the military are people who volunteer to go into war zones to defend political decisions that Parliament makes. They do not deserve a bit less justice than everyone else; they deserve a bit more.

Can my colleague say who benefits from the authoritarianism and lack of transparency? I get the impression that a number of experts on the other side could answer that question. I also get the impression that secrecy and incompetence are coming into play here.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague raised a very important point. Since we expect service from our armed forces, we owe them a proper system in exchange. As we saw in the 2003 report, the system needs some reforms.

Even now, eight years later, we unfortunately have yet to take the necessary action. We thought this was achieved with Bill C-41, but we unfortunately took another step backwards.

When my colleague talks about transparency, he is referring to all of the very important principles of a justice system. These principles are no less important in the military justice system. I think that is the crux of this debate.

I would hate to make judgments about anyone's competence, but I think that we owe members of our military a transparent and rigorous system, so we can ensure that people are well represented and that we punish the people who deserve to be punished. However, we must do so fairly and equitably. The system must have more respect for the principles that society has adopted for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, members opposite are praising our soldiers, but their words are empty, because every day we can see that the opposition is prepared to deny the Canadian Forces the equipment they need. It is opposed to the Canadian Forces participating in overseas missions, and now it is opposing the modernization of the military justice system.

The government is committed to reducing the number of convictions resulting in criminal records in 27 cases. The minister said so yesterday and I am saying so today. We want to repeat what happened with Bill C-41, but that can only be done in committee. We want to refer this legislation to committee as soon as possible.

Why is the member for Chambly—Borduas opposed to speeding up the passage of a bill that is necessary and that would modernize the military justice system?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, those comments are far from being empty words. The reason we oppose this measure is because we think we need to do more. The choices made by the government are not choices that, in our opinion, are in the best interests of the armed forces.

The hon. member's comments raise a number of issues, and I thank him for his questions. I may not be able to deal with each point.

He talked about referring the bill to committee and duplicating the process followed with Bill C-41. Why do we need to repeat this process? Why did the government not include these points from the outset? That work has already been done. Why redo it when there already seemed to be a consensus?

We are not opposed to modernizing the military justice system. We are opposed to the bill in its current form. We find it deplorable to redo something that has already been done. I cannot say it enough.

A parliamentary committee is supposed to be a crucial element of the legislative process. During the last Parliament, all parties and all members did an excellent job. Now, the government wants to redo that work when it could easily have included these measures in the bill.

I will close by repeating that the reason why we will vote against these measures is because they are not appropriate for our Canadian Forces. We do not have to justify ourselves in that respect. Our work speaks for itself.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-15.

In essence, the purpose of this bill is to enhance and reform the military justice system. Previous parliaments have attempted to come up with similar bills. Despite all of the work done in committee, where all parties agreed to amendments, here we have a bill that, unfortunately, does not go far enough and does not include all of the recommendations that were made. We must oppose it. The government is refusing to work with the opposition parties to come up with a bill that will really be good for the military justice system and, more importantly, military personnel.

As the representative for the riding of Brossard—La Prairie, I have had the honour of meeting many former members of the armed forces and current members who are making sacrifices for their country. I truly admire these people. Often, they are deployed to places where many of us would never dare to go. They do incredible work and make enormous sacrifices. We are asking the government to help them. But the government does not really seem interested in supporting veterans.

In the case of the government forcing veterans to live on less when it decided to claw back veterans' benefits, the veterans actually had to go to court and expend a lot in terms of money and stress when the government on its part could have acted.

We had to wait for the Federal Court to render a decision in favour of veterans saying that what the government did was unfair.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says that it supports soldiers. It sends them on missions that Canadians do not always agree with, as we can clearly see in the case of Afghanistan. I am very proud to be a member of a party that is opposed to military intervention in that country.

Let us come back to Bill C-15. My colleagues have already mentioned that the way this bill is written poses a problem for the reform of the summary trial system. The members opposite have had a lot to say about it.

I would like to briefly explain what a summary trial is. When a soldier commits an offence, there is a summary trial. There is no legal counsel present and no transcript of the proceedings. The soldier may also end up with a criminal record. I will come back to that a little later.

Summary trials have no appeal mechanism. The judge is the accused's commanding officer, which is a significant conflict of interest. From a purely legal perspective, this type of trial is not valid. When soldiers undergo a summary trial, they do not have the right to receive legal counsel to defend themselves. They are therefore at a clear disadvantage, which is unacceptable.

A criminal record has fairly serious consequences. Soldiers can end up with criminal records as a result of reprimands. We understand that, in the military system, it is important that there be discipline and that soldiers follow certain rules. However, when soldiers become veterans and return to civil society with a criminal record, there are consequences for them. I think that is a problem. What are these reprimands for? Soldiers can be reprimanded for insubordination, misconduct, absence without leave and drunkenness.

We are also talking about disobeying an order. We can see that this goes too far in some of these cases. Think about this: an individual who has served Canada and who has sacrificed himself or herself would be given a criminal record. The Conservatives keep saying that we must trust and value our military members. However, if they truly believe that, then why give military members a criminal record when they return to civilian society? What does it mean to have a criminal record? It can prevent you from working, from travelling outside Canada, and it can cause you problems every day, when you try to sign a lease, for example. Some problems are really more serious. That is why we asked the government to pay attention to that.

The NDP made a number of specific proposals when this was studied by the Standing Committee on National Defence during the last Parliament. We suggested 27 “cases” in which a criminal record was unnecessary. A penalty might be necessary, no doubt a stiff penalty, but not a criminal record.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence will say that amendments were proposed by the government, but we do not understand why the government has not done its job. This was discussed during a previous Parliament. Does this mean that the government does not respect what was previously done, the discussions, the debates and the recommendations made by the Canadian Forces? Does that mean nothing because they suddenly won a majority? Does nothing that is in the best interests of Canadians and veterans count any more because they have a majority? What counts now is their take on things.

We in the NDP understand that the system must be reformed, but it is a problem when they do not listen to what has been proposed and debated. The former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, made recommendations in his report. Of his 88 recommendations, only 28 were retained. Why does this Conservative government always refuse to listen to what people have to say when solutions are proposed?

I have previously discussed the government's truly unacceptable attitude toward what veterans and the Canadian Forces request. This government does what it wants and does not listen to what people have to say. And we in the official opposition have a duty to promote these discussions. That is why we are debating this bill, which is imperfect. We understand the government's intention: it wants to reform the system. We agree with the government, but we believe this does not go far enough.

Let us look at the conflicts of interest in the grievance system. This is the situation if you have a grievance. The grievance review committee consists of retired members of the Canadian Forces. However, there may be some doubt about the impartiality and objectivity of certain committee members. Members may include commanders, for example. What we are seeking, and what the NDP proposed, in the way of specific solutions that could improve the system and that were proposed during a previous Parliament, is a slightly more civilian system, one in which 60% of committee members are civilians.

In that way we ensure that, when a grievance arises, the individual who says he or she has a problem is not punished, the process is a little more transparent, and there is less of a conflict of interest, which makes it possible to consider the matter.

Once again, our aim is really to help military members, those people who, in certain cases, must forge ahead. We respect that, but the government must respect what the opposition requests, but especially what veterans, the Canadian forces and the public request.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Why does the opposition not do its own work?

In all these debates, it shows an incredible lack of rigour. It wants to reduce the number of criminal records, and now the number of summary trials, such as in the case of insubordination, disturbance, absence without leave or drunkenness. Those are the types of convictions members opposite are rather familiar with.

By prolonging the debate and preventing the bill from being referred to committee, the member shows that he does not want to accelerate these reforms. The NDP and the opposition asked for these reforms, but with each speech they make, they delay the implementation of necessary reforms that everyone wants. How can the member justify that?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence for his question.

The purpose of the debate is precisely to look at the content of this bill and to identify issues. If the government had really done its homework, it would have realized that when this work was done in the previous Parliament by the Standing Committee on National Defence, some proposals—which we still approve—were approved by the committee. However, it seems as if these proposals were forgotten, as if the government did not do its homework and that these proposals will now be added on.

If we are debating this issue today, it is because of the government's incompetence and ad hockery.

I am very proud to hear the hon. member say that the proposals put forward by the NDP will be accepted, but there are also other ones regarding summary trials. We think that, in some cases, resorting to summary trials is unfair. How are grievances dealt with? We still do not have answers to many questions.

If the government had done its homework, perhaps we would not be debating this issue today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He talked about flaws and limitations related to summary trials. I wonder if he could elaborate on the importance of natural justice and on the right to appeal. Could he also talk about the possibility for an offender to be represented by counsel?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Lambert for the question, which demonstrates her thorough knowledge of the subject and shows that she shares my concerns.

In a summary trial, there really are no consultations. I also heard someone across the floor say that their objective is to speed up the process.

There has to be a balance between speeding up a process and respecting certain rights. When there are no appeals allowed and no transcripts of the trial, when the accused has no right to legal counsel, and especially when the judge is the accused person's commanding officer, we are entitled to ask some questions.

I understand the desire to speed up the process and take some pressure off the system. However, when the fundamental right to protect and defend oneself is at stake, when the consequences can be devastating and last a very long time, in short, when we are talking about a criminal record, we cannot take this matter lightly.

I know the members opposite are saying they simply want to speed everything up, but we must not forget that there are people behind all this, behind the process. This can have a serious impact on them; it can change their lives.

This whole process really cannot be taken lightly. Respecting certain rights is crucial, I think.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, proposes a series of measures to enhance the military justice system. This bill is a legislative response to some of the recommendations made by Justice Lamer in 2003 following his review of the National Defence Act and to recommendations made by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs six years later. Of Justice Lamer's 88 recommendations, Bill C-15 takes just 28 into account. Sixty recommendations were not included in the bill that the Conservatives introduced in response to the key concerns raised by the Lamer report on national defence.

In its current incarnation, the bill resembles previous national defence and military justice reform bills introduced in the House, such as Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007 and when the election was called in 2008.

The following year, in July 2008, Bill C-60 proposed a simplified courts martial structure and set out a precise method for choosing a type of court martial that would harmonize well with Canada's civilian justice system. It was introduced and debated in the House before being referred to the Senate committee that studies legal and constitutional affairs. After a painstaking review of the bill, the Senate committee made nine recommendations for changes to the National Defence Act.

Later, in 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced in the House of Commons. The main purpose of the bill was to address the key recommendations that Justice Lamer made in 2003 and that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made in 2009.

Bill C-41 included provisions to reform the military justice system in the areas of sentencing, judges and military committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces provost marshal. Further provisions proposed changes to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The bill before us today, Bill C-15, is similar to Bill C-41, which was introduced by the Senate committee in the previous Parliament. It provides, among other things, greater latitude regarding the sentencing process and additional sentencing options, such as absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It modifies the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person, and the limitation period applicable to summary trials. It also allows an accused person to waive the limitation periods. In addition, the bill sets out the Canadian Forces provost marshal's responsibilities.

As the NDP members who spoke before me pointed out, our party believes that the bill is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. Unfortunately, it fails to address the fundamental issues that a serious military justice reform must tackle, including summary trials, grievances and measures that should be contemplated to strengthen the Complaints Commission.

Because it is silent on these substantive issues, Bill C-15 seems from the outset to be unfinished business that has not been given proper consideration.

During the debates on previous bills dealing with National Defence reform, relevant amendments were proposed and adopted at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session. We are sorry to see that these amendments were not even taken into consideration in Bill C-15 as it now stands.

The amendments proposed by the NDP included changes to the powers of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, which stems directly from a recommendation made in the Lamer report, changes to the composition of the grievance committee so that 60% of its members would be civilians, and a provision to ensure that a person found guilty of an offence during a summary trial would not unfairly be given a criminal record. The Conservatives rejected all of these amendments.

The NDP has long supported a necessary update of the military justice system, but not at any cost. We, New Democrats, think that members of the Canadian Forces are subject to extremely high disciplinary standards. Therefore, they deserve a justice system governed by similar standards.

Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who have served our country with such valour can have a criminal record under a system that does not have the procedural regularity that is ordinarily required in the civilian criminal courts.

The NDP will firmly oppose Bill C-15 at second reading as long as measures have not been adopted to improve it throughout. New Democrats will continue to fight to make the Canadian military justice system fair for the men and women in uniform who have risked their lives in the service of Canada.

That said, the weaknesses and flaws in this bill mean that we cannot support it. The following are some of the weaknesses in the bill that make it impossible for New Democrats to agree to it.

Let us talk about the reform of the summary trial system. The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. At present, a conviction in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces means that a criminal record is created. When summary trials are held, accused persons are unable to consult counsel. There is no appeal and there is no transcript of the trial. In addition, the judge is the accused’s commanding officer. This is too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences. Those minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct and absence without leave. This is undoubtedly very important for military discipline, but it does not call for a criminal record.

Bill C-15 provides an exemption so that certain offences, if there is a minor sentence determined by the act or a fine of less than $500, will no longer lead to a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of this bill. We think this bill does not go far enough.

Last March, at committee stage, the amendments to Bill C-41 proposed by the NDP called for the list of offences that could be considered to be minor, and not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed for the offence in question, to be increased to 27 from five.

This was an important step forward for summary trials. However, that amendment was not retained in Bill C-15 and we want it to be included again.

A criminal record can make life after a person’s military career very difficult. With a criminal record, getting a job can be a thing of the past, and renting an apartment and travelling can be very difficult. Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that members of the military who have served our country so courageously can have a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system.

Let us talk about reforming the grievance system. At this time, the grievance committee does not allow for external review. Retired employees of the Canadian Forces, some of them very recent retirees, sit on the committee. 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. This committee should therefore be composed, in part, of civilian members.

The NDP amendment suggests that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been officers or members of the Canadian Forces. The amendment was adopted in March 2011, for Bill C-41, but it was not incorporated into Bill C-15. It is important that this amendment be included again.

Let us talk about the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process. One of the major weaknesses of the military grievance system is that, contrary to a recommendation in the Lamer report, the Chief of Defence Staff lacks the authority to resolve the financial aspects of grievances. Although the defence minister approved the recommendation, no concrete action has been taken in the past eight years to implement it. The NDP proposed an amendment to this effect when Bill C-41 was at the committee stage. Although this amendment passed in March 2011, it was not retained in Bill C-15. The NDP will fight to have it put back in.

Let us 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 more needs to be done to strengthen the commission.

Retired Colonel Michel W. Drapeau is an expert in military law. Here is what he had to say before the Standing Committee on National Defence on February 28, 2011.

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and 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.

It is up to the Conservatives to explain to the House why the relevant recommendations that were agreed to during the debate on Bill C-41 have not been incorporated into this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a basic mistake the hon. member made in her speech. I would like to give her an opportunity to correct what she said.

She said that the government had retained 29 of Justice Lamer's recommendations. But in fact, as many of her colleagues confirmed, the government has accepted and endorsed 43 of these recommendations. However, only 29 have been implemented so far. We need this bill. We need to work together in committee and pass this bill so we can implement the other recommendations that the government accepted.

Does the hon. member recognize that she quoted the wrong number in her remarks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I would simply remind him that there were, originally, 88 recommendations. Since the hon. member keeps repeating how important Justice Lamer's decisions are, we need to respect them all. Even if the number goes from 28 to 43, that is still very far from the original 88 recommendations.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up to this recent exchange, I would like to ask my colleague why, in her opinion, all the recommendations were not approved, and why changes adopted by all parties at committee during the last Parliament were not included in this bill's newest version.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I will simply say that when it examined Bill C-41, the committee accepted a number of very important amendments to improve the bill and bring it in line with the recommendations made by Justice Lamer. Unfortunately, Bill C-15 does not contain all of the amendments that were passed when the committee examined Bill C-41. That is a major flaw.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

This morning, I had the opportunity to hear speeches by a number of my NDP colleagues. Some points they raised were very interesting. I also noticed that a number of members on the other side of the House were interested in the debate, including the parliamentary secretary with his questions. After this morning's discussions, I have a better understanding of the bill.

I would like to take a moment to mention that all of the parties agree that the Canadian Forces are important and that they deserve our respect. These men and women put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. They go all over the world to protect us and to promote freedom for everyone. It is with a tremendous amount of respect that I rise today to very humbly speak to Bill C-15.

It is often very hard for these people to be away from their families. That is something that many of us do not understand. I have friends in the Canadian Forces. Some of my friends' parents were also members of the Canadian Forces for decades. I have heard all kinds of stories, each more incredible than the next. They are always very proud to talk about their experience in the Canadian Forces. Sometimes it can be difficult. That is something to think about, because it is a whole other world.

It is worth taking a moment to talk about this. I talk about it often with people at the Canadian Legion in Laval, which is in my riding. For example, I have coffee with Jocelyn and Marcel, who served in the Canadian Forces. Some people have never been members of the Canadian Forces, but have a great deal of respect for our military personnel and want to give of their time to them. When they return to their communities, our military men and women try to help out civilians.

For example, at the beginning of the year, Marcel from my riding went over the 500 mark for blood donations. This is very important to him, and he continues to donate blood every two weeks. These people always go above and beyond, and we owe them a great deal of respect. We have to do things the right way for them, especially when it comes to a bill about very important issues such as summary trials, which most of my colleagues have spoken about in the House.

The first thing that struck me was the fact that not all the recommendations in the Lamer report were included, as my colleague just mentioned. The report contained 88 recommendations. From what I understand, the number of recommendations accepted by the government will increase from 27 to 43. Thus, 29 recommendations are already in place and a total of 43 recommendations will be accepted.

After all the work that was put into this report, why not accept all 88 recommendations? I am not an expert, but I did look over the recommendations. I really wonder why the government did not accept more. I would like to have the opportunity to ask some of the members opposite, if they speak to the bill, if there is a particular reason why more recommendations were not accepted.

We are pleased that several recommendations were included, but we feel that they do not go far enough.

I feel that Bill C-15 lacks balance because the reforms it proposes are a travesty of justice.

By that, I am referring to summary trials, which I mentioned earlier and my colleagues discussed at length. I expressed my concern about how people could easily end up with a criminal record, which is both troubling and hard to believe because these men and women give their time and, in some cases, many years of service.

It is appalling to see that a criminal record could be so easy to get. Moreover, summary trials are not transcribed. That worries me because the accused cannot appeal. I am concerned that this violates the rights of the men and women who go through a summary trial, because the proceedings are not transcribed and the individual has no recourse.

In the civilian world, accused persons can appeal. I do not understand why people who are members of the Canadian Forces cannot. Somebody on the other side should clarify this matter for me and tell me why things should be this way. I do not see why people in the armed forces should not have the same rights. These people sacrifice everything in service to their country, so why should they not have the right to appeal?

I think that this is a serious flaw. Perhaps the bill was drafted too quickly or the government did not give it enough thought. Are the Conservatives really serious about putting this bill before the House? Honestly, I have my doubts.

This morning, many members talked about studying this bill in committee.

I have a great deal of respect for our parliamentary institutions, and I believe that every parliamentarian tries to do good work in committee. However, it can be extremely difficult to suggest amendments in committee and discuss them properly because there is rarely enough time to talk about all of the bills.

I am currently a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, but I used to be a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I served as a substitute member for several committees. We often hear the same line over and over and see the same kind of thing in how committees operate. I do not wish to minimize the importance of Bill C-15, but I do have some doubts about how the bill will be examined in committee.

I have faith in my colleagues, regardless of their party affiliation. I know they will ensure a job well done. However, if this bill makes it to committee—which is likely, since the government has a majority—I want to be sure that all of my colleagues will take the examination of this bill very seriously.

After hearing from witnesses, committee members will propose amendments in order to ensure that Bill C-15 is as fair as possible when this government passes it. I simply want to be sure that this will be taken seriously. It is our duty as parliamentarians to introduce the best legislation possible. Unfortunately, this bill contains a number of flaws, as pointed out by many people who are not members of the official opposition.

For instance, Colonel Drapeau, a retired Canadian Forces colonel, said that the issue of summary trials needs to be reviewed. Personally, I think we need to listen to those who are asking us to review our procedures, such as the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Mr. Drapeau. These people have experience that others probably do not have. I will trust our parliamentary system.

However, because of the flaws that appear in Bill C-15, I have no choice but to vote against it and explore in greater detail why more recommendations from the Lamer report were not included in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we, too, have complete trust in our parliamentary system, but not in the NDP's knowledge of the bill or the military justice system. Indeed, in every speech they make, their lack of knowledge about the system is on full display. This is why I want to repeat that the government has followed up on 83 of the 88 recommendations issued by Justice Lamer. We would like to get these reforms started. This bill has been dragging on for a year. We are requesting that opposition members allow us to send the bill to committee. In the meantime, I have a question for the honourable member for Alfred-Pellan.

Why is she suggesting that the number of people with military experience allowed to sit on the Canadian Forces Grievance Board be artificially limited? Could it be because the NDP does not trust the members of the Canadian armed forces?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments and question.

I want to come back to the first point, which caught my attention. It is a little sad to hear that my colleague opposite thinks that no New Democrat has the requisite experience to speak about national defence, especially since we have members of the Canadian Forces on this side of the House.

I am in no way suggesting that I am an expert in national defence, but I find it a little opportunistic that the Conservatives would paint themselves as being more expert in the field. It is important to stress that we rely on experts to provide us with information. I am not an expert in every field. That would probably make me an extremely pretentious and unpleasant person, but I appreciate it when witnesses share their points of view.

Regarding the amendment introduced by the NDP—I am going to be very quick, Mr. Speaker—it is not that we do not trust the Canadian Forces, far from it. We are proposing that at least 60% of members of the committee be independent from the armed forces. It is extremely important to bear this point in mind.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One point in particular struck me and shocked me a little. When we spoke about this bill in the House of Commons committee, a witness said that we were straying from the principle that the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, as stipulated by section 52 of Part VII of the Constitution Act, 1982. The supreme law of Canada, therefore, takes precedence over the National Defence Act.

Why would we condemn military members to a life with a criminal record for something that is not so serious, whereas for any other citizen, under the Criminal Code, that punishment would apply to criminals, those who kidnap children, for example? I would, therefore, like the member to elaborate on the inherent injustice of applying the legislation.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier. I know just how much injustices deeply affect her, especially where young people are concerned. She is a former teacher, and when the lives of innocent people are at stake, it is extremely serious.

I raised that point in my speech. I wonder why the drafters of this bill did not go a little further and make it fairer. Why should a person end up with a criminal record when they have a spat—excuse the expression–with a person with whom they work? It is totally unfair. When this person returns to civilian life, they will have a great deal of trouble finding housing. It is also very difficult to find work with a criminal record.

We come down hard these people, who give their time, years of their lives, in the service of their country, and then we cut them loose. We need to think about veterans. These people need help. They do not necessarily need us to make their lives easier, they need us to make their lives fairer, as with other Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The short title is always the jazzier version, which is “strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada” bill.

I will pause before diving into the details of Bill C-15 that concern me. I find the character of this debate at second reading, and I am sure anybody observing this on the parliamentary channel will also find it, unusual in that, so far, until I rose to speak on behalf of the Green Party, we have only been hearing from members of the official opposition.

I do not know why this is. I think it is symptomatic of the unnecessarily partisan nature of debates in the House on legislation. There was a time, and I worked in Ottawa in that time, when working on legislation was not a partisan matter, but a largely co-operative and consensual matter to come to the best possible conclusions about how to improve legislative efforts before us.

Amendments were not considered a threat to the government of the day. The amendment and the debate processes were seen as part of the role and proper function of Parliament. In that sense, it would be totally in keeping with parliamentary democracy to always see members on all sides of the House put their oar in at second reading and suggest where they think the committee, which will be the specialist members of Parliament on all sides of the House, will dig in and what the committee should focus on when it looks a bill, such as a bill of this nature, which is largely a good work but has areas that need fixing.

We should approach debates in the House with much less partisanship. Every question I have heard from the hon. parliamentary secretary toward members of the official opposition has been to accuse them of somehow being hostile to the purposes of the bill or to try to stop it from being passed. I hear this far too often in this place.

When parliamentarians from any side of the House speak to legislation, that is our role and our job and it is not a political game or waste of time. The very purpose and essence of parliamentary democracy is to ensure that legislation, which Canadians will have to live with for a very long time, is derived through the most exultant of intellectual processes invoking rigour, thought and research so we come up with the very best possible legislation, not the very nastiest of debates.

With that set aside, I want to speak to the bill.

I want to associate myself with the purposes of Canadian military justice as set out by someone who has been quoted quite a lot in debate today, a former colonel and now professor in the faculty of law at Ottawa University, Colonel Michel Drapeau.

In this article, which originally appeared in the Hill Times, he set out very clearly where we were as we approached this debate today. He said:

At the end of the day, Canadian military law, which incorporates both the criminal law of Canada as well as civil offences committed outside Canada, is a vital and necessary law in order to maintain discipline and order among the troops, and is believed to be one of the many reasons why the Canadian Forces are considered one of the world’s best, despite its small size. Considering the power that military law has over its audience, our citizen-soldiers deserve a world-class military justice system. A military justice system which is, first and foremost, just and fair to the accused while being responsive to the military need for discipline.

Obviously, the National Defence Act is still deficient in some major areas and it requires more than tweaks and tinkering to bring it into the 21st century.

That sets the context. This is not a wholesale assault on military justice coming from opposition benches. It is an attempt to ensure that this time that when we take a crack at military justice, considering that the comments and the work goes back to the work of Judge Lamer back in 2003, that we get it right in the 21st century.

As a general comment, we have missed out because we are still reaching back to 2003, nine years ago, for our recommendations. They are good recommendations but the world has moved on in a number of areas.

Again, as a general comment, I hope the committee will look at the reforms that have been taking place among many of our allied nations and friends, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Germany and France, that have been looking at their military justice systems. I do not like using nouns as verbs, but since Professor Drapeau did it, I will repeat it, “civilianizing”, taking a military justice system and seeing if we cannot combine resources. His recommendation is that the military justice system be folded into the Federal Court. There would then be within the Federal Court a specific area of expertise around military justice. This would achieve quite a lot of efficiencies and cost savings, something the Conservative government usually likes.

Another comment from Professor Drapeau, which is overarching to this whole process, was why we were looking at the bill now when just last March, Justice Patrick LeSage was appointed to conduct a review of the military justice provisions of the National Defence Act. Would we not be wiser in the House to see what he recommended in light of all the things that have transpired over the last nine years since the report of Justice Lamer?

In any case, in moving to some specific areas of concern about the legislation, I am sure the committee will look at this, but I hope it will be open to amendments.

To the question of efficiencies and costs, it is quite surprising to find new judicial positions being created. Particularly, on the creation of a reserve force military judge panel, Mr. Drapeau noted that the current military judiciary had one of the lightest case loads of any branch in Canada. We know the Supreme Court of Canada has a heavy case load as does the Federal Court and most provinces. Under the weight of their case loads, justice grinds slowly. However, here we have a light case load with the creation of an additional reserve force military judge panel, which Professor Drapeau terms, “a costly extravagance”. We should look at that and see if we really need those provisions and additional judges.

I want to direct most of my attention to the changes in grievance procedures. I will start the discussion by going back to Mr. Justice Lamer's report. Members can find this on page 86 of the report tabled to the Minister of National Defence in September 2003.

Mr. Justice Lamer puts it quite clearly. He wrote:

Soldiers are not second class citizens. They are entitled to be treated with respect, and in the case of the grievance process, in a procedurally fair manner....It is essential to the morale of CF members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent, and prompt manner.

It is here to which quite a number of Mr. Justice Lamer's comments were directed in his recommendations. It is important to set the grievance process in the context to which Mr. Justice Lamer set it. The rest of what we are dealing with in the act is important, but I am concentrating on this because I heard relatively less of it in debate at second reading.

Unlike the rest of the military justice process, the grievance process is inherently non-adversarial. Nobody is being charged and it is not a question of whether members of our military force have access to a lawyer. It is a fundamental question of whether receipts have been honoured properly or that their working conditions are appropriate. It is in the standard management-labour context a grievance, but their grievances are treated differently.

Mr. Justice Lamer said that we should use a process that is, in essence, co-operative. Certainly this is a place where I can see efforts to take Justice Lamer's comments onboard. His recommendation 75 is virtually verbatim in clause 6, which in the act would be section 29.11, to move matters along as informally and expeditiously as circumstance and fairness permit. However, there are many other recommendations of Mr. Justice Lamer that have not been dealt with in this act.

One of the changes in the act for grievance procedures was not recommended by anyone. I query why we have to continually change the names of things but, for some reason, Bill C-15 would change the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievance External Review Committee. Any time the name of a board is changed, although it may be a small matter, all the stationary needs to be redone. Why this change in Bill C-15 instead of some of the more pertinent things that Mr. Justice Lamer wanted done with the grievance procedure?

Right now grievance procedures still go all the way to the Chief of Defence Staff. The Chief of Defence Staff can delegate, but recommendation 78 would give the commanding officer a maximum of 20 days to try to explore alternatives to the grievance process before it would start to go up the hierarchy to the Chief of Defence Staff.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on the specific issue of the summary trial system reform.

Having served in the armed forces, I think some people in the military do not grasp the complexity of the military justice system. For example, a 17 or 18-year-old can be summarily tried for a relatively minor offence, not fully understanding what is happening. Summary trials are very impressive. Everyone moves very quickly. You are escorted in front of the commander. It is all very impressive.

Does the member think young soldiers understand the impact summary trials can have on their post-military career?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her question.

I am not in a position to comment on the way things are for members of the Canadian armed forces. She is, however, having served in the Canadian Forces. I think she has a better understanding of the world in which our military personnel lives.

We could simplify the summary procedures. They are not necessarily unconstitutional, but there certainly are questions raised about their constitutionality.

A summary proceeding is one of those areas where we might move to something much closer to a civilian process, with civilian judges and all the access to rights and a clear understanding of the charges, for the members of our military. Again, members of our Canadian Forces are not second-class citizens and they should never face charges they do not completely understand.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to pick up on from the previous question is this. I, too, was a member of the Canadian Forces. The last thing one thinks about when joining the forces is what kind of court system they have or what kind of disciplinary action they take. If accepted, one is quite honoured and privileged. I enjoyed the experience.

At this point, I would like to emphasize just how small the percentage is of members of the force who actually find themselves in the position of having to go through a military court proceeding. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 to 60 cases in any given year is a guesstimate.

The principle of the bill is to try to narrow the difference between civil and military courts. The Liberal Party supports that principle. That is one of the reasons why we have no problem with it going to committee.

Would the leader of the Green Party provide her thoughts with respect to the importance of where we can ensure there are civil court procedures that would be afforded in the same fashion to military courts and how we can narrow that difference?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the court martial proceedings on battlegrounds are a very specific set of circumstances which apply themselves poorly to a civilian context. As has been pointed out, we have civilian workers in Afghanistan who happen to work at Tim Hortons and who fall under military justice.

We need to ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Forces have a system of justice that is no less protective of their rights, no less clear in ensuring access to counsel and that the charges against them are completely clear. There really is no reason to have a completely separate class of justice for members of our military.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here with my colleagues sharing our position as the official opposition in opposing Bill C-15 at second reading. My colleague from St. John's East and others have been involved with the content of the bill for some time. What I find disconcerting is that here we are rehashing the debate when so much good work took place at committee, where recommendations and changes were made to the legislation.

Yes, there was an election, so all of that work fell off the table. But when the government had the chance to put forward a bill that truly reflected the discussion that took place at committee, the kinds of testimony heard from top witnesses, it chose to discount the critical amendments to truly make the legislation what it could be, a piece of legislation that seeks to make military justice in Canada fair and truly just to the utmost extent.

The NDP has been clear in recognizing that, while Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system, it falls short on key issues: reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Complaints Commission. It is really about two fundamental values that we hold dear as Canadians: the concepts of fairness and justice.

The reality is that we in the NDP believe that members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline. It is something we all hold as such in our society. However, the members who put their lives on the line for our country deserve a judicial system that is held to that comparable high standard as well, something that is currently not the case and certainly will not be achieved by Bill C-15.

Many 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. For us, it is critical to fight for more fairness in the Canadian military justice system for the women and men in uniform who put their lives on the line for service to our country.

I know a number of my colleagues have referenced the summary trial system and the importance of making sure we are moving forward in that respect. I would note that countries we often look to, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, have seen fit to change their own summary trial processes. The question is: Why is Canada lagging behind? We have the opportunity to follow in the steps of these countries, but also to set a leadership standard on our own and to clearly state as a priority that the military justice system stand for fairness and justice for people working in the military, something we civilians know to be the case when it comes to our system.

In terms 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 from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel, there are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes an undue harshness on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of very minor service offences.

For example, some of the minor service offences include insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline, as we know, but they are not worthy of a criminal record. As we know, it remains a struggle for military personnel, once they leave the military, to get on and get settled with their life outside the military. Obviously a criminal record would be debilitating and further exacerbate the challenges many former military personnel face as they go on to pursue employment opportunities outside the military.

What better role could the Government of Canada play than to ensure that military personnel both have the justice they deserve while they are providing military service and also are not unduly penalized because of that unfair system once they leave the service?

We noted that there needs to be reform of the grievance system. At present, the grievance system does not provide a means of external review. Currently it is staffed entirely by retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces grievance board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society. The NDP amendments have provided that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. This is one of the amendments that was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41 but was not retained in Bill C-15, before us in the House today.

The third point is about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces provost marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although this is a step forward, we in the NDP believe that more needs to be done to empower the commission. For example, care has not been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions empowering it to act as an oversight body. The commission must be empowered by a legislative provision that would allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament.

On that note, on the need to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission to ensure that those in the military have access to the kind of justice all Canadians would expect, the concept of ensuring the independence of complaints commissions and the ability to review and investigate what is currently taking place is something to which we need to see a greater commitment from the government side in a whole host of areas. One of the areas that has also been discussed is the RCMP.

Despite the rhetoric we have heard from the government in favour of greater fairness for those working in the RCMP, the complaints commission there requires greater support. Canadians require greater assurance that the complaints commission of the RCMP will be independent. The reason I raise this is that we have heard about some serious allegations, some tragic stories around sexual harassment in the RCMP. That is something I am very concerned about, as the status of women critic for the NDP. There needs to be a policy when it comes to sexual harassment in the RCMP, but there also needs to be an assurance and clear legislative commitment to strengthen the independence and the role of the complaints commission. It is very much the same scenario in the case of the military. When we are talking about ensuring that members of the forces have access to justice and a fair system for recourse, we need to be looking at strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Finally, what we are asking of the government, and certainly what we would have hoped for, is that it would have taken the deliberations of the committee and the final amendments made by the committee in hand and, rather than reinvent the wheel, recognize that the work has already been done and the template is already there to ensure that whatever we do with regard to strengthening military justice in Canada be done with access to justice and fairness for military personnel as a foremost priority. It is a priority for us in the NDP. We hope to see that same kind of reciprocation from the government at some point soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we regret on this side is that we are having to endure repetitive, often ill-informed speeches today about this important issue by the opposition. The recommendations of Justice Lamer have been pending for nine years. This bill has been before the House for a year, and yet we hear the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asking us why the name of the grievance board is being changed and who proposed it. It was the Canadian Forces grievance board itself. If members have not taken the occasion to inform themselves about this bill, they would do well to make their remarks elsewhere.

On this side of the House, we are committed to moving this bill forward to make sure that many summary trial convictions no longer result in criminal records. The only thing standing between the current situation where that happens and a reformed system where it will not happen is the speech by the member for Churchill, which is literally preventing us from implementing a reform we all want to see. We too want the reforms she outlined. Let us move to committee and get them implemented.

My real question for her is this. Why have a quota on non-military members of the grievance board? Does the member for Churchill not have faith in Canadians with military experience to take an oath and serve with pride and integrity on that board? Why a quota?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly disappointing that we have to resort to Conservative talking points instead of having a truthful debate in the House about how we could make the National Defence Act and military justice a true reality.

I know the member across the way is newly elected—I guess it has been some months now—but I would ask him to look at the records of the defence committee that, in March 2011, passed NDP amendments and others to strengthen Bill C-15 that simply are not in the bill we are talking about today. Why did the government not include changes with respect to strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission or the kinds of changes the committee asked for with regard to summary trials? That is the question I would like answered by the government, and why are Conservatives so keen on reinventing the wheel instead of going back to amendments they themselves allowed to be passed?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny to hear that speeches made during a debate are obstructing a bill. The fact that we were elected as members of Parliament and our very presence in the House are not an obstruction in and of themselves, but that is a whole other issue.

The situation is interesting. I would like to ask Conservative members why they did not include all the amendments in the bill. However, I cannot ask them that question, unfortunately, since none of them deemed that issue important to present a speech on it today. The one exception is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, who always asks the same questions and says we lack a good understanding of the issue. Based on what I know, some amendments were adopted at committee, a committee composed of members from all parties. Unfortunately, it is obvious today that the Conservatives will do anything to keep committees from doing their work. There was a time when committees were able to do that work.

Although my colleague cannot answer that question, I would like her to speculate on why the Conservatives did not keep bill C-41 just the way it was.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I totally agree with his remark. The government seems to be quite allergic to any recommendations coming from committees. Instead of recognizing the work that was done to improve this bill, the Conservatives have chosen to waste our time by introducing a bill that lacks foundation. It is disturbing to see that the government is trying to go back in time and does not recognize how important it is for Canadian Forces members to be offered not partial justice, but full justice.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this particular subject, particularly so close to Remembrance Day. It is particularly fitting, apropos, if I may say, that we have this debate today.

I would like to give a bit of background for those who are perhaps not familiar with the bill and are watching at home. I am continually amazed at how many people in my riding watch CPAC and watch it carefully.

In October of last year, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15. The bill is called an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Its short title is the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

The bill would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice, following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

It is important for my friends across the way to listen carefully, because they need to know that the NDP believes that this legislation is a step in the right direction. The bill is not entirely out in left field. I am sure that some members will agree with me that the Conservatives have had bills that have been out in left field—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

It is right field.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

They are the Cardinals to our San Francisco Giants, I guess, Mr. Speaker. That is the way I look at it.

Among other things, the bill provides greater flexibility in the sentencing process. It provides additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences, and restitution. It modifies the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person. It modifies the limitation period applicable for summary trials. It allows an accused person to waive the limitation periods and clarifies the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. It makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff's powers as a final authority in the grievance process.

I do not want people watching at home to think that there are not some good things in the bill as it moves forward. The bill is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the right direction toward bringing the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, Bill C-15 falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system, and strengthening the military complaints commission.

In 2003, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who is the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, presented his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. It contained 88 recommendations. Bill C-15 is the legislative response to those recommendations, but to only 28 of those recommendations. Sixty are missing. Only 28 of those recommendations have been implemented by this legislation through regulations or by way of a change in practice.

This legislation has also appeared here in earlier forms, first as Bill C-7and then as Bill C-45, which died on the order paper due to prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008. In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force, and some changes were made at that time.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the Lamer report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as the things we are talking about today: sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial 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 that came out of committee in a previous Parliament. The amendments carried over include court martial composition and military judges' security of tenure, meaning appointments and age.

However, other important amendments passed at the committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15. These included, not surprisingly, NDP amendments that we felt were and are important. One was the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, which responds directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation. Another was a change to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership. Third was a provision ensuring that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subject to a criminal record, and that is no small thing.

Let me say again, because I know that my friend across the way will be asking me a question, that there are many important reforms in the bill. We support the long overdue update of the military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline, and they, in turn, deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard.

However, there are some shortcomings in the bill, and we hope that they will be addressed at committee stage if the bill passes second reading.

The first is the reform of the summary trial system. The amendments in the bill do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction for a service offence in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals and no transcripts of the trial, and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes undue harshness for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of very minor offences.

Some of these minor service offences could include, for example, insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave, and disobeying a lawful command. These are matters that could be extremely important to military discipline but that I do not feel are worthy of a criminal record.

Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine of less than $500 so that they no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill, but it does not, in my opinion and in the opinion of the NDP, go far enough.

At committee stage last March, NDP amendments to the previous bill, Bill C-41, were carried. They expanded this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment.

A criminal record could make life in the military very difficult and could make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records could make getting a job, renting an apartment, and travelling difficult. Many 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 second amendment we talked about was a reform of the grievance system. I know that my friend across the way will probably have a question about that. At present, the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. I think that is important. Our amendment provides that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. The amendment was passed but was not retained in the bill as it stands today.

The third amendment concerns strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. I do not think care has been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions that empower it to act as an oversight body.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River anticipated my question, because it still has not been answered, and I have put it several times today.

There are 27 categories of infraction under the summary trial system that can result in a criminal record that we agree, as a government, need no longer result in a criminal record. The minister confirmed that yesterday. We want the draft to go back to what Bill C-41 reflected in the last Parliament. We think it is timely but also urgent that this happen, given that this bill has been before the House for a year and that the recommendations, of which we have accepted 83 out of 88, have been before this country in one way or another for nine years.

Why does the member opposite insist on joining all of his colleagues in holding up the work of the committee, which really should be making sure that these reforms are enacted as quickly as possible? Instead, the member is repeating the same requests and criticisms we have already heard from dozens of his colleagues today. Why not move to action, if he really believes that the members of the Canadian armed forces deserve our respect, our support, and the very best military justice system for these times? Why do we not move on to action in committee, when we agree on the outcome we all want?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the committee will be looking at this.

Let me clarify that this is a step forward. This is a bill that moves in the right direction. However, the reason I stand up here and talk about these other things is that the committee will soon be doing its work on this bill after second reading. The members of the committee need to know where the official opposition stands on this bill so that there can be a good, decent discussion in committee about the amendments we think need to move forward and some conciliation and give and take. That is what Canadians expect us to do. We will continue to hammer away at these points, because we feel that they are important.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from Colonel Drapeau's testimony to the committee studying the bill. This is what he had to say:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and 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...

I would like to know the member's thoughts on this.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the matter. We believe that all Canadians should be treated fairly and equally, whether they are in the armed forces or not.

I said earlier that the Canadian Forces are held to a very high standard of discipline and that in turn, they deserve a judicial system that holds a comparable standard. A criminal record can make life very difficult for people in the military and after their time in the military. I know that the parliamentary secretary and the other people on the committee will work hard to ensure that the things we are talking about today will be incorporated into this bill. I would like nothing better than to support a revised bill at third reading.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence stood up repeatedly and criticized members for standing up and representing their constituents in the House.

It is a peculiar kind of attitude coming from the other side, saying that we should be very democratic but when we actually try to stand up and talk about things important to our constituents then they accuse us of wasting the time of the House.

I wonder if the hon. member has any reflections on those interventions from the parliamentary secretary?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary to be an honourable and decent man, so let me just say this. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who serve our country so bravely can get a criminal record from a system that lacks due process, the due process that is usually required in civilian courts.

We will continue to fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in the service of Canada every day.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired.

The House resumed 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.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15 today. This bill would modernize the military justice system to make it more consistent with the civilian justice system. In essence, the provisions in the bill stem from several recommendations made in 2003 by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the National Defence Act. I should point out—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please.

Could I ask people to please take their private conversations outside the chamber. I have no way of hearing the current member speaking.

I repeat, would people please take their conversations outside the chamber.

The member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles may continue her remarks.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in essence, the provisions in the bill stem from several recommendations made in 2003 by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the National Defence Act. I should point out that the military justice system is an integral part of Canada's legal system, and its existence is recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is separate from but parallel to the civilian justice system. The distinct military justice system within the Canadian Forces has an important role to play because it meets the specific needs of the military community in terms of discipline, efficiency and troop morale.

To begin with, it is important to note that several legislative attempts have been made to implement recommendations in the 2003 Lamer report. Prior to the last election, members worked studiously to amend the precursor to Bill C-15, Bill C-41. The NDP was successful in getting several amendments passed to better protect the interests of the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces. For example, the NDP made changes concerning the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process. We were also successful in changing the composition of the grievances committee so that 60% of members would be civilians, and we were successful in ensuring that a person convicted of certain minor offences in a summary trial would not receive a criminal record.

The Conservative government took advantage of the fact that the bill died on the order paper and of its new parliamentary majority to scrap the compromise reached in the previous Parliament. That is wasteful and undemocratic.

We support several measures contained in Bill C-15. For some time, we have supported the modernization of the military justice system. After all, members of the Canadian Forces are subject to very strict disciplinary standards and deserve a justice system that is subject to comparable standards. However, we believe that the bill could go a lot further. We must take advantage of Bill C–15 to reform the summary trial and grievances systems, and to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Let us start with summary trials. It is important to know that most disciplinary matters are judged at a summary trial level. Usually, they deal with less serious offences, such as insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, unauthorized absences, drunkenness and disobedience. There are two problems with this system, in our opinion. To begin with, several minor offences can result in a criminal record. These offences are undoubtedly very important in terms of military discipline, but they do not warrant a criminal record.

A lot of Quebeckers and Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who served our country so bravely could end up with a criminal record for a simple offence such as insubordination. It is an even greater pity that this type of offence significantly complicates the lives of these individuals after they leave the military. Criminal records make it difficult to get a new job, limit opportunities to travel abroad and make getting an apartment more difficult.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association noted in February 2011 that the primary concern of the military officers imposing sentences in a summary trial is likely to be unit discipline and deterring future violations, not the effect that a criminal record will have on an accused in the civilian world.

Allow me to digress for a moment while I am talking about the transition of military personnel to civilian life. Just today, the Auditor General of Canada published a report that came down very hard on the Conservative government in terms of the transition of ill and injured military personnel to civilian life. The report revealed a web of red tape that complicates this transition. Here is an excerpt from that report:

Canadian Forces members and veterans, as well as...staff...find the transition process complex, lengthy, and challenging to navigate....[I]t remains difficult to access services and benefits in a timely manner. Reasons include the complexity of eligibility criteria, lack of clear information on support available, the amount of paperwork involved, and case management services that require further improvement.

In short, the Conservative government still has a long way to go to help our military personnel transition smoothly to civilian life, whether they are injured or not. We believe that the federal government should take advantage of Bill C-15 to make this transition easier by significantly reducing the military offences that carry a criminal record.

The Conservatives will say that Bill C-15 already reduces the number of offences that carry a criminal record. That is one of the good things about it; however, in our opinion, the bill should go much further. In the last Parliament, we proposed that the list of offences that could be considered minor and thus not worthy of a criminal record be expanded, if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also expanded the list of sentences that could be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a reprimand, a fine equal to up to one month's basic pay or other minor punishments. Clearly, we will once again propose these amendments in committee.

Moreover, with the summary trial process, neither the procedures nor the rights of the accused are the same as in civilian courts. For example, it is not possible to appeal the verdict or sentence from a summary trial in a court of law. Any form of legal appeal is virtually impossible, because there is no transcript of the trial and the accused cannot be represented by counsel.

We in the NDP believe that if a person risks serious consequences such as acquiring a criminal record or serving a prison term, that person should be entitled to the best protection the law can provide, in terms of procedure. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wigglesworth in 1987.

I have talked a lot about the issue of summary trials, but I also want to raise two other problems with Bill C-15.

For years, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board has been the subject of many complaints. We believe that part of the problem is that it is not an independent, external, civilian body. Some current members of the board are retired Canadian Forces members. To highlight the independent nature of the grievance board, clause 11 of the bill amends subsection 29.16(1) of the National Defence Act to change the name of this board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

We think that the government should follow through and require that at least 60% of the members of the grievance committee must never have been officers or enlisted personnel in the Canadian Forces. This proposal was adopted in March 2011, in relation to Bill C-41. However, it was not retained in Bill C-15. It saddens us that the Conservative government is thus undermining the serious work accomplished by all the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and disregarding the earlier recommendations made by representatives of the Canadian Forces. It is important for this amendment to be considered again.

We also believe that the military grievance system could be substantially improved by granting more power to the Chief of Defence Staff to settle the financial aspects arising from grievances. We will have more amendments on this issue.

Finally, I would emphasize again the importance of protecting from unfair punishment the people who file grievances in good faith. We believe that the powers of the Military Police Complaints Commission should be strengthened so that it can act as a watchdog. The commission should have the power to investigate and to report to Parliament.

In conclusion, I hope the government will take the time to consider our amendments, in order to better protect the men and women who serve in our armed forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's remarks are not logical. She is suggesting, along with her colleagues, that 700,000 Canadians who have military experience should not be allowed to serve on the grievance committee. How can we increase the committee's professionalism and independence if we exclude these candidates?

Furthermore, the government has agreed that 27 sentences will no longer lead to a criminal record. Twenty-seven sentences have been taken off that list. If we all agree with this, then why not go to committee stage? Logic has eluded the House today, with this debate.

How can the hon. member justify undermining our chance to modernize the military justice system as quickly as possible, when this delay has such a negative impact on Canadian troops' morale and discipline?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I believe he means well.

We can do a lot more. The hon. member mentioned the military grievance external review committee. As I said in my remarks, if we want the committee to be perceived as an external and independent entity, we need to change its make-up. We suggest that at least 60% of board members must have no experience as a Canadian Forces officer or member.

Also, amendments to the act were suggested during the last Parliament. It is very undemocratic for the Conservative government to exclude these amendments suggested by civilians and stakeholders, now that it has a majority. These amendments were proposed at committee.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to respond to the parliamentary secretary, who focuses on the fact that 700,000 Canadian veterans will not be able to sit on the grievance board, which is an external committee. He has the wrong focus. The goal here is procedural fairness.

Does my colleague think the parliamentary secretary is focusing on the wrong thing by siding with those who should have the right to sit on the board instead of siding with those who should have the right to be judged by civilians, who will lend more objectivity to the decision-making process?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saint-Jean. This question has often been raised by myself and my NDP colleagues. I hope the government will listen, because our goal is to introduce amendments that will improve the bill.

I would also like to highlight the important role the federal government must play by involving itself in military personnel's civilian life. A criminal record makes travel and renting an apartment very difficult. I hope the government will agree with me when I say that these men and women who have so courageously served our country deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, after this exchange we can only conclude that the NDP does not trust veterans, Canadian Forces members. The New Democrats are limiting the participation of former military personnel in the grievance committee.

I put the question again to the hon. member and to all opposition members. If we want to increase the professionalism and independence of that committee, why not rely on those people who have the best knowledge of the military justice system and of life in the Canadian Forces?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government member is just babbling away. Of course we trust our military. That is why we want to ensure that the military grievances external review committee is going to be an external and independent civil court. We want the committee to have these two qualities. In order to be independent, this committee must include people who are not former military personnel.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the genesis of the act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, or the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, which is before us, actually commenced over nine years ago, when Justice Lamer, in September 2003, as a result of a required review of the act, wrote 88 recommendations that needed to be acted on immediately to strengthen the National Defence Act. What has happened so far? Nothing has taken place.

First, we had a Liberal government that chose to ignore it and not do anything during the time it was in power.

Then we had a Conservative government, which, to its credit, actually brought forward a bill. However, not to its credit, the Conservative government decided to prorogue Parliament, so the bill died on the order paper. That was Bill C-7, and that was back in 2007. At that point, we were now four years from these recommendations having been made.

In 2008, we had Bill C-45. Again, the Conservatives brought forward a bill, but they then called a snap election, in violation of their own election law. That ended up killing that bill on the order paper again.

Finally, in 2010, Bill C-41 came forward. At the committee stage, the government and all parties agreed on amendments to Bill C-41. Why we are standing and talking about this so vociferously is that those amendments have been removed by the government.

It is audacious. It is arrogant. It is not in keeping with the good practices of Parliament that when we reach agreement on issues we can agree upon, they are removed. The Conservatives have done this over and over again. They have done it with the refugee system. They have done it with this act. It seems as though the government does not want to pay attention to what all Canadians are saying but only to what those sitting opposite are saying.

We have specific issues with this bill. One is the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process. We recommended in Bill C-41 that more authority be provided, which was a direct response to Justice Lamer's recommendation. That was agreeable to the government two years ago. It is not agreeable to it now. What is going on?

There were changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership. Again, in Bill C-41, clause 11 was amended. The government agreed to it, and we thought we could go forward with it. Again, it has been removed. What does the government have against that kind of agreement?

I was a union representative for many years, way too many years. A grievance process is something that has to be seen to have a just end. To have a just end, there has to be a final and binding resolution given independently of the two parties that are at odds. In the normal employment relationship, it is the employer and the employee. In this kind of employment relationship, it is the military and the soldier.

When soldiers have a grievance, they take it to the military. We believe that they need to see that this grievance process will be done in a timely fashion and that it will have a final and binding end, which will be a non-partisan decision. That decision, as in a labour arbitration by an arbitrator, will be made by someone who is independent of the two parties. As long as the government and the military can keep appointing members and ex-members of the military to be part of that final process, it will not be seen to be justice.

Maybe in the long run we can come up with these changes. We might have a better chance of making these changes in 2015. For now, we are astounded that the government would agree, and then only two years later choose not to agree.

Finally, we requested changes to clause 75 in Bill C-41 to ensure that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

For those who are non-military, a summary trial is much like what goes on between the boss and an employee. An employee screws up and he or she is hauled into the boss's office and the boss has a whole range of disciplinary measures that can be meted out. That person can be sent home without pay or demoted. Ultimately if it is severe enough and has happened often enough, the employee can be fired or can be sent for help. There is a whole range of options as to what can be done.

That is very similar to what goes on with a summary trial. The individual is not usually entitled to legal representation when hauled into the boss's office. There are no notes kept or record of this trial. The only record might be of the decision to cause a penalty. In large measure, a summary trial is very much like what goes on in a workplace. The trouble is that in the military a summary trial can cause a person to have a permanent criminal record.

That could never happen in anybody else's employment anywhere in Canada. There is nowhere that a person could gain a criminal record without having been through a criminal trial with the right to representation, the right to not incriminate oneself, the right to be heard in front of a judge and the right to a jury if necessary. Those kinds of things go on in criminal trials. They are the kinds of things that our democracy stands for, and for which these soldiers go into battle to try to create in other countries. Here we are telling them they are not entitled to them themselves, that they are not entitled to the same protections that other Canadians are entitled to.

A criminal record carries with it some very severe consequences. It is very difficult for people to find a job when they come out of the military if they have a criminal record. It is very difficult to travel. As we know, recently at the border Canada has stopped people who have criminal records from coming into Canada. These people will have difficulty getting into other countries if they have criminal records.

It is not just and it is not right that from what is basically a meeting in the boss's office, people are labelled for the rest of their life as having a criminal record. That is the kind of thing that we need to remove from the bill. We understand that the government has moved some way toward that, but it has not gone the whole hog. It has not gone to the same level of decisions that we suggest do not deserve a criminal record in a summary trial.

I want to give an example of how the current military grievance process is not effective. I am trying to assist a person in my riding who had a grievance against the military, who had left the military because he was told that the best way to get what he needed done was to leave and come back. When he tried to go back, he was refused and he grieved it.

He wrote to the commanding officer who said, “I can't do anything until you grieve it”, so he filed a grievance. The response to his grievance was that he was out of time and should have filed it months ago. However, now he had an answer so he wrote to the boss and the boss said, “You're right. That rule that says you should be able to come back was what was in place at the time so we should have let you back. I'm now changing that rule retroactively so you can't come back”.

That is the kind of military justice, the kind of end to a grievance process that happens in the armed forces right now, and it makes a mockery of the system. Why call it a grievance process if that is what can happen? We might as well not have one.

There is a grievance process for good reason. It is because there are times when people need to sit down and talk out what happened. People need to sit down and actually work out that a promise was made and not kept or that a decision was taken that was not just, and find a way around that. However, at the end of that process, there needs to be an impartial decision-making body.

Justice Lamer recommended it and we agreed. We proposed an amendment in the last Parliament and the government agreed to our amendment, but it is not here. The only excuse I have heard from the Conservatives so far has been that it would be disenfranchising 700,000 people who were former members of the military from being on this tribunal. That leaves 34 million other people to be on that tribunal. There are lots of people to choose from.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the bill was called Bill C-41, the Conservatives agreed to many amendments to the bill, but that was when they were a minority Parliament. Now that we are in a majority Parliament, it seems that the amendments they agreed to are irrelevant.

Why have the Conservatives taken this attitude? Is it because they have a majority government now and they do not care, or it is just Conservative arrogance?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is true. That is what we have seen. They have a majority government, a strong, stable majority government in the words the Conservatives keep using, so they can do this, not because it is right but just because they can.

Clearly the Conservatives agreed in 2010 that something else was right to do. Why change it? Why bring it back differently?

To me it means that there is a level of arrogance and a level of unparliamentary behaviour on the part of the other side that is not in keeping with the good traditions of this Parliament, where we discuss, we work out differences and we come to agreements. When those agreements are thrown out by members of the Conservative side, it does not speak well of them.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question in regard to what the B.C. Civil Liberties Association told this Parliament in February. Basically that was that military officers who give out sentences in summary trials are concerned with showing unit discipline and deferring future violations, not the effect imposed on an accused in the civilian world with a criminal record.

I wonder if the member agrees that there must be discipline at all costs is perhaps one of the things that creates a situation where criminal charges are laid and that it does indeed impede the future of that individual who has been charged.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from London—Fanshawe that there is a balance that we need to achieve within the ability to swiftly, in the case of a summary trial, create unit discipline and deter future violations.

There is no question about the need for that ability. No one is disagreeing that it is a special aspect of the military that needs to be maintained.

What does not need to be maintained is the future effect that those actions have on that individual. That is the issue here. It is not whether or not discipline needs to be maintained or whether the commander has the right to discipline as he sees fit. The issue is that it should not carry consequences that are outside the norm of consequences for those same actions in the real world, when in the future that person ultimately leaves the military as most Canadian soldiers eventually do.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus again on the fact that the NDP is opposed to the bill in principle because it is so lacking in amendments that should have been a part of this bill.

I want to agree with the member when he said there is a level of arrogance from the government, in that it would bypass very important amendments that were included in the previous bill. I wonder if he would comment on that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that is what we are seeing here. We have seen this in other bills that have come before this Parliament where there was all-party agreement in the past. In one case, the refugee bill, the government chose to turf it out. It was already enacted, and the government chose to turf it out and go backwards.

We in the NDP do not wish to take Canada backwards.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, if not all of them, I am always curious to see what happens to reports that successive governments ask from very honourable people, from experts who are often non-partisan and credible in their field of expertise. Some of these reports are shelved, others are partially followed, while others spur the government into moving forward. The intelligent use of these reports is often a good indication of a government's will to act.

In the case before us, the results are rather disappointing. When the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, a former Supreme Court justice and an expert on today's issues, tabled his report in the fall of 2003, we had before us 88 recommendations concerning military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

After many attempts, Bill C-15 was expected to be an answer to the many recommendations of the Lamer report. However, once again, we are disappointed with the Conservatives' reluctance to solve the issue completely. The Conservatives are not, as their name indicates, progressive but, rather, conservative. Therefore, in order to move forward, it is better to rely on our side of the House.

So we are disappointed, because only 28 recommendations have been incorporated into the bill. What is most unfortunate is that important previous amendments that were adopted at the end of the last parliamentary session have not been included in Bill C-15. Allow me to point out here that for a government that so often proclaims itself to be the champion red tape reduction, this seems to be a contradiction. The work had been done. There was an agreement. But oops, into the recycling bin with it; well, at least I hope it is the recycling bin, for all this work. They are starting the process over again, but they are putting even less on the table this time. This is a strange way of advocating efficiency and optimization of the work within our own institution.

This brings us to the heart of this bill, and since time is short, I will focus on the issues relating to summary trials, because in my opinion, these are probably the issues that most affect the clients I served for 25 years. I am talking about young students who, for all sorts of reasons in their lives, choose a military career, whether because it is suited to their innate personal tastes, or they wish to pursue their education or to acquire some specialized skills. But the one thing that all of these young people have in common is that they are young. I am by no means persuaded that at the time of their enlistment, they are familiar with all the ins and outs of the commitment they are making.

The NDP has long been in favour of a much-needed overhaul of the military justice system. The military justice system in our country today is still a draconian system. It is a legacy from a military tradition that is no longer suited to our times. Changes are long overdue.

The bill that is before us, however, has to enable us to tackle the problems head-on. In spite of everything, this is a unique opportunity to examine our military justice system. So let us not shy away from the debate, and let us try, if possible, to improve this system again.

The members of the Canadian Forces have to meet high disciplinary standards, and it is easy to understand why. However, we are asking in return that the justice system that is applied to them be just as precise and exacting. That is the least we should offer our soldiers. This is a matter of the relationship of trust between the armed forces and the justice system they are subject to. That is why the NDP is disappointed with the result we see in this bill.

Bill C-15 does not adequately address the injustice created by summary trials. I will cite a few of the incongruities found in this bill. Do we think it reasonable that, in the military of a country that recognizes the rule of law and a democracy as advanced as ours, summary trials are held where the accused cannot consult counsel? Do we think it is acceptable for accused persons to be unable to read transcripts of their trials, for the simple reason that there is no trial?

I am well aware that the government is battling red tape, but even so, in matters as sensitive as justice, whether military or civilian, I think a trial transcript is a guarantee against errors and abuses.

I would like to quote retired Canadian Forces Colonel Michel W. Drapeau, who is an expert on military law. He was outraged about the legal consequences of a conviction in summary trial. He said:

...it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge [by a convicted soldier], since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted.

That is another incongruity in our system.

Colonel Drapeau went on to say:

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 another incongruity if ever there was one.

Again, is it acceptable for the judge to be the accused person's commanding officer? If that is not a conflict of interest, it sure looks like one.

In my opinion, all these provisions are much too severe in many cases. Yes, there is misconduct within our armed forces and this must be sanctioned. We understand that, but often these are minor offences that do not merit a criminal record.

I took a quick look at what could be considered minor offences. These include things such as quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness or disobedience. I taught teenagers and witnessed, identified, confronted, and dealt with all of these characteristics time and time again. It is often between the ages of 16 to 18 that a person thinks about enrolling in the army. These are very common—and temporary—characteristics among teenagers who are trying to adjust to the adult world. Every one of these behaviours taken independently in civilian life would likely not have serious consequences. But in military life it is a whole other story.

Let us remember that our armed forces must be disciplined and exemplary at all times, of course. Therefore, any improper behaviour or flouting of the rules, discipline or code of conduct that govern the armed forces must be fairly punished. But we also have to remember that our soldiers must not lose confidence in their own justice system.

Within the military justice system, the summary trial is the most common kind of tribunal, with 96% of all cases being determined by summary trial. Many soldiers experience this particular kind of military justice at some time in their career. It is a disciplinary method for dealing with infractions committed by Canada’s military personnel. The other 4% of cases are the exception, the court martial. It is a good thing that this is the proportion. It proves that lack of discipline in our armed forces is a rather rare phenomenon. Summary trials are available to deal rapidly with small infractions of the military sort. It can be done rapidly, within the unit, to maintain discipline.

The issue I want to raise concerns the legal consequences of these summary trials. Are all Canadians aware that a minor conviction in a summary trial leads to a criminal record? That is a fundamental problem.

I will repeat the example given by a Liberal colleague about someone who dropped a cigarette butt in a garbage can rather than an ashtray, where it belonged according to regulations. I can easily understand that in the military world, especially if one is near a munitions depot, it could be considered a serious risk. Still, there is an enormous difference between the treatment this offence would get in the military system and in the civilian one.

I will get straight to my conclusion. It is sad to see that the broad agreement on Bill C-41 has disappeared from discussions of C-15.

Thus, we may ask the government why it is content to do so little when we already had an agreement to do more.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of the amendments that were made during the 40th Parliament.

One explanation as to why the Conservatives withdrew these amendments is that they so fervently hate the idea that the opposition might have good ideas that they withdraw any of its amendments to the bill.

Does my colleague have any comments about this?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that I agree fully with the part of the question about the good ideas put forward by members on this side of the House. I would add that there are so many good ideas that in a few years, we will be on the other side of the House. I believe that the people of Canada will be able to recognize this.

It seems clear to me that rather than concentrating on what amendments need to be made to the bill, we are still mired in partisan politics. This government, which was elected with a majority of seats but a minority of votes, is using its majority to show disdain for consensuses that had been largely developed, which is altogether regrettable.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with my colleague when he points out that this has been very much a history of partisan politics.

This issue goes back to 2003, as he pointed out, when the former chief justice of the Supreme Court brought forward his report. This bill, in various machinations, has been hanging around now for a number of years. I find it very perplexing that the NDP, in good faith and in a constructive way, brought forward amendments. These have now been dropped from the bill.

A number of us are raising these questions in the House today because we hear the government saying all the time that we should work with it and asking why we are not supporting this. Here was an opportunity to bring forward some work that was very constructive, yet suddenly the government dropped the ball on it.

I very much appreciate the member's comments about the partisan nature of what took place and the fact that we see a government that is very arrogant in the way it operates in the House.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. Needless to say, I can do no more than repeat what was said previously.

One might well ask why they are behaving in that way. Who has anything to gain from partisan politics when what is involved is a bill as important as this one? The bill has major repercussions on the lives of all soldiers, when for a perfectly minor—I repeat truly minor—misdemeanour, they can end up with a criminal record. When this happens, it has an impact on them throughout their lives, something that soldiers are not necessarily fully aware of when they sign up.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the fact that a number of the amendments that we put forward in Bill C-41, that were accepted by the Conservatives and have now been taken out, I note there were 88 recommendations in Justice Lamer's report. If we stretch, we can find that 28 or so of them have been adopted in this bill.

Would the member like to comment on the lack of thoroughness by the government in implementing the reports?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. speaker, it is difficult to find an explanation, because there is nothing rational behind this.

Not accepting every one of the recommendations in Justice Lamer's report is one thing. It would be unusual to have any report accepted absolutely in full.

But how can we drop from 88 to 23 recommendations, and completely forget the median number that had been agreed upon by both parties. I say “we” very modestly, because I was not in the previous Parliament. However, the work was the same. Parliamentarians had done an enormous amount of work to ensure that the resulting legislation would be the best possible piece of legislation and that it would meet the desired objectives.

The Conservatives claim that half the objectives are being met and we should support them, but why settle for less when it has already been demonstrated that we can do much more?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15.

There are three Royal Canadian Legions in my riding. I am proud that these legions help our veterans and active military service people. I have met with many Canadian veterans who tell me about the issues that are important to them. Bill C-15 is about military justice, which is an important issue.

I am happy to raise my concerns today with the House over a misguided policy that would ultimately hurt members of the Canadian Forces. Bill C-15 proposes some solutions to ongoing problems with military justice, but this is also not the first attempt to deal with such problems.

I will start by noting that our country's military service men and women are held to a very high standard when defending Canadian values abroad, values of democracy, justice and peace. The Canadian Forces deserve a military justice system that respects these values in all instances, including the grievance system and complaints commissions. The Conservative government chose not to do that.

The government has decided to go against an amendment already passed at committee, which would allow changes to the composition of the grievance board to include a 60% civilian membership, amended clause 11 in Bill C-41. The parliamentary committee's recommendation was simple, and that was that some members of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board should be drawn from civil society.

Why did the Conservatives not retain the amendments proposed by the NDP that passed during the study of Bill C-41 last spring? By failing to include these amendments in Bill C-15, the Conservatives undermine the recommendations of the Canadian Forces representatives during the last session of Parliament.

When defining the grievance process and highlighting its importance, the Lamer report in 2003 stated:

—unlike in other organizations, grievors do not have unions or employee associations through which to pursue their grievances...It is essential to the morale of CF members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent, and prompt manner.

That is one of the primary reasons we cannot understand why the NDP's proposed amendments to Bill C-41 have been dropped. I will continue to speak about the reasons why we will unfortunately not be able to vote in favour of this bill.

This bill was introduced after a series of bills that were passed in the House of Commons over the past 10 years. First there were bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007 and the election was held in 2008. In July 2008, the government introduced Bill C-60, which came back stronger and simplified the structure, but it too died on the order paper. In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied this bill and recommended nine amendments, but it went no further.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced, and it reached committee stage, where amendments were proposed. Unfortunately, it too died on the order paper. That brings us to Bill C-15. As my colleagues have mentioned, amendments had been proposed in committee and accepted, but they are now being dropped.

I would like to comment on what my colleague just said about the arrogance of the government. It repeatedly tells us that we do not want to work with it, that we vote against its bills and that we are opposed to all kinds of things. Then it comes and tells us that we are opposing a better bill on military justice for veterans.

This bill contains many things that we cannot accept. Furthermore, we had proposed some amendments that I believe were very appropriate. We had recommended changes to the composition of the grievance board to have it consist of 60% civilians. We had recommended that authority be given to the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, in direct response to a recommendation made in the Lamer report.

We had proposed that a person convicted of an offence in a summary trial ought not to be unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

I would like to return to the criminal record. At the moment, the Canadian Forces system is very strict and discipline is very important. These people represent our country. They have to be upright, fair and, as it were, highly disciplined.

At the moment, five of the offences considered minor do not lead to a criminal record. This means that out of 27 such offences, 22 can lead to a criminal record.

I have not looked at my list, but my colleague from Trois-Rivières just mentioned that one of the offences was being absent without leave. I find it ridiculous that being absent without leave can result in a criminal record.

I am going to tell you about a personal experience. Before coming to this place, I taught adults at two schools, in Sherbrooke and Quebec City. Unfortunately, a lot of young adults in my courses had criminal records. They told me how much that restricted their lives and complicated their efforts to look for work, for example. They always had to answer the question about whether they had a criminal record. They obviously had to tell the truth. Those people told the truth. They said they had a criminal record. Naturally, that can scare an employer. If you are more knowledgeable and you know what sort of behaviour resulted in a criminal record, that can change things.

Having a criminal record can also prevent you from travelling. It is harder to go to the United States, for example. Someone who has completed his military career and saved up money to go to the United States and spend a weekend with his children at Disneyland could be denied entry to the United States because he has a criminal record. This can take on grotesque proportions.

I feel we have an opportunity to change that. Some things are abnormal and disproportionate. You can have a criminal record for being absent without leave. These are things that we can change, and we should seize the opportunity to do so since we are studying the bill.

The government tells us that the wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly and that moving things forward takes a long time. I agree: sometimes it does take a long time and that is why we have been studying the bill for 10 years.

We do not want this bill to die on the order paper. We want it to be passed, but passed logically and responsibly so as to move things forward.

We can decide that some offences that are considered minor will not result in a criminal record. This is the opportunity to do so now, and we must not miss it.

I wanted to add to what the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association says, that military officers who impose sentences at summary trials want to maintain unit discipline and discourage future offences—everything is fine to that point—not to inflict on the accused consequences consistent with having a criminal record in the civilian world.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association thus emphasizes the fact that a criminal record has consequences in the civilian world. We would not want to go too far.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, it is very important for the military world to be highly disciplined, but this goes a little too far.

We are definitely in favour of reforming the legislation concerning the military system.

The bill does not go far enough. Only 28 of Justice Lamer's 88 recommendations were adopted, not even half. None of the amendments put forward by the NDP was adopted either. In our view, this bill does not go far enough, and we will vote against it in the next vote for that reason.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I first congratulate the member for her excellent speech, particularly as she talked about her own personal experience in dealing with young people and what it means to have a criminal record. That is very pertinent and relevant to the debate today.

We often hear the Conservatives say they support the Canadian Forces and military personnel, which they seem to use as a point of rhetoric in the debate. However, when it really comes down it and we are actually examining the military justice system and the changes that need to be made, it is very disturbing that they have left out some very serious questions around the summary trials that can lead to criminal records.

I appreciate the member making this point because people do not like to talk about criminal records. It is like one of those taboo subjects. The government always brings in legislation that makes things more difficult. For example, I received a letter from a constituent who was trying to get a pardon and because of legislation that has been passed, it is now almost impossible to get a pardon even though a person may have had a clean record for years.

I do think this issue is very important and so I wonder if the member could tell us anything more about the summary trial system. I know there are a lot of cases involved. It seems that it is something that we need to move away from, which is exactly what the NDP amendment passed in committee would have done.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I thought it was important to talk about the students I taught, because the purpose of the NDP's proposed amendment concerning summary trials was to make life easier for our military personnel. I cannot think of many jobs in which a minor offence can result in a criminal record. If I may say so, some members of this House have committed much more serious offences, but they are still MPs. I have to wonder why we expect our soldiers to be perfect.

As MPs, we are also expected to act as role models for society. Some MPs are being allowed to commit criminal acts without any sanctions. Yet, we expect military personnel to be perfect. If they do break the law, they are burdened with a criminal record.

The NDP's amendment was crucial. It acknowledged that people do make mistakes, such as an unjustified absence. Many MPs have had unjustified absences at a job over the years. I do not see why that should result in a criminal record.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my question is serious or if I am being tongue in cheek. We know how much this government loves Great Britain and the monarchy. Why is it that Great Britain has updated its laws on summary trials, but Canada is still dragging its feet?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his sense of humour.

Indeed, it makes no sense. This bill has been introduced many times since Justice Lamer released his report in 2003. Why are we still working on it? Things would move much faster if the government listened to us and was willing to work with us.

NDP members campaigned on the theme “Working Together”, which is what we are trying to do. We are bringing forward valid recommendations and amendments, but the government will not hear of them. That is why we intend to take our time to talk about them and inform our constituents. It is not right that the government, which claims to be transparent and to listen to Canadians, is refusing to listen to opposition members. It is appalling. I thank my colleague for raising the point. We have been working on this since 2003, and it is high time we passed this bill in a responsible manner in order to bring about real change.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the military justice system that governs the members of the Canadian Forces is completely outdated. My colleague was just talking about that. We have been talking about it, looking into it and studying it since 2003. At the moment, it deprives the men and women in uniform—who have risked their lives to serve Canada—of access to the same legal safeguards that other Canadians across the country enjoy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The NDP has long advocated modernizing the military justice system. We believe that the military justice system must be subject to the same kind of rigour as the rigorous discipline faced by members of the Canadian Forces. For that reason, we are proud that the military justice system is being reviewed as we study Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. We are also proud that this bill incorporates some of the recommendations made by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the right hon. Antonio Lamer, in his 2003 report on the independent review of the National Defence Act.

This bill is a step in the right direction, toward making the military justice and civilian justice systems more uniform. But it does not go far enough—as we have said since the debate began today—in reforming certain aspects of the act that I think are essential. Moreover, the bill only includes only 28 of Justice Lamer’s 88 recommendations. The fact that this bill does not go deep enough is disappointing, particularly because many significant amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted by the committee studying Bill C-41—which covered the same subject but was shunted into oblivion by an election call—have unfortunately not been included in Bill C-15. All opposition MPs have said this during the debate. Certainly, we are repeating ourselves, but it is important to say that the work was done in committee, that experts gave their opinions, that the Canadian Forces also made recommendations, and that there was a report. It is as if we were back at square one, since the government has ignored all the recommendations.

Can the government tell us why it has not included the amendments made by the official opposition in Bill C-15? We think adopting these amendments for Bill C-41 was a positive and constructive step. Can the government tell us why these amendments are no longer acceptable?

Committees take their work seriously. This was the result of significant collaboration among members of all parties. This kind of work does not deserve being reduced to nothing. By not including all our amendments in Bill C-15, the Conservatives are devaluing the important work done in committee and that of the defence department, as well as the recommendations made by representatives of the Canadian Forces during the last Parliament.

Bill C-15 still has many shortcomings. We call upon the Conservative government to amend the bill more thoroughly so that the National Defence Act and other related acts can be properly reformed.

The summary trial system, which is probably one of the most outrageous aspects of the current military justice system, requires some major changes. The current amendments to Bill C-15 do not go far enough in addressing the injustice created by summary trials. Do members know what a summary trial is? Most Canadians have no idea what a summary trial is, and they would be shocked to learn that some Canadian citizens are subjected to this type of procedure. A summary trial means that a Canadian Forces member is judged by his commanding officer, in other words his boss, without the right to a lawyer, to an appeal, and without any transcript of the trial.

Currently, a summary trial conviction in the Canadian Forces also results in a criminal record. The summary trial is the most frequently used disciplinary method to deal with offences committed by Canada's military personnel. For example, in 2008-09, 96% of the cases were decided by summary trial. I want to condemn the excessive harshness of summary trials in the case of minor offences.

Minor offences include insubordination, quarrels and misconduct. It seems disproportionate that a conviction for this type of offences should lead to a criminal record. While I recognize the importance of military discipline in the Canadian armed forces, Michel Drapeau, who is an expert in military law and a retired colonel, said this:

Discipline is integral not only to the maintaining of an efficient armed forces but also to ensuring that the rule of law predominates within the military, particularly when engaged in great peril and danger in combat.

However, I am very concerned about the potential consequences of a criminal record for Canadian Forces members after their military career. For example, a criminal record means that the individual will have a very hard time finding a job, renting an apartment, and even travelling.

Do we think all these consequences resulting from a minor offence are excessive and even unfair? I do. It makes no sense. It is totally unfair and it is not in line with what we are asking from members of our armed forces.

This matter had already been covered by an amendment when Bill C-41 was being studied. In fact, the NDP suggested lengthening the list of offences that could be considered minor and that did not merit a criminal record if the offence in question led to a minor punishment. The NDP asked that the list be increased from 5 to 27 offences. It also asked that the list of punishments that could be handed down by the court without leading to a criminal record be lengthened. That changes everything.

Why is this amendment, which was agreed to last spring, not included in Bill C-15? Does the bill ensure that some offences will no longer result in a criminal record? It is inadequate. The bill must go farther. The amendments proposed by the NDP need to be included, as they were in Bill C-41. The military justice system must absolutely adapt to the realities of the 21st century. The current rules and provisions are truly obsolete. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have already deemed it appropriate to change the summary trial process.

At what point will Canada follow suit? Why is the Conservative government dragging its feet on such vital issues as human rights and the rights of Canadian soldiers who, I would like to remind everyone, are Canadian citizens?

After all, would we not be utterly outraged if this sort of thing happened in a civilian context? I am certain that no one would accept it. Canadians would be absolutely shocked to find that soldiers who have so bravely served our country can end up with a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system.

Bill C-15 must also include a reform of the grievance system. At the moment, the grievance board, which is supposed to be independent, does not allow for an external review of the grievances at issue. Even more ironically, Bill C-15 is changing the name of the board to the “Military Grievance External Review Committee”. I cannot see how changing the name makes the committee any more independent. The employees working for this committee are armed forces retirees, which does not make the body truly external and independent.

Meaningful amendments have to be made to the appointment process. In March 2011, the NDP suggested that 60% of members of the grievance board be people who had never been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was kept in Bill C-41. At the risk of repeating myself, can the government explain to us yet again why this amendment is no longer in Bill C-15? I believe that keeping it in the bill is essential.

Still on the topic of the grievance process, the NDP also condemned the Chief of Defence Staff’s lack of authority to resolve financial considerations stemming from grievances.

What is more, there is the matter of the complaints commission. We are asking that the powers of the commission be increased so that it can investigate and report to Parliament.

For all these reasons, because the government has transformed Bill C-41 into the completely unjust, inadequate and incomplete Bill C-15, the NDP will oppose it. There are still many amendments missing and far too many inequities within the bill.

I am now ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her very enlightening presentation. I will not be very critical because I agree almost completely with what she said. My question instead is about the form of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the past hour, you have given me the floor four times. I imagine it is not because I am the darling of the House or the Speaker's pet. At a point in the parliamentary process when we should be debating this bill, it seems that all the questions are from the same side of the House. Is that not another sign of the Conservatives' arrogance? Not only have they rejected the recommendations agreed to in the previous Parliament, but they are refusing to debate them in the House when it is time to do so.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Trois-Rivières for the excellent question. This shows the Conservatives' lack of interest in everything that is democratic in the House and their failure to co-operate at committees and when studying amendments. They introduce a bill that has been studied for a dozen years, and today it is re-emerging in a completely chaotic fashion.

Today, in the House, the Conservative members are absolutely silent and are not participating in the debate. That shows their lack of professionalism. As the government, they are not providing any reasons or explanations. As we can see today, the bill is weak, and the government's arguments in support of it are feeble.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speeches on this bill.

In the last Parliament, the NDP proposed several amendments to Bill C-41, which were accepted by the Conservatives. Now, the Conservatives are rejecting amendments to the same bill, which bears a different number, C-15.

Can my colleague tell us why the Conservatives are rejecting the amendments to Bill C-41 that they accepted in the previous Parliament?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

We do not understand why the Conservatives acted that way. It is pure partisanship. That is not the way to go if we want to work in the best interests of Canadian Forces members and the Canadian justice system. Canada is lagging behind other countries. There is a total lack of transparency. Of the 88 recommendations included in the report, only 28 were retained.

None of the amendments introduced, proposed and discussed by the NDP and other opposition parties were included. This is a serious problem. This is about democracy, about the work done by members of Parliament who represent Canadians. And yet, the Conservatives brush that aside as if nothing was more important than partisanship. How sad to see such an attitude from the Government of Canada.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's point. It is surprising that government members are not participating in this debate.

However, I am sure the members of the Canadian Forces are glad we are shedding light on this bill, bringing these issues forward in Parliament and ensuring that this debate is being heard, given the number of summary trials that have happened, which is about 96% of cases. That needs to be changed. Therefore, I thank the member for bringing it forward and participating in the debate on behalf of the members of the Canadian Forces.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Indeed, many elements in the Canadian Forces justice system are unfair. There is no doubt that Canadian Forces members are paying very close attention to what is happening right now. Under the current summary trial system, they have no right of appeal and are judged by their own boss. Minor offences can have serious consequences and can even lead to a criminal record. We need changes and reforms to make the justice system appropriate, fair and responsible.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-15, an Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-15 is intended to strengthen military justice and as a response to the reports of former chief justice Antonio Lamer and of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Bill C-15 in fact includes only 28 of the Lamer report's 88 recommendations. It is essentially the latest attempt to strengthen military justice. One need only think of Bill C-41, introduced in 2010, which was also an attempt to respond to the Lamer report. However, the various parties and the government managed to reach a degree of consensus on that bill.

We made a series of amendments to that bill through negotiations in committee. Bill C-15 is far from being a perfect copy of Bill C-41. Bill C-15 does not include the important amendments that committee adopted in the last Parliament.

Those amendments included some of the NDP's proposals respecting the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, consistent with one of the recommendations of the Lamer report. Changes were also recommended to the composition of the grievance committee so that 60% of its members would be civilians. Lastly, there was the provision guaranteeing that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial would not unfairly be given a criminal record.

Obviously, this bill contains a number of important reforms. The NDP's support for an update of the military justice system is not a recent development. We have observed for some time that there is a genuine need in this area. That is simply logical, given that Canadian Forces members are subject to regulations that are harsh, to say the least. In the circumstances, this situation must be offset by establishing a legal system that is subject to at least comparable standards. However, a number of necessary differences between military and civilian justice must be taken into consideration if we want that justice system to be truly fair.

Bill C-15 has a number of flaws that the government needs to consider. The bill's flaws can be divided up into three specific areas: the reform of the summary trial system, the reform of the grievance system, and the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Regarding the reform of the summary trial system, the amendments in this bill were not adequately examined. Certain members of the Canadian forces convicted for minor offences face tough procedures that will inevitably lead to a criminal record. Moreover, under this judicial process, accused persons cannot consult counsel, and the judge is none other than the accused’s commander. Such a simple and quick process is appropriate in a purely disciplinary context within the Canadian Forces, but what is being proposed here is quite another matter.

It needs to be made clear that having a criminal record has a real impact. It is not a simple matter of discipline, as is the case in the armed forces, and for good reason. Such a change will have damaging consequences for members of the armed forces in their civilian lives, which is why it is important to make the distinction between the notions of civilian and military in summary trials.

It is important to be mindful of the types of minor military offences, and contrast these with what the bill sets out in terms of criminal offences. An important legal distinction must be made in a context like this where the rights of the accused are at stake.

All that to say that the process involved in the reform of the summary trial system will not lead to fair trials and could significantly hurt members of the armed forces in their civilian lives for no good reason.

The sentences resulting from summary trials are not only intended to have this effect. They are intended to provide an example, strengthen discipline and discourage future offences. With this in mind, the process could be considered normal for the armed forces, given the minor violations and offences that are dealt with there, but those hardly merit a criminal record.

Summary trials are designed to expediently dispose of minor military offences. This fundamental difference between courts martial and summary trials must be stressed. It is clear, based on the figures concerning the treatment of offences committed by Canadian military officers, that the majority of cases are subject to a summary trial. Only a minority of offences are subject to court martial.

Let us discuss some of the infamous criminal offences in question. They include, for example, insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave and disobeying an order. These are not criminal offences, they are breaches of military discipline. A criminal record, however, will, for obvious reasons, make rejoining civilian life difficult. Getting a job, renting an apartment and, for those who like to travel, travelling abroad, will become difficult.

It is important to note that, on average, Canadian Forces members tend to retire at a much younger age than other Canadians. Thus we see just how many problems this can cause for our military personnel. Is there not a more appropriate way to ensure that justice is served than to impose a criminal record, the effects of which are hard to determine, on people who are being tried for a minor offence without a professional judge and without a formal defence?

Furthermore, the amendments that we proposed to Bill C-41 to expand the list of offences and sentences that are not worthy of a criminal record were not included in this bill. These were sentences that were deemed to be minor and not worthy of a criminal record but that warrant disciplinary measures not exceeding a fine equal to one month's basic pay. This is an important nuance, and we must ensure that these amendments are included in Bill C-15.

Another amendment that was not included in this bill pertains to the reform of the grievance system. We wanted at least 60% of grievance board members to be civilians who have never been an officer or a member of the Canadian Forces. This is a critical requirement if we want to ensure that the grievance board is perceived as an independent, external civilian body, as it should be.

We also proposed an amendment to give the Chief of Defence Staff more authority in the grievance process. Nothing was done in this regard. We must ensure that grievances are quickly resolved in a fair and transparent manner.

Another one of the shortcomings of this bill pertains to the Military Police Complaints Commission. We must increase the commission's authority so that it is able to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament. We must further strengthen the commission by giving it more power to act as an oversight body. This is one of the shortcomings of this bill since this issue was barely touched on.

Today we are talking about reforming the military justice system, in order to bring it more in line with the civilian justice system, while ensuring that the justice process is fair and just for members of the Canadian Forces. That is not the case with a number of the proposed amendments in this bill. Overall, the bill tends to create problems instead of solving existing ones. The government must review this bill and include our amendments that were adopted in committee as part of the study of Bill C-41 and that have disappeared in this bill.

We owe it to the members of the Canadian Forces to give them a justice system that is fair and just. That is the least we can do.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question I would ask my colleague has to do with what we have been talking about quite a bit this afternoon. Does she have an opinion as to why it is the Conservative government does not wish to accept any of the amendments from the previous Parliament or any amendments the NDP might have put forward that were reasoned and acceptable then but for some reason are not acceptable today? Could she comment, please?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to explain why these amendments were accepted in the past, but now they no longer are. It is probably a lack of interest on the part of the government. This bill is probably not important to the Conservatives. They simply want to slow it down and this is how they chose to do it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member speaking in the House today to this very important bill.

The bill has a very long history. It was previously Bill C-7, Bill C-45, Bill C-60, and Bill C-41.

The original report goes back to 2003, so it is certainly high time we dealt with this bill in the House.

What concerns us is that some of the key issues and amendments the NDP put forward, in good faith, at committee have been left out of the bill. We still do not have an answer on that. I wonder if the member would like to address that concern, because they really should have been included in this new version of the bill.

I think the members of the Canadian armed forces need to have a better military justice system. We are here in the House to ensure that it happens.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Minor infractions include things such as insubordination, quarrels, misconduct and absence without leave. Do these kinds of offences merit a criminal record? Certainly not.

When a member of the military has a criminal record, it is very difficult for him or her to return to civilian life. A criminal record will make it difficult to find a job or even simply to travel.

This is probably baffling to many people.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am still asking myself the same question. This is the fifth intervention, and I feel like we are at an NDP caucus meeting where we are debating what we already agree on.

Does my colleague from Montcalm think that our friends across the floor have a code of silence that is keeping them from taking part in the debate?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières, who always has a sharp sense of humour.

The answer is probably yes. We have asked the question several times in this House and none of my colleagues opposite have risen to answer it. I imagine they were given the order to not ask any questions on this bill. It is unfortunate, because this bill deserves to be evaluated and studied. It has to do with military justice and we all know that our military personnel need a fairer justice system.

[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 right 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]

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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's remarks somewhat amusing. I do not regret his presence in this House. I welcome his presence in this House. What I regret is the fact that some of his views are rather surprising given his experience, education and obvious intelligence. I am surprised he is not sitting on the front benches, in the cabinet, given the background he brought to this House. However, I do regret some of the partisan things that he says.

We do want to see the bill debated at an appropriate time in committee. We have been seeking to get some indication from him, other than the fact that he is prepared to talk in the committee, that some progress will be made. We have made a tiny bit of progress. The Conservatives have agreed to put one of the amendments back on to where it was before. That is a start. I look forward to having some other discussions with him before we pass this forward.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I do want to take just a moment to acknowledge that today, being December 6, is our National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It is a day etched in Canadian history because of the shooting deaths of 14 women in 1989 in Montreal. They were shot by a man who deliberately targeted them on that day, on a busy Montreal campus.

It is a day when we remember those women, but we also recommit to taking action to end violence against women and girls in Canada. It is a very important day for us today.

I also want to deal with the bill at hand. As my colleague, the previous speaker, just reported, we acknowledge that this bill does take some steps forward, but it falls far short of where it needs to go. It is a bill that amends the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice. It is something that has been a long time coming. We remember the 2003 report of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and his recommendations.

Basically what we are dealing with is the right to basic fairness, for those who serve in our military, when it comes to their rights in a judicial system within the military. Certainly on this side of the House, in the NDP, we believe in bringing more fairness to the Canadian military justice system, for men and women who put on a uniform and therefore put their lives at risk for the people of Canada. We believe they need to be treated fairly.

I trust a lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a justice system that lacks the basic due process that is required in Canadian civilian criminal courts. That is what we are dealing with here today.

We believe that the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline. That is as it should be, but they in turn deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard.

I will talk for a moment about the ease with which military personnel can get a criminal record, which makes life very difficult for them after their military service. It can affect everything from getting a job to renting an apartment to making travel very difficult. We recognize the serious challenges this can provide.

While we recognize that Bill C-15 does provide greater flexibility in sentencing, greater sentencing options, and this is a positive step in the right direction, this bill falls far short in reforming the summary trial system, in reforming the grievance system and in strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I want to say that an earlier version of this bill, in the last Parliament, had similar problems, but the government at the time was willing to accept a number of amendments from the NDP. The government adopted those amendments and the committee recommended the amended bill. It strengthened the bill and made it acceptable.

Yet, when the government brought in this bill in this new Parliament, it is back to the old provisions. The government has abandoned addressing many of the recommendations pertaining to military justice that the Lamer report proposed, and it has not included in this bill many of the substantive amendments that New Democrats had proposed.

I want to just go over these briefly for those who are not familiar with this system.

First, I will address the summary trial system, where the vast majority of charges that come forward are dealt with. It is meant to deal less formally with problems, and it deals usually with minor offences. That includes such offences as insubordination, absence without leave, quarrels, frictions that happen in daily life. These are matters that can be important to military discipline, so we understand that it is important they be dealt with, but through the current system they can result in a criminal record. Through this complaints procedure, military personnel are held without the ability to consult with counsel, there are no appeals or transcripts and often the person who is the “judge” is the person's commanding officer. So personnel can be found guilty of some very minor offence and that can result in a criminal record, which can follow them in post-military life. The government was willing to accept an amendment on this in March 2011, and now it has seemingly abandoned that openness.

Next, I will talk about the grievance system. At present, the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. It is usually staffed by retired Canadian Forces officers. It is our belief that members of this board should be drawn from civil society and not exclusively be military personnel. Our proposal is that 60% of the members of this grievance system be people who are not and have never been non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. Again, the government did accept this in the former Bill C-41 and now is refusing to do that. In terms of resolutions of complaints, another problem we have with the grievance process is that the Chief of the Defence Staff lacks the ability and authority to resolve any financial settlements or aspects arising and resulting from a grievance. We believe this is also a problem. It was a recommendation of the Lamer report to include this. We did have an amendment accepted earlier and we would like to see that back in here. We will fight to have this included again.

The last point is on strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. This would be a step forward, but we think more needs to be done to empower the commission. This commission is not provided with the necessary powers to act as an oversight body. The Military Police Complaints Commission must be empowered by a legislative provision that would allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament.

The concerns we are raising have been raised by civil liberties organizations and by members and retired members of the armed forces, and I could cite at length from their statements about this bill. However, we believe there are serious concerns that should be addressed, and we will work to defend the rights of our armed forces to a fair judicial system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She spoke about how strict the summary trial system is.

The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have found it helpful to change the summary trial process. Why does the member think Canada is lagging behind on this issue?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Many other countries have changed their trial system for members of the military. Canada is behind in terms of changing its military trial system. It is really unfair to those who serve in our military and who are prepared to give their life for their country. We owe them a fair and equitable military trial system, and that is what we are proposing with an amendment to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech on this bill, the hon. member linked it to a number of initiatives this government has been taking and that all Canadians want us to take to improve the justice system in many areas. These include improving protection for victims, preventing them from becoming victims in the first place, which is at the core of our justice agenda, and above all dealing with the very urgent problem of violence against women, which we are thinking deeply about this week because of today's anniversary and the scale of the challenge it presents, which we know is still too great in this country.

However, Bill C-15 is about improving the justice system for military members of the Canadian Forces to ensure that the punishments handed down at summary trials and courts martial are appropriate to the gravity and type of offence, and to make the sentences broadly comparable to those existing in the civil system.

Does the member opposite agree that these are important measures that should be implemented? Does she also agree that it is time to move this bill to committee where witnesses can be called and these measures and others can be debated at length, so that we can implement these modernizing proposals for the military justice system, which have, to be very frank, been before this House in successive Parliaments for far too long?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would ask the member why his government did not pass the bill in the last Parliament. An improved bill could already have been law.

It is one thing to say that the government is taking some baby steps forward, but let us be frank here that there are basic planks of judicial fairness in the criminal justice system that are not present for our military personnel. That is a disgrace.

I will say one other thing about the Conservative government and how it has treated people who have come here as war resisters. There are people who have come here as conscientious objectors having served in the U.S. military in a way that Canada and 82% of Canadians have not supported. People like Kimberly Rivera from my riding, a mother of four children, in all good conscience realized that they were in Iraq for the wrong reason. However, she was not allowed to stay here. She has been sent back to the U.S. where she is facing a court martial and is separated from her four small children and husband. That is the kind of justice the Conservative government believes in, and it is unacceptable.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you could let me know when I have one minute left.

I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-15. We have to make sure, first and foremost, that the men and women who work to defend us are able to represent us in the armed forces and have the tools to avoid putting their lives at risk unnecessarily. We also have a responsibility to provide them with an operational framework that is appropriate and fair.

And that is what Bill C-15 on the military justice system, which is now before us, claims to do. This bill originates in the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence to arrange for an independent review of the amendments to the National Defence Act every five years. That requirement is set out in clause 96 of Bill C-25 which was assented to in 1998.

In 2003, Justice Antonio Lamer was instructed to examine the provisions and application of Bill C-25. He concluded that “Canada's military justice system generally works very well, subject to a few changes”. Justice Lamer proposed those few changes in the form of 88 recommendations, some of which were addressed in Bill C-7, which became Bill C-45, and then C-60.

After Bill C-60 was passed and assented to, it too was the subject of a review, this time by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the House of Commons. That report was released in 2009 and is entitled “Equal Justice: Reforming Canada’s System of Courts Martial”. Bill C-41, which is now Bill C-15, was to act upon the nine recommendations in that report, which addressed both the Lamer report and Bill C-60.

The justification for having a separate justice system for the armed forces has been repeatedly demonstrated, and in 1992 the Supreme Court of Canada did so very eloquently in R. v. Généreux. One piece of tangible evidence of the importance of having a system that is specific to the military, as Justice Lamer himself admitted, is the fact that certain offences in the Code of Service Discipline do not have the same importance in the civilian justice system, and sometimes there is no equivalent for those offences: for example, disobeying an order of a superior officer.

The Minister of National Defence referred in committee to the old adage that our justice system is a living tree, meaning that the military justice system has to evolve. The Senate committee summarized that very well when it said that “the military, as an organization, benefits when the rules that govern it largely reflect those that apply to Canadian society in general”.

However, we must be careful not to fall into the other extreme, and make sure that, notwithstanding this overriding disciplinary aspect, people who work in the armed forces do not lose their rights that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Senate committee also stated that “with the exception of section 11(f) of the Charter, the rights enumerated in the Charter do not distinguish between proceedings under the military and civilian justice systems”.

As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that this separate justice system does not violate the individual’s rights since it is still able to guarantee the individual “the right to equality before the law and to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal”. It is therefore essential to ensure that the actors in the military system are effective, independent and impartial.

Let us now come back to the crux of this bill, which, I must say, has become weaker with every version. Although, according to a Supreme Court justice, Bill C-45 did not resolve the problem it was created to address, Bill C-15, which we are currently discussing, does not take into account all the work done in committee during the examination of the previous version of the bill, Bill C-41.

In fact, some amendments that were adopted in the past were not included in this new version of the bill. Yet, these amendments changed practices that did not fit with the desired evolution of the military justice framework.

I hope I have enough time left to talk about the three main amendments proposed by the NDP, which were adopted in the past but excluded from Bill C-15.

The first is the reform of the summary trial system, so that a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces no longer automatically results in a criminal record. During hearings before the Senate committee, many witnesses expressed their disagreement with this practice. There is even more cause for concern given that most offences are dealt with in this manner.

Michel Drapeau, one of the witnesses, said:

There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year....

From where I stand, I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial.

At committee in March of the previous year, the amendments to Bill C-41 proposed by the NDP called for the list of offences that could be considered to be minor, and not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed for the offence in question, to be increased from five to 27. The amendment also adds to the list of penalties a tribunal may impose without them being entered on the record, for example, a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal to one month's salary and other minor sentences. That was significant progress in terms of summary trials, but since that amendment was not included in Bill C-15, we want it to be included now.

The second amendment concerns the military grievances external review committee. Currently, the grievance board does not allow reviews by people outside of the military system. It is made up of retired members of the Canadian Forces. We would like the committee to be perceived as an independent, external civilian body. There is a problem with the makeup of the committee and the appointment process if the armed forces want to maintain that reputation. Committee membership should therefore include individuals from civilian society.

The NDP's amendment suggested that at least 60% of the members of the grievance committee should never have been a Canadian Forces member or officer. This amendment was agreed to in March 2011 for Bill C-41, but it was not included in Bill C-15. It must be put back in the bill.

One major flaw in the current military grievance system is the fact that the Chief of Defence Staff can resolve certain financial matters arising from grievances. That goes against a recommendation in the Lamer report. Despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence supported the recommendation, the government has failed to act on it for the past eight years. The NDP proposed an amendment to do with this at committee stage of Bill C-41. Even though it was agreed to in March 2011, it was not included in Bill C-15, and the NDP will fight to put it back in the bill.

The third amendment that I would like to talk about would strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish the time required for the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to resolve complaints and protect complainants from being penalized for having filed a complaint in good faith.

Giving the Military Police Complaints Commission more power, effectively turning it into a watchdog, was virtually ignored. There should be a legislative provision to give the commission more power so that it can be authorized to investigate and report to Parliament.

In conclusion, the fact that the Conservatives deliberately botched the bill and removed some of the key elements that resulted from the hard work done by the members of the House of Commons committee and all parliamentarians in this House is further proof of this government's lack of respect and consideration for the parliamentary process.

Why did the Conservatives not keep the amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted at committee stage last spring, when Bill C-41 was studied, after long hours of debate that seemed to have moved the bill in the right direction?

By not including these amendments in Bill C-15, the Conservatives are undermining the important work done by all members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and also the recommendations made by Canadian Forces representatives during the last session of Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence rose in the House to give the first speech at second reading. He said:

...the government, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Constitution recognized the importance of maintaining a robust military justice system.

This government also recognizes, as did Chief Justice Lamer in his 2003 report, that there is room for improvement.

If the parliamentary secretary really meant what he said, why did he ignore all the improvements made by this Parliament in committee? Although truly unfortunate, that is the Conservative government's approach. Not only has it dropped the amendments agreed to in committee, but it has ignored a number of recommendations, picked the ones it wants and rejected the rest.

The official opposition will oppose the bill at second reading, knowing that the bill will be referred to committee. And we truly hope that the amendments agreed to when the committee studied the issue will be included in order to make this a more balanced bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. I was posted to Lancaster Park, just north of Edmonton. The military jail was out there. Periodically we would get into discussions about military justice. There are different needs for one who is in the service that sometimes go a bit beyond the needs of a civilian, if I may put it that way.

I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 previously. From the Liberal Party of Canada's perspective there is always room for improvement. We see the merit in trying to improve the legislation. We would also like to see the bill ultimately get through the system.

Could my colleague tell me if the NDP is going to accommodate the passage of the legislation this year, so that it could go to committee where we could hear from some of the stakeholders? Maybe he could shed a bit of light on that point.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we are eventually going to vote at second reading. The bill is very important to the members of the official opposition, the NDP, here in the House. Many of them have expressed their desire to talk about their disappointment with regard to the fact that the amendments adopted by the committee were not included in the bill. That is why we will oppose the bill when we vote on it at second reading.

I would like to point out that, if this bill were important to the government, then it would have been discussed in the House a long time ago. I would like to remind hon. members that right now we are talking about Bill C-15, and we just voted on Bill C-45. It therefore seems that certain issues are more important to the government than others. Unfortunately, this bill does not seem to be one of the government's priorities, since the government waited so long to bring it forward for us to discuss.

Eventually, we will vote on this bill, but I would not want to see the official opposition deprived of their opportunity to speak about it at second reading, because that is their right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must right away correct the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques because, from the beginning, the government has been very determined when it comes to this bill.

We introduced this bill in the House in 2011. If almost all of 2012 has passed without this bill even being sent to committee, it is not our fault but, rather, that of the NDP. Now, even the Liberals are calling for the NDP to send the bill to committee as quickly as possible.

I have a question for the hon. member about the substance of his speech. He and a number of his colleagues complained about summary trials, which are an important aspect of the military justice system. He quoted Colonel Drapeau, who is now retired. I would like to quote what Mr. Lamer said in the report itself. He said that the summary trial process is likely to survive a court challenge as to its constitutional validity.

Is the hon. member aware that former Chief Justice Lamer has already said this about summary trials?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering for pronouncing the name of my riding correctly, which rarely happens in the House.

Regarding the member's first intervention, I hope he does not want to take away the right of duly elected members on both sides of the House to speak, as is their right at second reading and as we are doing right now. Since the government has a majority, the member knows very well that the bill will go to committee and will be examined in committee.

Our point here is simply that we need to focus on the fact that the committee adopted some of the amendments proposed by the NDP—three, to be specific—yet those amendments did not survive Bill C-45. They were not included in the bill currently before us, Bill C-15. We really want to emphasize that point. We want the government to understand the importance of those issues.

With regard to summary trials, I would remind the hon. member that we heard testimony from retired Colonel Drapeau. We found his testimony to be very powerful. I would remind the House that in 2008-09, some 1,865 cases were dealt with by summary trial, and only 67 cases were tried through court martial. We think this is an extremely important issue. I hope the government will eventually take the NDP's arguments into account and consider our amendments.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-15.

In October 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced the bill, which amends the National Defence Act in order to strengthen military justice. This, of course, follows the 2003 report from former chief justice the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer and the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

As members will know, Bill C-15 had earlier incarnations. We have spoken briefly of Bill C-7, which died on the order paper due to prorogation. Members will remember the prorogation, when the government saw fit to escape the House because there were certain allegations in regard to the appropriate behaviour of the government. Again, we saw Bill C-45, another earlier incarnation, disappear during the election of 2008.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced, again in response to Justice Lamer's report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the provost marshal, and limited provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints process, which of course brings us to Bill C-15.

I believe it is important for me to speak to the bill, because justice is more than just a system of laws and regulations. It is also a fundamental value for me, for my NDP colleagues and certainly for the military and Canadians across this land.

The bill is a step in the right direction. We have heard that a number of times, but it does not address the key issues related to reforming the summary trial system, the grievance system and for strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. These are key objectives that cannot be ignored.

While the bill's primary objective is laudable, it does not satisfy our objectives. Much needs to be done to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We on this side of the House want a comprehensive bill that adequately addresses the problem. No justice system is perfect. We have seen that over the years. However, that should not stop us from trying to improve our system as much as possible. Key elements have been left out of Bill C-15: reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

In fact, the NDP included these three elements in amendments to the previous version of Bill C-15, which of course was Bill C-41. Oddly, and I do say oddly, these amendments are now absent. It is a strange coincidence.

As I said, the NDP is not opposed to the spirit of the bill. What we want is to work with the government to get it right, in order to ensure that the bill is relevant and that its scope is broad enough. I am at a loss to understand why the government did not include the three elements I referred to in Bill C-15. They are important for consistent military justice reform.

Let us look specifically at the grievance system. We will start with that one. We must understand it in order to appreciate the importance of the improvements proposed by the NDP. I would like to quote the directive on military grievances, which can be found on the Department of National Defence's website. It indicates that:

The DND and the [Canadian Forces] shall manage all grievances through the Canadian Forces Grievance System...and ensure that: all grievances are processed as efficiently and expeditiously as possible; a CF member is not penalized for submitting a grievance; and assistance is made available to a CF member in the preparation of a grievance.

The last point is very important. The Canadian Forces has the responsibility to help its members because they do not have a union-type association to defend them. This lack of counterbalance is another reason why it is important to ensure that we have an effective and impartial system.

The NDP proposed two improvements. First, we proposed that at least 60% of grievance board members be civilians who have never been officers or members of the Canadian Forces; and second, that the Chief of Defence Staff be given more authority to resolve the financial aspect of grievances.

The first improvement, namely that the grievance board strike a balance between military and civilian membership, is important to ensure that this process be perceived as external and independent. When it comes to the military, it is critical that everyone in the country is able to see that the system as independent and fair. Members of the military have a great deal of experience in managing such situations, so it is rather important that they be truly involved in the process. However, the presence of civilians is also essential to dispel any idea that members of the military are subject to a different kind of justice than ordinary Canadians.

It is also essential that Canadian Forces Grievance Board be effective and absolutely beyond reproach. The NDP believes that a significant civilian presence on the board would help maintain this perception. When we look at how to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission, the merit of this idea and our position is quite obvious. Police officers, as an example, are agents of social control and play a key role in our society based on the rule of law. They are effective not only because they have the equipment, the manpower and the authority, but also because they are perceived as legitimate by the public.

The military police is no exception. For a police force to operate properly, whether it be military or civilian, it must have the approval of those under its authority. A police force gains legitimacy through its perceived integrity. This perception is built on the actions of the police force and the perception of fairness and justice in its operations.

There is no better way to prove the integrity of a police force than by having a strong monitoring body. A Military Police Complaints Commission that is legitimate and reports to Parliament is the best way to ensure fairness in the actions of military police and, just as importantly, the perception of fairness and justice by Canadians.

We on this side of the House also recommended that the Chief of Defence Staff have more authority to resolve financial aspects related to grievances. This is a simple requirement to ensure that the grievance system is consistent. If the Chief of Defence Staff does not have the ability to resolve financial aspects, it calls into question the relevance of the grievance process.

I would point out that Canada is not the only country reviewing its military justice system. Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland have recently done the same. We are in an excellent position to pass comprehensive and effective legislation while taking into account what has been done in other countries. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the bill as it stands. As I have already said, the NDP proposed amendments to the bill in its previous form, but those amendments are no longer part of the current bill. We would like to see these important and constructive changes incorporated.

We think that our Canadian Forces personnel deserve that. They put themselves on the line each and every day. They have been a source of great pride to this country in their behaviour and conduct in arenas around the world. We owe them a sense of security regarding the justice that is meted out within the military.

I would sincerely ask the government to reconsider the recommendations the NDP has made because we want to strengthen the bill. We want it to be fair and balanced. We want it to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to set the record straight in the House regarding our current military justice system and what it can and should be after the amendments proposed in the bill.

There were several references made in the previous speech to what other countries have done with military justice. Let us be clear that Canada has been a model through many decades of its history with its military justice system. The amendment we are proposing and the ones we discussed in previous parliaments would keep us at the forefront of developments, for which other countries have looked to Canada for leadership.

Is the hon. member aware that there are significant differences? For example, the United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. Australia is bound by its constitution.

Would my colleague not agree that the reviews conducted by esteemed jurists, like former Chief Justices Dickson and Lamer and, more recently, Chief Justice LeSage of Ontario, all concluded that Canada's military justice system was fair and strikes the necessary balance? Would she not agree that theirs are more compelling arguments than any we have heard so far from her side by members who would rather see us pick and choose pieces from military justice systems in other parts of the world?

There is a holistic approach to Canada's military justice system, which we are continuing with the bill and other countries should follow—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the essence of my colleague's question, but I would suggest that there is a certain arrogance in insisting that we cannot learn from others. If there is a better way of approaching a bill or changing a law, then I think it behooves all of us to listen carefully. That is why the NDP proposed three amendments to Bill C-41, because we believe it is important to learn from each other and do the best we can.

In regard to Justice Lamer, I would also point out that he made 80 recommendations, representing a very significant body of work by that former Chief Justice. Only 28 of those recommendations were taken up by the government. It seems to me that a great deal is missing, and that is the whole point behind this discussion and debate, that a great deal is missing.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think most Canadians would be surprised to learn that our heroes, those in the Canadian Forces who bravely serve our country, get a criminal record from a system lacking due process.

Given that our Canadian Forces members are required to follow extremely high standards of discipline, does my colleague not think they deserve a fair judicial system? Does she not also think that while the military knows best how to handle its own affairs, there should be civilians appointed to the grievance board?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, her expertise and the work she has done in previous debates with regard to this particular bill.

I find it very disturbing that members of the Canadian Forces can receive criminal records for very minor incidents, minor crimes, because those criminal records follow them all of their lives. They impede employment opportunities and perhaps also educational opportunities, and they are certainly detrimental to the person concerned establishing a clear and purposeful future.

I would say that if one looks at the authorities in this country, whether they be civilian police forces or military forces, one will see that they all serve the public. They are all there with the specific and direct purpose of serving Canadians. Therefore, in that service, I think it is only fair that Canadians have a voice in making sure that they are meted the kind of fair justice they deserve.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

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

I, along with my NDP colleagues, hold the utmost respect for the women and men serving our country under the Canadian flag in the Canadian uniform. It is this respect that drives the NDP to fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women who serve in uniform and put their lives on the line for the service of our country. The NDP believes Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system.

The Liberals were in power in 2003 when the Lamer report came out. They responded positively to the report, but then simply sat on it and failed to act upon the recommendations in Justice Lamer's report at that time.

Even though it is a step in the right direction, Bill C-15 falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial and grievance systems and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. For this reason, I stand today to raise my opposition to the bill and highlight some important shortcomings, which, should the bill pass second reading, I hope will be addressed in committee.

I will give a bit of background on the bill. The bill comes as a response to the report of former chief justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court presented on the independent review of the National Defence Act in 2003. The report included 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal. Thus far, however, only 28 of those recommendations have been implemented.

We have seen Bill C-15 before in various forms, first Bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper due to prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008. Then, in 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the provost marshal unlimited provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints process.

Bill C-15 is quite similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. However, sadly, regrettably, disappointingly, whatever adverb we want to use, what is important is that the amendments that were passed at committee stage at the end of the last Parliament are not included in the current version, Bill C-15. Important and necessary amendments that would alleviate some women and men of our armed forces of undue hardship in their lives after the military are excluded in this version.

These include the following NDP amendments concerning: the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, amended clause 6 in Bill C-41, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership, amended clause 11 in Bill C-41; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record, amended clause 75 in Bill C-41. The NDP's position is that it supports the long overdue update to the military justice system.

While there are important reforms in this bill, it, however, does not go far enough and falls short on key issues. Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and they, in return, deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. Should Bill C-15 pass second reading, I would hope to see the shortfalls fixed.

First, the amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. I, for one, think that a lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who have bravely served our country can actually get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process we see in civilian criminal courts. Currently, conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. While matters including subordination, disturbances and absences without leave may be extremely important to military discipline, they are certainly not worthy of a criminal offence.

Moreover, summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is actually the accused person's commanding officer. This causes an undue hardship on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for very minor service offences.

Bill C-15 does make an exemption for a select number of offences, if they carry a minor punishment, so they no longer result in a criminal record. While once again, a positive step, in our opinion it does not go far enough.

At committee stage in March of the previous year, the NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to address this issue by expanding the list of offences from 5 to 27 that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also extended the list of punishments that might be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record. This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, this amendment was not retained by the Conservative government in Bill C-15. We believe it needs to be included.

A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records can make getting a job, renting an apartment and travelling very difficult. Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have all seen fit to change the summary trial process. Why is Canada lagging behind?

It is curious why the minister is not accepting the fact that the summary trial system is tainted with undue harshness, sentences that result in criminal records for minor offences, and ignoring the need for greater reform.

Another shortcoming in the bill is that the grievance committee would not provide a means of external review as it is staffed entirely by retired CF officers. If the CF Grievance Board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then some members of the board should actually be drawn from civil society.

The NDP amendment provided that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41, but it also was not been retained in this version of Bill C-15. We believe it is important to see this amendment re-included in the bill.

Another major flaw in Bill C-15 is the military grievance system. The Chief of the Defence Staff lacks the authority to resolve 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 has been no concrete steps over the past eight years to implement this recommendation.

The NDP proposed an amendment to this effect at the committee stage on Bill C-41. Although it had passed in March 2011, this amendment, once again, was not retained by the government in Bill C-15. We will fight to have it included yet once again.

Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although a step forward, the NDP believes more needs to be done to empower the commission.

The Military Police Complaints Commission needs the legislation to strengthen its ability to act as an oversight body. It must be empowered by a legislative provision that would allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament. These amendments would bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system.

Justice and fairness for the women and men in our uniform is essential. However, Bill C-15 just does not cut it. Our Canadian military justice system needs more fairness and the NDP will continue to stand and fight for it.

I would like to reaffirm my commitment and the New Democratic Party's commitment to work for justice and fairness.

Today, December 6, marks the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Today, we reflect on the loss of 14 young women who were killed on this day just because they were women. Sadly, the violence against women still continues. The end of violence against women is everybody's responsibility. Today, we remember and reflect and then speak out and pledge to turn this remembrance into action to end violence committed against women and girls in our communities, our country and around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I express some exasperation with respect to the speech by the member opposite on this issue. She seems not to have heard the Minister of National Defence when he said that he and all of us from this party were on the national defence committee would be prepared to see an amendment introduced to deal with the imposition of a criminal record for minor summary offences. That would cause the current bill to reflect the committee version of the bill that came out of the last Parliament by amending clause 75 accordingly. Is the member aware of that intention?

Is the member also aware that by keeping the bill in the House, we are merely postponing the day when those improvements can be made, such as victim impact statements being added as a requirement of military justice? A number of improvements were made, most of which were recommended by Chief Justice Lamer.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite entertaining that the parliamentary secretary is now questioning the NDP as to why we do not trust the Conservatives. That is because every time we or Canadians are led to trust them we all get burned. We know that whenever we propose amendments at committee or make friendly arrangements, they get voted down because of the strong stable majority the Conservatives have in Parliament and committee. We know they will just do what they want. They do not care to listen to what the NDP, duly elected members of the House, victims and scientists have to say. I can continue, but I am sure my point has been made clearly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing the issue, the member made reference to minor offences such as not showing up for work. Could the member explain the difference between when a civilian does not show up for work and when a member of the military does not show up for work?

In essence, that is one reason we have a military justice system as a second system that is quite different than the civilian courts.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a labour specialist, I know what happens in the world of labour and employment. Employees or workers who miss work or are disciplined for insubordination can go through multiple stages of the disciplinary process, which can eventually lead to their termination of employment as civilians.

However, my understanding from what I have read is that in the forces minor offences like tardiness, insubordination or missing work can be deemed a criminal offence, which does not seem to make any sense.

I understand our men and women in the forces are held to extremely high standards. They outperform many around the world. We should not be thanking them by imposing a criminal record for a minor offence whereby they are unable to get a job or rent an apartment. Life should not be made more difficult for them after serving in the forces.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker I am very pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-15.

I will echo the question the hon. member just asked my colleague: what is the difference between when a civilian does not show up for work and when a member of the military does not show up for work?

The difference does not lie in the person or the action, but in the job. That is exactly why there is one justice system for civilians and another for the military. No one in the House is denying the fact that the military justice system exists because military life must have different rules than civilian life. And yet, the discipline, ethics and morals military personnel are expected to live up to should not have consequences outside the military framework. Consequently, the fact that a member of the military might have a criminal record in civilian life does not recognize the difference between civilians and the military.

It is entirely legitimate that the military wants a separate justice system that respects potentially different values. Still the fact that these consequences, that is, a criminal record, can be extended to a soldier's civilian life is not justifiable. For example, during a summary trial—a serious flaw in this bill—no lawyer is present. It is proper for any justice system to develop its own procedures. We do not contest the existence of summary trials. It is fine that military justice is different from civilian justice. But the consequences should also be different.

During a summary trial, the accused is not entitled to a lawyer and cannot consult counsel. There is no transcript of the trial. These procedures exist in a civilian trial, but not in a summary trial.

Even more important, this is not an independent trial. The person who acts as judge in the trial is usually a commanding officer who knows the accused, perhaps personally, who certainly knows the situation that led to the trial, and who knows all the circumstances. We understand that the definition of an independent tribunal is also different. During a civilian trial, the judge does not know the accused personally, and if the judge does know the accused, he or she must withdraw from the case to avoid a conflict of interest.

It is understandable that military justice will be different. Still, once again, the Conservatives ought to have respected the amendments we proposed to this bill, because that would have made it possible to respect the difference.

We do not wish to be unfair. There must be one justice system for civilians, with its own consequences and procedures, and another for the military, with its own consequences and procedures, and they will not be the same. That is clear and logical.

All members of the House should find it acceptable that a soldier, judged through different procedures, would not suffer consequences that have effects outside the military sphere. For example, a former member of the military with a criminal record will find it very hard to find work after he or she retires.

Everyone here knows that employers always ask potential employees to fill in a form that asks, "Do you have a criminal record?" Clearly, this can harm a person's chances of finding a job. For a government that wants to create jobs and help Canadians find work, this measure is rather hypocritical, since it pushes the military aside. That is just a little remark that occurred to me.

In a summary trial, the procedures are different. That is, the procedures are not like those in the House of Commons. They are rather invisible. Here in the House we often see that the procedures are strict and we must follow them. In a summary trial, on the other hand, regulations or procedures of that kind do not exist. Thus, a member of the military should not be considered a criminal after such a trial.

I will give an example. A member of the military can be found guilty of insubordination, quarrels and disturbances, misconduct, absence without leave and disobeying a lawful command. That is proper because, as I already said, military justice has its own morals and ethics. That is as it should be. However, these procedures should not create a criminal record, since they are minor convictions and not serious crimes. Moreover, only certain offences are included. I do not see why we should tell military personnel that in civilian life they will be considered criminals and have a criminal record, when that should not happen.

In my civilian life I cannot be accused of quarrelling or insubordination, except perhaps if I were in school and showed disrespect for my teacher. In such cases I would be sent to the principal's office, but I would not be found guilty of insubordination and wind up with a criminal record. We must see and understand the wall that exists and the difference between the civilian and military worlds. They must not be mixed together.

The NDP had proposed amendments that would make it possible to expand the list of offences that are exempt and could be considered minor offences. Under those amendments, a person who was found guilty would not have a criminal record. Once again, that amendment was rejected by the Conservatives.

We also proposed an amendment to expand the list of punishments that could be imposed by a tribunal without leading to a criminal record, for example, a severe reprimand. That amendment was not accepted either.

We have to admit that the criminal, military and civilian justice systems are different. No one here disputes that. We understand that the military has different ethics, morals and operating rules. But the consequences of such rules should not reach beyond the military sphere and should not have repercussions on the civilian life of a military member. We are simply asking the government to amend Bill C-15 to respect that difference.

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

Mr. Speaker, yet another NDP member is not aware of our proposal to adopt the amendment as it was for the previous bill on criminal records. Why are we spending more time here discussing something all the parties agreed on? Let us move on.

Does the hon. member not realize that with the Canadian Forces, we are not just talking about absences from work? Our national defence is at stake here.

Does she not agree with former Chief Justice Dickson, who said in his report that without discipline, the Canadian Forces, or any other military force, would not be able to operate effectively and could become a danger, not only to themselves, but also to others?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said in my speech. We are talking about crimes that are different from crimes with which a civilian could be charged. I mentioned absences, but also insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, drunkenness, disobedience, absence without leave and severe reprimand. Those are military offences. I gave an example: a civilian would never be found guilty of insubordination, so he could not have a criminal record for that crime.

That is the difference between a military justice system and a civilian system, and it is a legitimate difference. The consequences should not be the same. The consequences should not have a negative effect or impact on the civilian life of a member of our military.

Before I finish, I would like to read a quote:

The military justice system does not only exist to punish wrongdoers, it is an essential part of command, discipline and morale.

It is respectful of morals and ethics.

Ours is a voluntary military and if the military justice system is not seen as equitable and fair, we will not only have a justice problem, but we could also have an operational problem.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech, which clarified the NDP's position and explained the difference between the Canadian justice system and the military justice system.

Military personnel, like police officers, are authority figures in our society, as the parliamentary secretary said. Since we are talking about defending our country and our laws, these individuals need to have that authority in Canadians' eyes. That is why the NDP wants to make sure the bill is balanced.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on what is expected of this bill. I would also like her to try to explain why the amendments proposed during the previous Parliament were not included in Bill C-15. Lastly, I would like to know why the government seems to be ignoring the recommendations of the Lamer report.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand what the opposition's job is. I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to answer the question.

In my opinion, the opposition has a role to play in any democratic system. Its role is not necessarily to oppose the government, but rather to hold it to account for Canadians and ensure that it respects their rights.

It is really important to emphasize that when the government prevents the opposition from doing its job, this clearly demonstrates the government's contempt and arrogance with regard to our democratic system. It must make the Conservatives very happy to know that this is a British system.

It is also important to point out that we are willing to work with the Conservatives to improve this legislation. They simply have to listen to us and work with us. We want to pass bills that respect the rights of Canadian military personnel and civilians alike.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues for having so brilliantly stated their stance on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. This bill has appeared in several forms.

First of all, bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper because of the 2007 prorogation of Parliament and the 2008 election. In July 2008, Bill C-60 charged back, simplifying the court martial structure and establishing a method for determining which type of court martial would be most consistent with the civilian justice system. In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations to amend the National Defence Act.

Before moving on, it is very interesting to note that there is nothing new about how the Conservatives go about their business when they want to push through more complex bills. Bill C-60, which was the version studied in the Senate report, was introduced in Parliament by the Hon. Minister of National Defence on June 6, 2008, towards the end of the second session of the 39th Parliament, and passed on June 18, 2008.

Bill C-60 was intended among other things to make the National Defence Act consistent with the decision of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada in R. v. Trépanier. In this decision, the court acknowledged that some provisions of the National Defence Act and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders contravened section 7 and paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These provisions were declared unconstitutional. They enabled the director military prosecutions to decide, when charges were being laid, on the kind of court martial that would try the accused, and for the court martial administrator to convene the court martial in accordance with the decision of the director of military prosecutions. This court decision became effective immediately, and led to some uncertainty about the possibility of being able to continue to convene courts martial under the National Defence Act unless Bill C-60 could be passed quickly.

However, this view was dismissed at hearings of the Senate committee on the evidence of Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel, who maintained that this view was inaccurate. He said that the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, in R. v. Trépanier, had come up with a straightforward and useful approach to getting rid of the clause that was violating the accused’s rights.

Nevertheless, there is also a practical interim solution that could easily be implemented. For charges laid under section 130, the accused could be given the option to choose his or her trier of facts. There is no legal obstacle to this approach because section 165.14, which gives this right to the prosecution, does not apply to these offences.

We would like to clarify that there is no danger of creating a legal void during the interim period that would result in failure to apply the law for want of prosecution. Offences under section 130 of the National Defence Act can also be prosecuted in civilian courts even if they were committed outside of Canada. That is covered in section 273 of the National Defence Act.

Why did the government rush passage of this bill? Even members of the Senate committee could not help but point this out:

Given the speed with which Bill C-60 was studied in both the House of Commons and the Senate, concern was expressed that it was difficult to thoroughly assess the potential impact of this legislation. Consequently, the bill was amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence to add a review clause.

Under false pretences, the government succeeded in pressuring opposition parliamentarians to pass this bill even though, according to the court ruling, it had many years to amend the act but did nothing. In his ruling in Trépanier, Justice Létourneau said:

The unanimous concern of this Court in Nystrom about the fairness of section 165.14 was expressed more than two years ago, i.e. on December 20, 2005. Since then, there have been five new constitutional challenges to that provision and appeals before this Court are pending. Retired Chief Justice Lamer made a recommendation as early as September 3, 2003 that section 165.14 be amended to give the accused the option to choose his or her trier of facts. As previously mentioned, he also made a recommendation that a working group reviewed the reorganization of the courts martial with a view to improving the fairness of the trial, at the center of which, as an important element of that reorganization, is the right for an accused to choose the trier of facts. Yet, Bill C-45 has been tabled before Parliament and it contains no remedial provision. The authorities have been given more than four and a half (4½) years to address the problem.

This bill contains many important reforms. The NDP has supported the much-needed overhaul of the military justice system for a long time. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to extremely high standards of discipline and deserve a judicial system with comparable standards.

However, the NDP will oppose Bill C-15 at second reading stage. This bill has a number of flaws that we hope will be discussed in committee, if passed at second reading. The NDP does not oppose the substance of the bill. However, in its current form, the bill does not take into account all the recommendations of the Lamer report. Moreover, the Conservatives have ignored the amendments the NDP proposed to a virtually identical bill that was introduced in the previous Parliament. Those amendments were originally adopted because we had a minority government at the time. However, the amendments have again been removed from the bill.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservatives admitted that the recommendations had merit. This is no longer the case, now that they have a majority, and it makes us wonder if they are merely engaging in the lowest form of petty politics rather than putting the interests of our soldiers in civil society first.

The bottom line is that the NDP opposes the bill in its current form at this stage of the legislative process. We hope that these amendments will be made in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference on the bill that I did not detect from previous presenters, but now am led to believe the NDP does not support its passage, which explains why its members continue to speak to the bill. I respect that.

There was another bill before the House, which the NDP opposed but wanted to see sent to committee. For that bill, Bill C-43, they voted in favour of it being sent to committee with the idea of getting amendments brought forward at committee to make it a better bill.

Does this mean the position of the NDP members is that, even if the bill is sent to committee and they succeed in getting some of those amendments, they still would not support the bill because they are voting against the bill even being sent to committee?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do hope that this bill will be referred to committee. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the other bill the member mentioned. I could always consult it later.

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

Mr. Speaker, this time, I have a very clear and much shorter question for the member.

It is really a question of principle. She quoted Mr. Drapeau, and all of the assessments done of our military justice system have taken into account Mr. Drapeau's comments and advice. However, we must also consider the opinions and judgments of Justices Lamer, Dickson and LeSage, who said that the system was working well, that it was good and valid.

Does the hon. member think that Canada's military justice system is valid, yes or no?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are obviously happy that the government has finally tabled Justice LeSage's report. This report supports a number of the NDP's concerns about Bill C-15.

I will answer the member's question more directly by saying that we have faith in Canada's military system. However, we also believe that soldiers must have ways of defending themselves other than what is available to them in the military justice system, which is a blunt instrument.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question. I want to know who she thinks should be on the Canadian Forces Grievance Board.

In principle, it should be perceived as an external and independent civilian body. But right now, it is made up of several former Canadian Forces members. No one really comes from the outside. What does the NDP suggest to ensure that the board is more independent and is perceived as a civilian body?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always important for a committee to examine the suggestions made by all members of the committee and witnesses. If a committee is independent, its recommendations and what comes out of the committee will be more successful. If it is independent, it has a greater chance of being successful, particularly when we are talking about military justice.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a story to illustrate the kind of men and women we are talking about here today when we talk about military justice. Often in this place we forget that these are living, breathing men and women who give a lot to their country.

When I was 14 and trying to figure out what I was going to do with my life, the cadets were very active in my town and I had Canadian Forces brochures, and for a second I thought that serving in the military might suit me, giving me structure and discipline to my life, and I could serve my country in an honourable way at the same time.

Of course, I did not take that path. I took a different path, and I am now serving my country in a different way, as many members of this House are, including the parliamentary secretary across the way, who has offered many years of service to this country in the Canadian foreign service.

I would like to underline that the men and women who give their lives to us by serving in our military are good, upstanding men and women. I have known many of them. Although I did not take that path, a lot of people I grew up with did take the military path. Sometimes they were from military families, having fathers and grandfathers who had served and whom they followed in that long lineage of service in the Canadian military.

There was another type of person who would serve in the military, the guys in the town who were maybe a bit more disadvantaged and who looked to the military to give them structure and discipline and a more honourable way to live than the path they were currently on. They saw the military as a way of improving their lives. They served Canada to improve their lot.

Basically these men and women give a lot to their country, and it is our duty as representatives in this country to take care of them and to treat them with respect and dignity. I think all of the decisions we make in this place should take that into account.

Some of these men and women have served in theatres of war. I know guys in my community who served in Bosnia and Afghanistan. We all know, and I think we should all know, that serving in the Canadian military, and certainly in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan, is a highly stressful job. It is very stressful to the men and women who serve.

I have spent time with the Royal Montreal Regiment. I visited the barracks on St. Catherine Street West in Montreal. I have spoken to these guys. I want members in this place to remember that these men and women have made a great sacrifice, and they give quite a lot.

I can think of a couple of guys in my community, Colin Robinson, who served in Bosnia, or Megal Johnson, who served in Afghanistan. They have told me about their experiences, which has allowed me to understand what it is like to serve in Canada's military.

As for Bill C-15, we are glad that the government has finally acted on this. It has been nine years since Justice Lamer's report came out, so it has been quite a while. We know that when the report came out in 2003, the Liberals sat on it for two years. I do not know exactly why they did not act more swiftly to implement some of the recommendations in the Lamer report. That is for them to answer. However, I am glad to see that the Liberal members have come around to seeing the New Democrats' position and seem to be supporting the amendments we are putting forward. We are very happy to see that.

I do not just want to negative here, as there are good things in Bill C-15. It does provide a greater flexibility in the sentencing process, which is important. We believe that is a step in the right direction, bringing military justice more in line with the civilian justice system, but the bill falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the military complaints commission.

For the people watching who might not understand a summary trial, I would point out that in the civilian system it tends to be a trial that is set up and the process is gone through. The whole point of a summary trial is to look at where a judgment would go and to make the parties come to an agreement after the summary trial has been completed, so they can settle the trial without going through the whole process of an actual trial with sentencing.

The way the system currently works is that people come out of the summary trial system with a criminal record. In the civilian system, that is not the purpose of the summary trial system, but to try to get the parties to settle things without burdening them with a criminal record. Members who are more versed in the law that I am could maybe add to this during questioning. I would certainly welcome that. However, that is my understanding of the purpose of a summary trial.

The background to Bill C-15 is the recommendations developed by Justice Lamer to change the military justice system to bring it in line with the civilian justice system. My understanding is that Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations. There were 88 recommendations made, but only 28 of them have been implemented, so we see some 60 recommendations left that have not yet been addressed in legislation. That is part of the reason we feel that Bill C-15 does not go far enough.

On a positive note, Bill C-15 would make an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, defined in the act as “a fine of $500 or less”, so that they no longer result in a criminal record. This would be a positive thing.

As I said before, these people sacrifice a lot in serving in our military. In particular, we should enable the disadvantaged people I mentioned to transition back to civilian life when they leave the military, especially after they have taken on this role and the stress of serving in Canada's military and given their years of service. A criminal record makes it very difficult for them to reintegrate into society. Given that these people are serving in theatres such as Bosnia or Afghanistan, if they return and are marginalized in society, a whole range of things can happen to these poor men and women. This ends up costing us money in terms of services that we then have to provide. Therefore, it is in our best interest to transition them in a way that they can re-adapt to Canadian society. All members would agree that a criminal record complicates that process, especially if the person gets a criminal record for things that would be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record for civilians. I want all members of the House to consider that.

The fact that this bill does not go far enough is why we are opposing it strongly at second reading. We want to deliver a message to the government that changes have to be made, that this bill has to go further, that we would like to see the Conservatives reformulate the bill to include more of Justice Lamer's recommendations and to note that we should be promoting the re-transitioning of service members back into Canadian society. People who have committed small offences such as insubordination or drunkenness, things that would usually be forgiven of civilians, should not carry a criminal record. We should not burden our men and women in the military with a criminal record for small offences like that.

The New Democrats believe that members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and that they in turn deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. They should not be treated poorly through a sham process where they end up being saddled with a criminal record. As I said, a criminal record after military life makes those people's lives more difficult. It marginalizes them. Criminal records can make it very difficult to get a job and an apartment and to travel. 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 New Democrats will fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in the service of Canada.

People make different decisions in their lives. Some people choose the military to serve their country; some choose the foreign service, as the parliamentary secretary has; and some choose to represent the people of Canada, as everyone in the House has.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all chose to serve in the House and to pass needed legislation, in this case for the military justice system. I think many Canadians would be shocked to know that we are still debating this bill in the House, a bill that would change a number of minor offences that currently lead to criminal records for service members even after they have left the military for civilian life. We are only delaying the process of seeing that change for the better and a modernized system, in only hearing more and more speeches from the other side.

I would ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges to please remind his colleagues before they stand to join the debate that these changes would be made if the bill were sent to committee and passed. Members agree with these changes, which would enact almost all of the recommendations of former Chief Justice Lamer. The sooner we move the bill beyond first reading to committee stage and enact this much needed bill on Canadian military justice, the better.

Does he agree that is the right approach?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as policy-makers, there are two paths we can take. We can take a very strong approach, look at the report and implement everything in the report, or we can take an incremental approach and implement a few things now, some things later and other things years down the road. When drafting legislation, we have to judge which road we are going to take. That is evidence of a responsible government.

The government in this case has chosen to take the incremental route. New Democrats are delivering a message and saying no, the government has taken incremental measures in the past but has to go further with this legislation. It must take a more proactive route; it cannot just dribble some reforms now, some later and others down the road. It really has to take a strong stance now, but it has not done so. That is why we are opposing the bill at second reading.

We are asking the government to go back to the drawing table and redraft the legislation, and then New Democrats will pass it if it goes far enough.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that the member started his speech by being somewhat critical of the Liberals not acting quickly enough. He even went as far as to say that former Prime Minister Paul Martin had the report for two years. Yes, Paul Martin, as the former leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Canada, had this report prepared. There were other agendas, such as the Kelowna accord and child care, which were very high priorities. The NDP and the Conservatives worked against those types of initiatives.

If we fast forward to today, the Liberal Party is already on the record saying that it supports this bill in principle and wants the bill to go to committee. It seems to me that the only thing preventing it from going to committee is the NDP, which wants to continue to debate this. The member is being critical of the Liberal Party not wanting to send this bill to committee. The Liberal Party and Conservative Party are prepared to send it to committee, but it would appear that the New Democrats are the ones preventing it from going to committee, yet the member persists in blaming the Liberal Party. It does not make sense.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the government of Paul Martin, yet everyone in the New Democratic Party, and perhaps the Conservative benches as well, can say that the military was not a priority of the Liberal government either under Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin. That has been a weakness of that party and it shows. It sat on the report for two years and the member does not deny that. He said the government had other priorities.

The men and women serving in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Cyprus were not a priority for the Liberal Party and I find that tragic. As I said, these people literally give their lives to Canada. When they die, they have given their lives to their country. The member says that it was not a priority of his government, and I find that shameful. I am really disturbed by that.

The Liberal government spent two years sitting on that report and waffled back and forth for the next nine years. I am glad that the Liberals have finally come around to seeing things the way the NDP does and believing that amendments should be made. New Democrats do not think this bill goes far enough. We think the government should go back to the drafting table and redraft this legislation to respond to the Lamer report in a way we can be proud of.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-15, which is really very important. Indeed, our men and women in uniform sacrifice a lot. They play a very specific role in our society. They really have a special status in relation to other citizens. That status, that sacrifice, that life which is unquestionably so different does not justify at all the current system of summary trials. In fact, this justice system should be abolished. It is indeed a summary system that essentially bypasses the normal process. More importantly, it is very punitive and it has very serious consequences for our men and women in uniform.

The big problem is that, in its present form, Bill C-15 does not correct the profound and fundamental injustice of summary trials, and it does not deal with it appropriately. I am going to focus on that point. It is important to clearly understand the consequences. Being saddled with a criminal record when one returns to civilian life, or even while still in the military, creates a lot of economic, moral or family problems. It can be really hard to cope with that situation. Given the whole process, it is truly absurd that this is still tolerated in Canada in 2012 and that we are not trying to really correct things. Unfortunately, Bill C-15 does not do that.

I am going to briefly mention the minor offences that may be dealt with by summary trial and lead to a conviction. They include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a command.

Let us be clear on one thing. Given the military's special status and role, and the need for unity in the Canadian Forces to carry out their missions, it goes without saying that discipline is a fundamental requirement. Everyone agrees and no one is going to challenge that. However, and this is what Bill C-15 does not fundamentally correct, we maintain that this requirement does not justify a criminal record. Of course, within the context of the military service—or outside it—there is no doubt that the offences I just listed are more serious than for a civilian, but in the case of civilians they do not automatically result in a much more serious consequence and in much higher proportions.

This situation is really unfortunate because there is of course another problem. An argument was made, among others, to justify summary trials, namely that they speed up the process, so that the soldier who is accused can reintegrate into his unit more quickly.

Once again, that is debatable. First of all, clearly, relative justification can always be found, for instance, in an intervention or operational context, when the strength of the unit must be maintained at all times. Apart from that, in real life, which is most of the time in a soldier's career, the need for expediency is no more justified than it is in civilian life. So that is one thing that does not make sense.

It would also be very troubling if Canada did not modernize this system by committing to a comprehensive reform of the summary trial process. Other countries that have reformed their own systems—systems directly related to what we do here in Canada—include the United Kingdom, of course—which is more or less the mother country on which many of our institutions are based—as well as Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.

Considering that Justice Lamer released his report in 2003, why has it taken Canada so long to act? Why is the government not going even further and really fixing this?

We will focus on the issue of summary trials and the fact that people could end up with a criminal record for life. Furthermore, with a summary trial, there is no appeal process and there are no transcripts. Thus, there is no paper trail. In addition, the so-called judge is also the accused person's commanding officer. Considering the special hierarchical relationship between the superior and the accused, that is very problematic. This major point must be considered.

We all agree that officers in the Canadian Forces meet strict criteria and must face up to their responsibilities. Nevertheless, regardless of the quality of the commander, this way of doing things creates enormous potential for inequality that is not there in civilian life. In fact, it is almost impossible to find something as big that goes as far as what we find in the Canadian Forces. Just bridging this gap and removing this sort of trial from within the military unit would represent great progress.

We must not forget the difficulties that this type of trial creates for soldiers who find themselves with a criminal record as a result of a summary trial. I would like to remind hon. members that having a criminal record can create a potential obstacle for these soldiers when they return to civilian life after serving in the Canadian Forces.

As all members of this House know, military careers are usually shorter than most civilian careers because of how demanding military service is and because of the unfortunate unforeseen circumstances that can occur. When a man or woman who served valiantly in the military and made a valuable contribution returns to civilian life, that person has the right to a new life and a place in society. Yet, no matter what some may say, a criminal record is an enormous and even insurmountable obstacle to returning to a so-called normal life.

In light of the fact that soldiers can be excluded or socially stigmatized for making a mistake, such as getting drunk, after they have bravely served our country, carried out missions throughout the world and imposed on their families all the sacrifices that a soldier's loved ones are forced to endure, it would be scandalous if we did not implement a much fairer trial system that is more respectful of our soldiers' status and of the sacrifices they make and the duty they perform.

I urge all my colleagues to think about this and, above all, to show respect for the duty that our soldiers perform. In that way, we can come up with a much more thorough reform than that proposed in Bill C-15.

That is why we are opposed to this bill.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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

My question concerns re-entry into the community. The amendments that we proposed seek to ease the process and ensure that the offences committed do not result in a criminal record. These measures are extremely important in a context of economic development, where employers are searching for good employees.

When a soldier or an officer ends his military service, he can bring an invaluable contribution to the workforce. We are talking about honest people who served their country and who want to continue to do so. We therefore must avoid saddling them with a criminal record. I used to work in human resources, and I still do so occasionally as an advisor. When employers see a small black mark, they set aside the file. By doing so, we exclude people who could do good things for Canada.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is searching for workers, but we are penalizing ourselves by adopting such measures.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

What is unique about military life is that it can provide very worthwhile support. It could be an opportunity to learn a trade, to acquire qualifications, and even to get a university education and have a career or a role in society that, after one's military service, could be very interesting and rewarding.

So this is a potential workforce that we cannot sacrifice, for the sake of our society's cohesion, the dignity of these people, and economic imperatives. It is quite absurd and even contradictory on the part of the government to refuse to accept our amendments, while a program that we support will allow veterans to enter the construction sector.

We are talking about something that is denied to some members of the military.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of my colleague, who did a good job of explaining the problem with summary trials.

I get the sense that the government considers members of the Canadian Forces second-class citizens and that they do not have the same rights as other Canadians when it comes to trials. A fair and just trial is a constitutional right. However, because of the nature of summary trials, this right is definitely being flouted.

Can my colleague tell me if, like me, he thinks that the government considers our military personnel to be second-class citizens who do not have the same rights as other Canadians?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

I hope not. I will not presume to say what the intentions or thoughts of the government members are.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not challenged this justice system. In other words, it is tolerated by the legislative system, which sees the status of members of the Canadian Forces as being on a par with the institution.

This choice was made in the past. It may have made sense in a certain context and in terms of a mindset inherited from a very distant past. Unfortunately, given current knowledge of and progress in the treatment of diseases linked to combat or service situations, this choice demonstrates that we are on the wrong path. We must immediately get back on track.

That is why we are trying to convince the government members of the merits of our opposition to Bill C-15, so that we can go much further instead of making do with half measures, which would be truly deplorable.

The House resumed 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.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I listened to the government MPs' questions. They asked us why we oppose this, that and the other thing. Simply put, as they are in the majority, they can do whatever they want. We cannot stop them, because no amendments are ever adopted in parliamentary committees, and none of our amendments are ever adopted here, ever.

They should instead ask themselves a philosophical question. The government's policy decisions are supposed to be based on human rights and on building a just society in other countries whose society is not based on law and a proper justice system. Some people volunteer to work towards this and put their lives at risk. When they return, they are denied access to an equitable and basically decent justice system. The Conservatives are unable to do what has been done in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps they prefer the 19th century system of military justice, imported from Great Britain, which probably was called “the Royal something or other”.

If we want to build a lawful society in Afghanistan, we should begin by looking into the possibility of having one here.

It is clear that the armed forces need a justice system to deal with problems that occur in the field, in extreme cases where rapid action is required. However, there is no reason why this form of justice should continue to haunt soldiers in their civilian lives for years. They are already dogged by physical injuries and post-traumatic stress, and do not need to be burdened by a criminal record that will handicap them in their everyday lives for the rest of their days.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention. I would like him to say more about being equitable and striking a balance in this bill and harmonizing it with civilian justice, for example. He alluded to that; I would like him to comment further.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there definitely needs to be a difference between the two justice systems. One ought to be applicable to situations in which soldiers are doing their jobs and putting their lives and health in danger. The difference between these conditions and civilian life afterwards need to be taken into consideration. It is not the same thing, and the distinction must be made; otherwise there is a risk that they will return to society after having been through a justice system that denies them some of the rights to which they would be entitled in civilian society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his interesting remarks on Bill C-15. Bill C–15 was studied in committee, and the NDP proposed amendments to the bill, which, surprise surprise, were defeated without any assurance that they were ever truly considered.

I would like to ask my colleague whether, in his experience, he has seen other similar situations and if, on the committees he has sat, he has seen other situations where amendments were defeated similarly without even being properly considered or debated.

I have seen similar situations in the committees on which I have sat. Since my colleague is talking about democracy, perhaps he would like to comment on the process Bill C-15 has undergone to date in committee.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade. I have, on occasion, sat on many other committees to replace colleagues. Knocking back amendments is the Conservatives' national sport. I have almost never seen an amendment adopted, unless it was something absolutely insignificant, of no importance, and about which everybody cannot help but agree. Amendments are always systematically defeated. Members have barely taken their seats before they hear the words “defeated” ringing in their ears. It has become an automated response.

The Conservatives would now have us believe that the opposition can make a series of proposals about which they will remain open-minded. I certainly have my doubts. If people were aware of how things worked in committee, they would be even more concerned than they are right now about what is going on here.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the reform of the summary trial system, apparently the judge is the commanding officer of the accused. In the case of minor offences, such as insubordination, does my colleague not think there might be other possible conflicts of interest?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the army is indeed a hierarchy, and everywhere there are hierarchies there are conflicts between the various levels. A commanding officer may not like one of his subordinates or appreciate the way he reacts. That can cause tension. I cannot see why there would not be tension in the army as there is across all society, especially since these people are pushed to their limits when it comes to professional performance. There is certainly great potential for conflict, which may result in injustices being done.

If we do not think about it now, we will have to think about it later. On the other side of the House, they always want to act later and never now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle a fairly simple question.

Of course, the NDP is complaining about the fact that we have a majority and how we can do whatever we like in the House or in committees. That is not true, but the member has made that complaint. During this debate, we are seeing what happens when the NDP fails to live up to its own responsibilities. The amendments and modernizations in this bill on the military justice system are all waiting for us in committee. We cannot deal with them without going to committee.

Does the member not agree that by prolonging this debate in the House, he is delaying the achievement of his own goals?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for my colleague to say what he is saying now. I do not want to go back over all the details, but I would point out that the NDP presented amendments at the time Bill C-41 was being considered. They were excellent proposals that provided solutions to real problems that had arisen in another botched bill.

After 2015, we are going to write our own bills, they way they should be written, and we will examine them in committees. We will not come back and try to fix them later.

The opportunity to support the amendments arose in the past when the former incarnations of this bill were introduced. In its present form, these amendments were all presented and not one was adopted. That is why we do not want to go any further. In any event, the Conservatives are going to pass their bill anyway, based on the principle that nothing will go into it that they did not come up with themselves.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I launch into my speech, I will just pick up on a point that my good friend was making about the amendments proposed to the previous incarnation of this bill. As he rightly pointed out, those amendments have not been included in the current version of the legislation.

I will talk about some of the testimony given in regard to the previous bill, which does beg the following question. Here we have witnesses, people who have a tremendous amount of detailed knowledge about some of these issues, coming before committees on this particular bill and its previous incarnation, and yet every single proposal for an amendment is disregarded. Some of these amendments are reasoned amendments. We have seen this in committee after committee. On the aboriginal affairs committee I am involved with, I do not believe we have had a single amendment to the legislation before the committee.

We use our time here in the House to raise these issues because the public pays attention to debate in the House. Bringing forward these important points of view for consideration in legislation is part of our responsibility of due diligence as parliamentarians. I have talked about due diligence a number of times in the House. It is our responsibility to examine the legislation closely, to see where there are potential faults and to see if there are ways that we can improve the legislation. We are being responsible parliamentarians by raising these issues, and if we need to take the time in the House to do that, we will take the time in the House. The government will continue to limit debate, and here it is ironic that we are talking about military justice. Despite our talking about justice here, the government continues to limit debate, forcing time allocation, managing witness lists, and on it goes, all of which are not part of the democratic process.

Turning to Bill C-15, I am sure that others have spoken about this but I just want to read into the record that 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, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. Just as a little aside, it is about strengthening military justice, and if we want to strengthen military justice in this country the other thing that we have to do is to look after veterans when they come home. If we want to talk about justice, that is justice. I have too many Afghanistan veterans in my riding suffering from PTSD who cannot get access to the education funds they need to resume their lives because of the trauma they have suffered in Afghanistan. Therefore, if we want to talk about military justice, let us also talk about supporting the troops when they come home.

Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Among other things, the bill would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process. It would:

(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.

It would also clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

The New Democrats believe that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the military complaints commission.

I will now turn briefly to the legislative summary, because it does bring forward some of the testimony on the previous bill. The legislative summary indicates that the Bill C-15 “largely reproduces the provisions of the former Bill C-41...”. That is an important point because the New Democrats did propose amendments to that bill and there were witnesses who came forward and talked about some ways the bill could be improved. Many of us support aspects of the bill but there are some key parts that require further attention.

In summarizing some of the key witness testimony, the legislative summary states:

[They] raised concerns regarding specific clauses in the bill, including:

provisions that would permit the Vice Chief of Defence Staff...to issue instructions in respect of specific military police investigations;

provisions regarding the composition of the Grievance Board and provisions allowing active service members of the Canadian Forces to be appointed to the Grievance Board; and

provisions making the CDS the final authority in relation to grievances submitted by military judges not related to their judicial duties.

A number of submissions to the committee suggested that while the bill was a very positive step, it ought to have gone further by, for example, reforming the summary trial system to include more procedural protections for accused persons or by diminishing the consequences of conviction before such tribunals. The lack of authority of the CDS to provide financial compensation when compensation is found to be due under the grievance process, and the failure to implement certain outstanding recommendations in the Lamer Report relating to the Grievance Board were also raised as concerns during the hearings.

I want to focus on one particular aspect of this and read from the testimony on Bill C-41 by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Concerns have been raised about the summary trial aspect of the bill. In its brief called “Supporting the Troops: Fairness for Canada’s Soldiers”, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association raised a number of issues. I want to talk about summary trials first, because many of us in the House are not lawyers and do not have intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system.

The brief states:

Summary trials are a type of service tribunal used to try members of the Canadian forces who are accused of wrongdoing in an expedient, informal manner. They are the main alternative to courts martial, which more closely match the civilian judicial process and generally require more time and expense to try an accused. Summary trials are the principal method through which individuals in the military are tried. They make up roughly 95% of service tribunals convened each year under the Act, while courts martial are used to try the remaining 5% of cases.

Summary trials can be used to try an accused charged with almost every offence under the Act, aside from particularly serious offences such as mutiny and certain seditious offences, and can also be used to try individuals for offences under other Canadian statutes such as the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. While certain minor offences, such as drunkenness and being away from a post without leave, can only be tried by way of summary trial, in other cases an individual charged with an offence under the Act is given the choice as to whether to be tried by summary trial or court martial. It is to be inferred that individuals charged with an offence may be daunted or intimidated by the more complex nature of proceedings before courts martial. A majority of those charged with disciplinary violations under the Act, especially those charged with minor offences, do not choose to avail themselves of their right to be tried through a court martial....

One of the most serious deficiencies of the summary trial procedure is the fact that most accused lack adequate representation. Individuals being tried by summary trial do not have the right to be represented by a lawyer, and may be prevented from doing so even if they arrange for counsel at their own expense. The Act does require that an accused be provided with an “assisting officer,” who can assist with many aspects of the process, including preparing an accused person's case and making submissions on their behalf at the trial. However, assisting officers are not required to have any legal training, or any previous experience with the summary trial process. They are generally other officers in the accused's unit, and are appointed for the role under the authority of the presiding officer at a summary trial, which in itself presents a conflict of interest. Many assisting officers therefore lack sufficient training and experience to provide an accused with effective representation.

It also states:

BCCLA believes that the summary trial process, which is used to try individuals for offences under the Act in an expedited manner, fails to meet minimum standards for procedural fairness. Despite the potential for significant criminal penalties, including imprisonment and stigmatizing criminal records, the summary process deprives Canadian soldiers of basic standards of fundamental justice, including the right to legal representation, the right to be tried according to the standard of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, and the right to an impartial adjudication of one’s case. Weak trial procedures and limited mandatory training for decision makers tend to induce poor quality adjudication, false convictions and wrongful imprisonment. During deployment or active combat there may be sufficient reason to justify a departure from basic standards of procedural fairness, but absent such urgency and necessity, the rule of law and the principles of fundamental justice demand more for our soldiers.

There is a lot more in this testimony, but my time is running out.

Given what we require our troops to do, which many of us here would not be prepared to do, these principles of fundamental justice are critical. That is why the NDP is opposing the bill. That is why the former member recommended a number of amendments, which are simply not present in Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record on a number of points. First, the member ought to know that successive former chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have upheld the summary trial system as constitutionally valid, as absolutely required and lawful as part of the military justice system under the Constitution of Canada. They include former Chief Justices Lamer and Dickson, and former Justice LeSage.

Second, our government has done more than any other in history for veterans. It must have been feigned outrage by the member opposite when she complained that nothing was being done on PTSD and mental health. All of the measures we have taken in raising support levels to historic highs have been opposed by the other side.

My question is much more serious. The member implied that we are limiting debate on this issue and are not open to amendments, when all of us on this side have stood and made it clear that the absolute opposite is true. The fact the bill has not gone to committee is only because of the extensive and dilatory debate forced by the other side. Does the member not realize that changes to the summary trial system, modernization of the military justice system, can only move forward if, and only if, the bill moves to committee? Her party's obstinacy in keeping this debate open in the House, when we have heard all of the arguments they have, is what is preventing our country from having the military justice system it deserves.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points that were made. I will start with the issues around summary trials. I was reading from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, bringing forward its concerns with the process in the bill. It has a number of valid concerns that need to be addressed by the House.

The member talked about the fact that perhaps they are open to amendments. However, the question then becomes this. Amendments were proposed when Bill C-41 was before committee, but the amendments are not reflected in Bill C-15. Therefore, if they are amenable to amendments why are some of those amendments not included in Bill C-15? It does not sound like good faith when we hear on the one hand that they are willing to look at amendments, and then on the other hand see them not considering any of the amendments before them.

What amendments would they consider then? Maybe they would like to actually talk in the House about the amendments they would consider.

With regard to veterans and my so-called feigned outrage, my outrage is not feigned. I would invite the member to come to my riding in Nanaimo--Cowichan and talk to some of the veterans who are not getting the services they need from the government. We have veterans who are living on the streets because they cannot find housing and do not have the necessary supports. It is not feigned outrage. The Conservatives need to pay attention to what is happening to veterans in the country when they return.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan so much for giving that very strong response. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary apparently did not hear the response after he asked his question. It totally begs the question that if the issue of summary trials is a problem, why does the bill does not include the NDP amendments included in the previous bill, which we understood would be supported this time around?

The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan hit the nail right on the head. She is absolutely correct that the bill is faulty, that it does not include the provisions required to ensure that those subject to the military justice system actually get a fair deal and a fair trial.

The thing that really bothers me is that when people end up with a criminal record for a minor offence, it is something that can impact their whole lives. I am dealing with constituents today who are facing this situation, and now it will be almost impossible for them to get a pardon for certain offences under the new laws the Conservatives have passed. Therefore, I would like the member to comment on what it means to have a criminal record.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East has been a strong defender of human rights and brings up a very valid point in her question.

However, I just want to comment a little on the amendment piece, because the parliamentary secretary accused the NDP of engaging in dilatory debate in the House. Here I return to what the member for Vancouver East said about amendments. I do not consider it dilatory debate in the House to mention the number of good amendments proposed to the previous bill. We now have a bill that was re-introduced in the House without the government having considered those amendments. Why should we have any faith that the government will actually consider those reasonable amendments at committee? There is just no reason to think that would actually happen.

In addition, the member talks about criminal records. We already know that people are having a tough time finding employment in the country. If they are burdened with a criminal record because of the way this process is set up, just think how difficult it will be for them to support themselves and their families.

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

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

Many of my colleagues have already spoken about this bill, today and during previous days. I am very pleased to join their ranks today. Despite what we sometimes hear, the NDP has been in favour of making the necessary updates to the military justice system for a long time now, and we have been working to improve and strengthen this system of justice.

Members of the Canadian forces are subject to extremely high standards of discipline and they deserve to have a justice system that is held to the same high standard.

Before going any further in my discussion about Bill C-15, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her very appropriate comments about military justice for our veterans.

I come from the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where the Valcartier military base is located. A number of troops have been sent to Afghanistan over the past few years. Some of them are my age and others are younger than I am. When they come back, they do not have the services they deserve. Sometimes they are relieved of their duties after a year, without any forces' support. They receive a lump sum and that is it. Once that money has been spent, our troops no longer have any support from the government. However, they deserve more, because they gave their lives, they sacrificed time that they could have been spending with their family and they sacrificed many things in the service of their country. They deserve a lot more than they are getting right now. Therefore, I would like to thank my colleague and I would like to take the time to thank the troops. As there have been members of my family in the military for a number of generations, I understand all the sacrifices that choosing this career can have on families.

To come back to Bill C-15, it is a response to a series of 88 recommendations made in 2003 by the Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act.

His recommendations were presented almost 10 years ago now and dealt primarily with the military justice system, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces provost marshal.

When the Lamer report was tabled, the Liberals were in power. At the time, they said they supported the report’s recommendations, but they never took any concrete action to follow them up. In successive parliaments, a number of bills have been introduced in the House, which were attempts to develop an adequate response to the recommendations presented in the Lamer report. However, all of these responses died on the order paper.

One of the bills introduced in a previous Parliament was Bill C-41, in 2010. There was a great deal of discussion about it in the House. The bill contained provisions relating to military justice, and involved reforms to the sentencing process following an offence, military judges and military panels, summary trials and many other issues.

This bill was studied in detail in committee, and some amendments were proposed and accepted by all the parties, including the NDP. All the parties were able to agree on a bill that put forward a more balanced approach to military justice.

Now, Bill C-15 is clearly a first step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to try to bring the military justice system and the civilian justice system closer together. Bill C-15 includes several provisions that were in Bill C-41. However, many were not included in the new version of the bill, including amendments that were proposed by the NDP about the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes in the composition of the grievance board to ensure that members were 60% civilians, and the provision to ensure that a person convicted in a summary trial is not unjustly subjected to a criminal record.

The NDP believes that Bill C-15, if it gets through second reading, needs to be thoroughly reworked to correct the many shortcomings it still contains, such as how the summary trial issue is dealt with.

The summary trial is by far the most common kind of military tribunal in the military justice system. Indeed, more than 90% of disciplinary proceedings are handled in this manner. Summary trials were designed to address minor military offences in a context in which the sentences available are limited.

These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, being absent without leave, drunkenness and disobeying an order.

Summary trials attempt to deal quickly with the presumed offences within the unit in order to be able to return the member to active service as quickly as possible, thereby promoting and maintaining discipline within the unit. With the exception of a number of specified offences, an accused may choose between a summary trial or a court martial, which is generally for more serious offences and involves more complex procedures.

Summary trials differ from civilian judicial proceedings in several ways. First of all, in a summary trial, there is no transcript of the proceedings, and the accused's commanding officer presides. This alone gives rise to concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. In addition, the accused are not given the opportunity to consult a legal advisor during proceedings, and the sentence handed down as a result of a summary trial cannot be appealed.

Lastly, a conviction in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record for the accused, which seems much too severe for many of the minor offences.

Yes, under Bill C-15 certain offences that are subject to minor sentences or fines less than $500, would be exempt from resulting in a criminal record. That is positive, but we think that does not go far enough.

A criminal record makes post-military life very difficult, particularly when it comes to looking for a new job, renting an apartment, travelling and many other things. We know that returning to civilian life after being deployed overseas or after spending a certain amount of time in the armed forces is not always very easy. There are not always equivalents for skills transferred between various jobs. These people need a lot of support. They may need to take various remedial courses, or new training to be able to return to civilian life. This involves a lot of effort in a situation that is already so difficult. If you add to that the fact that an individual has a criminal record for a minor offence as a result of a summary trial, that really undermines the lives of certain military members. They are deprived of certain charter rights.

It is hard to imagine that soldiers who sacrifice themselves, who risk everything in the service of their country, can have a criminal record as a result of a system that does not have the regularity of the process used in civilian criminal courts. I understand that the Canadian Forces have established a code of conduct under which standards are quite strict in order to meet a genuine operational need. We cannot deny that. Discipline, obeying orders and hierarchy have a specific purpose and are essential to the proper operation of the unit and the survival of soldiers in combat situations. That is clear. However, it is nevertheless disturbing that military members can be deprived of certain charter rights when they undergo a summary trial. The NDP believes that the Canadian military justice system should be genuinely just and fair for men and women in uniform who have risked their lives in the service of Canada.

Several Commonwealth countries such as Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia have already made significant changes to their summary trial system. Why not Canada? Why does Canada still lag behind, and why have we not yet implemented all the recommendations of the Lamer report?

If Bill C-15 passes second reading and is referred to committee, it is essential that we come up with a bill similar to what was introduced in Bill C-41. The work done at that time represented a consensus among all the parties. It should not be shelved simply because the Conservative government now has a majority.

The amendments discussed last spring could have been included in the present version of Bill C-15, and we would not be here today. We would not still be engaged in the debate that we are having in this House; we would already be dealing with a much more balanced bill for our military justice system. That is what we are all trying to achieve. That is why the NDP continues this debate in this House. This is a very important issue for our troops and we must debate it thoroughly.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was part of the military justice system. I have conducted summary trials and fortunately have not been on the other side of a summary trial, but the member opposite complained about summary trials being unfair because they could produce criminal records. Is she aware that there are only two Criminal Code offences that can be heard at summary trial that would result in a criminal record? Those are assault and assault causing bodily harm. The vast majority of offences tried at summary trial do not result in a criminal record.

She mentioned that members have a choice in most cases of whether they select a summary trial or a trial by court martial. The fact is that 90% select summary trial. From my experience and from commanding men and women, they choose that because they think the system is fair and because they actually have faith in the system, something to which the member should listen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

In fact, I researched this issue at length because my mother, up until quite recently, was coxswain in the navy. That was her main responsibility and we discussed her role at length. Even if there are only two situations that can result in a criminal record, it is still disconcerting that proceedings can take place without a lawyer present, and that the judge is the commanding officer of the accused.

The conflicts of interest that were originally a problem remain so. Members of the military may opt for a summary trial because the consequences of a court martial might be worse. The options open to the military are quite limited when it comes to the manner in which they are disciplined.

It is important to think through the issues. Despite my colleague's comments, the amendments proposed by the NDP are reasonable and should be adopted in committee.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk about the reform of the grievance system.

The NDP proposed an amendment that stipulates that at least 60% of the members of the grievance board must not be former officers or members of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was adopted in March 2011 as part of Bill C-41, but it was not retained in Bill C-15.

Could my colleague tell us why it is so important to include this new amendment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It is an important amendment, which affects the composition of the grievance board. Currently, retired or former members who left the Canadian Forces as recently as a couple of years ago, sit on the committee. This means that the door is still open to conflicts of interest and other problems.

Justice and fair procedures for all are a must. This is why the amendment was introduced. I would like to reiterate just how important it is that the work done in committee—were the bill to be adopted at report stage—include this type of amendment, which has already been approved by members of all stripes in this House. Work done in the past must not go by the wayside and should be taken into account in the committee's current work.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members always work in good faith, but on the bill we tried hard at committee to bring forward reasonable amendments that would actually strengthen it in terms of military justice and that bill was thrown out. Now the new bill suddenly does not include the amendments that were made at committee.

It raises a lot of questions about how the government responds to other parties in the House. This high and mighty, arrogant attitude is very worrying. Would the member comment on that? Maybe she has had experiences in her own committee on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much.

Unfortunately, every opposition member has experienced this kind of situation, whether in committee or the House. We are all, unfortunately, familiar with the intransigence of a majority government, and that is not the way things should work.

Our experience today of Bill C-15 is a reminder of what has occurred previously in this House, whether in relation to omnibus bills or other problems that have warranted consideration in committee. For example, Quebec's centre for maritime research and rescue has been denied a voice in every forum it has sought one. What we are seeing here is symptomatic of what can be found in all Conservative bills: contempt for the opposition, nothing less.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously very honoured to be here in this House to discuss Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which we are examining today.

On this side of the House, we believe that this bill is a step in the right direction, but it is unfortunately a small step. We believe that military justice must be a part of Canada's justice system as a whole. Military justice laws must be consistent with other laws in our justice system, particularly when it comes to the principles of fundamental rights. Military justice must be fair and equitable so that it does not negatively affect discipline and so that it helps maintain morale among our troops. Our soldiers volunteer to participate in our armed forces. They must always be entitled to fair treatment.

During the study on a bill that dealt with the same issue, we tried to ensure that the military justice system procedures were effective and consistent with the need for disciplinary issues to be resolved quickly. However, efficiency and speed should not trump the fundamental principles of justice. Just because they are members of the military does not mean that the fundamental principles of justice do not apply to them.

The origins of this bill date back to 2003. I would like to provide some background so hon. members understand its origin and scope. In 2003, the Right Hon. Justice Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, submitted a report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. This report contained 88 recommendations on various military justice issues.

The government introduced Bill C-15, in response to this report and its recommendations. I must point out that, of the 88 recommendations in the report, only 28 were included in this bill. The provisions in Bill C-15 appeared in other bills that were previously introduced in Parliament. There was Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, which both died on the order paper.

In July 2008, the government introduced Bill C-60 to simplify the court martial structure and establish a system for choosing the court martial format that would harmonize best with civilian justice. In 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs examined Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations for amendments to the National Defence Act. In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and to the Senate committee's 2009 report.

When the committee studied the bill, it approved some of these amendments, which would have resolved some of the problems raised by the bill. Oddly enough, they are not included in Bill C-15, which has been introduced and is before us.

Some of these amendments had been proposed by the Judge Advocate General as compromises to correct the system in an acceptable manner. They removed certain offences from the list of those that would not result in a criminal record. However, the government simply deleted these amendments when drafting Bill C-15.

That is the extent of the Conservatives' respect for the work of Parliament. Unfortunately, they believe that they can do as they wish without regard for the previous work of Parliament because they have a majority. Basically, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 introduced by the Senate committee in the last Parliament. However, that bill contained the provisions of bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper, as I mentioned.

The provisions in the bill were not included in Bill C-60. The bill also implemented the recommendations made by Justice Lamer in 2003 and those made by the Senate committee in 2009. At committee stage of Bill C-41, my colleagues on the Standing Committee on National Defence proposed amendments to Bill C-41 to lengthen the list of offences that could be considered minor. My colleagues believed that these minor offences did not warrant a criminal record. The proposed amendments also would have lengthened the list of penalties that could be set by a tribunal without resulting in a criminal record.

However, many of the amendments proposed for Bill C-41 were, unfortunately, not included in Bill C-15. Although it contains some worthwhile provisions, Bill C-15 also has some shortcomings. If the bill makes it through second reading, we hope to be able to discuss those shortcomings and ensure that the bill will make the military justice system as fair and effective as possible.

I would like to focus on the provisions concerning summary trials, since some of them, as they are written, could have serious consequences for soldiers, particularly during their transition to civilian life.

A summary trial is one where the chain of command is allowed to judge subordinate soldiers. It is important to point out that these trials are held without lawyers, without a jury, without a system of evidence and without witnesses, unlike in the civilian justice system. Over 95% of military trials are summary trials. A conviction in a summary trial sometimes results in a criminal record. There is no recourse and no transcript of the proceedings. This is too severe for 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 are undoubtedly very important for military discipline, but do not necessarily call for a criminal record.

In committee last March, the NDP proposed amendments to Bill C-41 to increase from five to 27 the number of offences that could be considered minor and would not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed. The amendment also added to the list of penalties a tribunal may impose without giving the offender a criminal record, for example, a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal to one month's salary and any other minor sentences. These amendments were very important to us, and that is why we want them to be included in Bill C-15.

A criminal record can make soldiers' lives very difficult after they leave the military. A criminal record can make it hard for veterans to get a job, rent an apartment, travel or get insurance. Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that the soldiers who so bravely served our country could end up with a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system.

I have seen first-hand the problems experienced by some veterans during their transition to civilian life and I know it has been extremely difficult for some. As I said, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Veterans shared their concerns with us loudly and clearly and talked about the obstacles they face in their transition to the civilian world. It is hard for veterans, especially for injured veterans, to find work in the civilian world. Considering the number of veterans working in the public service, it is clear that priority hiring for veterans is not always respected.

The private sector, and especially the construction industry, is trying to do its part, but this private sector initiative is not available to all veterans, since it is not available in all provinces. Veterans therefore have to obtain educational equivalencies for the training they received during their service. If they are saddled with a criminal record on top of that and have to go through the commission to get a pardon, which costs $600, we are doing nothing to help them reintegrate properly into civilian life.

As I said earlier, we would like the bill to include these provisions.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I listened with interest to the disinformation that my hon. colleague included in his remarks. The Minister of National Defence has indicated that he will bring the criminal record issue back to committee, so the member should calm down.

One of the other things he said was that the make-up of the grievance committee was not supported by the government in the committee. I was there and it was not supported, as were a bunch of others not supported. For the member to suggest that all of these things that had been previously supported by the government and are now is simply false. Bill C-41 died on the order paper because of the opposition calling an unnecessary election.

My colleague mentioned that only 29 recommendations have been implemented. Eighty-one of those recommendations were accepted, 29 were implemented and another 36 are in fact contained in Bill C-15. If he and his party want to make progress, because it was said earlier this is a step in the right direction, we should just get on with it and get it to committee where amendments that need to be made can be debated. Let us just get on with it, please.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his observations and comments. Since we are on the subject, we would really like to see the amendments to the previous bill included in this one. We want to update all of those things. Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, a lot more could be done to make the military justice system more consistent and more equitable for some people who have to face military justice, sometimes for offences that are more like insubordination. When that happens, as I said, they get stuck with a criminal record. In our opinion, the bill should go even further and include more summary offences that could be—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his heartfelt speech.

Given that the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have already decided to change their summary trial processes, why is Canada lagging far behind on this important issue?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I especially thank him for pointing out that Canada is lagging behind other countries that have already updated their criminal justice systems.

Bill C-15 corrects some of the current shortcomings, but it does not go far enough, as I said earlier. We should be looking at the countries my colleague mentioned, as they went much further in reforming military justice. We obviously need to move in the same direction and follow their lead as we reform our military justice system.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something I mentioned to the previous speaker, because the allegation about criminal records is simply not true. The two Criminal Code offences that can be heard at summary trial that would result in a criminal record are assault and assault causing bodily harm. The vast majority of offences at summary trial do not result in a criminal record. The member should stop spreading inaccuracies.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleague for his question and remarks. I was under the impression that there were a few more offences that could result in a criminal record. That is something we need to look at. I believe that other offences can also lead to a criminal record. We must give this issue very serious consideration.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise, as my colleagues in the official opposition have done, to take part in the debate on Bill C-15.

Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, makes changes to the National Defence Act, in order to strengthen the military justice system. It provides for greater latitude in sentencing and in introducing new sentences, such as absolute discharge. It also sets out changes relating to intermittent sentences and restitution. It makes changes to the membership of the court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person, and to the summary trial limitation period, as well as making it possible to waive the one-year period at the request of the accused. It also sets out the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the power of the Chief of Defence Staff as the final authority in the grievance resolution process.

The NDP believes these changes are a step in the right direction toward standardizing the military and civilian justice systems. In this regard, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech on this bill earlier in this House. He gave a very clear explanation of why standardization is necessary. He also provided some background for the bill which, we remember, results from the recommendations made by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, in his report—the “Lamer Report—on the independent review of the National Defence Act that was tabled in 2003, and the recommendations in another report, one by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 2009.

Essentially, Bill C-15 incorporates the provisions of Bill C-41 that was introduced in the last Parliament. However, not a single one of the NDP amendments that were adopted at committee stage late in the last parliamentary session is included in the bill before us today. There were three such amendments and they dealt with: the power of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process set out in clause 6 as amended in Bill C-41, a measure deriving from one of the recommendations in the Lamer Report; changes to the membership of the grievance committee to ensure it is made up of at least 60% of civilians, as provided in clause 11 as amended in Bill C-41; and the provision ensuring that a person convicted of a service offence during a summary trial should not receive an unfair criminal record, as provided in clause 75 as amended in Bill C-41.

The NDP has called for amendments to be made to the military justice system for a long time now, but it is clear on reading this bill that this version is not satisfactory. It is for this reason that we will be voting against Bill C-15 at second reading. If the wording is passed at this stage, we hope that the debate in committee will allow for an in-depth analysis of the text and improvements to its content.

This bill has three major flaws: the reform of the existing summary process, the reform of the grievance system and the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I will discuss each of these points. First, the reform of the summary process system is unfair and too harsh towards the men and women of the Canadian Forces. If these individuals commit minor offences, they end up with a criminal record, which could be detrimental in a future civilian life.

I want to share an excerpt of a 2011 report by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association regarding Bill C-41:

Presiding officers in summary trials may have a different focus. They are military officers, not judges, and their primary concern is likely to be unit discipline and deterring future violations, not the effect the sentence they impose will have on an accused in the civilian world.

We think that disciplinary action without a criminal record is more than enough in cases of insubordination, absence without leave or disobeying an order. One of the NDP's amendments proposed including in the list of minor offences all those that would not be placed on a criminal record. We want this proposal to be taken into consideration by the Standing Committee on National Defence.

As far as the reform of the grievance system is concerned, the NDP has already been critical of the composition of the grievance committees. One of the three amendments stated that civilians should make up at least 60% of the committee members, to ensure that there is an external review of grievances. This amendment was adopted and we hope it will be again during the study in committee.

The third amendment proposed by the NDP, as part of the study of Bill C-41, had to do with the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff regarding financial aspects of grievances. This amendment responded to one of the Lamer report recommendations. I should point out that the Minister of National Defence agreed with this one. He acknowledged that the Chief of Defence Staff needed to have the authority to resolve the financial aspects of grievances.

Over the last eight years, however, the Department of National Defence has done nothing concrete to implement the recommendations made by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. As well, the present bill does not include that amendment, and the NDP would like the government to reconsider its position.

As a final point, regarding the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission, we believe that Bill C-15 does not go far enough, and that there should be another bill, separate from the one being debated in the House today, to address this important issue. As well, many Canadians might reasonably wonder why there is unequal treatment between the procedure that applies in the criminal courts and the procedure that applies to the people who bravely serve our country.

In conclusion, the NDP urges the government to adopt its amendments as presented and adopted during consideration of Bill C-41. We firmly believe that the women and men in the Canadian Forces are entitled to a military justice system that is consistent with the stringently improved and circumscribed criteria and procedure.

We are opposed to minor offences resulting in a criminal record, as this can complicate everyday life for the person in question, in civilian life. We will do everything we can to make the Canadian military justice system fairer for the women and men in uniform who risk their lives in the service of Canada.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the NDP keeps spreading false information, I will keep correcting it.

There are only two Criminal Code offences that can be heard at summary trial that would result in a criminal record. They are assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The member mentioned that it has been eight years and we have not done anything. We have been trying. Three times we tried. Three times the bill has died on the order paper because of elections called by opposition members, which is their right to do and I understand that. However, the member should not stand up and say that DND and the government did not make an effort. That is simply false.

I would also point out what Justice LeSage said in his report, and I quote:

Having examined the system and listened to various participants (including a number who had been charged under the Code of Service Discipline), I share the view of former Chief Justice Dickson. The summary trial system is vital to the maintenance of discipline at the unit level and therefore essential to the life and death work the military performs on a daily basis.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will answer somewhat as my colleague did just now.

We are fairly certain that a criminal record can be created by numerous offences other than the ones the member opposite has just named.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a quicker question.

In listening to debate this morning and this afternoon, I heard a lot of talk about military justice. However, it is important to recognize that only a fraction of the members of the Canadian Forces go through that system. The vast majority, well past 95%, are outstanding men and women who perform all sorts of functions for us as Canadians, and we truly appreciate all of those efforts.

We now have a bill before us, which tries to establish some rules for those who do cause issues. That is something that has been necessary for the last number of years. We look forward to it ultimately getting to committee stage.

My quick question to the member is this. Does the NDP support the bill going to committee?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague.

For all the reasons I have already given in my speech, and that other colleagues have also reiterated over and over again, we will be opposing this bill, because it is seriously flawed.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre suggested that amendments could be made to the bill if it went to committee.

Given this majority government's current practice and the way it systematically rejects everything suggested at committee, does my colleague really believe that amendments would be made to the bill if it went to committee?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. The answer is fairly obvious.

Sadly, from what I have seen in various committees, the government is using its majority to reject basically all amendments, whether we propose one, 10 or 300 of them. We do not have much faith in the government's co-operation in this regard.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is saying that, even though the New Democrats have said it is a step in the right direction and that there are many good things in the bill, because they are mad at us they would oppose sending it to committee to take a step in the right direction. I would suggest that is not a mature approach to legislation.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague.

To answer his question, I would point out that in our speeches, my colleagues and I have listed the purely objective reasons why we will oppose this bill at second reading.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today and say a few words on Bill C-15.

As a former member of the Canadian armed forces, or the Royal Canadian Navy, my experience taught me, in the time I did spend, a lot of appreciation for the professionalism of our armed forces. I had the pleasure to serve at Canadian Forces Base Portage la Prairie. I had the thrill of going up in a Tutor jet, which my colleague understands very well. I went up only once. In the Royal Canadian Navy, I remember the professionalism when, many years ago, we were doing anti-submarine exercises. We always came out on top when it came to exercises with the U.S. Navy.

Many years after that, I went to Vladivostok in Russia as an interpreter with the Canadian Navy, the first western fleet to sail into Russia when it finally opened up the city. It was quite an experience. I saw the respect that the officers and men of the Russian navy had for the high degree of knowledge and skills of our armed forces.

I mention this because when I have a chance I speak on anything that touches on the military, in spite of the fact that at times some of us do not agree with the direction the military is going. Once people have been part of this family, as I call it, they want to make sure the current members receive the very best, whether or not we are talking about equipment, whether they agree with the mission or not, and certainly when the members come back as veterans.

We have seen some problems with people suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. We have seen problems with veterans' funerals. I just want to emphasize that we need to do the very best for them, and that also includes the justice system.

That brings me in a roundabout way to talking about this bill. The NDP believes that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bringing the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system.

However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the military complaints commission. I might add that amendments to that effect were brought into the last Parliament. For some reason they were not included in this particular bill.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced in response to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 Senate committee report. It included the military justice provisions relating to sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, the court martial panel and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and certain provisions concerning the Military Police Complaints Commission.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of the Senate committee during the last Parliament. The amendments carried over include those respecting the composition of the court martial panel and security of tenure for military judges until their retirement.

However, I would say that other important amendments adopted at the committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15. That includes the NDP's amendments concerning the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes in the composition of the grievance board so that 60% of members are civilians and the provision that a person convicted of an offence at a summary trial should not be unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

Many important reforms are proposed in this bill. The NDP has long supported a necessary updating of the military justice system. The members of the Canadian Forces are held to extremely high standards of discipline and deserve a judicial system that is held to comparable standards.

However, as previously mentioned, the NDP will oppose the bill at second reading. This bill contains a number of deficiencies that we hope will be addressed in committee if the bill is passed at second reading.

As we have previously discussed here, and from what I have personally seen in other committees, the fact that a bill winds up in committee does not mean the Conservatives will adopt amendments. What then are the amendments that we would have liked to include in the bill before it was studied here in the House?

We say that the amendments in 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 appeal and no transcript of the trial.

Bill C-15 would an exemption for a select number of offences. They carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine less than $500 to 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 stage in March of the previous year, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment 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, a fine equal up to one month basic pay or another minor punishment. This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, this amendment was not, for some reason, retained in Bill C-15, and we would like to see it included.

As far as serious offences and criminal records are concerned, the number is probably minor. However, a criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records can make getting a job, renting an apartment or travelling very difficult. 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.

What we are asking is that people who serve our country in the military have the same access to a fair judicial system as people in civilian life have and that if they have certain reprimands, they do not result in a criminal record for the rest of their life.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his service. I have had a few trips and tours as well.

I want to point out a couple of inconsistencies once again. Reprimands or severe reprimands are not offences under the Criminal Code. I just checked with the Judge Advocate General again and there are only two criminal code offences that can be heard at summary trial that would constitute a criminal record, and those are assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The member has said that his party is opposing the bill, but it wants things discussed in committee. Thank goodness for the Canadian Forces that we have a majority government. I suspect the bill will wind up going to committee. The contradiction is that those members will oppose it but they want it at committee. If it is a step in the right direction, then they should go along with it and get it to committee.

The member has admitted that there are some good things in the bill. The Minister of National Defence has already said that he will bring back the criminal record issue to committee, so that will happen. Why do we not stop this waste of time, get to the vote, get the bill to committee and get things done?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his service in the armed forces, which was certainly much longer than mine.

In preparation for second reading of the bill, a lot of thought has gone into it by those people, our critic and others, who have followed it very closely. In my opinion, we do not take lightly opposing a bill when we think something should happen to better it.

I will speak from my personal experience. On Bill S-11, we said to the government that we would support the bill. We said that we thought it was a good way of strengthening the Food Safety Act and that we would do what we could to make it better. At committee, we had 11 amendments, the Liberals had 4 and lo and behold all of these well-thought-out amendments were rejected, one after another.

That kind of precedence does not leave positive feelings in those of us on this side to bring a bill such as this to committee—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are other members who wish to pose questions and we will look for some time to do that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[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?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the idea of the bill is a good one. However, experience has shown over the last year that worthwhile amendments that were in Bill C-41 were not included in this bill.

As someone who does not sit on the defence committee, I look at this from my point of view, my experience and I ask myself what is going on. How serious is the government? How serious would it be look at those amendments if experience has shown the government has rejected them time after time in other committees?

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Churchill, Abortion; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, The Economy; the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Citizenship and Immigration.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[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 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.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I have a brief comment. A lot of hay has made about why we are debating this. First, it is our job, and second, the vast majority of us are not on the justice committee. This an opportunity for us to voice our opinions on a bill. It is a shame that the government needs to go to the extreme and say that because we disagree with a certain point, we disagree with everything. My colleague has made it quite clear that there are elements we would like looked at in good faith, which the government has not done.

Would my colleague elaborate on the issue of our serving men and women who find themselves in the military justice system and end up with criminal records for very minor incidents when they leave the military. How does that affect the lives of the men and women who leave the armed forces?

[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.

[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.

[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 thank my colleague for his question.

Back in 2003, Mr. Lamer made 88 recommendations, only 23 of which were accepted. I think that this Supreme Court justice deserves a certain amount of trust. He has a huge amount of experience and made 88 recommendations. But accepting 23 of 88 recommendations is not very much.

When this bill was examined, a number of amendments were put forward and rejected. That is unfortunate.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that we are having this debate in the House because I think it draws attention and focus to the issue of military justice, which probably most Canadians know very little about.

I feel very disturbed that so many times in the House we hear the government members say the NDP is opposed to the military, the NDP is opposed to everything. However, here we are actually debating a bill where we support the need to have a fulsome, proper, fair and balanced military justice system. It is the government side that is whipping through a bill, as it does so often now, without properly considering amendments that were previously in a bill that the House looked at before.

I wonder if the member could comment on the practice of what is taking place, because it is just getting worse and worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very astute observation of the system and the debates.

In the parliamentary system, discussions among the different parties and members of Parliament are important, but committee work is also extremely important. That is the source of some of the frustration. We have tried many times—just look at Bill C-45—to propose amendments that could improve a bill and that often reflect the testimony of the various experts who have appeared before the committees.

We are not pulling these amendments out of nowhere. They are often inspired by different parties—not in the partisan sense—from civil society who share their expertise, their good faith and their opinions.

We hope the government's new year's resolutions will include starting to listen to the amendments we propose.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Welland and others in the chamber, the Chair has been reminding members to address the Chair in their remarks, both physically addressing the Chair as well as addressing the Chair as opposed to their colleagues.

I am not only singling out the member of Welland, as I know many others have done this. That is the appropriate form in this place.

The hon. member for Welland.

[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.

[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 not sure there was a question, but that is okay. I respect my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre. He served our country for a long time and we are extremely proud of his service and thank him for it. I to want to say it publicly again.

The member is right. What I said previously was that the committee had the amendments. It may not have accepted everything and that is fair. Ultimately it amounts to the fact that there was an acceptance of a certain pace of a go. If the member is telling us that the Conservatives are studying the additional pieces, then why would they rush to bring this? Why not wait until they study the other 36 pieces, recognizing that they are complex and need further study? If it is too long, then they cannot wait.

Clearly now that we know the government is studying some things, what is that timeline? I wonder if the minister could tell us that at some point. Is it 30 of 90 days from now? Is it 3 years from now? If the Conservatives are studying them with the prospect of enhancing the bill with those additional pieces, perhaps they should have helped us with that information and perhaps they could have been in the bill in a month or two, or less.

[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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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?

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

Mr. Speaker, historically in Roman and Greek times the Spartans had terrible disciplinary measures, which I will not go into, but they were pretty grotesque. There has always been severity in the kinds of punishment meted out in our military. In many cases that was used to drive people forward in battle, to ensure that they did their duty as seen fit. However, the reality is that we are not talking about people in battle. We are talking about people who, in their everyday duties as military personnel, come into conflict with the military's rules and regulations and find themselves before a tribunal without rights that are really essential to ensuring a balance.

Later today I will be making another speech on Bill C-377 and will talk about questioning authority. That is the one thing that the military does not wish a service member to do; the military sees that as almost an offence in itself.

We have to find a way to balance a genuine, and I stress the word “genuine”, democratic and open process that is accountable within the military to those people who administer the so-called justice. The reality is that it is important that we ensure balance in this.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his service in the 1960s. I too served in the military, but regarding the comments made by the member from Laval, I was also a commanding officer. I served for over 33 years and I understand the military justice system. I understand that soldiers can occasionally get into trouble and have to deal with that.

Nonetheless, the summary trial system does give the service member the opportunity to choose court martial or summary trial, and that person does have recourse to assisting officers and other elements that are put in place for them. Having been part of this for well over three decades, I saw this unfold. Here I would point out that Justice Lamer in fact made his recommendations with the military and military justice in mind, because soldiers do deserve a transparent system under the charter. On this I think we all agree.

Why does the hon. member feel this legislation should not go to committee? I think it should so that witnesses could be brought forward. We could talk about this there and look at implementing the remainder of the 88 recommendations, of which 29 are now in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the member for the service he has given. I was unaware of it. We should occasionally pause and give credit to where it is due. I do not speak much about my personal service because I was only in the service in 1963-64 in a sapper apprentice program. I applied for release and went back to high school. I have never felt ingrained in it in the same fashion as someone who made a career in it.

When we discussed the matter with our critic, he recommended that we not support this legislation. However, the reality in this place is that the government has a majority and the chances are that the bill will go to committee.

I stressed earlier in my remarks that we are certainly willing to revisit the recommendations the NDP made in the past and to try to work with the government on this particular issue, because we think our amendments are of value. I do not want to appear in any way to be maligning our present system because I stressed how it has improved over the years. That was the point I was trying to make, that this is one more step along the long road of trying to ensure a balance. We have to keep improving our systems generally, including in the House and, in this case, our system of military justice to ensure that it is fair, balanced and just.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was after listening to my colleagues' speeches on the bill to amend the National Defence Act that I thought it would be appropriate to speak as well to ensure that we explore the legal concepts associated with the matter before us.

I would invite my colleagues to go beyond the briefing notes from the House, to distance themselves from the talking points, but not from the party's position. I therefore invite them to conduct their own research and engage in an intellectual and mental exercise. I think our audience, those who watch us regularly, would like that. Sometimes the speeches we hear in this House can be redundant because people simply repeat the information they have been given, it is a rehash.

When I heard the speeches by my colleagues across the way, but particularly those of my own colleagues, some ideas seemed familiar. First of all, you must understand that I am a criminal lawyer. When I began to study law, we were told that the administration of justice in the military was different than what the common law courts applied across the country. That is why we spent very little time on the subject, or in fact none at all. I even wonder whether specialized courses were offered at the university, but I doubt it. However, we learned that people in the Canadian Forces were trained in it, that the JAGs, the ultimate decision-makers, were trained, that courses were given and that it was training that was observed first and foremost within the military.

However, there are recurring concepts in my colleagues' speeches, including the right to a lawyer, the independence and impartiality of the decision-maker and other concepts that refer to the charter. Those concepts rang a bell with me and I decided to investigate a little further. I spent several hours researching the topic last night and this morning. It was a last-minute minute decision, and we needed speakers on the topic. So I launched into my research and came up with a considerable amount of information, particularly on statutory instruments, the various acts and regulations that apply to the situation and to the bill under consideration here, but also on case law and doctrine.

The research I did was nevertheless basic, since it is impossible to grasp the ins and outs of an issue of this scope in a few hours. However, further on in my speech, you will see that several levels of legislative and regulatory authority apply to the situation, and I will go over them. I will stick very close to the statutory instruments at our disposal. That will be a change from what we have heard in this House to date. I think this is relevant and that the general public deserves to be informed about the scope of this matter.

The ins and outs of the military justice system are initially a forbidding prospect when viewed from the standpoint of legal practice in the field. By that I mean they may seem incomprehensible at first glance, reminding one that it is risky to adopt the vision and reflexes of a criminal lawyer in examining a bill that concerns, for example, summary trials in a military justice context.

When I began this study, I suspected that the principles that had been instilled in me during my years of legal training might possibly be applicable, but with certain qualifications. I was right, since some concepts that I had learned were tested when I actually looked at the authorities and at what applied in the military field. I noticed some subtleties and adaptations. So I like to think of the training given to JAGs and to people who work in the administration of military justice as additional training and that those subtleties and those transposed principles will genuinely help shed light on the specific characteristics of military life.

When I researched the statutes, I came to several major levels, which I will describe in a moment. The subtleties expressed there very much call for revisiting and exploring the material.

That is why I say it may be uncomfortable and risky at times simply to rely on notes prepared in the lobby in addressing these matters, which genuinely need to be closely examined. They are particular and specific enough that they require one to consider many elements that, incidentally, exceed the scope of a 10-minute speech.

Assuming that the officers presiding over summary trials render judicial decisions in the same way as common law courts, certain rules of procedural fairness and the principles of fundamental justice apply. Based on that assumption, I was subsequently able to conduct the statutory research necessary to examine the bill in question.

In their speeches, my colleagues invoked such principles as audi alteram partem—hear the other side. A person who is accused has the right to make his own claims. This is true in criminal law as well, whether we are talking about summary conviction or indictment. It should be understood that in the criminal courts, under common law, cases tried summarily lead to lesser sentences than cases involving indictable offences. Indictable offences can involve more serious crimes or repeat offences and are much more serious. They are treated more seriously by the courts. Those are concepts I verified to see if the same kind of reasoning applied in the military sphere.

I will refer to the laws on the books and to various tools that apply to a given situation. I will begin with the Constitution Act. It gives the federal Parliament the exclusive right to legislate in matters of military justice. That is the basis. I said there were several levels, and that is the first. It opens the door for all the other legislative tools.

Second, the National Defence Act sets out the organization of the Department of National Defence and the components and elements of the military justice system. It also addresses the concept of a criminal record. I will not discuss that aspect, because I think it deserves a study on its own, and I certainly would not be able, in 10 minutes, to describe all the ins and outs of transferring the sanctions applied in the military to criminal law. I have not grasped all the nuances that apply. That is why I will leave it for now.

Now, here is the third level, the Code of Service Discipline. This code is part of the National Defence Act and sets out the foundation of the Canadian military justice system, including disciplinary jurisdiction, service offences, punishments, powers of arrest, organization and procedures of service tribunals, appeals, and post-trial review.

That brings us to the fourth level. The procedure for summary trials and receipt of proof is set out in sections 108.20 and 108.21 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders, the QR&Os, which were made pursuant to the National Defence Act.

I said it was fairly specific and tricky, and this proves it.

I will now read the first part of section 15 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders, which applies to Canadian Forces members who insist on the right to have a lawyer:

For example, the Regulations do not expressly provide the right to counsel to the accused; however, the presiding officer has discretion to allow legal counsel to participate and, if so, to determine the level of participation to be allowed. When deciding whether to permit an accused to be represented by legal counsel at the summary trial, QR&O indicate that the presiding officer should, at the least, consider the nature and complexity of the offence, the interests of justice, the interests of the accused, and the exigencies of the service.

In closing, all of these elements accurately convey the complexity of the summary trial system within the context of the administration of military justice. In my opinion, this bill requires a review that would reveal a number of unknown factors and flaws to justify opposition at second reading.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for doing his homework. I know he is a lawyer and clearly an intelligent young fellow who has done the comparison and looked at the Queen's Regulations and Orders, which is quite a large document.

We have had three chief justices, Justices Dickson, Lamer and LeSage, all doing this work and concluding very similar things, which is the military justice system needs something transparent on which soldiers can rely. The independent reports of former chief justices Dickson in 1997, Lamer in 2003 and LeSage in 2012 said that the summary trial system was fair.

Could the member show me some examples in his research where he could point to the summary trial being constitutionally deficient in any way or fundamentally unfair? Did you see that in any of your research?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the hon. member, I would remind all hon. members to address their remarks and questions directly to the Chair and not to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I would simply remind him of my final point regarding the right to legal counsel and the tremendous amount of flexibility that is granted to the decision maker, the arbitrator in summary trials. I have my doubts about this; some unanswered questions remain.

There is a tremendous amount of flexibility, and that alone is enough to justify revisiting and reviewing the procedures that apply to the summary process in the military justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He is himself a lawyer, and we are very impressed by the depth of his knowledge.

I wonder if he has any comments to make about the amendments proposed in March 2011 in the context of Bill C-41, which was similar to this one. We want to increase the number of minor offences from five to 27. As a former member of the military myself, I am curious to know why it was decided that only five minor offences are important, and not 27, considering the impact the army can have on us.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I did not go over every offence that was suggested. At the time, I simply looked at the general documents. However, there are things like drunkenness that could lead to charges and a summary trial in the military justice system.

What I still have serious doubts about is the fact that these offences could ultimately lead to a criminal record. I did not address this issue and I would rather not go into it, because there are so many ins and outs and I have not been able to identify them all.

In any case, I have never seen that in my practice. It would be rather unfortunate and rather strange to see these offences and charges on someone's record, when doing a search with their name and date of birth, for instance. Personally, I have never seen that, and it would be somewhat questionable, especially considering how expensive it is to apply for a pardon, not to mention how long it takes, with the RCMP taking fingerprints and so on. I have taken on a few such cases, so I know what a difficult process it is.

How can people get rid of this liability, once they have been convicted?

I submit this respectfully.

[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.

The House resumed from December 7 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.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise after many of my colleagues have spoken in the last few months to Bill C-15 on military justice.

In 2003, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who was the former Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, presented his report containing an independent review of the National Defence Act. That report contained 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, grievance procedures, the Provost Marshal and so on.

The bill is the legislative response to these recommendations. Thus far, however, only 28 recommendations have been implemented in legislation, regulation or by a change in practice.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the Lamer report, and in essence this bill is similar to Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. The amendments carried over include court martial composition and military judge security of tenure.

However, other important amendments—and it is really important that we all be aware of this—that passed committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session did not end up in the bill. These include the following three NDP amendments that I will mention.

First, the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process: This was amended clause 6 in Bill C-41, responding directly to Chief Justice Lamer's recommendation. That is not here.

Second, changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership: This was an amended clause in Bill C-41. Again, this is not in Bill C-15.

Third and finally, a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record: This is amended clause 75 in Bill C-41. This last amendment from Bill C-41 that did not reappear in the bill will be the main focus of my own remarks.

The NDP will be opposing the bill at second reading. However, we do hope that some of these shortcomings that I will be emphasizing, and have been emphasized by some 50 or 60 of my colleagues in the House, will be looked at seriously. The practice of committees of the House will vary somewhat in this case, I hope, and some amendments will come back at third reading.

I want to clarify that the amendments to Bill C-15 do not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. Summary trials are by far the most used military tribunal within the military justice system. The purpose of a summary trial is to deal with minor military-related offences. The objective is to quickly deal with alleged offences within the unit, so members can be returned to active service as quickly as possible, which helps promote and maintain discipline within the unit.

In his brief, Colonel Michel Drapeau stated that the summary trial was the most frequently used disciplinary method to deal with offences committed by Canada's military personnel. In 2008-09, 1,865 cases in total—96%—were resolved through summary trial, while only 67 cases—4%—were heard through court martial.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the forces can result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals, there are no transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer.

This reflects an undue harshness when certain members of the forces who are convicted of various minor service offences end up with a criminal record, leave the service at some point and enter into society, with a criminal record and everything we know that can imply for their prospects, whether it is looking for jobs or advancing in the educational sphere. The fact that people have criminal records can sometimes be looked at when they want to upgrade their education.

Some of the minor service offences include insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absences without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These, by definition, could be extremely important matters to military discipline, as we can imagine, every one that I have just listed. Discipline and efficient functioning of a military unit has to be at the very core of how the military functions, and we can see how these could be of great instrumental concern to the military. However, they are not worthy of a criminal record, I suggest.

Bill C-15 makes exemptions for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine less than $500. These would no longer result in a criminal record. This is to be welcomed, but my point is that the recommendations in Chief Justice Lamer's report and the NDP amendments in Bill C-41 have to be taken seriously. We have to go further.

What we propose, by increasing from 5 to 27 the number of offences that would be exempt from a criminal record after summary conviction, responds to a very serious need in the military to hear that society, outside the military, understands the incredibly tough job people expect of members of the military and the pressures they are under that can often lead to summary conviction trials. People also want to welcome them back into society without the burden that is the worst kind of send-off for their service to our country—namely, a criminal record.

A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult, to put it mildly. It can make getting a job, renting an apartment and travelling very difficult. Imagine having a criminal record and trying to travel to the United States these days. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn, frankly, that 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.

I have spoken to my colleague from Repentigny, who has had some experience in the military. He spoke in the House, not by way of a speech but by way of several interventions, and I want to put the interventions on record as part of my speech so they can be integrated into a broader theme.

First, the member for Repentigny stated:

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.

In another intervention, my colleague from Repentigny had the following to say:

For the last 10, 15 or 20 years, professionals, members of the military and experts have been requesting changes that should be made.

These amendments were brought forward and agreed to during the previous Parliament. Everyone agreed. Now the Conservatives are proposing half measures by saying that they are going to send the bill to committee for review, but they are not giving any guarantees.

I presume he means any guarantees that they actually will modify in light of common sense.

Finally, the member for Repentigny said something that I think is indeed disturbing, if what he says is true, and I believe it to be true. I spoke to him yesterday to confirm that Hansard is correct. He stated:

Mr. Speaker, being an ex-member myself, I have seen trials that colleagues and friends have gone through and the impact they can have to ruin careers and leave people looking at the military in a certain way but not necessarily understanding the system. I have seen summary trials put onto military personnel in such a way that they were used as a training tool. I think there is a serious problem with this.

That is the understatement of the century.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is in fact evident is the need for change. We have seen this over the last number of years with members of the forces and different stakeholders coming to the House and suggesting that we need to modernize the military justice system. It is somewhat disappointing that the government is not taking a larger step to move forward on the issue.

Having said that, the principle of the bill ultimately does merit our support of the bill going to committee, where hopefully it can be amended to make it a stronger bill. If we do not support its going to committee, does the member not think that would send the wrong message to members of the forces and others, that we do not support the principle of making needed changes they want implemented?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely understand the dilemma any party has faced in deciding whether to support bill in principle or oppose it and hope that things can be pushed through at committee.

My experience so far in the House is that at the moment, the way committees are working, very little that opposition members propose in going to the heart of problems with bills ends up being addressed. We have to look at that in advance. We cannot simply say there is a general principle that we support and that there are also serious flaws that we hope to work out at committee. We will work at committee, but these serious flaws undermine the very purpose of the bill.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative speech.

It is rather outrageous to learn that the Conservatives are once again disregarding every recommendation made by the opposition parties and every one of their proposed amendments.

Could the hon. member say more about the fact that 96% of cases are handled with summary trials, which result in criminal records, and that the members are not entitled to a lawyer or an appeal? This creates an even greater injustice and makes it even more difficult for those members to make their case.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to forgive me, but it is too early in the morning for me to respond in French this morning without having a coffee.

There is another issue, which is not just what happens in the summary trials but how we get to the summary trial. With summary trials, by and large a member of the forces is presented with this semi-nudge-nudge-wink-wink option in cases where he or she is supposed to be able to choose between an indictable and summary offence. It is understood that the member is expected to choose the summary offence and take it like a man, excuse me for saying, and then simply reintegrate into his unit.

There is a great scene in the second episode of the series Band of Brothers showing exactly that process, where a commanding officer expects a subordinate simply to cave in and accept summary conviction proceedings. The subordinate actually resists, signs off and says that he wants an appeal and to go to court martial.

The number of subordinates who have that kind of backbone to resist a commanding officer in those circumstances has to be minuscule. Therefore, it is not just the issue of what happens, the lack of counsel and everything else, but how the person gets there. There is no real choice in so many contexts, and they are expected to simply knock themselves over into the summary conviction process.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to oppose this bill. It is a particularly glaring example of how this government thinks it has a monopoly on good ideas and that no one else has any, especially not the opposition.

Our party has long been calling for changes to ensure greater justice for members of the Canadian Forces. There is no denying that this is the fundamental principle behind this bill and our discussion. Why should a soldier, who is a citizen like anyone else, not have access to a fair and balanced justice system where human dignity is a priority? Whether we are soldiers or not, a person's career choice should have no bearing on the level of justice he or she can expect to enjoy. It is that simple. Changes have to be made.

Unfortunately, this bill does not go far enough and contains measures that are sometimes inappropriate. I would like to point out that it provides for greater latitude in sentencing and introduces new sentences, such as absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and restitution. It makes changes to the membership of the court martial panel according to the rank of the accused, and to the summary trial limitation period and the option of waiving the limitation period at the request of the accused. The responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process have also been changed.

In light of all these changes, there are questions that must be asked. How is this of benefit to the simple soldier, who needs recourse to a justice system that does not penalize him unduly and does not jeopardize his future after his military career? The proposed changes may even strengthen some of the powers of certain senior levels in relation to the ordinary soldier. We must be sure that our constituents can benefit from measures needed to defend themselves in these situations. The bill appears to be a step in the right direction toward greater standardization of the military justice system. However, it does not address the key issues in reforming the summary trial process and the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. These are three things that would give greater strength to ordinary soldiers in our Canadian Forces.

We have supported updating the military justice system for a long time now. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to extremely high disciplinary standards, and they deserve a justice system that is subject to standards that are just as high.

Nevertheless, we will oppose Bill C-15 at second reading, as it contains a number of shortcomings, which, we hope, will be discussed in committee if the bill is passed at second reading, something that is very likely, given the majority held by the Conservative government. Here are the major amendments that we are proposing.

The amendments to Bill C-15, for instance, do not deal adequately with the injustice of the summary trial process. Currently, a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces leads to a criminal record. Summary trials are held even though the accused are unable to consult with counsel. There is no appeal, nor is there a transcript of the trial.

Furthermore, the trial judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This is too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences. These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absences without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command.

We must be very careful, because it is obvious that soldiers, like us, have good days and bad days. They are subject to a great deal of pressure and stress, particularly in combat situations and other difficult situations. It is also perfectly normal that soldiers, who are often very young, should commit minor offences. I am not saying that people are not very smart when they are young, but they may be a little more adventurous and resist authority a little more. It is normal for people to go through this stage of life. Penalizing a soldier who has committed a minor offence by saddling him with a criminal record seems completely unreasonable. We must be absolutely sure that measures are put in place to determine whether or not an offence is a serious one.

Bill C-15 also provides for an exemption so that certain offences will no longer be included in a criminal record, if there is a minor punishment under the act or a fine of $500 or less. That is not necessarily a bad thing. That is one of the positive aspects of this bill, but in our opinion it does not go far enough.

Last March, when Bill C-41 was considered in committee, the amendments proposed by the NDP called for the list of offences that could be considered to be minor to be extended to 27 from five. The question is therefore what is considered to be a minor offence or a major offence. In our opinion, too many offences are considered to be major. The list of offences considered to be minor should be extended to 27 from five, which is entirely reasonable.

In addition, the amendment proposed by the NDP called for the list of sentences that can be imposed by a tribunal without the offender having a criminal record to be extended as well, with the addition of a severe reprimand, a reprimand or a fine of up to one month of basic pay or other forms of minor punishments. I reiterate: one month’s pay.

In speaking with my military constituents, I have realized that they are not wealthy. There is no point in pretending otherwise: an average soldier who is not an officer does not get the highest pay in the world. Their pay cannot be compared in any way with a member of Parliament’s pay. Fining someone a month’s pay is a harsh punishment, particularly when they have a young family to feed. Soldiers often have young families. We have to acknowledge that this is a severe punishment.

As a final point, I will stay on the subject of that amendment, to complete my comments in that regard. That amendment was an important step forward for summary trials. However, since it was not incorporated into Bill C-15, we want it to be included again.

A criminal record can make life after a military career extremely difficult. Having a criminal record can make it very hard to get a job, rent an apartment or travel abroad.

We ask soldiers to make the transition between military life and civilian life, but if they commit a minor offence, they have a criminal record. That is completely illogical.

In conclusion, a bill about military justice has to take into account the fact that our soldiers are also citizens who deserve justice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to serve in the Canadian Forces. I question the member in regard to his reference to minor offences. He talked about things such as not showing up for work. Having been in the military, not showing up for work is something that is taken quite seriously.

There is quite a difference between military life and civilian life. In civilian life, if one does not show up for work, one could get fired. However, if one is in the military and does not show up for work, there is much more of a consequence.

Is the member, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, trying to say that the punishments or dispositions for not showing up for work should be similar to civilian life?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly there are conditions that are specific to the military that need to be taken into consideration. However, the level of decision-making power, where it is and the recourse that soldiers have to ensure there is no exaggeration in the use of that power against them, needs to be rebalanced. This is the balance I was referring to and the balance that concerns me. For now, I think it is tipped in favour of excessive punishment and that needs to be considered.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my colleague for his question.

The NDP is in favour of improving and modernizing the military justice system. However, as my colleague mentioned, we feel that Bill C-15 is flawed and does not go far enough. In his opinion and in that of many members who participated in the debate, it is important to correct the inequities in the summary trial system.

Could the hon. member comment a bit further on that?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Basically, the NDP wants to ensure that there will be changes to the summary trail system and the definitions of major and minor sentences. We think that the list of minor sentences could be lengthened, and we are wondering whether all the minor sentences have to result in a criminal record.

In my opinion, the suggestions that we made are completely reasonable. Unfortunately, the government is unable to accept that the opposition could have something reasonable to propose. The government is not humble enough to accept that the bill could be improved with the input of the legitimate representatives of the people.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Bill C-15 was preceded by Bill C-41, in which numerous amendments were made and passed by the then parliamentary committee. However, these amendments are not seen in the current Bill C-15.

Why on earth would we, in a previous Parliament, make good changes to a bill and then overlook them in the current session?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to answer that question.

Bill C-45 had 420-odd pages of measures and hardly a single amendment was accepted. If someone writes a 425-page book and gives it to an editor, they are likely to have at least one change every 10 pages, if they are lucky. If that person is an author, they probably have even more.

There is some kind of blind confidence in the legislative, mystical power of the Conservative government that somehow it has the answer to absolutely everything. However, if I think about it, maybe it does not care about making good laws. Maybe the government just cares about the four years it is here, and damn the future. I think the onus—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has exceeded his time, substantially.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot really talk about Bill C-15 unless we talk about the Lamer report. Contrary to some of my colleagues across the floor it is not the “Lay-mer” report, it is actually the Lamer report.

In 2003, the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, who is a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, presented a report that made recommendations on how we could improve our Military Police Complaints Commission. Looking at that report and then looking at Bill C-15, I can say with confidence, as many of my colleagues have, that the NDP will vote against Bill C-15.

Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. The NDP absolutely acknowledges that. However, it does not go far enough. I can only imagine the bill will get through second reading and get to committee because the Conservatives will vote in favour of it. When it does get to committee, I am very hopeful that we can bring in some witnesses and talk about how to improve the bill and what kinds of amendments we should make to it to make it stronger and to actually implement the recommendations that were in the Lamer report.

What kinds of amendments would we want to see? When we are looking at Bill C-15, the NDP takes the same approach as former chief justice Lamer took in his report . I will read from the summary because there is a nice set-up in the summary of the report. It says:

While not entirely without room for improvement, it is my conclusion that the military justice system is generally working well. However, the grievance process, also a subject of Bill C-25, unfortunately is not. The large number of outstanding grievances—close to 800 at last count, some outstanding for ten or more years—is unacceptable. As a result, I have made many recommendations to ensure that grievances are dealt with much more quickly and in a fair and transparent manner.

This set-up for the report is the same kind of balanced approach that the NDP is trying to take to the bill. We do believe, very much so, that the military justice system is working well. However, there are flaws and when there are flaws, and perhaps more importantly when there are solutions or fixes for those flaws, we must act to implement those changes.

There are important reforms in Bill C-15 and the NDP does support the long overdue update to the military justice system. However, there are important measures that need to be included in the bill and without these measures being included, the bill is incomplete. If the bill is incomplete, it is something that we should not support.

I will start with the grievance process. I will refer directly to the Lamer report. Chief Justice Lamer wrote that although the grievance process that was created seems to be sound on its face, in theory, the way that it actually operates has not been sound. That is really important. We need to pay attention to the way things play out in real life, not just how they look on paper.

He pointed out that grievances still caught in the process after 10 or 12 years are not unheard of and those of two or more years at the level of Chief of Defence Staff seem to be the norm. He further pointed out that many grievers complained that they were not advised as to the reasons for their delays or where their grievances were in the grievance process. Therefore, the Lamer report recommended new measures to end these unacceptable delays, reduce bureaucracy and ultimately increase transparency.

His first recommendation in this section was that the Chief of Defence Staff must be given the power to delegate decision making in respect of all grievances to someone under his command and control, except those that may have significant implications for the Canadian Forces.

Members will remember that this recommendation came out in 2003 and here we are in 2012. This flaw still exists for some unimaginable reason. As I said earlier, when there is a flaw we have to act to correct that flaw, particularly when we have solutions. This is a very solid recommendation and I do not understand why Bill C-15 would not take into consideration something as basic and simple as this. This is not a recommendation that creates bureaucracy and red tape or requires money or even thinking outside the box too much. It is a pretty straightforward recommendation. Therefore, I do believe it is incumbent on us to act and to make sure that Bill C-15 would include a sound recommendation such as this, because the flaw still exists.

The Chief of Defence Staff presently lacks the authority to resolve any and all financial aspects arising from a grievance, in direct contradiction to the recommendation of the Lamer report. Despite the fact the Minister of National Defence at the time agreed to this recommendation, there have not been any concrete steps over the past eight years to implement this recommendation.

It is worth pointing out that the bill has appeared in different incarnations and at committee in other Parliaments. The NDP did propose an amendment to this effect at committee when the bill was called Bill C-41. The consensus at the table was that it was a sound recommendation and the NDP will fight to include a similar amendment in Bill C-15.

At committee I will watch with great interest the testimony and discussion around the reform of the summary trial system. Here, I will say that I am proud to represent the riding of Halifax, a military town, as I am sure members know. It is the home of Canada's east coast navy. Although I meet members of the Canadian Forces every day in their role as service members, I also meet them and their families in and about the community, because they are not separate from the community. They are not separate from us. Rather, they are like us and part of our community. They are our neighbours and hockey coaches. Their families are in our schools and they volunteer there. They are part of who we are as the community of Halifax. We therefore come to know them and their families quite well and understand the incredible sacrifices their families make because one or both parents are serving. It is not easy to be a military family.

I have visited the military family resource centre in Halifax a few times and have had great discussions there. I heard first-hand from spouses about the difficulties of having their partners away for so long and not having control over that process. They are constantly moving, so even doing some things that we might think simple, such as buying or selling a house, causes great stress and often it is just one parent who has to do that. The kids have to adjust to new schools, find new friends, and figure out their new community as they move around. They undergo a lot of stress and pressure and really do sacrifice a lot because one or both parents serve in the Canadian Forces.

Then imagine a forces member going through all of these sacrifices with their families and at the end being released with a criminal record. Can we imagine how difficult that would make post-service life, and how hard it would be to get approved for an apartment or find a job outside of the Canadian Forces? That is a distinct possibility because the way the system is set up now, quarrelling or making a disturbance or even being drunk are considered summary offences. The person could end up with a criminal record because of these charges. God forbid that people in the rest of Canada, or perhaps even people here in the chamber, should end up with a criminal record for drunkenness.

While the bill does change that fact, the NDP would like to expand the list of minor offences because a lot of them are not worthy of a criminal record. If one thinks about the impact these minor offences would have on families and the community if considered cause for a criminal record outside of the Canadian Forces, they are unfair and unjust. If we talk to other organizations in the community they would agree that this is something that needs to be reformed. Therefore, I will watch the discussion on this subject at committee with bated breath.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did listen to the hon. member's speech but am struggling to understand where she is coming from. She seems to have itemized some of the shortcomings of the past, many of which are addressed by this piece of legislation. Most of the recommendations of the former Chief Justice are being addressed in this legislation.

Why is the member's party opposing the amendments in the bill that would actually ensure that convictions for minor service offences would not constitute offences for purposes of the Criminal Records Act? I keep hearing the opposition raise this point. Further to that, the Minister of National Defence has indicated that he is willing to bring in the very amendment to clause 75 of the bill that the hon. member referenced to ensure that it mirrors the amendment passed by committee in the last Parliament.

Why are those members holding this important piece of legislation up?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a fair question by my colleague until his last line, because the NDP is not holding up this legislation. We are trying to have an informed debate about the bill.

I will answer by going back to the start of my speech. If we know there are flaws in a system and know what the solutions are, then we must first act to fix those flaws because we have the solutions. Second, it follows that if all of those solutions are not being put forward, then we should not support a bill unless it is complete, and this legislation is not complete. If I am to do my job as a member of Parliament to try to present the best public policy I can, it has to be complete.

I do not know why the government would present an incomplete bill. There were 88 recommendations in the Lamer report and I do not know why we would not go through with them when the Minister of National Defence at the time said they were good recommendations. I do not know why the government comes forward with an incomplete bill. Therefore, we have to vote against it at this stage, but we will work to improve it at committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, far from me trying to defend the Conservatives, who have made serious mistakes in not going far enough with this legislation, the NDP is sending a very confusing message. The member showed this in her opening comments, when she said this was a positive first step. That is also how we see it, a positive first step recognizing there is a problem. Since 2003 it has been known that there is a serious need for greater equity in military justice. The principle of the bill seems to move in that direction.

Where it is confusing from the New Democrats' point of view is that they do not support the bill going to committee when they have voted for other bills for which they have wanted more amendments brought to committee. All I would do here is to cite Bill C-43, the immigration bill.

There again seems to be inconsistency from the NDP but now on this issue, and it would be nice to get some clarification why those members will not support the bill's passage to committee.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should know better. He should know that the Conservatives have said time and time again, “Trust us, trust us, once we get it to committee, because this legislation is only the first step....” The Liberals were successful in getting Bill C-45 split out to different committees and they think that was a big win, but not one single amendment was passed at those committees. The Liberals should know most of all that “Trust us” does not cut it. We need action.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I do believe that bringing the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system is a step in the right direction. However, there are some key issues where the bill falls so far short that it is impossible for me to support it at second reading.

I will quickly highlight the key issues. The bill falls short when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Those three areas are critical when we go back to first principles with respect to military justice.

I would remind members of a speech made by my friend and colleague, the NDP defence critic, the member of Parliament for St. John's East. I think he articulated the challenge best in his opening remarks on this bill. He reminded us that it was important to have a good look at our whole military justice structure because there were a number of problems that needed to be resolved.

Military justice needs to fit in with our entire justice system. We need to ensure there is conformity between the kinds of laws we have in relation to military justice, as well as our general justice system, certainly in terms of the fundamental principles of law. We need to understand that there are differences between military law and our general legal system, and there are good reasons for that. The military justice system recognizes the relationship between the justice system and discipline within the military. There is a significant importance to discipline in the military.

This is what the author of the only significant legal text in Canada used in law schools, Michel Drapeau, has said about the importance of discipline in military law:

Few professions are as dependent on discipline as is the military. Discipline is fundamental to military efficiency, cohesion, esprit-de-corps permitting commanders to control the use of violence so that the right amount and type of force can be applied in exactly the right circumstances, the right time and the right place. At the personal level, discipline ensures also that in times of great danger and risk, the soldier can and will carry out orders even if his natural instinct for self-preservation and fear tells him otherwise. Likewise, group and individual discipline ensures adherence to laws, standards, customs and values of civilian society, even during combat operations.

He went on to say that discipline was integral, not only to the maintaining of an efficient armed forces but also to ensuring that the rule of law predominates within the military, particularly when engaged in great peril and danger in combat.

Military discipline is important for two reasons, not only for maintaining discipline so that when someone violates the law there is quick action and a speedy response to breaches of disciplines, but also because there may well need to be procedural differences available in the military context. Nonetheless, it is also extremely important that when engaged in combat there always be an adherence to the rule of law.

Our country certainly wants a military force and troops who are capable of carrying out their use of force in a lawful manner, regardless of the circumstances of grave peril that others take. Therefore, we say that the military justice system does not only exist to punish wrongdoers but it is also a central part of command discipline and morale.

Here in Canada, we have a voluntary military and the military justice system must be seen as equitable and fair. Otherwise, we will not only have a justice problem but we may very well also have an operational and recruitment problem. We must recognize that people who volunteer for military service have a right to know that they will be treated fairly.

Therefore, we must emphasize the justice side as well as the military side. We want, expect and need a high level of morale in our system among our troops and we demand loyalty, but that is a two-way street and the system must be seen as being fair.

That is the crux of my concern with Bill C-15 as it is before us today. Yes, it finally takes steps to update the military justice system but it does not go far enough in recognizing that the members of the Canadian Forces who are held to an extremely high standard of discipline, in turn deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard.

I will now speak to the three issues that I referenced at the beginning of my speech. I hope I will be able to address each one in some detail, although I am always dismayed by the fact that we only get 10 minutes in these debates to address issues as important as this one. Nonetheless, I will give it a whirl and I will try to be a concise as possible.

I will talk first about reform to the summary trial system. The amendments in Bill C-15 simply do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel, there are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes undue hardships on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for very minor service offences.

For example, some of the minor service offences include insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absences without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline but they are not worthy of a criminal record.

Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine less than $500, to 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 stage last March, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also extended the list of punishments that may be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a fine equal up to one month basic pay or another minor punishment. This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15 and we want to see it included.

A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records can make getting a job, renting an apartment and travelling very difficult indeed. 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.

A similar unfairness persists with respect to the grievance system. The way the system currently works, the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. Currently, it is staffed entirely of retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. In other words, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society.

Our NDP amendment provides that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41 but was not retained in Bill C-15. It is important that this amendment be included once again in this bill.

Finally, I will briefly touch on the third point related to the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces provost marshal will be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although a step forward, we in the NDP believe 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 empowering it to act as an oversight body. The Military Police Complaints Commission must be empowered by a legislative provision that will allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament.

I will conclude by summarizing all of these issues in one sentence. Systems that impose significant penalties on individuals require increased procedural protections and surely we can all agree that the brave men and women who serve our country deserve nothing less.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made reference in her comments to past amendments that were proposed to a previous but very similar bill. Given that we have another opportunity now to, in long overdue fashion, correct a real injustice for our men and women who serve in the military, could she offer an opinion as to why the government would not be willing to include amendments to the bill that it was clearly willing to do in a previous Parliament? Could she offer an explanation as to why this might be?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, although it always terrifies me when one of my colleagues asks me to get into the head of a Conservative member of Parliament. It is not a space where I am very comfortable, I have to say.

However, the member is absolutely right. When this bill was last before committee, the New Democrats participated in that process in a very constructive way. We moved amendments that the government deemed to be appropriate and, in fact, very helpful to strengthening the bill, and yet, when the Conservatives reintroduced the bill, which is now Bill C-15, none of those amendments that they agreed to not that long ago are in the current bill.

I heard the member opposite ask a question to the member for Halifax a little while ago, asking us why we were so reluctant to trust that the committee process could work once again. He wanted to know why we did not trust the minister that those amendments would be adopted again. If the minister adopted those amendments once, why are they not in the current version of the bill we are debating here today? Clearly, the Conservatives have no intention of adopting those amendments again or they would be in the text as we have it before us today.

I must say that trust is something that we are not particularly long on in this House at the best of times, but when we actually have on the record the government's refusal to strengthen a bill in a way that it agreed to earlier it takes these issues of trust to a whole new low level, unfortunately.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the last point that my friend raised. I was looking through the iterations of this bill over its lifetime because this is just the current form. As members have heard, it has been introduced a number of different times by the current government and in various forms by other governments. On two occasions, the Conservatives killed it themselves, this high priority they had for the military. Once was through prorogation and another time was through an early, and one could say illegal, election call, because the law of the land at the time said that elections had fixed dates. The Prime Minister ignored his own law, a law that he brought in.The bill was killed twice by the Conservatives. It then went through the committee process , which is how this place is designed, and it was improved dramatically to provide support for our men and women in uniform.

Is it good faith negotiations for the Conservatives to flip the clock back to the previous broken version of this legislation of not providing that support for our troops, and for the minister to get up, having known the amendments were there, and say that it is all well and good but we need to pass this thing through quickly, which the Conservatives try to do,and that they will fix it at committee? Is this a government that is actually interested in working with other parliamentarians to get something done, or is it some other iteration of a government that just says “thou shalt” to Canada's Parliament and expects everyone to just fall into step?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for an excellent question. He is, of course, our House leader of the official opposition so he is in daily negotiations with the government and knows better than any of us how futile those negotiations often are.

For me, one of the really surprising parts of the Conservatives' lack of willingness to co-operate on a bill as important as this one is that often we hear the rhetoric from the Conservatives that they support the troops, that they support the brave men and women who serve our country. However, whenever the rubber hits the road, the Conservatives actually let those men and women down. We certainly have had lots of debates in this House about, for example, benefits to veterans. We know how poorly our veterans are being served by amendments made by the Conservatives to programs that those veterans have counted on.

Now we are seeing it for active men and women in the military as well. The kinds of sentences that the current military justice system may impose on some of our servicemen for very minor infractions will give them a criminal record. We need to remind ourselves of what that criminal record will do. It will make it more difficult for people to get a home, to rent a place, to get a job and to travel abroad. Is that really how we want to thank members of Canada's armed forces for the service that they do for our country?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure I enter into this debate because both on form and substance the New Democrats have pointed out what often fails the government on the process that has been used on this very important bill.

As my colleagues have said, the official title of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, allows for some improvements that are long overdue with respect to the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces when they face any kind of charges or penalties and how those are then carried out by court martial or other services that the Canadian Forces provide. That is what the act seeks to do.

As I said in my question to my friend from Hamilton, this is not the first time the House has seen the bill. We have seen it a number of times. In the two most recent presentations of the bill, it was by the Conservatives' own hand that the bill was killed, once through prorogation, when the Prime Minister was worried much more about his job than the jobs of Canadians. By proroguing Parliament, the government clearly knew it would wipe out all legislation that was on the table at the time. That was the consequence of the Prime Minister's action. That was his choice and his choice alone.

The second time the bill was introduced into Parliament it was killed by a second act of the Conservative government. That was forcing an early election upon Canadians, breaking the Conservatives' own fixed election date laws.

I remember back in the Reform Party days when the Conservatives believed in a reformed Senate, for example, rather than stuffing it full of one's friends and cronies, which, by the way, the Conservatives have also done. The Reform movement that came predominantly out of the west, but also from Ontario and other parts, believed in the idea that fixed election dates were important. It took some of that enormous power away from the sitting government to determine when the election would be called because that was fundamentally an undemocratic power that the government, under our system, held. Therefore, fixed election dates were promoted and campaigned upon.

I remember the Minister of Justice campaigning upon this as something very important for Canadians to rely upon and that the government would introduce legislation that would allow Canadians to know when the next election would be called and that it could not be manipulated by the sitting government to play to its favour.

I remember the member for Peterborough, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, also talking about the importance of having that assuredness so democracy would be given a fair shot every time, that every party and all Canadians would know when the next election would come.

That was inconvenient for the Prime Minister. He wanted an election at a different time, so he called it early and killed this exact legislation for a second time.

Most recent the government actually tried a tactic, a trick if you will, Mr. Speaker, in the House that tried to force and extend the hours of sitting so Parliament would suddenly sit all night to get through debate on the bill because it was now in such a panic over these reforms that were so essential.

The undemocratic tendencies of the government have been well documented. The Conservatives have introduced more motions of closures and shutting down of debate than almost any government in Canadian history, which is passing strange to Canadians. After all, they have that coveted majority they narrowly won in the last election. We would think, with having the most votes in the House, it would allow them a certain level of maturity and calm on that side, to not have to abuse Parliament's rules to constantly invoke closure, time allocations and shutting down debate in Canada's centre of democracy in Parliament.

Yet the Conservatives get impatient. They get frustrated. They get a little incompetent from time to time and that incompetence then forces them to hit the panic button, shut down debate one more time and then try to blame somebody else for their own failures.

On Bill C-15, we have talked a bit about the process that we have reached on this point. One last note on that, and it has been well made but it has to be driven home for my Conservative colleagues who ask us why we simply cannot trust them. They have said that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Safety have made comments and that those comments should hold that they will fix the mistakes still in the bill.

It gives us pause because we went through that process as good members of Parliament, going through the committee stage, hearing the witnesses that came forward. We rely upon expert testimony on this side. We rely on people who are actually professionals and base their testimony on science and things like evidence.

I know the Conservative government has a certain allergic reaction to facts and figures being presented before it, but we relied on key testimony in making amendments to the legislation, which I will get into in a moment. These amendments were absolutely critical to improving the safety and certainty of our men and women who served in our services throughout Canada and around the world.

In relying on those expert witnesses, we found that there were some fundamental failures as the legislation was then put and we amended the bill. Parliament is supposed to make legislation better by finding the mistakes, look for corrections and fix them.

You will know that, Mr. Speaker, through your experience and vast knowledge of this place. I think you are regularly voted by your colleagues as one of the most, if not the most, knowledgeable members of Parliament consistently. You are even getting cheers from the Conservative benches and a standing ovation from the minister.

However, when legislation is done poorly, to then go back and correct the legislation is both very expensive within Parliament, with the amount of time we have to spend to fix it, and it can also be very expensive in human terms for the Canadians who are affected by bad legislation and rules. Therefore, could there be anything more serious than what happens under a court martial situation? If the rules and guidelines that are meant to both serve the defence and prosecution are badly designed, as they are in the bill, then clearly that will have some real human impact.

The Conservatives and the minister have said that we should not worry as they will make those corrections, which were already made a year or year and a half ago. However, it is confusing and concerning to us that the Conservatives have promised to fix a bill that was already fixed.

When the Conservatives reintroduced the bill for the third or perhaps fourth time now, all those improvements that were made last time around were suddenly gone. It is as if they pulled the old broken one off the shelf and reintroduced it. We are confused because we fixed that old broken one and made it better for the Canadian Forces, our troops and the process for any allegations that might be made.

The government said that it agreed with all those changes, but it did not put it in the legislation. The Conservatives so much agreed with the changes that they would reintroduce them into the legislation when the bill went to the committee stage. What lunacy is that? That does not make any sense at all.

One has to wonder. This is coming from a government that is going through the final stages of its second omnibus bill this year, which is a massive piece of legislation that traditionally ranged from 15 to 20 pages and affected 3 to 7 pieces of legislation. However, the Conservative omnibus bill affects upwards of 60 to 70 different laws of Canada all in one bill and sometimes strips the law down to virtually nothing, as was done to the environmental assessment. It takes out key pieces of the Fisheries Act such as habitat protection, which suddenly does not matter when it comes to protecting Canada's fisheries.

The massive omnibus bill two had to fix the mistakes made in the spring omnibus bill one, which the Conservatives rushed through the House. They did that by shutting down debate and invoking time allocation. They rushed things through and got it wrong. Now we are back taking up Parliament's time with the fixes to their first mistakes, and they have done this repeatedly.

I remember the Internet snooping bill. Canadians will remember this one well because it was so badly explained by the Minister of Public Safety. He said that we should support this bad legislation that the government had and allow the police to look at one's email traffic and whatever website one happened to be looking at without any judicial supervision at all.

I am sure the Minister of Justice had some pause when he saw the drafting of the legislation. The basic idea of invasion of one's privacy requires that there be some sort of oversight, that the police cannot take the discretion to go into a home, business or someone's email account without some judicial oversight. However, the Minister of Public Safety said to us that we were either with this bad legislation that allowed people to snoop into our emails and websites or we must be with the child pornographers.

My goodness, if there has ever been a lesson on how not to convince the public of one's initiatives, it was done by that minister, and the bill seems to have disappeared.

Therefore, on key things such as taking out more minor offences that are now in this judicial system, the grievance committee that is obviously flawed because it does not have enough civilian participation, the Military Police Complaints Commission that does not have enough oversight with these new powers that are given, on the substance of the bill, the Conservatives got it wrong again.

Of course the New Democrats will stand up when Conservatives get it wrong. The New Democrats stand up often because it is often that Conservatives get it wrong.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the NDP skate on this bill, mentioning words like “bad rules”. I am not sure if the member is aware of the report of the second independent review, done by former Chief Justice LeSage. I will quote quickly from it. It states:

It is also significant to note the comment of former Chief Justice Lamer who stated, “Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence”. I proceed, as did former Chief Justices Dickson and Lamer, from the premise that the military justice system is sound, but some modifications will assist in ensuring its continued strength and viability.

Those modifications are in the bill. However, the underpinnings of the system have been found by three former justices to be sound. Does the hon. member want to insert his judgment over that of former Chief Justices Lamer or LeSage in finding that the underpinnings are somehow not sound, when this has been judicially studied and found to be sound?

He uses words like “bad rules”. No, these are good rules and Bill C-15 improves the rules. Why is the NDP holding up this legislation?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are holding up is the bad process the Conservatives use time and time again to introduce legislation.

Because my friend asked a substantial question, allow me to offer up my specific concerns and those that have been shared by my colleagues. On the minor offences list, which have been introduced by the government in this iteration, this tries to take those minor offences out so men and women in the forces do not end up with a criminal record through this process. The list is not exhaustive. This is a problem that we raised the last time with the government and the government in fact agreed in some measure, but then backtracked. We have no idea why. As this legislation is designed, it still creates the scenario that men and women charged with minor offences, by anyone's determination, could potentially still end up with a criminal record that would prevent them from having that full and free life they deserve to have after their service in the military. That is one concern.

The grievance committee is a second concern. It was a recommendation from Lamer in those 88 recommendations, saying that if we wanted to move toward something that was more in line with the civil courts then we would actually need to have not just Canadian Forces members on the grievance system panel. That was a recommendation the Conservatives said they agreed with, yet it does not exist in the legislation.

Therefore, on real substance, not just process, we are confounded that the Conservatives do this from time to time. A report will come, say from an auditor general, or a judge, or a panel that they struck will present its recommendations, and the minister will get up and say that they agree with the recommendations. One would then infer that they would then put those recommendations into law. That has not happened and we do not understand why. It does not serve our Canadian men and women who so valiantly serve our country, so let us do them justice in the justice system that they work under.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his speech.

I would just like to make a comment at this point. I was not here during the previous Parliament, and so I was unable to contribute to the amendments to Bill C-41, which was before the House at that time. Nevertheless, I am shocked to hear what happened to Bill C-41 when the House returned and reintroduced it as Bill C-15 without the amendments that were submitted and adopted by the committee.

Like most of my colleagues, I am quite concerned about what can happen in committee, despite the government's claim that it is open to amendments. That is what my committee was told in the case of a number of bills, unfortunately, but as we heard this morning, most bills were not passed with amendments. I am shocked to see that the government does not want to work with the opposition parties as it did before.

I just wanted to make this comment to my colleague.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief comment.

I remember a comment made by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Before we tabled our amendments, he said that it would be impossible to vote for the amendments, regardless of what they were. That is a strange thing to say without having any information or without having seen the amendments.

It is also strange that the government acknowledged that a bill was improved after we did our job, but it introduced a new bill without taking into account our work and the amendments. That is arrogance.

It is so dangerous when a government thinks that it is absolutely right in all cases. I think that is a problem. It certainly is for Canadians and for members of our military as well. I thank my colleagues for their questions.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak after my colleague, who gave an excellent speech, not only on the substance of the bill, but also on its form and the Conservatives' process of introducing omnibus bills, proroguing Parliament and not respecting the work of parliamentarians. We are being repeatedly gagged: over 30 gag orders in a year and a half.

This highlights how the majority Conservative government is undermining the health of our democracy and respect for the work of parliamentarians. This bill is yet another example of that. In a way, the government is not respecting the work of parliamentarians because we are being asked to redo something that was already done once before.

I really liked the analogy that it is as though the government took the previous version instead of the new version of the bill out of the photocopier. The government figured it was no big deal, that it would all be sorted out in committee, since it would ask parliamentarians to redo what their predecessors had already done. It is a waste of time. The Conservatives are used to wasting money. Now, they are wasting time.

Before outlining all our concerns with this bill, I would like to make something clear. When we discuss justice or correctional systems issues that affect people's lives, we must not underestimate the importance of these debates and discussions in our society.

Mr. Speaker, you are more aware of the repercussions of the justice system, whether civilian or military, than many people here. Today we are pleased to be discussing the military justice system that affects the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces.

We New Democrats believe that some elements that are not in the current bill should be there in order to improve the bill and respond to the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people in our armed forces. The men and women in our armed forces serve under extremely strict and severe rules of discipline. We understand why that is, of course. However, it is important that they have an equally strict justice system that is functional and well managed in order to ensure that justice is done, that they are not victims of inequity and that the consequences do not follow them into their lives after they leave the armed forces.

Most people join the armed forces when they are quite young. It is not often that someone my age signs up. Thus, they are in the prime of life when they finish their service. They will need to continue working, to find a job and housing, and perhaps they will want to travel or study abroad. But under the current system, there are consequences from offences that are minor, but serious within the Canadian Forces, which we acknowledge. And that can leave its mark—it has been discussed to some extent—such as a criminal record that will complicate their lives.

We are aware of that, and I think that many Quebeckers and Canadians would be shocked to learn that people who risk their lives, their safety and their health while serving their country could be penalized for the role they have played. If they committed a similar offence in civilian life, the consequences and the price to pay would be less significant. That needs to be said. We must discuss this so that Canadians and Quebeckers have confidence in the military justice system. At this time, major improvements are needed in order to respect the sacrifices being asked of the men and women who serve in our armed forces.

In our opinion, the key issues in reforming the system are the issue of summary trials, which we will come back to; the existing grievance system; and the need to strengthen the powers of the Military Police Complaints Commission. This is not our only request for strengthening the powers of certain commissioners or officers; I am spending my days arguing in favour of more powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, but that is another topic.

There is a lot of background to Bill C-15, which we are studying today. We have been considering this matter and trying to find ways to improve it for some time now. In 2003, Antonio Lamer, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, tabled a report on his independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations on military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the roles and powers of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Bill C-15 is the response to those recommendations. However, only 28 of them were included in the Conservatives' bill. What happened to the other 60? They suddenly disappeared with a wave of the magic wand by the Conservatives, who feel they are not necessary. However, we think the recommendations contain important ideas on necessary improvements to the military justice system.

Bill C-15 is the latest version of a bill that is part of a long legislative saga. Let us not forget bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007 and an election subsequently called in 2008. The prorogation that killed Bill C-7 was caused by the Conservative Prime Minister, who was afraid his government would be overturned by legitimately elected parliamentarians democratically representing the citizens of Canada. He therefore chose to shut down Parliament rather than step up to his responsibilities.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came back with a vengeance, simplifying the structure of courts martial and establishing a method for choosing the kind of court martial most consistent with the civilian justice system. In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced as a response to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 Senate committee report. It contained provisions respecting military justice issues, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and certain provisions respecting the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Bill C-15 is essentially similar to the version of Bill C-41 that the Senate committee introduced in the last Parliament, of which I was obviously not yet a member. The amendments made to it include some aspects that were already there, whereas others have been forgotten along the way. It is as though Tom Thumb left some pebbles along his path but lost a few.

Some ideas in the amendments introduced by the NDP are thus not included in Bill C-15, and yet they are important: provisions respecting the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, which is a direct response to a Lamer report recommendation; changes in the composition of grievance committees so that they include more civilians—we have to open the door and welcome people who have a different perspective, outlook or viewpoint than those of people who have come directly from the Canadian Forces because we believe that would help strike a balance—and provisions guaranteeing that a person convicted of an offence in a summary trial is not unfairly subject to a criminal record. Once again, we are being forced to do a job that has already been done.

The bill contains many important reforms. There is a silver lining because there are some good measures in the bill. In fact, improvements have been made. However, we believe that we must do much more to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces have a good justice system. For these reasons, the NDP will be voting against Bill C-15 at second reading stage.

Important work remains to be done, including reforming the summary trial system. Amendments made to Bill C-15 do not do enough to correct the injustice of summary trials. At present, a conviction results 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. We believe that this ignores the principles of natural justice that are features of legal systems around the world. The fact that the commanding officer is the judge can sometimes cause problems with the impartiality of his judgment and ruling.

Minor offences, such as insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, and absence without leave, do not warrant the harsh consequences of a criminal record. We believe that, to be fair to our soldiers, we have to improve the bill. We hope to work with all members to ensure that justice can finally be done for the people working in the Canadian Forces.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been having some problems listening and it is not because my ears do not hear. I understand the member might have difficulty counting. My understanding is that he claims only 29 of the recommendations made by the late Chief Justice Lamer have been implemented by the government.

The facts speak differently. I wonder if the member could comment on that. Specifically, there were 88 recommendations made from the 2003 report, but 81 of these recommendations were accepted by the government. In fact, 29 have been implemented already, either through other legislation, regulation or policy changes. I understand that 36 are currently contained in Bill C-15.

What the member is saying is obviously an accounting error. I know the NDP, as a rule, make a lot of accounting errors because they spend much more money than is actually available through taxes from Canadians. Could the member just stick to the facts and comment on the fact that of the 88 recommendations made, 81 have actually been implemented in some way, either through legislation, regulation or are in other bills? Could the member comment on that in particular?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

He is trying to clarify the debate and the discussion. I would just like to point out that my colleague said that we claimed that only 29 recommendations are included in Bill C-15. In fact, we said that only 28 recommendations are included, not 29. I can understand why he might have the number 29 in mind, but that has to do with a whole other debate and has nothing to do with the military justice system.

This bill is short on measures that would ensure that our soldiers are treated properly. Things were forgotten along the way because the Conservatives are not doing a good job. This is another example of their incompetence. They cannot seem to keep their eye on the ball and work diligently at every stage.

We think important changes are lacking, including changes to address summary trials and their repercussions and minor offences that result in criminal records. Strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission is also very important to us, as is reforming the grievance system in order to allow civilians to become members of this very important board.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to commend the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for all the work that he does, but especially for his speech today.

We owe members of the Canadian Forces a great deal of respect. My colleague addressed many procedural aspects, which affect many things.

I would like to know what impact having a criminal record has on the life and future of Canadian Forces members when they return to civilian life.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his good question.

I would like to point out that, just because, today, I represent the people of Rosemont—La-Petite-Patrie, where there are not very many members of the armed forces, that does not mean that these soldiers' fate, their future and their living and working conditions are not of great concern to me, not only as a member of the NDP but also as someone who comes from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, where a military base and the military college used to be located.

I have therefore lived in a community where many people were members of the armed forces. I want to ensure that all members of the armed forces living in Quebec and other parts of the country are not prevented from progressing in their careers and are not forced to carry the heavy burden of a criminal record just because they got into an argument or were insubordinate once out of anger.

I think that the consequence is much too serious. We have to enable these people to have a new life afterward and help them be in a position where they can find a job and a place to live or travel the world if they so desire.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure people will say that the NDP members ramble on, always saying the same things in their speeches on Bill C-15, but we have not finished repeating ourselves. We want to make our voice heard.

I am very pleased to be taking part in this debate on Bill C-15, which I believe says a great deal about the values the Conservative government has chosen to promote and those it has decided to disregard. When a country claims to establish democracy and social justice in foreign countries, it is interesting to see how the government of that country treats its citizens.

And it is all the more interesting to see how this government decides to treat those who defend its citizens. Unfortunately, I believe this bill neither respects the men and women in uniform who defend this country nor represents Canadian values. Although it would be a good opportunity for the Conservatives to enter the 21st century, once again, they have missed the boat.

Bill C-15 is not new to this House. It is a response to a report by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who in 2003 made 88 recommendations in his review of military justice. The Conservatives have accepted 28 of that number. Military justice was also the topic of a report by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 2009 and has been the subject of many bills: C-7, C-45, C-60 and C-41, all of which died on the order paper.

It is unfortunate to have to say it, but the Conservatives do not surprise me. They have gotten into the habit of taking half-measures by introducing half-finished bills to impose their ideological agenda on all government bodies. I would never say these kinds of things if they were not true. I repeat, only 28 of the 88 recommendations in the Lamer report were accepted for the purposes of this bill.

Even worse, the Conservatives knowingly disregarded all the work done by the Standing Committee on National Defence. The bill's title has changed, but its objectives remain the same. So why forget in 2012 work that was done in 2011? With the Conservatives, it is the myth of Sisyphus: we always have to start over, again and again.

The way the Conservatives use our institutions never ceases to astonish me. We have everything we need to conduct a discussion and come up with proposals that are more in line with what Canadians want. Unfortunately, the Conservatives prefer to squabble in the House rather than conduct a healthy debate. If that were not the case, why would they have rejected the NDP's amendments to Bill C-41, a forerunner to Bill C-15? The truth is that, in committee and in the House, the Conservatives only hear one voice: their own.

However, the government has every interest in listening to the NDP on this matter, if it wants to avoid making a serious mistake. I want to focus on one point regarding Bill C-15 that I find particularly annoying: summary trials. The Minister of National Defence claims Canadians know that the military justice system treats those who serve them fairly and in accordance with Canadian standards and values. It is all well and good to say that, but when the facts do not support the allegations, it is better to say nothing.

So let us talk about Canadian values. Aside from empty rhetoric, I wonder where those values now stand. There is a very useful document that we can refer to in these kinds of situations: the Constitution. In 1983, this country included in its Constitution a passage on the rights of military members. It states that, like all Canadians, they are entitled to a fair trial, represented here by a court martial.

In spite of the Constitution, the Lamer report, the Senate report and numerous recommendations by the NDP, the Conservatives have retained summary trials. But what is a summary trial? It is a judgment rendered by an immediate superior officer without a public trial, without any written record of the proceedings and without any right to counsel, and it automatically results in a criminal record.

Even minor offences result in a criminal record. When they leave the military, people convicted in this way may have trouble finding a job or a place to live.

Is that any way to thank those who defend us, by throwing them out into the street for a minor offence?

This is no exaggeration. In 2008 in 2009, 96% of military offences were prosecuted by summary trial. This is the armed forces, and a firm hand is called for. Our military members are used to strict discipline and expect to be treated strictly. That is why the NDP proposed that harsh penalties be applied, such as imposing fines and docking pay, but there is quite a difference between that and handing out criminal records for being 10 minutes late.

The military members who serve this country deserve all our consideration. They are career military people who know the responsibilities inherent in their choice of occupation. We no longer have conscription. It is time we recognized that fact. They are in the armed forces because they are concerned about defending all citizens and are prepared to make major personal sacrifices. The least we can do is treat them fairly.

Summary trials have been abandoned in Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia. Why should Canada insist on continuing this old tradition?

The NDP believes this bill is headed in the right direction by further harmonizing the military justice and the civilian justice systems. However, it does not address key issues involved in reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system or in reinforcing the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I have met veterans in my riding who are proud of the work they have done. Every year, we honour them on Remembrance Day. However, perhaps the best way to thank them would be to give those who follow in their footsteps a little more respect.

Ultimately, I believe that the Conservatives have missed an opportunity with Bill C-15. They are delaying Canada's entry into the 21st century.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

The many flaws of Bill C-15 speak to the fact that there is still a great deal of injustice. That is why we will be opposing this bill.

As we have said from the beginning, many amendments proposed by the NDP and several of Justice Lamer's recommendations were rejected. For example, the government rejected the amendment to make the military grievances external review committee an independent and much fairer body. In fact, it is not an external committee because its members are commanding officers. The NDP suggested that at least 60% of the committee's members be civilians who have never been a Canadian Forces member or officer.

Can the hon. member tell us why the NDP asked that these civilians sit on the committee? Would this be fairer? Would it be a more independent process?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is important for the people who judge soldiers to be independent; they should not be former soldiers. Some of the members could be from the Canadian armed forces, but at least 60% of the committee members should be civilians who have never served in the military.

In my opinion, this would make the military justice system fairer. It goes without saying that military personnel are familiar with military law and all the regulations. They know all about military life. Therefore, it is very important that the military grievances external review committee include many civilians.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if she can identify anywhere in the independent reports of former chief justices Dickson in 1997, Lamer in 2003 or LeSage in 2012 where they said that the summary trial system was constitutionally deficient or fundamentally unfair. I ask if she can identify her source of information or any authority.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the source is important, but what is vital is that the soldiers be judged according to the severity of their actions, and that they not have a criminal record because they argued or drank too much.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Joliette for her excellent speech.

Among the amendments that we made to Bill C-41, we proposed expanding the list of offences that would be considered minor and would not automatically lead to a criminal record. We expanded the list from 5 offences to 27. As examples of severe reprimand, we made suggestions such as a fine equivalent to one month's salary and other minor punishments.

My colleague from Joliette spoke a lot about the severity of the punishment in relation to the minor nature of the offence, which would not be justified in civilian law. Could she speak more to this type of offence?