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.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, this legislation would remove the minister's power of appointing and removing the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. Instead, these would become Governor in Council appointments, with the minister having the power to request a public inquiry into potential remedial or disciplinary measures against these directors. It would remove the ability of the judge advocate general to issue instructions to the director of military prosecutions on individual cases. While the director would still be operating under the JAG and could get general instructions, the JAG would no longer be able to direct individual cases.

It would change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general, putting that individual on the same level as the judge advocate general and reporting directly to the minister instead of reporting to the vice chief of the defence staff. It would reverse a component of Harper-era Bill C-15, which gave the vice chief of the defence staff power to issue instructions to the provost marshal on particular cases. It would expand eligibility to submit an interference complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Currently, complaints of interference can only be made by a member of the military police. It would now allow a victim, an individual acting on behalf of a victim or any other person affected by the performance of the policing duty to make a complaint. It would codify some practices from Bill C-77, including that military judges cannot oversee summary hearings and that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction.

There would be some major changes to how Canada will treat criminal sexual offences in the military. Again, it is another chapter in Canada's ongoing military sexual trauma crisis, which has spanned decades. For many Canadians, this was first brought to their attention in 1998, when brave women spoke out to Maclean's magazine. There was a four-part series on the systemic sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces and it discussed how violence against women was covered up and how the chain of command looked the other way far too often. This coincided with a public trust crisis in the Canadian Armed Forces, driven by the Somalia affair. The two events spurred several reforms. This included the creation of a Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman, the Military Police Complaints Commission, a military grievance external review committee and the decision to move criminal sexual offences into the jurisdiction of the military police, the exact policy this legislation is looking to reverse.

This is the critical point I have heard from many service people. For decades, survivors have felt that while they deserve justice, they have not received that justice. Women, 2SLGBTQ+ and marginalized communities have felt that the Canadian Armed Forces and the federal government are not making the reforms to create space for them. Instead, they feel that the government is reacting to bad press, treating them like a problem to be managed instead of people to be valued. Decades after the government's decision to bring criminal sexual offences into the military police's jurisdiction, The Globe and Mail reported that those feelings were real. Through historic cabinet documents, they found that the then-minister of defence, Art Eggleton, made the transfer simply to end the media coverage of sexual assault in the military. The federal government did not make this change to protect women and men in the armed forces but instead did so to protect itself, hoping people would forget.

However, survivors have continued fighting for a change, and their organizing has brought the spotlight onto harmful military culture again and again. Their perseverance has led to multiple investigations into the military justice system. To date, this has included the 2015 report by Justice Deschamps, the 2021 report by Justice Fish, an Auditor General's report, two reports by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and, of course, Arbour's report. I want to also include the recent history-making report by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on women's health.

Supporting survivors of military sexual trauma is generational. Even before my time in the House of Commons, my mother, Irene Mathyssen, worked on this issue and spoke with many women about their experience. They have told me that, for so many, she was the first member of Parliament to believe them and to hear them. She saw the urgency of this crisis, and she fought for women in the military and victims of military sexual trauma. When I was elected, I joined the NDP team as the critic for the status of women. When the scandals broke, involving the most senior military officials being perpetrators and enablers of sexual misconduct, we saw the Standing Committee on National Defence get caught up in the partisan politics of this place. I saw parliamentarians weaponize the experience of these survivors to score political points against each other and I saw endless filibustering. However, women parliamentarians from across the political spectrum knew that survivors deserved better.

We brought this study to the status of women committee, and I heard the stories of these brave survivors. I promised them and myself that I would fight for them and I am honoured that they trusted me with their experiences and asked me to help them make the change. I can never forget that promise. I now serve as the critic for national defence, and I have used every opportunity to push for that change. I have challenged every minister, every departmental official and every senior CAF official to move on the long list of recommendations that can create meaningful culture change.

The Canadian Armed Forces has been criticized for being slow to enact recommendations from these reports. Justice Arbour emphasized the need for greater civilian input and oversight within the military to cut through the systemic resistance to change. When the current President of the Treasury Board was the minister of national defence, she announced, on December 13, 2022, that she would accept all of Justice Arbour's recommendations and bring forward a plan to enact these changes, including this legislation. The government announced an immediate transfer of all active criminal sexual investigations to civilian courts. However, this did not happen entirely. Approximately half of cases remained in the military justice system without a clear explanation as to why.

Of the cases that were transferred, the existing concurrent jurisdiction between the military police and civilian authorities caused major problems. Retired Corporal Arianna Nolet was one of the first military sexual trauma victims to have her case transferred to civilian courts. Last September, her case was stayed due to time delays in the back-and-forth between military and civilian police. The cause of the delays was twofold. First, civilian authorities were wary of taking over the case and, due to concurrent jurisdiction, they were not mandated to accept the case. Second, the transfer of the case files by the military police was significantly delayed. Military police dragged their feet every step of the way, leaving what the judge called an “albatross of nine months of delay under the military justice system clasped suddenly around [the case's] neck, [which] was irretrievably locked up in the civilian system”. That albatross meant a survivor was denied her day in court. The case was thrown out of court under timely-trial rules. When that case was thrown out, the minister of defence said it was a unique circumstance, but we have seen several cases have the same fate.

One of Canada's most prominent military law experts, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, said the law must be changed to end concurrent jurisdiction, and as long as we transfer cases between two jurisdictions, we will see more and more cases stayed. Drapeau, who wrote the main book on military law in Canada, said the government should have immediately brought forward a short bill, a page, to amend the National Defence Act and simply add criminal sexual offences to the list of crimes the military cannot handle. With that simple change, we could have prevented the cases that were transferred from being stayed.

That is why, last year, I brought forward my bill, Bill C-363, which would have done exactly that. Because of my place in the lottery for Private Members' Business, the bill was not debated. However, I wanted to send a message to the minister that we need urgency. We needed action as soon as possible to end the tug-of-war over jurisdiction and ensure that all survivors who have their cases transferred would have their day in court.

There are still many cases moving forward in this confusing tug-of-war, and there is no indication that the transfer is getting smoother because this is not about procedure and it is not about making technocratic deals with provinces; this is about power. This is about a system designed to cover up problems, to revictimize survivors and to maintain the status quo. That is why there is so much urgency to fix this problem and why the NDP is supporting bringing this bill to committee quickly.

However, let me be clear: With just this legislation, the government is not fully delivering the changes needed and this cannot be the last chapter in our fight. When the Minister of National Defence announced the legislation, I heard from countless women and men, survivors of military sexual trauma, about their frustration with the current government. They told me that they were never consulted by the government on the legislation. Much like they saw in 1998, they were seeing another checking-of-a-box exercise, so they once again felt invisible.

We cannot make legislation about survivors without survivors. We cannot treat survivors as a communications problem to be solved or a legal liability to be avoided. They are women and men who have stepped forward to protect our country, who are willing to put their lives on the line when the federal government deploys them. Parliamentarians have a moral, sacred obligation to do everything they can to protect them and not revictimize those who have faced institutional betrayal.

I have spent the summer in conversation with dozens of survivors with first-hand experience of reporting their cases in the military and civilian justice systems and they need to be consulted. That is why we need to get this legislation to committee quickly, where we can centre on the voices of survivors and, through amendment, give them a voice in this change.

I do not have enough time to speak about all of them, but some of the feelings and ideas I heard about need to make it to the committee study. I would like to provide a bit of context today.

First and foremost, we need to end the framing of this problem as a criminal justice issue alone. It is easy to say the sexual misconduct was carried out by a few bad apples, that it was the old boys' club covering up for their buddies, and by swapping people around, we could end it, or that this is about a handful of truly horrific random acts of violence. Criminal sexual offences do not come out of nowhere. This is a result of a permissive environment, a culture that encourages gendered and power dynamics, that allows powerful men to test and push boundaries over and over without anyone speaking up.

If we only focus on criminal justice reform and not on tough conversations around institutional culture change, we are not doing justice for survivors. It is not enough to hold perpetrators accountable. We must get to the roots of, and prevent, sexual violence. We cannot put all the resources and energy for change into a legal reform basket. We need a top-down review of the CAF, from recruitment and training to the health care system, promotions and so much more.

I also heard concerns that the Criminal Code focus of this bill is not addressing the escalatory nature of sexual misconduct and could create problems with drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. I heard that many survivors have lost faith in the justice system as a whole, and the divide between civilian and military justice does not address that loss of faith. The problems of the civilian justice system must be addressed.

I heard concerns that this legislation could continue the rotten-apple theory that the problem is a handful of powerful perpetrators who need to be stopped instead of a wider institutional and cultural driver. I heard that there need to be more options for survivors to get justice, not fewer. There need to be greater opportunities and supports toward pursuing human rights court cases and non-criminal cases, as well as opportunities for restorative justice. Survivors need more agency and more say in how their cases move forward.

I heard that survivors need greater supports and information, including legal services, prior to reporting to be fully informed on the process. I heard many conversations about whether the bill is protecting investigations from chain-of-command interference. There are concerns around civilian police gaining access to conduct new investigations, collect evidence and access necessary information for historical cases.

I heard concerns about the expertise and preparedness of the civilian system with regard to military cases. These included concerns about local police units' connections with current or former military personnel, resources of civilian police, jurisdictions between and across provinces, willingness to open complex cases, the ability to understand and access military records and spaces, and the need for a dedicated national team.

I heard concerns about the creation of new senior positions, changes to military judge appointments, and the need to ensure accountability, scrutiny of appointments and an openness to voices outside of the old guard. I heard concerns about pursuing aspects of a criminal case that are illegal under the National Defence Act but not currently codified in the Criminal Code of Canada. I heard of the need to ensure that this reform is not set in stone forever and that research and legislative reviews are proactively scheduled to ensure this legislative change is having the intended impact.

I heard strong concerns about international misconduct cases, including the collection and preservation of evidence and the ability of the military justice system to handle these cases. I heard strong concerns that the members of the cadets, the reserves and the navy, and civilian employees on base were not adequately considered in this legislation. I heard strong concerns that members who are not on base cannot access the same quality of services and supports and that new supports in this bill do not adequately address this gap.

I heard that the new rules on the victim's liaison officer positions need to be reconsidered and strengthened and that there is a need for a legal and policy advocate independent from the chain of command. I heard some talk about the importance of underlining that this is not only a women's issue and increasing outreach to all service members.

That is just a bit of what I heard. However, there was one unified message from everyone we spoke to: This bill is simply not enough. This cannot be the be-all and end-all. Survivors will not remain invisible. Culture change is not something that happens overnight, and I understand that, nor can it be fixed by one piece of legislation. This is an issue that the government and all of us in this place must be committed to.

I will conclude as I started. Generations of military sexual trauma survivors have felt invisible. They have fought every day to demand that we fulfill our responsibility to protect everyone who serves. When the bill gets to committee, we will hear from survivors. We will centre their voices and their proposals, because we cannot make this legislation about survivors without survivors.

National Defence Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-77. It has a title that would not let anyone know what it is about. It is called “an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts”. What it really ought to be called is “a bill to complete the process of military justice reform”. That is the basic reason we in the New Democratic Party are in favour of the bill. We are in favour of it despite its tardiness, and we are in favour of it despite it missing a major opportunity to take an action I will talk about later.

Certain key provisions here are important, and I think we have all-party support for adding these to the military justice system. The first of those would provide greater rights and protections for victims in the military justice system. What the bill would do is align the military justice system with the civilian justice system and align it with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. That means that there would be rights for those involved as victims in the military justice system to be kept informed of the progress of their cases and to get key information about the process in terms of timing: when things will be heard and when they will be resolved. This is something that is not in the military justice system presently.

The second of those rights for victims is that victim impact statements would be allowed in the military justice system in the same way they are allowed in the civilian justice system. That is an important reason to support the bill.

The second reason, which was mentioned just briefly before I stood to speak, is that the bill would bring the military justice system into conformity with the Gladue decision of the Supreme Court in 1999. which allows justices to take into account the circumstances of aboriginal offenders in determining sentencing. The same principle we have been using for 20 years in the civilian justice system would be applied to the military justice system. It is a bit tardy, but it is a good thing to do.

The bill completes most of the military justice reforms that have been worked on for more than 15 years. They were mostly introduced by the previous Conservative government. In its bill, for some reason, the victims rights pieces were left behind. That was a bit surprising in that it was the Conservative government that was bringing forward the reforms, and it was the Conservative government that was the big proponent of the victims rights act. It was a bit peculiar that it was left out, but here it is again. It is a bit tardy, but it is in this bill.

The government passed most of the major military justice reforms in 2013. Here we are, six years later, still dealing with a bill to complete those reforms.

There are some oddities in the military justice system that would be cleared up here. One of those is the fact that there is no requirement to keep transcripts of all military justice proceedings. A summary hearing can be held without any record of that hearing being held. Therefore, it can become very difficult for anyone to appeal a decision from one of those tribunals when there is no written record of it. That is one of the things the Conservatives brought in in their original bill, which was quite positive, as well as better protections against self-incrimination, which did not exist in the military justice system, even though they are required by the Canadian Constitution and the bill of rights. Those were some of the things that were in the 2013 bill that were necessary. This bill would fully implement some of those changes.

What I do not understand is the great delay in getting this done. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives were slow to act on what were clearly needed reforms in military justice. I am not sure why the Conservatives did not complete the job on their watch. They only got as far as Bill C-15, and they introduced Bill C-71 in the dying days of the last Parliament, which is essentially the same as Bill C-77.

Having criticized the Conservatives for being slow, I will criticize the Liberals for being even slower, because they had the Conservative bill, Bill C-71. This bill, Bill C-77, is essentially the same bill, but it took them two years to bring it back to Parliament.

The other part of this is that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals acted expeditiously to get the sections of the original Bill C-15 proclaimed. That bill passed in 2013, and it was not fully proclaimed. It was not fully enforced until September of 2018. We had five years before the legislation was actually put into practice. Some of that was through funding not being made available for the necessary changes, especially in terms of staffing the military justice system. Some of that is simply inexplicable to me. I do not know why it took them so long to get this done.

Again, as I mentioned, it took the Liberals two years to introduce a bill virtually identical to the one the Conservatives introduced in 2015. That makes no sense at all.

What we are doing in Bill C-77 is important, not just in the narrow sense of the military justice act but because of lots of other provisions for military justice and the operations of the military. One of those is Operation HONOUR, which is the military's attempt to deal with sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military. One of the key things here in Bill C-77 is that better supports would now be mandated by law for victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military justice system. This is a supporting measure to Operation HONOUR, which has its big challenges. It has not been entirely successful.

We had former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps before the committee on February 7. It was her report on sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military that sparked some of these changes that are now taking place. What she cited was a reluctance that remains in the military to report sexual harassment and sexual assault, and what she said very clearly to us in the committee was that the solution to that is better support for victims at all stages.

Bill C-77 provides that support when we get to the formal stages for sexual harassment and sexual assault, but Madam Deschamps was very clear that there needs to be better support for victims before the formal processes begin. That is something that is not in Bill C-77. That is something that is not mandated by law. However, I do not think that is a necessity. The Canadian Forces could obviously begin to put in place those better supports for those who have been subjected to sexual harassment and sexual assault when they first make it known to their supervisors or to others in the military system. If they make those supports known and make those supports available, we will get better reporting and we will get better handling of all those cases.

There is still more work to do before the formal legal stages that are being dealt with in Bill C-77. I certainly encourage the leadership of the Canadian Forces to act quickly to get those supports for victims in place.

The other reservation I have in supporting this bill is that it has missed a huge opportunity. That is an opportunity to help deal with another serious concern in the Canadian Forces, and that is the problem of death by suicide in the military.

Over the past 15 years, we have lost 195 serving members of the Canadian Forces to death by suicide. That does not include reservists. The government has admitted that we do not do a good job of keeping track of death by suicide among reservists. The 195 is only those in the Canadian regular forces. We know the number is far larger.

We know that those who are young men between the ages of 25 and 30 are 250 times more likely to take their own lives if they are in the Canadian Forces or are veterans. Something is going on, with the difficult and dangerous work we ask people to do, that results in mental health challenges that we are not responding to in an effective manner.

In November 2017, we had the announcement of a joint DND and Veterans Affairs suicide prevention strategy. I applaud the military for having such a strategy. Again, it is a little tardy, but okay, let us get moving on this. Its focus was on providing more support for those who are facing mental health challenges and more training for all staff within the military, including chaplains and others who are assigned to support those serving members, in how to spot signs of suicide and how to deal with those suffering this mental health injury that has led to self-harm.

That strategy, as I said, was put in place in November 2017. Unfortunately, in 2018, we had 15 more serving members and two members of the reserves die by suicide. That is in one year, 2018. One of my colleagues is signalling that the government's count was two, but there were probably actually five—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise on Bill C-77. As the veterans affairs critic for the NDP, I have met many veterans, many of whom have served in our military, and I have been witness to the struggles many of them have faced. I want to ensure that we put the right tools in place for the individuals who have served our country, to ensure their long-term well-being is in good order in return for their service in uniform.

Our servicemen and servicewomen deserve to have a fair and impartial justice system that is working for them. I believe Bill C-77 takes many of the right steps in that direction. That is why I am happy to be supporting the bill, along with my NDP colleagues.

However, I cannot express how frustrated we are by the lack of urgency in getting this bill to where it is now. Bill C-15 was passed in 2013 and the enforcement of that bill just came into force last year, five years later. Here we are now in 2019, looking to continue the job we started in 2013. I very much hope these important changes do not take another five years to enact and implement, because our men and women in uniform deserve better than delay after delay.

The fundamental principles that are being debated in the bill are still working from the excellent framework provided to us by Antonio Lamer in 2003. I think we have seen today that all parties in this place are working to get the bill passed quickly, which we are grateful for. Partisanship has not been at fault for slowing this process down. It has been a lack of political urgency by previous governments. I feel strongly that we need to do better.

Here we are again in 2019, once again under the gun to get the bill passed before the next election. Canadians deserve better than to have the legislation die on the vine.

I do not want to mislead anyone that Bill C-77 has our full support. There are still steps that need to be taken to improve our military justice system. New Democrats have brought forward an amendment to the bill through our great defence critic, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, which would have struck paragraph 98(c) from the military code of service discipline. It has to do with the effects of self-harm. In my mind, and in the minds of most Canadians, the stigma and attitudes toward mental health are changing for the better, and this section looks to me like a relic from another time.

The committee heard that officials throughout the military are taking significant steps to address the mental health needs of their service people. Tragically, we have seen the impacts that inaction on this important issue has had on our servicemen and servicewomen in the last number of years. Therefore, while I have no doubt that we are taking a better and more compassionate approach to mental health issues, it is important to highlight that paragraph 98(c) is now out of place. As long as people can still see it on the books, they will still potentially be scared to bring forward their struggles and challenges. Those who are in the most vulnerable position need to have that avenue to seek help.

In discussion with my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, he spoke about how his amendment, which would have removed this clause, was at first well received by the committee. Soon, the Liberals on the committee changed their tune. They felt it should be a different study. Once they had their marching orders, the chair said the member's amendment was ineligible.

While I feel like most members in the House recognize the importance and independence of our committees, as we have seen at the justice committee over the last few days, the Liberals are ready to give up on that independence once they receive their marching orders from a minister's office or the PMO. It sounds to me that a similar situation occurred in the removal of my colleague's amendment to the bill.

We heard some very compelling evidence regarding this amendment, which should be heard as the bill returns to the House. As Sheila Fynes explained at committee:

...it is disturbing that even today, under paragraph 98(c), a service member could face life imprisonment for an attempted suicide. It would be more appropriate to consider self-harm under such circumstances as being symptomatic of a serious and urgent mental health concern, and signalling the need for appropriate and immediate medical intervention.

That speaks for itself. This is obviously undue punishment for a member who is suffering. We need to reach out and look after these members.

She went on to add, “There is no benefit to leaving paragraph 98(c) in the National Defence Act, nor is there a downside to removing it. In my heart, I believe it is morally responsible.” This is from the testimony she gave on November 1, 2018.

Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron, who took a much more conservative approach, added:

Including yourself, but if we focus on the other person, which I think you were leading up to, we have numerous other offences—assaults, attempted murder, name it—that would penalize you for the action you've committed toward the other individual that are captured in a way by paragraph 98(c), so we could reach the same result.

I am proud to say that I know the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and he will not be giving up on this fight easily. I look forward to having the opportunity to support his private member's bill, Bill C-426. If we are truly committed to ending the stigma around mental health and wellness, we need to commit ourselves not only to improving our services but also to ending the systems that reinforce these wrongly held beliefs.

This is the most important step the bill takes with respect to the compassionate treatment of victims and their families. It is imperative that these individuals have strong protections and that the military justice system supports them in a compassionate way throughout the legal process.

Bill C-77 would harmonize the military justice system with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights so that victims in the military justice system would have many of the same resources that victims in our civilian courts have. This would include keeping victims informed regarding the progress of cases, which I know can be an incredible relief. By nature, lawyers keep everything close to their chests, and not knowing what is going to happen next is a significant source of anxiety for victims and their families.

The other addition that would be most significant for victims is the appointment of a victims liaison officer to be assigned to support them through the process. We often ask our military personnel to do some of the most difficult and dangerous tasks for our country. Tools like a victims liaison officer are needed to show that we have our servicemen's and servicewomen's backs when they are suffering.

Another area in which the bill takes a positive step is reconciliation. I had the pleasure of working on the veterans affairs committee's report as the committee's standing vice-chair. The report is entitled “Indigenous Veterans: From Memories of Injustice to Lasting Recognition”. While the report lays out some very important steps forward, it is also a stark reminder that indigenous members of our military have not always been treated equally or fairly.

As the Supreme Court determined in 1999 with the Gladue decision, it is appropriate to take Canada's colonial legacy into account for sentencing. I am glad to see that Bill C-77 will extend that decision from our civilian courts to our military ones. Our military justice system often deals with serious offences, and it is imperative that every important factor is considered when these decisions are made.

While I am proud of the additional victims' rights, which will be added in Bill C-77, the bill also takes steps to make the military justice system more fair and impartial for all parties involved. Regardless of which side of the justice system people find themselves, it is vital that they have confidence that the system is arriving at a fair and impartial decision. While this can be all the more difficult in the trying situations that our military members often find themselves in, it is our duty to provide the tools and resources for fair trials to occur. By expanding the rights of an accused individual to go to trial by court martial rather than by their commanding officer, we will be better able to protect Canadians' constitutional rights.

I believe my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke put it in the most simple terms:

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to a high standard of discipline, therefore, their judicial system should also reflect that high standard. Those who risk their lives for our country should not be denied their charter rights when facing trial.

I would also like to read a quote from Tim Dunne, a columnist with The Chronicle Herald, in regard to this very same topic. He says:

Until Bill C-77 is passed, commanding and designated officers with little legal training presiding at summary trials are not required to prepare a transcript of the proceedings, so there is no provision for appeal; there is no requirement to apply rules of evidence to assure a fair trial; an accused can be compelled to testify against himself or herself, so there is no constitutional right to protection against self-incrimination; adverse inferences can be drawn from the silences of the accused; and the accused cannot be represented by a lawyer.

As I conclude my thoughts, I want to once again say how important it is to ensure we are able to enact the changes outlined in Bill C-77 in a timely manner. It has been years since we have known that these steps needed to be taken, but we have delayed. In that time many Canadians have proudly worn a uniform. We owe it to those members and their families to ensure that our military justice system is more supportive to victims and fairer to everyone.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-77, very important, though tardy and still incomplete, legislation. The last time there were major reforms in our military justice system was 1998, in what was then Bill C-25. At that time, Bill C-25 specified there would be a five-year review of those extensive reforms that had been mandated in law. That review was completed by the very distinguished former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Antonio Lamer, in September of 2003, 15 years ago.

The conclusion reached by Justice Lamer was that after five years of experience with the reformed justice system, it was generally “working well”, but he went on to say that it was, “not entirely without room for improvement”. That was a very moderate statement as Justice Lamer was wanting to make. He then submitted 88 recommendations for those improvements.

Justice Lamer made recommendations in three main areas: actions to increase the protection of the independence of military judges; actions to improve the grievance process within the Canadian military; and actions to address some major deficiencies in the overall military justice framework.

Now, here we are 15 years later and we are still dealing with important issues in this bill, a bill that was delayed three times by intervening elections. However, both the Liberal and Conservative governments, as we heard them tossing at each other earlier in this debate, have been slow to act on these important changes.

On the first recommendation of the independence of military justice, the Conservatives did act early in the last Parliament in a separate bill, which was then Bill C-16. This was dealt with on an urgent basis because a deadline had been set for changes regarding the independence of judges by the Court Martial Appeals Court decision in the case of R v. LeBlanc. This deadline was met with royal assent on November 29, 2001.

For me, there is the proof that we could have dealt with all of these things very expeditiously. There was a will in Parliament, the Conservatives had a majority and we could have gotten through all of these reforms seven years ago. However, all of the other recommendations had to wait.

When the Conservatives finally did introduce in the last Parliament Bill C-15, in October of 2011, it contained many, but not all, of the needed reforms. Even then, progress on the bill was slow. It took two years to pass through the previous Parliament and it only received second reading a year after it was introduced. The bill sat for an entire year without any motion, debate or effective action on it.

Finally, in May of 2013, the bill passed the House and, for once, the Senate did act expeditiously and the bill received royal assent in 2013. However, here is the kicker on this one. Most of the reforms mandated in the bill did not come into force until September 1 of this year. Therefore, even though the bill passed five years ago, it was only last month that its provisions came into effect, again 15 years after those reforms were recommended by former Justice Lamer.

Why is that the case? It is pretty simple. Our military justice system remains woefully under-resourced no matter whether Liberals or Conservatives have been the government.

Justice Lamer's recommendations specifically recognized four important principles to guide reform in the military justice system. His first was, “Maintaining discipline by the chain of command is essential to a competent and reliable military organization.” None of us in the House would disagree with that recommendation. It is important to keep in mind because, as my hon. friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman pointed out, there are times when the military justice system has to be faster and perhaps harsher than the civilian system.

His second principle was that it was necessary to recognize the particular context of the military justice system, meaning 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.”

His third principle, perhaps one that is most important to me, is that those who risk their lives for our country deserve a military justice system that protects their rights in accordance with our charter, just like all other Canadians.

His fourth principle said that it was necessary to recognize, also an important point, that any doubts or lack of confidence in the military justice system may have negative impacts on morale as a result of concerns about injustice. The system has to be fair and be seen to be fair so it serves the interests of those who are risking their lives to serve our country.

Returning specifically to Bill C-77, New Democrats are supporting this bill at second reading, and we have recommended expediting this passage at all stages. After all, 15 years later, it is time to get this in gear.

Bill C-77 does complete most of the rest of the reforms to the military justice system that were first proposed under the former Conservative government, but unfortunately were left out when Bill C-15 was adopted in the last Parliament. I am not quite sure why it took the Liberals three years to get this bill before us, because the Conservatives had introduced essentially the same bill in the dying days of the last Parliament.

For me, the most important part of those reforms in Bill C-77 are those that add greater protections to victims in the military justice system. These were missing, they are missing, and these changes would align the military justice system with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It is important not only that those who are accused are treated fairly, but that those who have been victims of the offences are also treated fairly in the military justice system.

As I said, this bill would implement most of the rest of the reforms first proposed under the former Harper government and would modernize the military justice system, but there are still some areas in which it is lacking. We believe there are two areas in which improvements could be made without undue delay to this bill.

One important provision in Bill C-77 is found in section 23(c.1). This section would allow military judges to take into account the circumstances of aboriginal offenders when determining sentencing. This change is obviously welcome, as it is in keeping with the Supreme Court Gladue decision of 1999 with regard to how the criminal justice system operates in the civilian realm.

However, we believe it is possible, given that this is 2018, nearly 20 years later, that we may be able to improve the wording of that section to allow greater clarification of its intentions and the impacts of this section.

The second improvement we would like to see involves the subject of my questions earlier to the minister and to the Conservative spokesperson. This is the omission of reform that would help deal with the serious problem of suicide within the Canadian military.

In October 2016, the government announced a suicide prevention strategy, a strategy with 160 provisions to address a problem that is very real in the Canadian Forces. We are still seeing one to two members of the Canadian Forces die by suicide each and every month. That is a total of more than 130 serving members who died by suicide from 2010 to the end of 2017.

When we are speaking just of serving members, obviously that excludes the very high rate of suicide among veterans, which the government was not even able to track when the report was issued in 2016. Today, we know at least 70 of those who served in the Afghanistan mission have died by suicide, some of those still in the military; some of those having retired and become veterans.

Self-harm is listed as an offence in section 98 of the National Defence Act. Three offences are included in that section 98. Section (a) deals with malingering, and obviously in a time of crisis, avoiding duties should be subject to discipline. The second, section (b), is dealing with aggravating disease or infirmity, and I question whether that is really a necessary inclusion, it seems a lot like malingering to me. It seems like it is repeating in (b) what it just said in (a).

It is the third section, section (c), that concerns me. It says that anyone who:

....wilfully maims or injures himself or any other person who is a member of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith, whether at the instance of that person or not, with intent thereby to render himself or that other person unfit for service, or causes himself to be maimed or injured by any person with intent thereby to render himself unfit for service, is guilty of an offence....

Section 98, as a whole, goes on to set the possible penalties for self-harm as up to life imprisonment.

I ask members to think about individuals serving in the armed forces and suffering from mental health issues and needing help. Are they likely to go forward to their commanding officer and say that they are about to commit a disciplinary offence? This is an obstacle to getting the treatment those people need. It is a matter of human compassion. It is also a matter of getting help so that Canadian Forces members who have been trained, invested in and are part of a team can remain effective. Therefore, it is not only a moral question, it is also very much an efficiency question in the military.

This is a major obstacle, as I said, to serving members' seeking help, and omitting this section would have no impact on or injury to other serving members. The minister's response to my question seemed to implicate that there was some problem in omitting this section, but I would assert, and will bring forward some witnesses at committee, that harm to other serving members is already covered in other sections of the code of conduct so that this section on self-harm or asking someone to harm them or someone else really does not need to be there. All of those possible behaviours they could think of that the minister seemed concerned about are actually covered somewhere else.

I want to speak for a moment about a tragic case that I know best, and that is of Corporal Stuart Langridge, whose family I have come to know well, as they reside in my riding. Corporal Langridge twice attempted suicide while he was a serving member. He failed the first two times, but he did not seek the help that he needed. His family firmly believe that this section that makes it an offence was part of the reason that he did not seek help. Therefore, this section making it a disciplinary offence hindered rather than helped their son and, unfortunately, on his third attempt he succeeded and died by suicide. This led to an unfortunate attempt to cover up the details of his case, but that is not the topic here today and I do want to set that aside. The goal here is removing, as I have heard from families, from veterans and from serving members, a major obstacle to those who need help with serious mental health issues in getting the help they need. Making self-harm an offence is clearly a relic of old thinking about the scourge of suicide that continues to plague not only our military but this entire country.

One last major reform that was not dealt with in Bill C-16, Bill C-15 and in this current bill, Bill C-77 is that of the right to trial by jury. We had, as was noted earlier in the debate, a Court Martial Appeal Court ruling last week, which ruled that civil offences are not offences under military law if they are not connected to military duties, an oversimplification of the case, in the case of Master Corporal Beaudry. The government has appealed that decision, which was a split decision in the court, and has requested a stay of that decision until the Supreme Court can hear the case. The military justice head prosecutor, Bruce MacGregor, has said that this potentially affects about half the caseload of the military justice system. I am not going to take a position today on what the proper decision in that case should be. That is the job of the Supreme Court, not politicians. However, we can all recognize today that there may be further work needed if that decision is upheld by the courts.

Experts like retired judge Gilles Letourneau and the highly skilled lawyer from Montreal, Michel Drapeau, have argued that this is a question of fundamental rights, and that it will not affect military discipline. However, there have been concerns raised on the other side about the slowness of the civilian justice system and whether it can fully consider the context in which those crimes might occur.

My biggest concern is that this ruling raises questions of the ultimate disposition of sexual assault cases that were originally declared unfounded by the military police. The military police recently announced that 23 of those cases will be reopened for investigation. I am concerned about that because if this decision stands and those cases are transferred to the civilian system, they might fall under the time limits set in the 2016 Jordan decision, resulting in a dismissal because of unnecessary delays. Those are very complicated implications that we have yet to see play out from this court decision.

Let me say once again that the NDP believes that Bill C-77 should pass expeditiously, and we will support it. However, in doing so, we should not neglect the opportunity to make some improvements, most importantly, to remove self-harm as an offence in the military code of conduct.

Finally, let me restate the importance of these improvements to our military justice system. They are important to discipline, they are important to morale, and they are important as a right of those who serve.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to a high standard of discipline, therefore, their judicial system should also reflect that high standard. Those who risk their lives for our country should not be denied their charter rights when facing trial.

Other countries have recognized this issue and changed their processes. It is time for Canada to catch up in this area. It is past time that we take the necessary steps toward ensuring that our military justice system ranks as a model system and a system of which members of the Canadian Armed Forces can be justifiably proud.

Bill C-77 takes important steps forward, but there is still more work left to be done.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated from the outset in response to the parliamentary secretary's speech, the NDP is very proud to support the bill. In response to another question for the Conservative member, our position is that we want to get the bill to committee as soon as possible.

No bill is perfect and we have some suggestions of a constructive nature that would deal with strengthening the rights of indigenous people who serve our country in the military.

As I indicated in a question for the parliamentary secretary that we believe the code of service, the service offences and the discipline changes ought to occur to address those who attempt to take their own lives, a far too common occurrence in the military. We do not think that should be the subject of discipline as it currently is now. We think a more compassionate approach is required. Therefore, we will work, I hope arm in arm with the government and the Conservatives, to see if we can effect those changes at committee when we get there.

As a little background, the bill before us enacts reforms to the military justice system that were left out of Bill C-15 from the previous Conservative government, which received assent five years ago, in 2013. It is not clear why the Liberals did not introduce changes earlier to complete the system, but better late than never would be how I would summarize the position in which we find ourselves.

This is a good legislation. We are not alone in taking that position. It was said by Lindsay Rodman, a fellow of the Global Affairs Institute, in the Globe and Mail earlier this year. By establishing a victims bill of rights in the military, as this bill would do, it would mirror protections that already exist for Canadian civilians with one additional provision. That provision in the bill. It calls for the creation of a “victim liaison officer” to help shepherd the victim through the justice system. This is a very laudable step for the armed forces to take and it will go some distance to deal with the pernicious issue of sexual assault in the military. I commend the government for realizing that. This step, although not sufficient in and of itself, will be very valuable in getting more justice for those kinds of victims. I salute the government for such a creative position.

What happens until Bill C-77 is enacted? That commanding and designated officers, with often no legal training, preside at summary trials in the military justice system.

Summary trials are where most of the action is, where most of the offences are dealt with in a summary fashion for the vast majority. These people are not legally trained. They are not required to prepare a transcript of the proceedings. There is no ability to effectively appeal. There is no requirement to apply rules of evidence to assure a fair trial. An accused person can be compelled to testify against herself or himself. Therefore, there is no constitutional right to protection against self-incrimination. Adverse inferences can be drawn from the silence of the accused and the accused cannot be assisted by legal representation.

Those are serious drawbacks in our system of military justice. It did not need to be this way. Other countries have given criminal justice over to the civilian courts in the context of military discipline. In other words, there is no similar provision in the National Defence Act of the kind before us today.

The need to overhaul rights for the accused is as important as dealing, as the government so laudably has, with victims in the military justice system.

Perhaps I can be forgiven if I try to put this debate in a slightly broader context. Why do we have a separate system of military justice in the first place? People watching this debate may wonder that because other countries have not chosen to do so at all. For example, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium and France have removed criminal offences from the jurisdiction of military courts. Their military personnel have the same rights in the same courts as civilians.

Therefore, Canadians may wonder, why is it that we do have this separate system of military justice, and why is it so important that in this bill we move to modernize it and bring it into compliance and conformity with the rights that Canadians have elsewhere? That is a fair question. The answer to that is that the courts of Canada have long accepted that there needs to be a separate military justice system for people in the military. Chief Justice Lamer, in 1992 in the Supreme Court of Canada, said that “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.”

Those words are now found in the amendments before us today in recognition and confirmation by Parliament of what the Supreme Court has said. Those words were also repeated in a subsequent case in 2015 by Justice Cromwell in the Moriarity case. However, the difference is that the court now has said we do not need to have things pertain directly to the military; there does not have to be what Justice Cromwell called a “nexus” to the military. There was just a broad understanding that we need to have this separate code as a consequence. Therefore, people might ask, why do we need to have a separate code of military justice? Indeed, the charter acknowledges that it will be separate. For example, there is no trial by jury, per section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter acknowledges that there will be military tribunals and military law, so even in our Constitution we accept that this would be necessary.

These offences can occur, I remind members, abroad or in Canada. If our military men and women are serving in Mali, they will be subject to the same sort of code in that country, not the country in question where they are serving but under Canadian military law and there is the special Code of Service Discipline, which is at issue. Part III of the National Defence Act before us adds this declaration of victims' rights to that code, but that code contemplates that we need, for purposes of discipline in the field, to have a separate disciplinary jurisdiction for service offences that may be, as my Conservative colleague acknowledged, not offences in the normal course of criminal law but pertain particularly to the need for military discipline no matter where people are serving, such as arms misconduct in the presence of the enemy, mutiny, disobedience of a lawful command, desertion, absence without leave, negligent performance of duty and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. That is a pretty big waterfront of things that can go wrong if one is serving in the military, and that is why there need to be broader rights granted to the accused individuals so they can face their accuser with the same kind of rights that Canadians have come to expect under our Constitution and under our criminal law system. That is why this bill is so important and so long overdue.

What would this bill do? Among other things, we have talked about the victims' rights aspect of this bill, but it also deals with a number of important principles that would dramatically change the military justice system. I would just like to make sure I get the wording right in describing that. Among other things, in addition to this declaration of victims' rights in the Code of Service Discipline, there are other things that are added or amended in that code. First, it confirms that the purpose of the code and the fundamental purpose of imposing sanctions is to protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences; specifying factors that a military judge can take into consideration when determining whether to make an exclusion order; and a lot of additional changes to the way in which witnesses can testify, even allowing them to do so with a pseudonym in appropriate cases.

These are things that would never be permitted in normal courts but are recognized as important in the context of the unique requirements of discipline in the military. There is the ability on application to make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 and so forth.

It seems to me that there are some really positive changes in the bill that need to be supported by members on all sides of the House.

For several years we have had the concept of victim impact statements. Why would that not be applicable in the context of military justice? There is no reason why not, and I proud to see that the bill would allow that to occur in the circumstances of military justice as well.

As I said, we have two types of military justice, two parallel tracks as the courts have said: regular civilian criminal law and the Code of Service Discipline in part III of the National Defence Act. The goal of this legislation, as I understand it, is to bring those in closer harmony so that the accused will increasingly have the rights that we have discussed and take for granted in the criminal justice system, while taking into account the needs of military discipline as well.

It is going to be a balancing judgment. When the bill gets to committee there will be some things that we may want to address to ensure that we have that balance right. By everyone's acknowledgement in the House, the bill is an enormous improvement over the status quo, but we still have quite a considerable distance to go if we are going to get that balance right.

I will speak to two things that need to be addressed when we get to committee and have the opportunity to roll up our sleeves and deal with this in trying to achieve the best balance.

We need to have greater protection for those suffering from mental illness. In my riding, and I am sure in the ridings of all members in this place, we have seen people who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. We used to call it “shell shock” in the First World War. It is now manifesting itself in so many different ways. People are coming home crippled and wounded, not just in a physical sense but wounded mentally. In the 21st century, we have to do better at providing justice for those people who put their lives on the line for us but come home and often find they do not have the services they need.

What about when they are serving in the forces, however? Will they be stigmatized if they attempt suicide? Will they face disciplinary sanctions because it is a problem in terms of the line of command and discipline? We cannot have that. In a civilized country like ours, while acknowledging as I do the need for discipline, we cannot have people penalized for crying out for help because of a mental disorder, probably exacerbated if not caused by their service to their country. That has to be fixed and we are going to work with the government to fix it when we get to committee.

As has been acknowledged, there have been some things to improve the lot of indigenous people who served in the military. These are long overdue. When we work constructively in committee, we can make some positive changes to this aspect in the bill as well. In the proposed bill, judges are allowed to take into account the circumstances of aboriginal offenders when determining sentencing. That has been the law in the rest of the land since the Gladue principle in 1999, but it needs to find its way into the code of military justice, and it will, thanks to Bill C-77. Is that sufficient? We will suggest some improvements when the bill gets to committee.

This legislation should be understood as completing the reforms to the military justice system that were proposed under the previous Conservative government but left out when Bill C-15 was adopted in the 41st Parliament. It has taken over two years for the Liberals to finish the job and get the bill before us. We are getting there. We have improvements before us.

I am very happy this morning to note the goodwill on all sides to get this right, but we need to be treating our military personnel with the same kinds of rights, largely, as they are entitled to under the charter. The charter does apply to military justice. I did not want to leave anyone with the impression that because there is reference in the charter to military justice and military tribunals, with the charter saying that no juries will be part of that system, that somehow the section 7 legal rights of the accused, etc., are not fully there.

The problem, as we know, is that there are limitations on the charter. The government has the ability to say that the charter rights of an individual civilian may be larger than those in the military because it can say it can demonstrably demonstrate that those limits are justified in a free and democratic society. That is how the military justice system gets to kind of erode the rights that would otherwise be available to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It says these limits are required because of the nature of being in the military. I understand that, but as much as possible, of course, our goal should be to ensure that those rights are as close to those available in civilian courts as possible.

Mr. Justice Gilles Létourneau, formerly of the Federal Court, and Professor Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel in the military, have written a book called Military Justice in Action. It is a gigantic tome that demonstrates there is a huge body of law that the JAG and people who defend military personnel before court martial, appeal tribunals and so forth, have had to learn. It is now well entrenched, ever since we have had a military in this country, that there are these parallel tracks.

The goal of Bill C-77, in short, should be to demonstrate why the limits that are there, the legitimate limits for morale and discipline, cannot approach those in civilian courts. If other countries have seen fit to eliminate military justice in the criminal context and give it entirely over to civilian courts, it is up to the government to demonstrate why the rights of the accused are somehow lesser simply because service members had joined the military. One might say that the rights should be broader because they are the patriots, putting their lives on the line for the rest of us. However, I do acknowledge continually that the courts have made clear that legitimate discipline and morale issues in Canada have been affirmed to require a separate track.

Our job, in short, as we address Bill C-77, is twofold. It is to make sure that the rights of the victims, the declaration that this bill contains, is not simply an empty declaration, but that we can make sure that those words mean something to those who have suffered as victims and, equally important, that the rights of accused are as broad as those enjoyed by other Canadians, unless the military can justify and demonstrate clearly that they need those restrictions on charter rights for purposes of discipline. This bill goes a great distance to achieving that goal. New Democrats will work with the government to make sure that we get it right, and we look forward to the opportunity to do so.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his long years of military service to his country. I had the honour of travelling with him to Passchendaele last year, and I know of his commitment to the military.

The member referenced the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which the Conservative government brought in the last session. This bill is finishing the work of the previous Conservative government in overhauling military justice. It started that in Bill C-15 back in 2013.

Why did the Conservative government not extend the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to those in military justice back then? Why are we doing this now several years later?

National Defence

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice act, was adopted as a first step in reforming Canada's outdated military criminal justice system. The bill received royal assent four years ago, yet 44 sections of the act are not yet in force. That represents nearly one-third of the act and some of the most important reforms to the system.

Since justice delayed is often justice denied, could the Minister of National Defence explain to the House what possible excuse there can be for this long delay in reforming Canada's military justice system?

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:

C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)—Chapter 10, 2013.

C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 11, 2013.

C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act—Chapter 12, 2013.

S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 13, 2013.

C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 14, 2013.

C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity)—Chapter 15, 2013.

C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Chapter 16, 2013.

S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War—Chapter 17, 2013.

C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18, 2013.

S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)—Chapter 19, 2013.

S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves—Chapter 20, 2013.

S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands—Chapter 21, 2013.

C-63, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 22, 2013.

C-64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 23, 2013.

C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24, 2013.

C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25, 2013.

S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act—Chapter 26, 2013.

S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes—Chapter 27, 2013.

S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001—Chapter 28, 2013.

It being 4:24 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:24 p.m.)

The first session of the 41st Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on September 13, 2013.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, something I have admitted publicly before, that I got quite wrong in terms of my thinking when the current government moved from a minority to a majority position, was how the tone and tenor of the debate would be and how legislation would be dealt with. I assumed that with a majority and the confidence of being able to pass legislation, that confidence would then lead to a certain amount of willingness to discuss amendments and work on legislation because at no point in a majority government, unless there is a serious crisis, can the government fall.

Minority governments are naturally quite skittish, and that is understood, and there is a lot of parlaying that has to happen between the parties. I have been wrong and disappointed so many times at committee. It is not that we put forward an amendment and the majority members of the government on the committee say it is wrong because of x, they just vote against it. Then they vote against the next one and the next one and the next one, until we have gone through all of the amendments and they are all gone. That is not necessarily the best way to do things and I sometimes search for the reason for that. Why bother? Who cares, if an amendment gets through, who the source was?

In fact, one might argue, strategically, it would better bond and tie the opposition to the legislation being moved through if we made amendments to it. I have seen legislation, as have you, Mr. Speaker, that has moved through the House and when the opposition starts to feel a certain need to vote against it, the government says the opposition got 10 amendments and they changed this, that and the other. Bill C-15, the military justice act, is a good example. There was a long battle and a certain amount of arrogance that was going on until a fundamental amendment was accepted and, lo and behold, look at what happened. We got a better bill, not according to us but the people it is going to affect: the military. That is good, that is better, that is what Parliament is meant to do. There has been too much of this bellicose attitude.

Hope springs eternal, as my friend, the government House leader, said earlier, and the hope is that we find that common ground a little more often, rather than the constant dismissal and arrogance of saying that the answers to the questions we face can only come from one side.

Points of Order

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague just at the beginning of his speech on the justification for the motion that he has just presented to the House, but we have a point of order that we need to raise because I think it establishes a couple of important things for you, as Speaker, to determine before we get into the context and the particulars of this motion.

Specifically, I will be citing Standing Order 13, which says:

Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.

This is the standing order that we cite, because we have looked at the motion the government has presented here today with some notice given last week.

This motion goes against the Standing Orders and certainly the spirit of Parliament. The government is not allowed to break the rules of Parliament that protect the rights of the minority, the opposition and all members of the House of Commons who have to do their jobs for the people they represent. This motion is very clearly contrary to the existing Standing Orders.

I have some good examples to illustrate this. In my opinion, there is no urgency that would justify the government's heavy-handed tactics to prevent members from holding a reasonable debate on its agenda. I say “agenda”, but for a long time now it has been difficult to pin down what this government's agenda is exactly. This is nothing new.

The motion comes to us today at a difficult time, but just because the government held a brief caucus meeting and is facing numerous problems and a few scandals, it is not justified in violating the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. No one would accept those excuses. There is no historical basis for the government to use the Standing Orders in this way. That does not work.

There are a few important things we need to point out. One is that it behooves us to have some explanation of what this motion actually does. For those of us who do not intimately follow the rules and history of Parliament, it can be quite confusing not in terms of the intention of what the government has read but certainly in the implications. It needs some translation, not French to English or English to French, but translation as to what it actually means for the House of Commons. That is why we believe a point of order exists for this motion.

The motion essentially would immediately begin something that would ordinarily begin in a couple of weeks, which is for the House to sit until midnight to review legislation. This is somewhat ironic from a government that has a bad history with respect to moving legislation correctly through the process and allowing us to do our work, which is what we are here to do on behalf of Canadians.

I am not alone in seeing that the government has shown the intention of having some urgency with respect to 23 bills, 14 of which have not even been introduced since the last election. Suddenly there is great urgency, when in fact it is the government that has set the agenda. The urgency is so great that it has to fundamentally change the rules of how we conduct ourselves in this place in response to an urgency that did not exist until this moment.

One has to question the need. Why the panic? Why now, and why over these pieces of legislation? Are they crucial to Canada's economic well-being? Is it to restore the social safety net that the government has brutalized over the last number of years? What is the panic and what is the urgency?

Context sets everything in politics, and the context that the government exists under right now is quite telling. Every time I have had to stand in this place raising points of order and countering the closure and time allocation motions that the government uses, I am often stating and citing that this is a new low standard for Parliament. I have thought at times that there was not much more it could do to this place to further erode the confidence of Canadians or further erode the opportunity for members of Parliament to speak, yet it has again invented something new, and here we are today debating that motion.

That is why we believe that Standing Order 13 needs to be called. It is because it is very clear that when a motion is moved that is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament—which is what I would underline, as it is the important part—the Speaker must involve himself or herself in the debate and ask that the debate no longer proceed.

The privileges of members of Parliament are not the privileges that are being talked about by our friends down the hall to falsely claim money that did not exist or privileges of limo rides and trips around the world. The privileges of Parliament that speak constitutionally to the need for Parliament are that members of Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinized and debate government bills.

Just before the riding week, we saw the government introduce another time allocation on a bill that had received exactly 60 minutes of debate. Somehow the Conservatives felt that had exhausted the conversation on a bill they had sat on for years, and suddenly the panic was on. We are seeing this pattern again and again with a government that is facing more scandal.

I was looking through the news today. Every morning I start my day with the news and we consider what we should ask the government in question period. There are some days when the focus can be difficult and one may not be sure what the most important issue of the day is. However, the challenge for us today as the official opposition is that, as there are so many scandals on so many fronts, how do we address them all within the short time we have during question period or in debate on bills.

I listened to my friend for Langley, who has been somewhat in the news of late on his attempt to speak on issues he felt were important to his constituents. We saw him move a new private member's bill today. He withdrew the former bill, and now he is moving one again. The New Democrats will support the bill going to committee for study because we think there are some options and availability for us to look at the legislation and do our job.

Whether it is muzzling of their own MPs and the Conservatives' attempt to muzzle all MPs in the House of Commons, or using private members' bills to avoid the scrutiny that is applied to government legislation, and one important piece of that scrutiny is the charter defence of the legislation and so, in a sense, the Conservatives are using the back door to get government legislation through and move their agenda in another way, or the omnibus legislation, which has received so much controversy in Canada as the government has increasingly abused the use of omnibus legislation, or the F-35 fiasco, or the recent Auditor General's report, or the former parliamentary budget officer who was under much abuse and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer who has asked for the same things he did, or infamously, prorogation, time and time again the pattern is the same. The government has complete disdain for the House.

Whether it be the scandals in the Senate, or the China FIPA accord, or the recent problems with the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, or the employment insurance scandals, or the $3 billion missing, or the 300,000 jobs that have not been replaced, the government keeps trying to avoid proper scrutiny out of embarrassment. However, the House of Commons exists for one thing and one thing alone, which is to hold the government to account.

The government will make some claims that the urgency right now is because there has not been enough progress on legislation. Therefore, the Conservatives have to hit the panic button and would have the House sit until midnight, which has consequences beyond just being a late night, and I will get into those consequences in a moment because they support our notion that it infringes upon the entitlements of members of Parliament to debate legislation properly.

The Conservatives' record shows, and this is not speculation or conspiracy, that when they ram legislation through, they more often than not get it wrong. That is not just expensive for the process of law making, but it is expensive for Canadians. These things often end up in court costing millions and millions of dollars and with victims of their own making. The scandal that exists in the Senate is absolutely one of their own making. The Prime Minister can point the finger where he likes, but he appointed those senators.

Specific to the point of order I am raising, this motion would lower the amount of scrutiny paid to legislation. It would allow the government extended sittings, which are coming in the second week of June anyway, as the Standing Orders currently exist, to allow the government to do that, but the Conservatives want to move the clock up and have more legislation rammed through the House.

Also, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, the order of our day includes concurrence reports from committee, which allow the House to debate something that happened in committee which can sometimes be very critical, and many are moved from all sides. However, they would not get started until midnight under the Conservatives' new rules. Therefore, we would study and give scrutiny on what happened at committee from midnight until two or three o'clock in the morning.

As well, emergency debates would not start until midnight. Just recently we had a debate, Mr. Speaker, that your office agreed to allow happen, which was quite important to those implicated. We were talking about peace and war and Canada's role in the world. It was a critical emergency debate that certainly went into the night. However, the idea is that we would take emergency debates that the Speaker's office and members of Parliament felt were important and start them at midnight and somehow they would be of the same quality as those started at seven o'clock in the evening.

The scrutiny of legislation has become much less important than the government moving its agenda through, which is an infringement on our privilege as members of Parliament. The Conservatives' so-called urgency, their panic, is not a justification for overriding the privileges that members of Parliament hold dear.

As for progress, just recently we moved the nuclear terrorism bill through, Bill S-9.

We also had much debate but an improvement on Bill C-15, the military justice bill, to better serve our men and women in the forces. The original drafting was bad. The Conservatives wanted to force it forward and we resisted. My friend from St. John's worked hard and got an amendment through that would help those in the military who found themselves in front of a tribunal.

We have the divorce in civil marriages act, which has been sitting and sitting. It would allow people in same-sex marriages to file for and seek divorce. All we have offered to the government is one vote and one speaker each. The government refuses to bring the bill forward and I suspect it is because it would require a vote. It is a shame when a government resists the idea that a vote would be a good thing for members of Parliament to declare their intentions on, certainly something as important as civil liberties and rights for gay men and women.

I mentioned earlier why, in the infringement of this privilege, it causes great harm and distress not just to Parliament but to the country.

I asked my team to pull up the list of bills that were so badly written that they had to be either withdrawn or completely rewritten at committee and even in the Senate which, God knows, is a terrible strategy for any legislation.

There was the infamous or famous Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, which the Minister of Public Safety said something to the effect that either people were with the government or they were with child pornographers, which may be an example of the worst framing in Canadian political history. There has probably been worse, but that was pretty bad. The Conservatives had to kill the bill.

We have also seen Bill C-10, Bill C-31, Bill C-38 and Bill C-42, all of these bills were so badly written that oftentimes the government had to amend them after having voted for them. After saying they were perfect and ramming them through, invoking closure and shutting down debate, the Conservatives got to committee and heard from people who actually understood the issue and realized the law they had written would be illegal and would not work or fix the problem that was identified, and so they had to rewrite it. That is the point of Parliament. That is the point of the work we do.

We have also seen bills that have been challenged at great expense before the courts. Former Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, with huge sections of the government's main anti-crime agenda, was challenged and defeated in court.

Bill C-38, arbitrarily eliminating backlog for skilled workers, was challenged and defeated.

Bill C-7, Senate term limits, was after years just now deferred to the Supreme Court. It is called “kicking it down the road”.

Also, there are Bill C-6, Bill C-33 and others, and there are those that are being crafted and debated right now that are going to have serious problems.

The essential thrust of our intention is in identifying the rules that govern us, and specifically Standing Order 13. The government has time and again talked about accountability before the Canadian people and talked about doing things better than its predecessors in the Liberal Party, the government that became so arrogant and so unaccountable to Canadians that the Conservatives threw it out of office. History repeats itself if one does not learn true lessons from history.

As I mentioned, Standing Order 27(1) already exists, and it allows the government to do exactly what we are talking about, but not starting until the last 10 sitting days. The Conservatives have said that there is so much on their so-called agenda that they have to do this early, allowing for less scrutiny, allowing for emergency debates to start at midnight, allowing for concurrence debates that come from committees to start at midnight and go until two, three or four o'clock in the morning.

This is contrary to the work of parliamentarians. If the Conservatives are in such a rush, why do they not negotiate? Why do they not actually come to the table and do what parliamentarians have done throughout time, which is offer the to and fro of any proper negotiation between reasonable people?

We have moved legislation forward. My friend across the way was moving an important motion commemorating war heroes. We worked with that member and other members to ensure the bill, which came from the Senate, made it through speedy passage.

Parliament can work if the Conservatives let it work, but it cannot work if they keep abusing it. Canadians continue to lose faith and trust in the vigour of our work and the ability to hold government to account. We see it time and again, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have as well, in talking to constituents who say that they are not sure what goes on here anymore, that it just seems like government will not answer questions, that everyday they ask sincere and thoughtful questions and the Conservatives do not answer. Bills get shut down with motions of closure.

Let us look at the current government's record.

Thirty-three times, the Conservatives have moved time allocation on legislation, an all-time high for any government in Canadian history. Through war and peace, through good and bad, no government has shut down debate in Parliaments more than the current one.

Ninety-nine point three per cent of all amendments moved by the opposition have been rejected by the government. Let us take a look at that stat for a moment. That suggests that virtually 100% of the time, the government has been perfectly right on the legislation it moves. All the testimony from witnesses and experts, comments from average Canadians, when moving amendments to the legislation before us, 99.3% of the time the government rejects it out of hand. It ends up in court. It ends up not doing what it was meant to do.

Ten Conservative MPs have never spoken to legislation at all. I will note one in particular. The Minister of Finance, who has not bothered to speak to his own bills, including the omnibus legislation, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which caused so much controversy. He did not bother to stand and justify his actions. I find it deplorable and it is not just me, Canadians as well, increasingly so.

This is my final argument. We cannot allow this abuse to continue. This pattern has consequences, not just for what happens here today or tomorrow, but in the days, weeks, months and years to come and the Parliaments to come. If we keep allowing for and not standing up in opposition to bad ideas and draconian measures, we in a sense condone them.

We say that Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think that is wrong. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong. It is not right and left; it is right and wrong. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We built this place out of bricks and mortar to do one thing: to allow the voice of Canadians to be represented, to speak on behalf of those who did not have a voice and to hold the government of the day to account. Lord knows the government needs that more than anything. It needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history and shutting down debate more than any government in history and using what it is today, it speaks to weakness not strength. The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills that have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

Strenghtening military justice in the defence of Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 at third reading.

It has been quite interesting listening to the debate. It seems to have taken a very interesting turn. However, I want to explain not only for members of the House—in particular the Liberal Party, which does not seem to understand the legislative process—but also for the men and women in our military, our soldiers, sailors and airmen, how the legislation is designed to improve the circumstances of not only their lot but of military justice in general.

It seems as if the Liberal caucus has just discovered the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was brought into force, in my recollection, some time in 1983 while the Liberals were in power. Certainly they were in power from 1993 to 2006. They did not seem to have the concerns that they are raising here at third reading about the issue.

Let me explain why our party is supporting this legislation at third reading today.

My first involvement with Bill C-15 was with its predecessor, Bill C-41, in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament there was a terrific amount of effort made by our party, and this hon. member, when we were the same size as the Liberals are now. I took my place as one member on a committee of a dozen. We were in the majority on the opposition side of the House. It was a minority government.

One of the things that I made an important aspect of our cause in that committee was to try to seek improvements on the issue of summary trials. That was done not only through amendments in relation to that particular provision but also through a whole series of others. In fact, in our caucus I had probably the greatest number of amendments to the legislation at that time, several of which passed. Unfortunately, they were stripped out by the government in this iteration, Bill C-15.

One of the things I was particularly concerned about as someone who has practised law and criminal law for a number of years, since about 1980, was the fact that the summary trial provisions did not accord the kinds of protections that the civilian trial system does. People in the forces were getting criminal records for things that no one would ever get a record for in civilian society. Not only that, they were not afforded the protection of due process.

The member for Winnipeg North can read one of the 55 speeches that we gave at second reading, when we voted against the legislation as it was presented because we did not support it in principle. It had nothing to do with going to committee. Second stage reading is approval in principle; we did not approve it in principle because the amendments that had been made in the last Parliament were stripped out and the protections were minimal for those charged with offences. We were concerned about that, so we voted against it at second reading.

We submitted 22 amendments at committee to improve the bill. There were a lot of improvements in the bill already. It was a reformatory piece of legislation. It sought to advance a whole number of issues that needed to be taken seriously as a result of recommendations that had come by way of two important reports by former chief justices of Canada.

It was not perfect and it is not perfect now. However, if we have to wait for perfection, there would be no legislation passed in the House, so we have to deal with what we have on the table today.

What we have today is that the amendment passed in committee would now result in some 93% of all of the charges that would be laid under the code of military justice not resulting in a criminal record for the men and women in uniform. That is substantial progress.

It is not perfect. In fact, we have a whole series of other things that we would do in government, and in fact, there is one backward step in the bill, which I will get to. It has to do with instructions to be given to the Provost Marshal by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in terms of a particular investigation. We are here today to make a commitment to the men and women in uniform that when we get into power in 2015, we will fix that.

Not only will we fix that, but we will also do some of the other things that I am going to talk about shortly, some of the things that we proposed in committee to improve the grievance process.

We have a terrible situation in the military with regard to grievances. Individuals can have a grievance over something as mundane as whether they should get paid a certain amount of money—$500, or whatever—for moving expenses. Sometimes these people have to wait 12 or 18 months to get their grievance processed. That is wrong. People as prominent as a former chief justice of Canada were saying there should be a time limit of 12 months maximum, and that if it cannot be figured out in 12 months, the person should be able to go to the Federal Court and get the reason why. That seemed to me to be very simple and practical, and we actually moved that amendment.

We did not see any amendments from the Liberals in committee. They supported the bill at second reading, and by the way, second reading does not mean we vote for the bill to go to committee. I have been here for five years in two different pieces. I was in another legislature for 16 years.

Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration to dispose of the proceedings at those stages.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was Harold Macmillan who once said, “Events, my dear friend, events”. That is the great variable.

As we know, we have had many events and we were delighted that we were able to get Bill S-7 approved by this House this past week, in response to events.

Today, we will continue with debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.

It being Victims Week, we will follow up on this week's passage of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, with debate tomorrow on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.

Insofar as the government's agenda, there is actually a very significant cornerstone to that agenda; that is, of course, our economic action plan. Earlier this week, the House adopted a ways and means motion to allow for a bill implementing measures from economic action plan 2013. Our top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, so if a bill following on the ways and means motion were to be introduced before Wednesday, we would give that bill priority consideration for debate Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week.

In the interim, on Monday, we will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice and the support of Canada act. It is my hope that this debate will conclude on Monday so that we can have the third reading debate on that bill on Tuesday.

If we have the opportunity next week, we will continue the second reading debate of the not criminally responsible reform act. This is an important bill and I would hope that it will get to committee without delay.

The government will also give consideration to Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act at second reading; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act at report stage and third reading; Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading; and finally, Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader expressed concern that the scheduling of several opposition days, on which the opposition gets to determine the subject matter of debate in the House of Commons, showed a complete absence of a plan and a complete absence of any ideas for policy innovation. Having heard the debate and the resolutions coming from the opposition for debate on those days, I am inclined to agree with him.

Sadly, they have shown that when the opposition has the agenda, there are no new ideas and there is nothing of value spoken. However, the Standing Orders do require us to have those opposition days scheduled as part of our procedure, and that is what we are doing.

I would like, however, to respond a little bit to his comments on the time allocation on the bill yesterday. Yesterday's bill was Bill S-2, a bill to give aboriginal women and their children on reserve the same matrimonial rights that other people have. It is a bill that has been in Parliament for five years, through a series of Parliaments, in fact, and it has not yet come to a vote. To paraphrase the President of the United States in the recent State of the Union address, the aboriginal women and children of Canada deserve the right to a vote. That is why we did what we had to do, after five years of obstruction from the opposition preventing the bill from coming forward.

The bill would provide the protection they have been denied for decades. It is truly shameful that, starting with the Leader of the Opposition, every single opposition member stood up against this bill at second reading. They voted against the principle of protecting aboriginal women and children and providing them with rights equal to those of all Canadian women off reserve. They voted against giving them protection from violence in the situation of a domestic family breakdown and giving them the same rights to matrimonial homes that other women have had for decades in this country.

It is another example of how the NDP approaches things. It claims that it is for women's rights and aboriginal rights, but when it comes time to actually take action, it does not. It is “do as I say, not as I do”.

This afternoon we will continue the New Democrats' opposition day. Tomorrow is the fourth allotted day, when the New Democrats will again propose our topic for debate. Monday shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see a Liberal motion debated. Tuesday shall be the sixth allotted day, with a further New Democratic motion being considered.

Next week is victims week in Canada, so on Wednesday, the House will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which aims to put the protection of society and of victims front and centre.

On Thursday morning we will consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, at report stage. After question period on Thursday, we will start report stage for Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, which was reported back from the transport committee this morning.

Finally, next Friday, Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, will be again considered at report stage.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his very kind, thoughtful and sensitive comments and concern for our welfare over here.

This afternoon, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act. This will be the third time that the bill has been debated at third reading. In the previous two days that it was debated, we actually heard from the comments of the New Democrats that they were quite supportive of the bill and that they called for it to be passed without delay. We are asking them to heed their own advice and allow this matter to come to a vote. The government shares the view that it does need to proceed quickly. If we do care about giving people a safe and peaceful Easter now and in years to come, we certainly want to have this kind of legislation in place to protect Canadians and ensure their peace from nuclear terrorism. I hope the NDP will back up those words and allow a vote to occur.

Monday, April 15, when we return from the time in our constituencies, will be the first opposition day of the new supply period where I understand we will debate a motion from the NDP.

Tuesday, April 16, will be the second opposition day, and I understand we will debate a motion from the Liberals.

On the Wednesday of that week, the House will return to second reading debate of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. The bill would finally provide the legal protections for the women on reserve that they have lacked for far too long. This discrimination should not exist. That is why aboriginal people and even the Manitoba NDP have been calling for the passage of Bill S-2. I would hope that the federal NDP would heed that call and allow a vote to take place, giving aboriginal women rights regarding matrimonial property.

If debate on S-2 concludes, the House will then debate at report stage Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I believe that this is also very close to the finish line.

Following that, we would consider Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act at second reading. Thursday, April 18, will be another opposition day for the NDP.

Before I conclude, let me wish all the MPs and the parliamentary staff a happy Easter.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, until 4 o'clock.

At 4 o'clock, my friend, the hon. Minister of Finance, will unveil economic action plan 2013, this year’s federal budget.

Of course, we will have to wait until that speech—which will not be much longer, I can assure the opposition House leader—to find out all of the important measures our government is putting forward to support jobs and growth for all Canadians, workers, families and the job-creating businesses that make all their lives better with the over 950,000 net new jobs we have created so far with, I am sure, more to come.

In the meantime, I can tell hon. members with certainty that with that objective of job creation in mind, economic action plan 2013 will not contain the NDP's risky proposals to hurt our economy and job creation. It will not include, for example, a tax hike on Canadian job creators, the one that was advocated by the leader of the NDP when he was on his visit to Washington arguing against Canadian jobs, a tax hike that Canadian manufacturers and exporters have said would cost 200,000 Canadian jobs off the top just in their sector.

The budget will not include the over $56 billion in reckless past NDP spending proposals and, of course, our economic action plan will not include the NDP's signature initiative, its $21 billion carbon tax, a concept that has already been rejected by Canadians. We will undoubtedly hear about these differences in priorities over the course of the four days of the budget debate, which our rules provide. Those days will be tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Finally, on Thursday, March 28, we shall start third reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, before question period. After question period, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our focus as a government is on an agenda that puts at the forefront job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity, with a very clear focus on making our streets and communities safer. With regard to that clear agenda, we have several items to propose for the time ahead.

Today we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act. That is a cornerstone in making our communities safer. After that, we will return to second reading debate on Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act.

Tomorrow we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, again resulting in a more stable and secure economy.

After we return from our constituency week on Monday, March 18, the House will consider Bill C-55, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Tse act, at report stage and third reading now that it has been reported back from committee. This is an important justice measure. I must remind the House that this legislation responds to a Supreme Court decision that takes effect over the Easter adjournment, so it is very important that we be able to pass it here and get it to the Senate for it to deal with before that time.

Once the House deals with Bill C-55, it could then consider Bills S-9 and S-12, if they are still held up in the House; Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, at report stage and third reading, since that bill has now been reported back from committee; and Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, at third reading.

All these bills are necessary and important for Canadians' safety.

Wednesday, March 20, shall be the seventh and final allotted day. As a result, the House will then consider the usual supply motions and appropriation bills that evening. We will give priority to debating Bills C-15 and S-12 on Thursday and Friday, March 21 and 22.

I hope that makes clear the agenda that the opposition House leader has apparently been unable to perceive of the government, our clear agenda of delivering on job creation, economic growth, long-term prosperity and safe and secure communities for all Canadians.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence in relation to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to congratulate the member for St. John's East on his speech. I must say that it is always a pleasure to listen to his fine analysis and his vast legal expertise as he picks apart bills that are brought before us.

I cannot help but draw a parallel between Bill C-15, which we are currently studying in the Standing Committee on National Defence, and the fact that the Conservatives refuse to hand more power over to people outside the system. That is what is happening with National Defence and military justice, and it is also what is happening here with regard to giving people outside the RCMP more opportunity to see what is going on within the system.

I would like to hear his thoughts on that parallel. Does he see a pattern in the Conservative government's actions?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

Justice and Human Rights

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have to agree with my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. What we are seeing here this morning is a continuation of a one-man filibuster from the member for St. John's East. He does not want to continue debate on Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and does want to send it to committee. I do not know why. It is beyond the grasp of most of us in this House.

Therefore, regrettably, I must move, seconded by the member for Kitchener—Conestoga:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Mr. Speaker, none of us on this side of the House would dispute the vital importance of tackling the issue of organized crime, especially when it brings higher murder rates to cities like Winnipeg, which the member for St. John's East just mentioned, and Halifax and Edmonton. We all regret that those rates are higher than elsewhere in Canada and higher than they should be.

The member and I worked together on the national defence committee. He well knows there are almost 100,000 regular force members and reserve members who are waiting for their justice system to be updated and brought into the 21st century on the basis of recommendations made by former chief justice Antonio Lamer.

We were scheduled to discuss Bill C-15 in this House this morning. We, on this side, hope to get back to that debate.

Will the hon. member not agree with me that, in light of the importance of our justice system and the importance of keeping it modern, after 18 months of waiting for that bill to get to committee, now is the time to get it there where it can be amended?

We have discussed and agreed on some amendments that can be made but those amendments are best made in committee. It would be expeditious, wise and in the spirit of the points he has just made for the bill to be sent to committee at the earliest possible date, preferably today.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will first wish my former Liberal counterpart, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, well on his newest mission.

Yesterday was probably an auspicious day for the former astronaut to launch a Liberal leadership campaign. A member of my staff has told me that November 28 was Red Planet Day. While the member's ideas and proposals will no doubt be well suited for the red party, it is yet to be determined whether they will actually be better suited for Mars or for Earth. We will wait and see.

The hon. member for Papineau might want to be aware of the House leader bump. My first NDP counterpart after the election now resides in Stornoway. Meanwhile, I want to welcome and congratulate the new Liberal House leader, the hon. member for Beauséjour. I look forward to continuing the very positive relationship that I enjoyed working together with his predecessor. I genuinely and sincerely wish his predecessor the best of luck.

I am sure that the new House leader will be keen to hear that we will resume the report stage debate on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012, this afternoon.

After almost 4,600 votes in the House and committee on our 2012 economic action plan, I am pleased to say that we are in the home stretch of implementing our budget for this year.

Canadians will soon see important measures such the hiring credit for small business extended, greater tax relief for investing in clean energy, and strengthened registered disability savings plan rules.

To the great chagrin of the New Democrats no doubt, Canadians will still not see within that budget a $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax or the $6 billion GST tax grab that I know they wish to see implemented. It does not matter how many hundreds of amendments they put forward, we simply will not accede to their tax and spend initiatives.

The House will consider Bill C-45 on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.

We will resume second reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, tomorrow. We will get back to second reading of Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, if we have time.

On Thursday and Friday next week, we will work through a number of bills before the House, including: Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which was reported back from committee this morning; Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act; Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, should it be reported back from committee; and the other bills I have mentioned, if we have not had a chance to wrap up those debates.

Finally, for the benefit of the House and particularly committees meeting on the supplementary estimates, I am planning for the last supply day of this fall to be on Monday, December 10. I expect that I will get back to the House next week at some point to designate that date formally.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on any day Bill C-15 is under consideration at second reading, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I would have been quite happy to have consented to the motion had the member not included in it a provision for an additional opposition day. Had the member decided to conclude that NDP was prepared, since its subject for today was food safety, to make the balance of the day the debate on Bill S-11 and then have it proceed to committee, we would have been quite delighted to consent.

In terms of his suggestions on the budget bill, I am looking forward to meeting with him and discussing with him what opportunities might exist there further.

Earlier today, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

This important piece of legislation will bolster Canada’s economy and help improve communities with initiatives that build a strong economy and create jobs, support families and communities, promote clean energy and enhance neutrality of the tax system, and respect taxpayers’ dollars.

We will start second reading debate of Bill C-45 on Wednesday—once honourable members have had a chance to review the bill and discuss it at next week’s caucus meetings. The debate will continue on Thursday and Friday.

I genuinely hope all members will take advantage of the budget bill study week that is available to review the valuable measures that are set out as the second half of our legislative arm of our comprehensive economic action plan 2012. One highlight of the study week will be a briefing arranged by the minister for all hon. members on Monday evening. I hope many MPs can attend, and certainly more than the paltry attendance of opposition members that appeared this spring for the briefing on Bill C-38.

I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.

I turn now to the business of the House leading up to Wednesday.

This afternoon we will see the conclusion of the NDP's opposition day. Regrettably, I was personally disappointed that the official opposition did not answer my call last week to lay out the details of its $21.5 billion carbon tax and how it would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Though, I was encouraged that this week in question period the New Democrats actually did acknowledge the subject and raised it.

Tomorrow and Monday will see us resume second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. I understand we should finish that debate sometime on Monday, at which that time we will then turn to Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

On Tuesday, we will debate the second reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, unless we find some other approach that would allow us to move on a more urgent basis. Since we did not get unanimous consent to move it forward quickly, we are hopeful there will be some other approach that can be agreed upon to move quickly with it. We hope that if we do debate it that day, we will be able to deal with it quickly and then spend the balance of that day debating Bill C-15 and Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by addressing Bill S-11, the food safety bill. It was introduced by this government in the Senate to bring about changes that would strengthen our food safety system further following the implementation of the 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report, which further strengthened our system.

I believe the comments, to which the member referred, by the Conservative caucus were not about the NDP obstructing the bill in the Senate but rather about statements that had been made by NDP members previously following the introduction of the bill that the NDP would oppose the bill. Of course, the issue we are looking forward to is having it pass successfully in the Senate. We hope that people will see the urgency more clearly, that we will get the support of the Liberals and that we will see its rapid passage here in the House. We would be delighted if we had support to do that very quickly from the NDP and other parties.

Now for the business ahead of us.

This afternoon, we will continue our safe streets and communities week with second reading debate on Bill C-43, Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

In last year's election, the Conservative Party promised to put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal. This bill follows through on our commitment to Canadians.

We will resume debate tomorrow, when I am optimistic, based on discussions, that debate will end—and, then, we will have concluded the first three weeks of our hard-working, productive and orderly fall sitting.

On our constituency week, I hope all members of Parliament and staff in this place will have an opportunity relax. Many of our pages will have their first opportunity to go home since they started the year here. I hope on our return we will all be ready to be productive and work hard because we have much to do.

On Monday, October 15, before question period, the House will start the second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. We will also debate this bill on Wednesday and Friday of that week. This, of course, is designed to continue to make Canada and, in fact, the whole world, a safer place.

After question period on October 15, we will kick-off debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, which shares the same objectives. It would implement Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Tuesday, October 16, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see the House debate a Liberal motion. We eagerly await the content of that motion.

Thursday, October 18, shall be the sixth allotted day when we will consider the New Democratic proposal.

It is my personal hope that having given the NDP three chances already this fall to articulate to the House and to all Canadians how it will implement its $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax that it will finally choose this as its subject for debate. I hope the NDP members will seize that opportunity and let Canadians know once and for all the fine details of their scheme to raise the price of gas, groceries, electricity and winter heat.

Should we have additional time that week upon our return, or even this week if we move quickly, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

Of course, I am always open to suggestions from the opposition. If they are willing to accelerate any of those bills for quick passage, I will call them.

Finally, I wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving. I hope that everyone has a productive and hard-working week working with their constituents.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for his kind comments about co-operation. It is true that we have been working together in a co-operative fashion on the bills he mentioned. In fact, without utilizing time allocation, after nine days of co-operative debate on things that everybody agrees on, we have been able to have one vote on one bill at one stage. If members wonder why it is difficult to get things done, that indicates why: we all agree on something and it still takes nine days to get one bill to one vote at one stage.

Anyway, this afternoon, we will continue with our helping families in need week with second reading debate on Bill C-44, which will undertake several steps to help hard-working Canadian parents in times of need.

Based on discussions, I expect that we will finish debating Bill C-44 today. If so, I will then call Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans), tomorrow.

I understand that there is interest in all corners of the House to see this legislation referred to committee quickly. I hope so, because I believe that all parties want it passed. We may be able to make that happen.

Next week we are going to focus on making our streets and communities even safer. From Wednesday through Friday we will consider second reading of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which will firmly show that Parliament does not tolerate criminals and fraudsters abusing Canadian generosity.

On Monday and Tuesday, we shall have the third and fourth allotted days. Both days will go to the official opposition. I am eagerly waiting to see what we debate those days. Perhaps the New Democrats will use the opportunity to lay out their details for a $21 billion carbon tax which would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Perhaps I should correct the record; it would be a $21.5 billion carbon tax. I know there are some in the press gallery who want us to be precise about that.

If we have a hard-working, productive and orderly week in the House which sees debates on Bill C-44, Bill C-21 and Bill C-43 finish early, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which the official opposition supports, despite debating it for four days last week; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me formally welcome back all hon. members to the House of Commons from their productive summers in their ridings, which I trust they had, working with and listening to constituents.

On the government side of the House, we heard loud and clear that the priority of Canadians remains the economy. It is our priority too. Not one person raised with me a desire to see a $21 billion carbon tax implemented to raise the price of gas, groceries and winter heat. I do not expect the member will see that in our agenda.

I also want to extend a warm welcome, on behalf of Conservatives, to this year's class of pages. I am certain that their time with us, here in our hard-working, productive and, I hope, orderly House of Commons, will lead to lifelong memories.

Yesterday, we were able to pass Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, at second reading. I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation on that.

I am optimistic that we will see similar co-operation to allow us to finish second reading debate tomorrow on Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about.

This afternoon, of course, is the conclusion of the New Democrats' opposition day. As announced earlier this week, Tuesday will be a Liberal opposition day.

On Monday, the House will start debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada and it sends a strong signal to foreign criminals that Canada is not a safe haven. I hope we will have support from the opposition parties for rapid passage of the bill designed to make our communities safer.

Starting on Wednesday, the House will debate Bill C-44, the helping families in need act. Once the opposition caucuses have met to discuss this important bill, I am confident they would want to support the early passage of this legislation as well. It would enhance the income support provided to families whose children have been victims of crime or are critically ill.

If we have additional time tomorrow or next week, the House will consider Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the Defence of Canada Act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

We are interested in Bill C-21, which deals with accountability for political loans and making that consistent with the other political contribution provisions. If we have a consensus among parties to bring that forward, we will certainly do that.

Similarly, if we can see a consensus among parties on passing Bill C-32 as it has been presented to the House, we would be pleased to do that on unanimous consent.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to start my one-day-late Thursday statement with the Conservatives' deep gratitude to all of the staff and pages of the House of Commons, who were forced to endure a rather long Wednesday sitting. I thank them for that and I apologize that they were subjected to it.

On to the remaining business of the House, this afternoon will we complete third reading debate of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. On Monday we will have the third reading debate of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, now that we are past the opposition's theatrical and ideologically driven delay tactics at report stage, which caused you, Madam Speaker, to have to spend an undue length of time here, in particular during the unfortunate act of slow votes, which really achieved nothing but inconvenience to the staff and pages of the House of Commons.

If we have extra time on Monday, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. For the remainder of the week, I want to see the House dispose of the many bills that are still awaiting our work and attention. To accommodate the House, we have voted to sit into the evenings next week.

I would welcome any co-operation from my counterparts on moving these bills forward efficiently. I would like to start with securing second reading and referral to committee before the fall sitting of the following bills: Bill C-24, the Canada—Panama economic growth and prosperity act; Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act; Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act; Bill C-15, the military justice bill that I mentioned moments ago; Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act; and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Of course, this is only the start of my list, but it would be a good message for us to send to Canadians to show that we are actually willing to do our jobs, the jobs they sent us here to do, and actually vote and make decisions on the bills before us. A productive last week of the spring sitting of our hard-working Parliament would reassure Canadians that their parliamentarians are here to work.

To get on in that direction, since today is World Elder Abuse Day, I want to draw attention to our Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act. I believe this bill to combat elder abuse has the support of all parties. I have heard the suggestion of the opposition whip, but I would like to suggest we go one step further. I know the opposition has shown it likes to talk about things; we actually like to make decisions and get things done on this side of the House. With that in mind, and in recognition of this day, it is appropriate to advance this important bill right now and send it to committee for study. Therefore, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite as enthusiastic as the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, but I will try.

This morning, my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton—Leduc and chair of the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance reported to this House that Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, has passed the committee and been recommended for adoption by the House.

I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Finance followed the lead of the House with respect to the longest debate on a budget bill in the past two decades. The committee gave this bill the longest consideration for a budget bill in at least two decades. That is in addition to the subcommittee spending additional time to consider the responsible resource development clauses.

This very important legislation, our budget implementation legislation, economic action plan 2012, will help to secure vital economic growth for Canada in the short, medium and long term. Given the fragile world economy that is around us, this bill is clearly needed, so we must move forward. Therefore, I plan to start report stage on the bill Monday at noon.

In the interim, we will consider second reading of Bill C-24 this afternoon. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with Panama, which I signed when I was international trade minister, some 755 days ago. It is now time to get that bill passed.

Tomorrow, we will consider third reading of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, so the Senate will have an opportunity to review the bill before it must become law, within a few weeks' time.

Next week I plan to give priority to bills which have been reported back from committee. It goes without saying that we will debate Bill C-38, our budget implementation bill. I am given to understand that there is a lot of interest this time around in the process of report stage motion tabling, selection and grouping.

Additionally, we will finish third reading of Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, and Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.

The House will also finish third reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. The bill is a vital tool to unlock the potential of our creative and digital economy. It is time that elected parliamentarians should have their say on its passage once and for all. I would like to see that vote happen no later than Monday, June 18.

If we have time remaining, the House will also debate second reading of Bill C-24, the Panama free trade act, if more time is necessary, as well as for Bill C-7, the Senate reform act, and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority is, of course, the economy. We are committed to job creation and economic growth.

As a result, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. This bill implements the budget, Canada's economic action plan 2012, to ensure certainty for the economy.

For the benefit of Canadians and parliamentarians, when we introduced the bill, we said we would vote on it on May 14. The second reading vote on the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act will be on May 14.

After tomorrow, which will be the final day of debate on this bill, we will have had the longest second reading debate on a budget bill in at least the last two decades.

On Monday and Tuesday we will continue with another bill that will support the Canadian economy and job creation, especially in the digital and creative sectors.

We will have report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act.

This bill puts forth a balanced, common sense plan to modernize our copyright laws. Committees have met for over 60 hours and heard from almost 200 witnesses. All of this is in addition to the second reading debate on Bill C-11 of 10 sitting days.

After all that debate and study, it is time for the measures to be fully implemented so Canadians can take advantage of the updated rules and create new high-quality digital jobs.

Should the opposition agree that we have already had ample debate on Bill C-11, we will debate Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act; Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan free trade act; and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act in the remaining time on Monday and Tuesday.

Wednesday, May 16, will be the next allotted day.

On Thursday morning, May 17, we will debate the pooled registered pension plans act. This bill will help Canadians who are self-employed or who work for a small business to secure a stable retirement.

In the last election, we committed to Canadians that we would implement these plans as soon as possible. This is what Canadians voted for and this is what we will do.

If it has been reported back from committee, we will call Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, for report stage debate on Thursday afternoon.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by welcoming the new House leader for the official opposition. I look forward to working with him. I anticipate a positive and constructive approach.

In terms of his question relating to the issue of the motion of the House dealing with the Chief Electoral Officer and concerns about whether the statute in place was appropriate for him to do his job, I believe that motion had an expectation of about half a year before the government was to respond. I anticipate we will fulfill that.

On his question about the budget, the government introduced Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. The bill implements key measures from economic action plan 2012. Our plan is working, as we have already created nearly 700,000 net new jobs since the recession. Most of these are full-time jobs.

Canadians want to see a productive, hard-working and orderly Parliament, focusing on their priority, the economy. Thus we hope to have the bill come to a vote on May 14. That target will allow members to study the bill, which implements important measures from the budget that Parliament has already approved.

As hon. members are aware, May 2 will mark the one-year anniversary of Canadians electing a strong, stable, national, Conservative majority government, and it is only fitting that on this one-year anniversary, after members and caucuses have had close to a week to study the bill, we will debate our government's plan to continue creating jobs and economic growth in Canada. We will continue debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, on Thursday, May 3, and Friday, May 4.

During the budget bill study week, before that debate starts, we will cover other business.

This afternoon we will complete debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will start debate on Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act, which addresses the great concern of elder abuse. This bill is part of our government's efforts to stand up for victims. This is the end of what has been an important national victims of crime awareness week, where we saw the Prime Minister make an announcement of increased support for families of missing children. We also saw the introduction of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which follows through on our campaign commitment to double the victim surcharge that convicted criminals pay.

Monday, April 30, will be the second allotted day. In this case, I understand we will debate a Liberal motion. I would invite the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie to share with all members—and, indeed, with Canadians—what we will be debating that day, so that hon. members can prepare.

On Tuesday, we will finish third reading debate on Bill C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act. Based on my discussions with the new opposition House leader, I am confident that we will complete that debate early in the morning.

Then we will move on to Bill S-4, the safer railways act, which was reported back from committee yesterday. Given the importance of improving the safety of our railways, I hope this bill is able to pass swiftly.

Since I anticipate a productive day on Tuesday, I will then call Bill C-36, but only in the event that we do not finish earlier--that is, tomorrow--followed by Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, a piece of legislation that has now been around for three Parliaments and should get to committee where it can again be studied.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in a little more than 40 minutes, the Minister of Finance will table this year's budget and I am sure all members are looking forward to that event.

Economic action plan 2012 will be a very strong, low tax, low debt plan that will include measures to create and secure jobs, economic growth and, most important, long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

In recognition of how important this budget will be, we have decided that we will schedule debate to follow immediately on the four following days: Friday and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.

There may not be the same level of suspense around this vote as in previous years, but on Wednesday, all members will have the opportunity to vote for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and support our budget. Once the opposition has seen the budget, I am confident that their constituents will expect them to do just that.

On Thursday, we will continue debate on Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act. If we have time, we will resume debate on Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

The opposition House leader had a long list of bills on which he inquired about their status. Insofar as our legislation to improve Canada's immigration and refugee system, that has been debated now some five days in this House and we look forward to it being debated further. It is a very important bill, not just for the strength of our immigration system but also for our economy. We will continue to take steps to ensure our immigration system meets the security, safety and economic needs of Canada.

In terms of Bill C-30, I think he is well familiar that it is our intention to have that debated and sent to committee before second reading and, in so doing, being able to allow a broad ambit for the committee to consider amendments of all types. I think that responds to the particular concerns that he raised on that.

In the case of Bill C-30, Bill C-4 and the immigration bill, we can see from the program I have read that there will not be an opportunity, barring some dramatic progress on other legislation on the final day, to deal with those bills before the Easter break, so we will have to wait until after that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. It has been suggested in the past when we have had budgets on Thursdays that we were doing that so we could go out and talk to Canadians about it for several days. Clearly, our interest is to tell Canadians about our economic action plan 2012 which is focused on keeping taxes down and creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians. We hope we will be able to speak about it a lot to Canadians. We are confident that they will see that we share their priorities strongly. I thank the opposition House leader for giving me the opportunity to explain that.

We will conclude this hard-working, productive and orderly week in Parliament by continuing debate on Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act this afternoon and tomorrow. We will also debate that bill on Monday, March 26.

Next week is a constituency week where we will all be hard at work in our ridings.

The highlight of the week we return to Ottawa will be when the Minister of Finance rises in the House to present Canada's economic action plan 2012. That will be on Thursday, March 29 at 4 p.m. Canadians can look forward to our economic action plan which will include, as I indicated earlier, important measures focused on jobs and economic growth.

I understand that the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to a responsible work plan for its study of the financial system review act, Bill S-5 so that this House can pass the bill before Canada's banking laws expire in mid-April. Canada has the world's soundest banking system. It is important that we keep it this way. That is why I trust we will see a responsible approach to this bill in the House, similar to what we saw at committee. In anticipation of the bill being reported back to the House tomorrow afternoon, I will be giving priority to report stage and third reading of Bill S-5 on Tuesday, March 27 and Wednesday, March 28.

If we have additional time on those days, I hope we can finish second reading debate of Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act, and then deal with Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday, March 29, we will resume debating Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, before question period. After question period, the House will turn to Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Friday, March 30, shall be the first full day of debate on the budget.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with the encouragement and support of the opposition House leader, I will continue to try to engage all the House leaders and other parties in an effort to work on consensus approaches as to scheduling matters. I will make the observation that for a dance to work everyone has to be dancing. Therefore, I will continue to make my best efforts.

This afternoon, we will continue debating the opposition day motion from the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

Tomorrow we will conclude debate on the amendments coming from the other place, on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. We will have our final vote on this important legislation on Monday night. Bill C-10 will pass a number of important proposals that our government has put forward over the last five years that stand up for victims and for making our communities safer. I might add that Monday will be the 94th sitting day of the House, which means our government will have easily met our election commitment to make this bill law.

Also on Monday, the House will resume debate on Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. We will return to this debate on Thursday and Friday.

Tuesday will begin with Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act. This is an important bill that was nearly passed before the opposition forced an election last year. I hope we will see the debate conclude sometime Tuesday.

If we have extra time on Tuesday, the House will take up a second piece of legislation, Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Wednesday shall be the seventh and final allotted day of the supply cycle. I might correct my friend that I do not think this has ever been designated in the House. We will debate a motion from the New Democratic Party and end the afternoon with two appropriations bills from the President of the Treasury Board.

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills.

I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. There is no doubt that this bill is a source of contention, which is pretty obvious, but not everyone is opposed to this bill. Many witnesses who appeared before the committee supported it. For instance, the bill's proposal to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was supported by the law enforcement representatives who testified, as well as some academics and some victims groups.

Before speaking to the bill, I would like to quote from a witness who appeared before the committee in 2009 and testified on Bill C-15. Mr. Chuck Doucette, vice-president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, had this to say about the drug situation:

Things have changed from when I first started in drug enforcement in 1977. Over those 30 years, I saw the sentences for drug offences getting progressively weaker. At the same time, I saw the problems related to drug abuse getting progressively larger. I also saw the drug scene in downtown Vancouver increase as the enforcement efforts in that area decreased. From my perspective, I do not see how anyone could possibly examine the past 30 years and make a case that weaker sentences lead to less damaging social consequences. My experience is that the more lenient we got, the more problems we got.

The provisions of Bill C-10 amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the provisions contained in Bill C-15, which died on the order paper, and Mr. Doucette's words are still as accurate today as they then were.

I would like to take a few moments to explain the nature of the problem that the drug-related provisions of Bill C-10 seek to address. The bill is aimed at tackling the problem of drug crimes, particularly drug trafficking and drug production, both of which occur in all regions of Canada. Over the last decade, domestic production and distribution of marijuana and synthetic drugs has dramatically increased, resulting in serious problems in some regions of Canada and often overwhelming the capacity of law enforcement agencies.

These operations pose serious health and public safety hazards to those in or around them. They produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems and endanger the health and lives of communities. They are lucrative businesses and attract a variety of organized crime organizations. Huge profits are available with little risk to operators, and these profits are used to finance other criminal activities.

Penalties in sentences are considered by many to be too lenient and not commensurate with the level of harm imposed on communities by such criminal activities. According to Statistics Canada, marijuana cultivation offences more than doubled from 1994 to 2004, rising from approximately 3,400 offences in 1994 to 8,000 in 2004.

According to a study on marijuana grow operations in British Columbia in 2003, approximately 39% of all reported marijuana cultivation cases, 5,414, were located in B.C. Between 1997 and 2000, the total number of these cases increased by over 220%. Although the number of individual operations in B.C. levelled off between 2000 and 2003, the estimated quantity of marijuana produced increased from 19,729 kilograms in 1997 to a seven-year high of 79,817 kilograms in 2003, this because of the size and sophistication of individual operations.

These few observations were made so that there can be an appreciation of the seriousness of the drug crime situation in our nation. The Government of Canada has recognized this. It has recognized that serious drug crimes, such as large-scale grow operations, pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities, and the drug-related provisions of Bill C-10 are part of the government's strategy to address this problem.

This bill proposes amendments to strengthen provisions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding penalties for serious drug offences by ensuring that these types of offences are punished by the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty. With this bill, the government is demonstrating its commitment to improving the safety and security of Canadians and communities across Canada.

As has been stated before, the government recognizes and acknowledges that not all drug offenders and drug offences pose the same risk of danger and violence. Bill C-10 recognizes this reality, and that is why the bill proposes a focused and targeted approach to dealing with serious drug crimes.

Accordingly, new penalties will not apply to the offence of possession, nor will they apply to offences involving all types of drugs. What the bill does is focus on more serious drug offences involving more serious drugs.

Overall, the proposal represents a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, such as trafficking, importation, exportation and production involving such drugs as cocaine, heroine, methamphetamine and cannabis. In my view, this bill contains a seamless approach to dealing with serious drug offences.

I should note that the drug-related provisions of the bill were amended in committee. Indeed, the government moved an amendment to clause 41, which deals with the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of at least nine months for the offence of producing one to 200 plants inclusively where the production is for the purpose of trafficking and where there are certain aggravating factors. The adoption of this motion narrowed the offence such that the minimum penalty would now apply to instances in which more than 5 plants but fewer than 201 are produced, the production is for the purpose of trafficking and certain aggravating factors are present. Accordingly, the minimum penalty would no longer apply for the production of five plants or fewer.

The government's position on drug use is clear: offenders involved in serious drug crimes need to realize that there are serious consequences for their actions. I believe that reasonable Canadians agree that this approach should be applied to drug offenders whenever these offenders are involved in trafficking dangerous drugs, growing drugs like marijuana, or producing synthetic chemical drugs.

I am satisfied that Bill C-10 has been thoroughly examined by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law. This bill is part of the government's continued commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and make our streets and communities safer. Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter serious crimes, including serious drug crimes. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes. This bill accomplishes that objective.

Motions in Amendment

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-15. I would call the title of the bill “the bill with no real plan to create jobs”. Why do I say that? It has been extremely disappointing to see the tremendous disconnect between the Conservative government's policies and the tough realities that people face in urban and rural communities alike.

Given the global economic uncertainty and the fact that 1.4 million Canadians are out of work, one would have thought that when the government introduced its budget implementation bill, it would have had one priority focus economically, and that being to create jobs. This is not the case. Unfortunately, there is no plan to create jobs in the bill.

Today we have over 500,000 fewer net full-time jobs than we had before the recession. The government's continual crowing about having created jobs is false. It measured from the trough of the recession to today. However, we have to look at where we were in August 2008. Today we have 525,000 fewer net full-time jobs than we had before. That is a crisis. It is a real human crisis for the constituencies of many of my colleagues across the aisle. For example, Nanaimo has an unemployment rate of 16%. For youth, unemployment is far too high.

On top of this net loss of jobs, we have a million new Canadians in our country since that time. Therefore, there are a far greater number of people looking for work with no plan to recover those jobs.

Instead of helping to create jobs, the government's budget is helping to kill jobs. I am referring to the increased EI payroll taxes that have increased by $600 million in 2011 and will increase by another $600 million in 2012. Everyone knows these taxes placed on both the employees and the employers kill job creation. Yet that is what the government is doing, despite repeated requests from the Liberal caucus to hold off on that EI payroll tax increase.

The Conservatives know payroll tax increases kill jobs. In January 2009 the Minister of Finance said, “For many businesses, an increase in payroll taxes would make it harder to sustain existing jobs”.

In May 2009 the current Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “That is what Canadians do not want, a job-killing payroll tax increase. Those of us on this side of the House will not...raise taxes”.

The last quote is from the Conservative government's 2008 election policy declaration, which states, “unnecessarily high payroll taxes are a tax on job creation. Lower payroll taxes encourage hiring and business expansion“.

Why is the Conservative government and its members ignoring their own wisdom? Let us think about it.

The Liberals and the economists have both said that this is not the time to raise EI payroll taxes. The government has claimed that it has no control over the EI tax increases. Therefore, one would assume it recognizes that is a negative factor for which it has claimed to have no control.

Recently the government actually appeared to have control over this and it reduced the proposed increase by 50% for 2012. That is a good thing. However, if it can reduce it by 50%, why not by 100% and just hold off on EI payroll tax increases? Why does it claim it has no control over something that it does have control over? It speaks to the heart of citizens' trust in what their government has to say. This is a government that has been repeatedly undermining that trust.

The members opposite have been crowing about the hiring credit for small businesses worth $165 million, which in fact is small change when the increases are costing $1.2 billion. That is an insult, not a policy.

Canada has about one million small businesses, but over 600,000 would not qualify for this credit. Therefore, I hope the government would continue to make the reductions in the EI payroll tax increase that we have asked for and bring it down to a zero increase.

Also, there is nothing in the budget that reflects the concerns of female business owners. Here is some information from the Taskforce for Women's Business Growth.

In 2007 women retained ownership in almost half of Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises. In 16% of our SMEs, women were majority owners. That is a major force in the small business landscape. However, 37% of the majority female-owned businesses are considered high growth, while 63% of majority male-owned small businesses are considered high growth. Why that discrepancy?

There are some historical and structural factors that make it tougher for women to grow their businesses. Therefore, the task force and its members have asked for some very reasonable support from the government to facilitate the job growth in small and medium-sized businesses owned by women. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking for some assistance in coordinating, consolidating and communicating.

The task force wants the government to: consolidate existing small business program information and target it to women; improve financial and technology literacy for women business owners; increase access to growth capital, grants and other resources, which women historically have found more difficult to access; and, report on the economic contributions of women to the Canadian economy.

These are very reasonable requests, but I do not see them anywhere in the government's budget. These individuals are struggling where they could be contributing $2 billion a year to the Canadian economy simply through a 20% increase in total revenues in majority female-owned enterprises. That is doable. The government should provide some framework for assistance.

Speaking of individuals, a huge concern that Liberals have is the deliberate exclusion of low-income Canadians in the budget. By that I am referring to the non-refundable tax credits, and there are several of them such as the family caregiver, volunteer firefighter and children's art tax credit. Since these are non-refundable tax credits, it means they would only apply to taxes owing. Therefore, those families and children who are in households without a taxable income, the very people who need assistance the most, are cut out. These programs would not increase the number of people engaged in these good and worthwhile activities because it is targeted at families that already have the means to do that.

In fact, this kind of program increases inequality in our country. We know that income inequality leads to many decreases in social well-being. A lot of evidence has proven that. Increased income inequality leads to higher crime rates, worse health and mental health outcomes, greater child mortality and a whole host of social ills.

We need to work toward income equality. However, this is not the direction Canada is going in and the gap in income is increasing. These non-refundable tax credits are simply unbelievable and will increase income inequality.

I had a meeting with small businesses in Vancouver Quadra. A number of measures were requested, but they are nowhere to be seen in the government's budget. I consider it a failure and I will vote against Bill C-13. The government has no real plan to create jobs.

Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with my own injunction to try to be brief, I will offer a few brief remarks with respect to this bill. It is, after all, a two-page bill. It is not earth-shattering.

First, since I will not be on my feet here at any other time before November 11, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the brave men and women who serve us so well. We are very fortunate in this country that we have people who are prepared to put their lives, bodies and minds on the line for us.

I want to make the point that some parties in particular take every opportunity to enthusiastically embrace the military; however, there seems to be a somewhat less enthusiastic embrace for our veterans. On November 11, I hope that our embrace is far more enthusiastic and that they get a level of support similar to what our military gets.

I offer my condolences to the Greff family and to the Gilbert family. This must be a particularly poignant time for them. Both families are hurting and are classic examples of people who give their lives so that we can operate in this chamber as we do.

Bill C-16 has had a tortured path getting here. It went through a number of reiterations, prorogations and dissolutions and was derailed in various other ways as well. We saw another example this morning, when some members of House, rightly upset that they could not offer their observations with respect to Remembrance Day, denied unanimous consent to proceed in an expedited fashion. As a consequence, we have taken far longer than we ever should have in order to deal with the bill.

The bill has three components and revolves around a core concept: the tension between the independence of the judiciary and the hierarchy of the military command structure. Indeed, pretty well all of the justice issues in the military, the conflicts over those two points of principle, are the subject matter of both Bill C-16 and Bill C-15. Sometimes it is with respect to the independence of the police, but in the case of Bill C-16, it is with respect to the independence of the judiciary.

We are here because the courts have told us that the system has to be repaired. We cannot have a system in which the independence of the judiciary is subject to the whims of the CDS or anyone else in the chain of command. The bill does respond to the Regina v. Leblanc case and it requires a retirement age of 60.

I appreciate that in order to be a military judge, one also has to be a military officer, but it is an interesting conflict. Frankly, for lawyers and judges the age of 60 is frequently prime time in their careers. Ironically, by requiring that age of retirement and by requiring that the judge be an officer, in effect we are limiting the pool of people who would, in all other circumstances, be excellently qualified for the judiciary.

As a classic example, last week we had a hearing with respect to two judges for the Supreme Court of Canada. One was 63 and the other was 56 years old. Ironically, one would not be qualified to be a military judge and the other would only be entitled to one appointment.

There is an interesting debate as to whether one has to be an officer in order to be a military judge. I am not sure that we should not actually be debating that a little more extensively; possibly a retired officer could be a military judge beyond age 60. There is another argument as to why one has to achieve the fitness levels required of officers up to age 60 in order to sit as a judicial officer.

Those issues aside, this bill does warrant our support. I think the regime that the government has put forward in the bill is an appropriate regime. A military officer who is a military judge will be automatically required to retire at age 60, as opposed to the requirement in the civilian system for retirement at age 75. The person can be removed for cause, and there is an inquiry process, again independent of the chain of command. That is an appropriate form of removal, given our requirements for the independence of the judiciary. Of course, there is also resignation.

There is this ongoing tension between chain of command and the independence of the judiciary. Bill C-16 does achieve some balance between those two tensions, and I and my party will support this bill; indeed, we would have supported it at all stages had the government handled the desires of other people in this chamber a little more sensitively. In fact, possibly by this time we would have gone to committee of the whole and had this bill passed and on the way to the Senate. There is a time deadline of December 2, and I am rather hoping that we still achieve that time deadline; otherwise, a decision will be imposed upon us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this legislation because it provides an opportunity to talk about how important the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in our country. It is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that gives the reason for this piece of legislation to correct something which, in the current context, is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is something that was introduced into our law in 1983 and the effects of it, as we are seeing today, are still reverberating. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is for all Canadian citizens, regardless of who they are, whether the person is a soldier, as in this case, or a criminal with a record as long as his arm, as they say in the vernacular, or an ordinary Canadian who happens to find himself or herself in front of the courts.

The charter has many provisions. This one is about section 11(d). Section 11(d) of the charter provides that any person who is charged with an offence has the right “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”. Each and every word of that provision is important. Each and every word of that provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been tested and given judicial interpretation over the last 28 years since the charter came into effect. It is an important fundamental underpinning of our system of justice.

How did this case come about and why are we here? We are talking about whether judges in the military courts should have security of tenure. This is not for the judges. Some people say that judges want to have longer tenure, they want to have longer careers and do not want to be subject to being removed, laid off or not reappointed. It is not about that at all. According to the existing legislation, the military judges are appointed for a term of five years. They hear courts martial. Of course, under military justice life imprisonment could be given as a sentence, so under military tribunals, courts martial, these judges have a tremendous amount of authority and power under the law. The military justice system is a parallel one and in many ways is very different.

We will be getting into an argument about what that means in regard to a lot of other provisions in military justice under Bill C-15 when we get to that. This one has been taken out, and probably for good reason, because it is less controversial. We think this legislation should be passed swiftly.

It was part of Bill C-41 in the last Parliament, which we thought was going to pass. It went through committee and got right to the end. We even reached a compromise on a number of things and made some good amendments, but lo and behold, instead of bringing it into the House for third reading and passage, the government forgot about it, laid it aside, or for some reason did not bring it through. This was after the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada had made this ruling on June 2. Everybody knew this was coming because this was the court of appeal, not the regular court martial where a similar decision had also been made.

The government was well aware of this then, and I think it has been wise to take it out separately and see if it could get co-operation to have it passed. We are prepared to co-operate. We are a very reasonable opposition. When we see something that needs to be done, it can be expedited. We even provided unanimous consent. Our part of unanimous consent was provided this morning to have this bill brought into law at least in the House of Commons today and be sent to the other place for speedy passage. We offered that consent because we are very reasonable and co-operative when it is appropriate to be.

Let me tell members what this case was about.

Mr. LeBlanc and other soldiers were tasked with guarding a CF-18 at a Canadian air force base. The aircraft was on standby for the Francophonie summit being held in Quebec City in October 2008. Corporal LeBlanc and his companion were one of two teams guarding the aircraft. He and his companion were on lookout, sitting in a truck parked by the hangar. His companion went off to use the washroom, and left Corporal LeBlanc sitting in the truck by himself. Lo and behold, when his pal left the truck to go to the washroom, he was inside the hangar and was away for about five minutes, a sergeant drove up next to Corporal LeBlanc's side of the truck. The trial judge found that Corporal LeBlanc had been reclining and had his eyes closed for at least 10 seconds. His eyes were closed for 10 seconds and as a result he was charged with negligence and not being vigilant in his duty under section 124 of the National Defence Act, negligently performing a military duty imposed on him.

That is what gave rise to this. He was brought before a court martial and he was convicted because the trial judge ruled that even though they did not have proper security of tenure, the trial judge thought they did and made his ruling anyway. It went to the court of appeal in the military tribunal. It said the issue was raised as to whether or not military judges were impartial. Military judges are very well trained. They are lawyers. They usually come from the judge advocate general's office. They are steeped in the rules of law and they are appointed as a judge, but they are appointed for five years. That five years may or may not be renewed.

If a judge is trying to decide a case, it is not about the judge, it is about the accused. Does the accused have an understanding that there is a standard of judicial independence so that the judge is not impartial as between him and the military? The judge, in the minds of the accused and everyone else, is dependent upon the military brass for his reappointment. The judges of the court martial appeal court are very well qualified. For example, Justice Létourneau, is one of the authors, along with retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, of perhaps the only significant text on military law in Canada. A new edition came out a week or two ago. He sat on that court. The court said that five-year renewable terms for military judges did not provide the necessary constitutional protection, especially considering the fact that it was considered necessary to give such protection to civilian judges exercising the same functions.

That is a simple explanation of how this case got to where it is. This legislation is designed to fix that. It was in Bill C-41 which passed second reading, went through committee and was reported back to the House but did not get passed. We agreed with that provision. In fact, it was this provision that was used as an excuse to fast-track the legislation. The government said that it was very important and it must get done not a month ago, but a year ago, even before the case on June 2, but it did not get passed.

We are here, reasonable as we are, and we are prepared to do it anyway because we know it needs to be done. It is important that this piece of legislation be passed in the context of understanding the importance of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, including those in the military.

There will be more debate about that because there are many provisions in the National Defence Act and the military justice system that do not give the same protections to soldiers in the military justice system as civilians would have in civilian court. We will, of course, have further debate about that, but with respect to this provision, we agree.

This is not new. As I said, this has been debated many times. In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, there was a provision for provincial court judges. They are the ones who hear 95% of 96% of the cases. It turns out that back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, the Newfoundland the minister of justice could transfer a provincial court judge. The minister could simply say that the judge would now be transferred to Maine, for example, or anywhere else. Maybe the judge lives in Maine, is transferred to St. John's, but does not want to live there.

The minister of justice, the attorney general, had the power to transfer judges to Cornerbrook or wherever. The mere fact that could be done was not considered to be impartial as between Her Majesty The Queen and the accused. Her Majesty The Queen's representative, the minister of justice or attorney general, could actually move judges if the minister, for whatever reason, did not like their judgments or was not satisfied they were doing the job the justice minister wanted them to do in that jurisdiction.

That power was deemed unconstitutional and it had to be changed for impartiality. It is a mundane example, but it is a reality of the importance of the Charter of Rights. At the end of the day, that provides for our protection.

This has a long and very interesting history, but it comes up again and again. It has come up here today. It came up yesterday with respect to Mr. Khadr who is in the United States. He is called a self-confessed terrorist. He is a Canadian citizen and his rights and freedoms are important, too. Yet the government took the position before the Supreme Court of Canada that we should not recognize those rights because our neighbour wanted to try him. It was the government's actions that infringed upon his rights and the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case.

These are rights for all citizens. They are not designed to protect criminals. They are designed to ensure, as the charter has, that an accused person before a court, whether it be a military court, a civilian court or any other, has the right to be tried in a fair and public way according to law. The individual is presumed innocent and tried in a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Each and every one of these words is extremely important and part of the fundamental underpinnings of our judicial system, the freedoms we enjoy, the freedoms we talk about when we say that we support our veterans because they have fought for our ability to build a society that has these freedoms.

Canada has a society that has developed over the many years, through trial and error in some cases, not always making progress. It seems as if we are going to take some backward steps in the next few months with Bill C-10. We will go backward and there will be another government to go forward again. It is not always the steady march of progress, as I am sure members are aware. It depends in which direction we want to go, but in this case the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has brought a great measure of protection to our citizens and a standard by which the justice system is measured.

As to Corporal Leblanc, he was dealt with because the appeal was allowed in part. However, the part which found him guilty of neglect of duty was upheld, but only on a technicality. In that case the court martial judge thought there was security of tenure until retirement or maybe that he was ready to retire and it did not matter to him. However, the principle was a factor in the case and was enough of a factor to get it to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada. That is a separate court of appeal. From that court of appeal, a case can go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, so it is a very high court.

We really did not need this case to prove it because representatives of the legal system, the military justice system and the Department of National Defence and anyone who was interested in the matter, as well as Michel Drapeau who appeared before our committee the last time, talked about this as a fundamental problem.

There are other issues we can talk about in terms of military justice. Is it necessary for those judges be officers? That is an interesting point. It has been argued before the defence committee that we should have a mix of civilian and military judges in the military justice system. It is important to understand how the military works, but it is also important to not get caught up in the culture of the military to the exclusion of the importance of having a standard justice that applies equally to citizens whether they are in the military or not. We can debate that at length.

However, in the context of this situation, we believe it is important that the military justice system not be hamstrung by a system which everyone clearly recognizes fails to meet the standard of appropriate impartiality and does not meet the constitutional test.

I have had some thoughts about the requirement of retirement at age 60. If we consider the notion that it is a military justice system, then from the day one joins the military, he or she knows there is a mandatory retirement at age 60. That is part of the system. It has nothing to do with whether one is a judge or a master corporal working on base or a general. The fact that one is appointed as a military judge, he or she still has to retire at age 60 as opposed to a Supreme Court judge who retires at age 75 or at age 70, depending on which jurisdiction. Those judges have been considered to have judicial independence. In the military, 60 is young for a judge. However, in the military context it is not considered to be a mandatory form of retirement.

There are some issues about supernumeraries, but that is a detail we do not need to get into now. If there is a mandatory retirement age of 60, at least in the context of the report on the court case itself, and I do not have the whole transcript in front of me and I do not know everything that was argued, there does not appear to be a lot of other discussion about other aspects of it. The focus was on the five-year renewable term being the issue, which is what we are dealing with now. Any possible nuances on that could perhaps be argued at another time and in another case. In this case, the provision of the five-year renewable term is clearly the one that needs to be changed.

We support that change. We support fast-tracking it. We support passing it today and sending it to the other place for consideration. However, without unanimous consent, we will have a second reading debate. It will then have to go to committee. The defence committee will have to look at it. Then it would be sent back for report stage in the House. There will be a potential debate at report stage, then at third reading. It would then go to the Senate to have it dealt with and then be passed into law. It may take some time, perhaps beyond December 2. I do not know what pace the other members in the House will take in dealing with this. We are satisfied to have it passed today and to go on to the other place. It is important that we deal with constitutional matters that are clearly agreed upon.

As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has said, she has no problem with the legislation, but it is a question of having other issues intertwined, which unfortunately the government has seen fit to do despite the fact that it is normal courtesy in the House to recognize an important national event like Remembrance Day. Courtesy should be extended to members to be allowed to say a few words.

Those are my remarks at second reading and I would be happy to respond to any questions or comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of the bill that addresses the urgent need to ensure the proper functioning of our military justice system.

The bill comes to us in the context of two facts that I think all hon. members will recognize. One, a legal circumstance that places additional pressure on all of us to ensure the smooth functioning of our military justice system, one that has served Canada well for decades. We just celebrated the centenary of the Office of the Judge Advocate General without a challenge to its constitutionality. I will come back to that issue and delve into the circumstances that have led to a danger of that happening.

This is a measure that has been considered in the House three times during three previous Parliament when bills were brought forward that provided for exactly the very limited measures that are provided for in this bill. They died on the order paper, despite two days of debate in the House in the last Parliament and five days of debate in committee in the last Parliament. These issues have been thoroughly ventilated among all of us.

They have received the benefit of the views of the members opposite in committee and in the House, and our consultations to date lead us to believe that, on this narrow but important issue of the independence of military judges, there is a consensus among the parties represented in the House to move forward with alacrity and to ensure that trial by court martial in this country's military justice institutions continues to take place in full conformity with the law and the continuing modernization of our civilian, civil and military justice practices.

Ensuring the safety of Canadians requires that members of the Canadian Forces remain in a constant state of operational readiness. In this regard, the military justice system is a critical tool in allowing the chain of command to deal with matters directly related to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. Many hon. members on all sides of the House will know first-hand from their experience, and we all know from our observation of the excellence of our Canadian armed forces the importance of morale, the fundamental importance of justice that is swift, justice that is fair, justice that brings together a team that reinforces the cohesion of that team to the smooth operational functioning of a military.

It is not just a question of the institution's effectiveness, it is also a question of our military's ability to reflect the values that we as Canadians hold dear. Any Canadian soldier, private, sergeant or officers, whether they are in Libya or on a peacekeeping mission on the Golan Heights or anywhere else, will tell us that they can only do their job to the extent that they are representing and projecting Canada's values. Those values are built upon a system of law, a system of justice and that system must be fully reflected in the system of military justice that serves our military.

In the absence of such a system, our military men and women would not be able to focus on their top priority—protecting the interests of Canada and its people.

For that reason, the government, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Constitution have recognized the importance of maintaining a robust military justice system. The military justice system must meet the unique needs of the Canadian Forces and must also be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter guarantees that a person who is charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

It is on the issue of independence that I speak to the House today. The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental right of all Canadians, and maintaining that independence is an important responsibility of government. This means ensuring that Canadian courts, including courts martial, are free from real and perceived undue influences and interference.

Judicial independence, or the freedom to deliver a ruling based solely on fact and law, requires that the judge presiding over a trial have a certain level of job security and that his appointment be permanent.

That is the system we have in our civil courts and it is the system we must now have in our military justice system.

On June 2 of this year, the Court Martial Appeal Court made an important decision regarding the security of tenure of military judges. I am referring to the case of Regina v. Leblanc. This ruling assessed that the process by which military judges are appointed, currently on a five year renewable basis, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for an independent judiciary. Therefore, the court has given Parliament six months, or until December 2, to pass remedial legislation to update the National Defence Act, otherwise, its provisions related to the appointment and tenure of military judges will be declared constitutionally invalid. This is not a new issue.

Since it took office, the government has been actively seeking to make amendments, similar to those I just mentioned, to the National Defence Act.

The enhancement of judicial independence is one issue that the government first attempted to address in 2006 with Bill C-7, which died on the order paper, as I mentioned at the outset. Since then, the government has attempted to amend the National Defence Act on two separate occasions: Bill C-45 in 2008 and Bill C-41 in 2010, both of which died on the order paper as a result of prorogation or the dissolution of Parliament.

Therefore, we cannot be taken to task for not having tried to resolve this issue earlier as circumstances literally did not permit us to bring these efforts, which we all have endorsed in one way or another, to fruition. Ideally, Parliament would have passed legislation that would have dealt with the issue of security of tenure in 2006, unfortunately, circumstances were such that this was not the case. Today, with a renewed sense of urgency on this issue, we come before this House with Bill C-16

In order to address the concerns identified in the Leblanc decision, the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act contained in Bill C-16 would provide military judges with security of tenure to the fixed age of 60, subject only to removal for cause based on the recommendations of an inquiry committee established under regulations. This is a procedure that reflects, in the military justice system, the type of removal proceedings that we see in our civilian justice system in extreme cases when it is applied to judges.

The government recognizes that 60 is an earlier age for retirement than most judges in the civilian justice system. However, we must remember that military judges are commissioned officers in the Canadian Forces, colonels and lieutenant colonels at the moment, and that the military must balance the need for an experienced judiciary with the need for physical fitness and deployability in all of its members. It is the principle of universality of service. For this reason, 60 is the maximum prescribed retirement age for all Canadian Forces members, and this must include military judges who are, of course, members of the Canadian Forces.

I would like to close by emphasizing that the government recognizes that the amendments proposed in this bill are technical in nature, but they constitute amendments that are necessary to ensure that the National Defence Act is consistent with the charter and that the military justice system operates in accordance with Canadian legal standards.

We are really talking about the modernization of our military justice system, the obligation we have to ensure that our system reflects developments in the civil justice system. I am not only speaking about our own observation as parliamentarians, as government, that this must take place, but observations that have been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada and by a recent decision by the military appeals court that this now take place specifically with regard to the issue of the independence of military judges.

Should Bill C-16 not move forward quickly the ability of military judges to hear cases will be put into question, causing uncertainty within the military justice system. By ensuring security of tenure to the fixed age of 60, Bill C-16 would make a significant contribution toward ensuring the continued independence of military judges within the military justice system.

Let us keep in mind that our military justice system has a long-standing and proud tradition in Canada. The Court Martial Appeal Court was created in 1959 by Parliament. It is a military justice system that is subject to civilian control, civilian supervision and civilian oversight. It is also subject to that oversight in that the Court Martial Appeal Court is a superior court of record with a chief justice of its own. It is composed only of superior court judges appointed by governor in council. Appeals from this court go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, so our military justice system fits under the charter, under our Constitution, into a system of justice that is overseen ultimately under appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let us also put the bill into perspective. The full-time military judges of whom we speak and to which this new measure would apply number four in this country at the moment, three of whom are lieutenant colonels and one a colonel. They do handle a large amount of work. The bill really would apply to a relatively restricted field of the military justice system and our military as a whole.

This government recognizes that while urgent, the issue of judicial independence is but one of many aspects of our military justice system that requires updating. Performing a regular review of any legal system is necessary to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness, which is why the government has also introduced Bill C-15, which proposes implementing many of the recommendations found in the 2003 report by the late chief justice Antonio Lamer.

Together, Bill C-15 and Bill C-16 represent a comprehensive response to the recommendations found in the Lamer report and in Regina v. Leblanc to ensure that our military justice system remains consistent with Canadian values.

I therefore call upon the House to support both of these important bills as they move forward. I also call upon those independent members of the House, some of whom were active in committee in reviewing the provisions now contained both in Bill C-15 and Bill C-16, to join us in moving the bills forward expeditiously in recognizing that the values we all share, the military we all support, deserves to see these technical but important updated measures move forward as quickly as possible.

It is one of our duties to our military. It is our duty to Canadians to move quickly forward on this. We need to ensure that our Canadian Forces are served by the best, the most modern, the most effective military justice system that we can have in this country at this time.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, nobody would be more delighted than I if we could actually not have to use time allocation, but so far we have not seen an indication from the opposition parties that they are prepared to deal with bills on an expeditious basis. We feel the need to actually get things done here and deliver on our commitments.

In fact, in each of these cases since we started in September, each one of those bills continues to be debated in the process in the House of Commons. At committee, they have not even returned here for report stage yet, let alone third reading. Extensive debate is taking place.

The fact is that the parliamentary process is a lengthy one with many stages. We want to ensure that bills have an opportunity to get through those stages so they can become law, so we can keep the commitments that we made to Canadians.

We are making good progress this week, democratic reform week.

We introduced the Political Loans Accountability Act, which will prevent future leadership contestants from bypassing the law’s contribution limits by running up huge interest-free loans from supporters. We saw this in the 2006 Liberal leadership race. Many of those loans do not get paid off and are really donations over the legal limit.

We have also begun debate on Bill C-20, the fair representation act. I am pleased that this bill will be voted on tonight before being referred to committee for study. The bill restores respect for the founding principle of our country at the heart of Confederation, that Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, forged, that of representation by population. The bill moves every single province closer to the principle of representation by population, that each vote should have, to the extent possible, the same weight.

I know that some members may be disappointed that we have not yet had an opportunity this week to debate Bill C-7, which is the Senate reform act, but they can rest assured I will be calling that bill for debate as our first item of business on the Monday following constituency week. It is part of what one opposition member properly calls our comprehensive democratic reform plan.

Tomorrow, I hope we can deal with Bill C-16, the Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act, and Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. I hope both bills, which make important revisions to the military justice system, will garner all party support.

Of course, next week is a constituency week where members will be in their ridings speaking to Canadians about the issues that are important to them.

I know that most Canadians, whom I have spoken with at least, think that the jobs and economic growth issues are the top priority and they expect their government to focus on that right here in the House. With this in mind, the next week that we are back will be a jobs and economic growth week.

Jobs and economic growth week will kick off on Monday afternoon when we will again debate the copyright modernization act. The opposition introduced a motion to keep this bill from ever being debated at committee. This is disappointing. The bill would modernize our copyright laws and encourage job creation in one of Canada's most dynamic and important sectors of the economy.

I understand that the finance committee is meeting later today to conduct its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, that implements the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. I will give priority to this job creation bill when the committee has completed its study. I anticipate scheduling report stage for Tuesday and Wednesday, which will undoubtedly be the highlight of jobs and economic growth week. This bill would implement important measures from our low tax plan for jobs and growth, including tax relief for small businesses that create jobs and a new tax credit for children who go to dance classes or take arts, music, or language lessons. I hope that it will pass swiftly through the House so that the measures can be implemented for the benefit of our economy and indeed all Canadians.

Finally, Thursday, November 17, will be an allotted day.