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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are two motions and amendments standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-15. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in Amendment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-15, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 13 on page 4 with the following:

“(3) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal and in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the Accountability Framework signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal on March 2, 1998, issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation, providing that the rationale for issuing the instructions or guidelines is also stated.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-15, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 4 with the following:

“section (3) and the relevant rationale are available to the public.”

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for a very specific set of changes with which I hope the House will find favour.

As we know, Bill C-15 is, for the most part, supported by people throughout the House. It is an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make other consequential amendments. The piece I want to focus on is quite critical and deserves consideration at report stage. It is about changes to the military policing process.

If we go back to why it matters, we go back to an incident Canadians would sooner forget: the shameful incidents that occurred in Somalia involving Canadian armed forces and the subsequent efforts to interfere with that investigation. That led to an entirely new accountability framework, which I am holding here. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal co-signed an accountability framework in March 1998 to set out the principles for proper operational flow.

The primacy of operations as well as the need for independence in investigations are recognized. Striving towards these complementary objectives through a transparent, timely and responsive process are described in this framework agreement as being critical.

These are very important principles that are embodied in the document. What Bill C-15 does is throw them out the window. I have brought forward these amendments to get the relationship back to where it should be, under the accountability framework, to ensure that senior military officials cannot interfere in an investigation.

It is unseemly to imagine that we would have a military investigation. Again, let us cast our minds back to a situation like Somalia. We can all hope that such a thing will never happen again. To have some assurance, we need to have good systems of law, accountability, clear lines of authority and absolute certainty that senior defence staff cannot intervene in an investigation to engage in a cover-up. That is why we have the accountability measures that currently exist.

In the section of Bill C-15 I propose to amend, we have something quite extraordinary. We have a change in the relationship. For members who are following along, the relevant section of Bill C-15 is clause 4, proposed subsection 18.5(3). Here we find the bill turning the accountability framework on its head. We find the following words: “The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation". In proposed subsection 18.5(4) we find: “The Provost Marshal shall ensure that the instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3)”—in other words, by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff— “are available to the public”.

That is what we have in Bill C-15, and that is why my amendments propose to clean it up. My amendments, very clearly, would ensure that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal, in accordance with their respective roles and responsibilities and the principles set out in the accountability framework to which I have just referred, issue instructions and guidelines in writing along with the rationale.

My amendment still meets the government's purpose. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may still issue instructions, but only with the consent of the Provost Marshal and only if consistent with the framework agreement under which our military policing system has been living since 1998.

Am I the only one who thinks that we need these amendments? No, I am not. I felt that it was important to bring them forward when there was significant testimony before the committee coming from none other than the Military Police Complaints Commission. The Military Police Complaints Commission, which was represented by senior counsel, said, “We don't think it's intended to be used in any kind of nefarious way, but it sort of calls into question what is and isn't improper interference”.

That could be called the understatement of the year. It definitely calls into question what could be called improper interference. This was also pointed out by a very significant witness before the committee, a professor of law from the University of Toronto, Professor Kent Roach, who in his substantive presentation to the committee made some very telling points.

There are reasons we have an accountability framework, and it is very important that this legislation not turn that on its head, undo accountability and open the door to completely improper interference in investigations by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. This is, of course, I hasten to add, not specific to any individuals holding the posts in the current era or in the past. However, as a matter of good principle and good policy, one does not put in place a system that is open to such clear abuse.

The provisions put forward by the Military Police Complaints Commission in its brief, which I want to point out, stated:

The provision in question, in clause 4 of the bill, would create a new NDA subsection 18.5(3), which would expressly authorize the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to direct the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal—the head of the CF military police—in the conduct of specific [military police] investigations.

I should be careful when I speak of investigations in this place and use the initials “MP”. I should quickly clarify that it is military police.

In the Commission's view, such an express authority is inconsistent with existing arrangements in place since the period following the troubled Somalia deployment which specifically sought to safeguard [military police] investigations from interference by the chain of command.

Further down, the evidence from the Military Police Complaints Commission states:

the proposed authority of the [Vice Chief of the Defence Staff] to direct the [Provost Marshal] regarding the conduct of particular military police investigations set out in subsection 18.5(3) represents an important departure from the status quo. This proposed authority would effectively abrogate key provisions of the Accountability Framework whose purpose was to adapt the command relationship of the [Vice Chief of the Defence Staff] and [the Provost Marshal], such that the latter would retain appropriate independence from the chain of command in the conduct of individual law enforcement investigations.

Similarly, I want to mention that the University of Toronto professor to whom I referred earlier, Kent Roach, also spoke of the critical importance of police independence in investigations.

I am putting forward two small amendments. They do not deter or distract from the overall purpose of this act. Anyone who examines the history of why the accountability framework was brought forward in 1998 will see clearly that it is good public policy. It is a wise provision to ensure independence. It is not just that justice must be done but that it must be seen to be done. Opening the door to this kind of abuse goes against all principles, natural justice, the rule of law and the independence of an investigator from top-down interference.

I know it is unusual to pass amendments at report stage, but these are clear and straightforward and meet the demands and strong recommendations of the Military Police Complaints Commission itself. They make sense, and I urge members on all sides of the House to support these amendments to Bill C-15 at report stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, is the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands aware that one of the purposes of Bill C-15, as reported back unamended to this place from committee, is to make the accountability framework, which to date has been an administrative document only, a statutory component of the framework governing military justice, to give it the status of a statute and to make the role, mandate and mission of the Provost Marshal of the Canadian Forces much more explicit than it has ever been before? Under Bill C-15, unamended, the Provost Marshal would have the absolute ability to make public any instruction he or she receives from the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff on any occasion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that, of course, but just as I am aware of it, so too were other witnesses before the committee. I draw attention to the following statement from Kent Roach, law professor at the University of Toronto:

I think it's always a problem in a democracy when police independence to commence an investigation or conduct an investigation is interfered with.

Michel Drapeau, who is a lawyer with over 34 years of experience with the Canadian military, said:

Would the mayor be able to issue a direction to the chief of the Ottawa police, even if it's in writing, about a particular investigation? The answer is “no.” Would the Prime Minister be able to do that with the RCMP? The answer is “absolutely not.” So why would it be here?

Those witnesses and experts in military justice knew, just as the Military Police Complaints Commission knew, that the instructions would later be made public. The question is how much damage would be done by demands or instructions from the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in the course of an investigation, even when the Provost Marshal might make them public later on. There is a very large window for abuse, and we should close it now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for bringing forth these amendments. It gives us another opportunity to talk about this important issue.

I wonder if she would comment on the fact that the parliamentary secretary said that the idea was to bring the accountability framework into the legislation, but in fact the amendment actually refers, specifically, to the existing accountability framework bringing it into legislation and it says that in fact the VCDS shall not direct the CFPM with respect to specific military police operational decisions of an investigative nature. That would clearly give legislative effect to the accountability framework that was brought forward, so I do not understand why the parliamentary secretary is saying he wants the accountability framework in legislation and does not seem to be supportive of an amendment that would do just exactly that, by specifically referring to it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only thank my colleague from St. John's East, who also is very familiar with this legislation and has worked hard on it, for making my point for me.

The amendment I am putting forward is entirely consistent with what the government says it wants to do. As currently drafted, Bill C-15 would create the opportunity for top-down military hierarchy meddling in investigations where it should not be meddling. With the fact that the amendment, as I have put it forward, specifically refers to the accountability framework and the sections therein and would allow the Chief of the Defence Staff to issue instructions where the Provost Marshal consents, I think we have plugged what could become a very significant hole. I am using the word “hole”. It is the kind of weakening that emerges when we allow one part of a framework to allow evil to slip in. We do not want top-down political interference in a military hierarchy. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff should not be able to give instructions to the Provost Marshal. It is as clear as day that is the wrong way to go if the accountability framework is turned on its head, even in the guise of implementing and giving statutory authority to the accountability framework.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this place again at report stage debate on Bill C-15, a bill that is absolutely fundamental to the well-being of the Canadian Forces and to the modernization of the military justice system, which is at the absolute core of its mandate.

I would invite all hon. members, if they are ever asking themselves about the relevance of this debate and the relevance of this bill, to have a look at the National Defence Act. It is a weighty document in both languages, which is mostly devoted to the military justice system.

Roughly 180 pages out of 230 pages of this document are devoted to the military justice system because of the special need of our Canadian armed forces at home and abroad to maintain discipline and to maintain operational effectiveness while ensuring that justice is done both when they are training on their bases at home in peacetime and also amid the uncertainties and exigencies of the combat they have been involved from time to time throughout their history.

This is an important bill. I find it surprising that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would raise amendments at this stage on a very specific part of the bill regarding the role of the Provost Marshal, which is going to be enshrined under this legislation much more clearly in law than ever before, but without mentioning the requirement for operational effectiveness, mission success. That is why we have a military justice system that is separate from the civilian system.

We make a special request of the Canadian armed forces soldiers, sailors and aircrew when they go on missions and when they are at home preparing for such missions. We ask them to live under a justice system that will meet the special requirements of those dangerous situations in which they find themselves from time to time.

The failure to refer to these urgent operational requirements is very revealing in the presentation from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It shows that she has not understood why we have a military justice system and she has not understood the balance that has been struck throughout this legislation, not just in Bill C-15 but in all bills that have established our excellent military justice system over decades.

She has not followed the testimony of witnesses, across the board, in committee and outside of committee, indeed, because most of those best qualified to pronounce on this issue agree with the balance that has been struck in this legislation. The two witnesses the member mentions are in fact the only two I can remember having commented at all positively on the kind of proposal she is making.

It is also extraordinary that the member would introduce these amendments at this very late stage in debate of this bill. We have had dozens of speeches. We have had days and weeks of testimony in committee. This is the fourth Parliament to be considering these amendments.

We are here in the 41st Parliament. There was a similar bill before the 40th Parliament, the 39th Parliament and the 38th Parliament. The recommendations we are trying to enact, at long last, are more than a decade old. They actually came forward in the 36th Parliament.

How many people were here during the 36th Parliament? Was anyone here? There were a very few. Certainly the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was not here, and neither was I.

I also have a sense of déja vu in that I think some of us were standing in this House a full year ago, on budget day, discussing military justice. It was Bill C-16, an urgent portion of this bill that was taken out of the bill because we were not moving quickly enough on the bill. Here we are again today, going around in circles.

Bill C-15 proposes to put into legislation the appointment, duties and functions of the Provost Marshal as recommended by the Lamer report. He suggested the National Defence Act be amended to define the role of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and to set out a framework concerning the relationship between the CFPM, the military police and the chain of command.

The motions before the House today call upon the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation, provide the rationale for issuing the instructions and make sure they are made public.

The proposed section of the bill, as unamended, clearly would provide for written instructions already. The bill reads:

(3) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

I hear the member for St. John's East telling us that we should simply buy into a mention of an accountability framework with a specific date, 1998, in the legislation. We do not mention administrative documents in legislation passed by this House. We do not do that. That is not good legislative practice, in this place or in the other place. What we are trying to do is take the content of that accountability framework, which I agree is important, and turn it into legislative terms, which is what this bill would do.

The intent of proposed subsection 18.5(3) is to recognize the unique circumstances of the military police, who often operate in zones of armed conflict. I will mention that again: zones of armed conflict. I would like to hear the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, in her subsequent interventions, if there are any, inform this House as to how she proposes to deal with those circumstances.

Military police may be going to investigate a situation, here or there on the battlefield, but they do not have knowledge of the operational next steps of the mission. They do not know if there is going to be direct fire called in at that location. They do not know if there is going to be a live fire training exercise at that location. They do not know if there is going to be an air strike at that location. That is what this provision in the bill, as unamended, seeks to allow the VCDS to inform the Provost Marshal of, and absolutely the Provost Marshal could make public the rationale. That is the default position. That is what is expected of the Provost Marshal. That is what the Provost Marshal would be empowered to do under the bill as unamended.

However, in those rare cases when, for reasons of operational secrecy, the protection of Canadian lives or, if there is personal information involved in the investigation, privacy, the Provost Marshal may not make the instructions fully public or may not make them public at all.

In other words, the intent of proposed section 18.5 is to strengthen the independence of the military police, as the default position is that the instructions must be made public, and it is unnecessary to refer to an administrative document. The VCDS would be responsible and accountable for the instructions he or she gives. While the fact of the issuance of the direction and its contents should be public, the rationale may be classified or engage issues of operational security.

Members of the Standing Committee on National Defence heard that some misgivings about section 18.5(3) were actually alleviated by subsequent clauses, which would provide for the transparency of any directions issued. Let us listen to Colonel Gibson, a senior member of the Judge Advocate General's Office, from his testimony on February 13. He said:

...there's the very important transparency provision set out at proposed sections 18.4 and 18.5, which says that the default position is that the instruction must be made public. It gives the discretion ultimately to whether or not to release that, having regard to the impact on a particular investigation, to the provost marshal.

Therefore the Provost Marshal has the hammer if he or she is concerned about this, and it is transparent.

We heard the Provost Marshal and the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in committee expressing the view that this would be the right way to strike a balance. They were comfortable with this, that their independent ability to conduct investigations on the military police side would be protected.

On our side, there really is not more information or more insight provided on this issue, either by the amendments presented today or by what we have heard in this House so far. I remind the members of the House that there have been three attempts previous to Bill C-15, four if we count this bill, to amend this legislation to bring our military justice system up to date.

We in committee considered a wide range of amendments. We are grateful to all members of the committee for the full discussion we had. There are two amendments coming forward to this place, one of which is urgently required because it would reduce the likelihood that members of the Canadian Forces would be carrying into civilian life a criminal record for offences committed under the military justice system that do not justify a criminal record. We need to enact that change quickly. It has been close to a decade that we have been trying to do this, and we have failed so far. We are not serving the Canadian Forces well as long as we fail to pass this legislation, and we would like to move through report stage and third reading as quickly as possible.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to fill the parliamentary secretary in on the rules of parliamentary procedure. If he is shocked that I have produced amendments at report stage, I would like to ask him when he thought I could have done it sooner? As the member well knows, as a member of Parliament for the Green Party and as leader of the Green Party, in terms of parliamentary procedure, I have the same rights and privileges as an independent, which means I am not allowed to sit on committees. I do monitor committees. I have wonderful volunteers from universities who attend every committee meeting. I have all the evidence that goes before committees and I use it to produce amendments. My earliest opportunity to present amendments is right now at report stage.

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that the principle of police independence is paramount. Probably the leading authority is Lord Denning in Ex Parte Blackburn in 1968. This bill, according to serious experts, and not just one or two witnesses, is casting aside as if it were an irrelevant witness the Military Police Complaints Commission. My friend the parliamentary secretary should give serious regard to these amendments and change his position.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Military Police Complaints Commission is actually relevant to this debate. If there is a problem that the Provost Marshal sees with the instructions he or she has receives or with any of the procedures as exercised under the legislation now proposed as unamended, that person has the right to go to the Military Police Complaints Commission. This is another one of the safeguards embodied in the bill as unamended.

What the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands fails to note is that we have heard proposals for amendments very similar to hers at committee already. She has not addressed the question of operational effectiveness, operational exigencies, the unique role of the Canadian Forces, that means that the independence of police investigations needs to be balanced with other rights, such as the right to life of the Canadian Forces.

Is the member prepared to deny them the information about a threat to their lives in order to protect one principle of a police investigation, which is important but which is clearly trumped by the special circumstances of the battlefield?

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary would know it was not just one or two witnesses who opposed this. Glenn Stannard, the current chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, and Mr. Peter Tinsley, a former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission and a person of long-standing military police experience, both testified. Retired Colonel Drapeau, a military person who is now a practising lawyer and law professor spoke out as well.

Peter Tinsley called it a “backward step”, and it is a backward step. Since 1998, the accountability framework that was put in place and signed by both the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal provided that there would be no direction by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff with respect to specific military police operation decisions. It set out the roles of the relationship and that is in the act and we like that. However, this is a backward step. He knows that. There is no justification that makes any sense that has been given for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely not a backward step. It is a necessary step. It is a forward step. It is a step, as the member for St. John's East well knows, toward bringing an administrative document, an accountability framework that had only administrative status that could have been undone administratively at any stage, into law. The member, as a lawyer of long standing and one who practises his trade in the Standing Committee on National Defence in a legislative context, should understand the importance of that elevation of the role, responsibilities and accountabilities of the Provost Marshal and the VCDS.

I certainly understand the rules of this place. I certainly understand the ability of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to submit amendments. What I do not understand is our inability to move this legislation forward after a full decade, after 78 speeches in this place, after consideration of four successive drafts in four Parliaments of the same bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the major reason the government gives for rolling back the clock is operational requirements. Both Mr. Tinsley and Mr. Stannard addressed that very directly. Their answer to the parliamentary secretary and the government was that military police were not stupid, that they did not go into conflict zones and conduct an investigation. The key flaw in the government's argument is that there is no restriction in proposed subsection 18.5(3) as to when an instruction might be given.

Could the hon. parliamentary secretary tell the House what the operational requirements were that required chain of command interference in Somalia?

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

Mr. Speaker, it reflects the inability of the member and other members opposite to see the true context of the bill and the amendments we have proposed at report stage of the bill when he is required to refer all the way back to Somalia in even framing a question about this issue.

The military justice system has functioned extremely well in Afghanistan. It has functioned extremely well for two decades, since Somalia, because of changes that were made and accountabilities that were strengthened. Bill C-15 will strengthen them even further.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill at report stage, an important bill about reforming military justice in Canada.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the changes that arose since Somalia. One of them was the document I have in front of me called the “Accountability Framework Between the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal”. It was the Somalia inquiry that brought to light the need for a review of these matters, and there have been some iterations of change since then.

The amendment before us now is a backward step. Most of what is in the bill is positive. We spent considerable time in the House debating what needs to be done to fix it, particularly with respect to the issue of criminal records, to which the parliamentary secretary referred.

We do not believe, as a matter of principle, that individuals going before a military tribunal, who do not have access to the full rights that any defendants in a civil criminal trial in civil society has, should, if convicted, end up with a criminal record. We fought to change that. We argued in the House for many days about that. We argued in the House in the last Parliament to seek to change that. We in fact changed it in committee in the last Parliament, but it never got through because an election was called. There has been a whole process going on to seek to reform the legislation. Our position is that the bill does not go far enough.

This is report stage. We brought forth 19 amendments at committee stage to seek improvements to the bill. One of them involved the removal of this—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for St. John's East knows that, as chair of the committee, I am quite a stickler on rules and procedures. I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker, but I also want to ensure the member is aware of this. When we are debating at report stage and dealing with an amendment, it states quite clearly in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 13, rules of decorum, on page 626:

To avoid excessive repetition of debate, the Speaker has the power to select and to combine motions in amendment.

You have done this with Motions Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Speaker.

It goes on to say:

The Speaker can also control debate through the use of the relevance rule as applied to debate on clauses of a bill. Despite the similarities between debate at report stage to that at committee stage, there is no allowance for a wide-ranging discussion of a bill as occurs in committee during study of Clause 1. Indeed, once the Order of the Day for the consideration of a bill at report stage is called, discussion is limited to “any amendment of which notice has been given”.

We are debating at report stage, under Standing Orders 76.6 and 76.1(6). These are the standing orders that are relevant. We are to be dealing strictly with the amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I ask the member stay on topic and talk about the specific clauses and not a wide-ranging repetition that has already taken place at committee and at second reading. We need to be very specific and get back to the focus here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that point of order is about other than maybe to use up the 10 minutes I have to speak about it. I hope it will be taken out of that.

However, when someone is talking about report stage of a bill, it does not seem to be irrelevant to talk about the fact that we are in report stage of the bill, that we had a committee hearing and that there are a number of amendments, including this one, to which I was about talk.

It has not been the practice of the House to be as ruthless in the application of a relevancy rule as the hon. member suggests. It certainly was not applied when the parliamentary secretary and others were speaking in the last half hour, and there is no reason it should apply now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I generally applaud efforts to make points in speeches in this place relevant.

I raised a point of order when my amendments on Bill C-38 were being completely ignored by virtually every set speech of the Conservative members of Parliament. At the point where one member was talking about the economy of Greece, I rose and asked for the relevance to the amendments before us. I was told that they were generally on point because the subject of the bill was economic growth and development.

Therefore, certainly the member for St. John's East was in the ballpark of discussing my amendments, and many previous speeches on other bills have been way out of left field.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The Chair thanks the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake for his intervention and the members for St. John's East and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their subsequent interventions.

In terms of general context, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake is correct that the Standing Orders state that when members rise to speak to a matter before the House, their comments ought to be relevant to that matter.

It is also fair to say that historically and consistently the Chair has granted what some would consider significant latitude to members in the points they make in their presentations. From time to time, members take very indirect ways to come to their point. It is a good reminder for all members that they need to keep their comments relevant to the matter before the House.

On the second point, the hon. member is technically correct in that the parameters or leeway granted ought to be narrower when the House is considering amendments as opposed to general legislation potentially during second reading or third reading. However, once again I would suggest the Chair recognizes that in the course of a 10- or 20-minute speech, hon. members need to provide context to the comments they wish to make that are relevant to a matter before the House.

As an editorial comment, there are certainly times when members wander far afield from the matter before the House and are possibly beyond the grey area. However, in this case, I would suggest that has not happened. The hon. member for St. John's East is certainly talking in the context of the bill. I trust that before his 10 minutes expires, he will make all of the context relevant to the points that have to do with the amendments currently being debated.

The hon. member for St. John's East.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Speaker and the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake that I have no intention to talk about ranching in western Canada or any other matters extraneous to the bill and the legislation before us, which would clearly be irrelevant.

I said that there were a number of amendments, 22 amendments, proposed by us in committee. One of them was very much related to what we have here in the House.

I will say that not a single one of the amendments was accepted by the government members, showing a total lack of flexibility in terms of trying to make a better military justice system.

However, one of our amendments was to remove this power because, as was pointed out, it was a backward step. The accountability framework was put in place as a result of recommendations from the Somali inquiry to ensure that the relationship between the military police and the understanding of its role was in fact spelled out. That is where this came from, and it has been in place for 15 years. No one before our committee, whether they were government officials, the Judge Advocate General representatives or anybody else, indicated that there was any problem with it, that it did not work.

The parliamentary secretary says that the change has been brought to give effect to the accountability framework in legislation because he says it could be gotten rid of at any time. Well, this is taking away one of the most significant parts of this, which would guarantee the independence of the military police, which I think is the important principle at work here.

There is, and there was, as the parliamentary secretary said in his intervention, a long history of trying to seek to change this. We have been part of that. We have been trying to make the bill better and have spoken quite at length in this Parliament, and in the last Parliament, and in committees in both Parliaments, to seek to make this better.

One of the focuses, of course, has been on the criminal records. My colleague opposite referred to the urgency of that because of people getting criminal records. I do not disagree with that, although I would note that provision would be retroactive: it says not only those who have committed particular offences but also those who have been convicted of those offences. I think my colleague would agree that the provision would be retroactive, so if we pass it today or if we pass it tomorrow or next week, anybody who may be convicted of an offence during that period would not get a criminal record because the legislation would have looked after that. We are not certain that it is given effect to properly and we made amendments to see that. However, we will be watching that extremely carefully to ensure that the military men and women who ought not to have criminal records do not in fact have a record lying around somewhere, on some computer, that might affect their future. We are very attuned to that and have paid great attention to it in committee.

The positive aspects of this legislation do include spelling out the role of the Provost Marshal and do include spelling out the principles of sentencing and military justice, which is quite appropriate to do. The positive aspects of this include the possibility of having an absolute discharge, which was not there before, and allowing an intermittent sentence if someone is confined to detention.

There are a number of positive aspects to this legislation that move the bar somewhat forward, but not to where it ought to be.

One thing that came through during the hearings at committee was an overwhelming confidence by the witnesses on behalf of the government. The government witnesses were extremely certain that all the measures that were being proposed were constitutional and were within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—charter-proof, in fact.

However, that has not been the experience of the military justice system since 1990, when the Court Martial Appeal Court determined that the standing court martial was unconstitutional, that the procedure for selection of mode of trial was unconstitutional and that the general court martial was unconstitutional. These are things that have happened despite the fact that the government took the position that everything was within the Constitution and charter-proof.

We have a concern about that. There is a need for an overall review. This, however, is a backward step and ought not to happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously we have never taken the position that there were not improvements required to ensure the constitutionality of this legislation.

That is why, in addition to the four failed attempts we have had to amend this legislation, there have also been Bill C-60 and Bill C-16. That means six pieces of legislation for this House, over four parliaments, without a full, thorough-going modernization, update, taking place yet.

Could I ask the hon. member to return to the issue at hand today? Why is it that he is speaking, after all our consideration in committee of this issue, in favour of a reprised amendment, essentially, that goes against the testimony of the Provost Marshal of the Canadian Forces on March 2, when he said that the safeguards in place are robust, and goes against the testimony of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, who says that this provision is required to potentially save lives on the battlefield, using the example of a live fire exercise?

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

Mr. Speaker, the testimony at committee is somewhat belied by the accountability framework itself, signed by Vice Admiral Garnett, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, and the colonel, then the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal in 1998, who put that very provision in an accountability framework developed as a result of the recommendations made out of the Somali inquiry.

We may have different opinions, but I accept the testimony of someone who is experienced in the field who says that military police officers do not walk into the line of fire to conduct an interview with somebody during a police investigation. They are not stupid people. Not only that, they would certainly take advice from the commanding officer in the field if he said, by the way, it was not a good idea to go over there or to that place.

This is not about somebody in the field telling what is going on. This is about the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff sitting in Ottawa issuing written instructions to somebody anywhere, maybe even in Ottawa, that they shall not do a particular investigation. That is what we are trying to avoid.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am directing the hon. member's attention to the impugned section, which says that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular investigation.

Would the hon. member care to comment on whether that is only guidelines, which are restricted to live fire exercises, zones of conflict or any other variety of things where Canadian Forces might find themselves?

In my judgment, and I am assuming he would agree with me, this is a wide open field. At any point, at any time, the VCDS could issue instructions to a Provost Marshal and guide the instructions of the police to investigate in a particular way or not in a particular way.

I would be interested in his observations with respect to the drafting of subsection 3.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the member for Scarborough—Guildwood is precisely right, that there is no qualification, and that the qualification we are hearing here is essentially a justification for a possible particular circumstance, whereas the actual rule is very general in nature.

As I just said, we are not talking about the person in charge of a particular operation; we are talking about the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, who is part of the chain of command that the Provost Marshal reports to, and it is precisely because of that relationship that the accountability framework was put in place to ensure that, while there was a right to give instructions to maintain professional standards, et cetera—and it says, as “other police” forces would have—that the operational investigations could not be interfered with by the VCDS. I think that is a good rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that we are generally supportive of this bill? It is a wonderful opportunity to move military justice from the 19th century into the 21st century.

Regrettably, for some reason or another, the government stopped at the 20th century. The debate that has been going on for the better part of an hour is somewhat typical of the government's resistance to, in effect, moving a military system all the way up into the 21st century, so that a soldier, sailor or airman or airwoman is entitled to the same rights and protections as those to which we, as civilians, are entitled. As one witness said, just because they put on a uniform, it does not mean they lose their rights as Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary is quite correct to say that this bill has seen a lot of reiterations prior to its arrival here on the floor of the House. Some of the reasons it is here at this very late stage are good, and some of the reasons it is here now are not so good. However, I am not going to spend my time criticizing who actually controls the pace of legislation in this House.

It is not very often that we get an opportunity to reform our military justice system, and it is kind of disappointing on the part of the government to reach for mediocrity. In the words of Winston Churchill, it is “The Tory fault--a yearning for mediocrity”.

It is a bit of a shame, because we expect so much of our men and women in uniform. I think they should have every right to expect from us an attitude where we give them the best possible justice system. They should be entitled to equal treatment before the law. If we said that to people out on Wellington Street, they would reply that of course they are entitled to equal treatment before the law.

In fact, men and women in uniform have a higher burden. It is kind of ironic that we ask them to risk their lives, and they have an unlimited liability, yet we do not give them the same basic procedural fairness that we, ourselves, expect when we go before a judge in certain circumstances.

The additional burden that men and women in uniform bear is with respect to service offences. I do commend the government for actually having moved on this. The core issue was that service offences, which run all the way from wearing the military uniform in an improper manner right through to treason, are difficult offences, additional burdens that civilians do not bear.

At both ends of the spectrum, the most serious and the least serious, the treatment is probably appropriate. It is the stuff that is in between that is somewhat problematic.

All investigations start with a police investigation of some kind or another. Members would take the view that police investigations should be free from political interference.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are from the beautiful town of Haliburton. We know that is one of the most beautiful places in all of Ontario, if not all of Canada. You and I share that view. Nevertheless, it would be improper for the mayor of that community to phone up the local police chief and say that the chief can do this investigation but not that one, or that if the chief does the investigation, it should only go here and not there. We would rightly regard that as interference in a police investigation.

However, the clause we have been talking about here actually retains that power. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing. We would never allow a bylaw or a law in civil justice to say that the mayor or the premier, or the Prime Minister for that matter, may issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular investigation.

This, of course, caught the attention of the current ombudsman and the former one. The former ombudsman said:

My very brief summary submission is that if Bill C-15 is passed into law in its present form, inclusive of the new [subsection] authorizing the VCDS to interfere with police operations and investigations, it will be inconsistent with the principles of police independence as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada at late as 1999...I can tell you internationally in developed countries, which recognize the importance of police independence [they] prohibit police service boards or similar executive bodies from giving directions [or instructions].... It would also effectively contradict, even repudiate, the notion of improper interference by the chain of command as established in the oversight jurisdiction of the Military Police Complaints Commission and thereby effectively eliminate oversight by statutory authorization.....

This is not merely a speculative issue. We have heard references previously made to Somalia. Somalia was an accident. It was a grotesque accident that did not reflect well on the military. The only reason that it got any kind of investigation at all, which ultimately resulted in an inquiry, was by happenstance. The happenstance was that there were reporters present at the time doing what reporters normally do. Otherwise it never would have seen the light of day.

What made that investigation quite problematic was the interference of the chain of command who did not want it to occur. If it was going to occur, they wanted it to occur in a particular way and they certainly did not want any kind of inquiry. That is what drove this issue and ultimately resulted in a protocol. The protocol essentially said that one cannot interfere in a police investigation. This has been the protocol that has been in existence since the Somalia inquiry.

However, the government seems to want to appropriate back to itself the right of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Chief of the Defence Staff, the minister or the Prime Minister the opportunity to give instructions and guidelines with respect to a particular investigation on any particular situation. Reference has been made as to whether this is charter proof or not. Certainly the government's line is that it is charter proof because it says it is charter proof, which is inadequate. There certainly is no proof that it is.

I had suggested to witnesses that this is similar to the government painting a big target on its forehead and saying: “Sue me. Challenge us in court”. However, the problem is that the investigation on which it will be launched, which I think is a certainty, will be a horrible fact situation. It will be on an awful fact situation that some defence lawyer will challenge this section, and if it is overturned, then the whole investigation will go sideways and justice may not be done.

We have suggested on the opposition side that the government stay with the current protocol. “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”. Currently, it is working. The military police feel perfectly free to conduct investigations as and when it sees fit.

The government has made this crazy argument that this is for operational requirements and all that sort of stuff. That is just nonsense. Most military police do not go into live fire zones to conduct an investigation. They do not interfere with exercises and all of the other things that our men and women in uniform do for us. Therefore, the government's arguments are thin indeed.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to talk about several other elements of the testimony. I regret that we were not able to get into the basic concept that we should treat our men and women in uniform in exactly the same manner as we expect to be treated, absent of compelling reasons to the contrary. On the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, the burden is on the military, i.e., the government, to justify either interference in a police investigation or interference in a solider's or sailor's rights.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of giving my hon. colleague for Scarborough—Guildwood as much time as possible, given his hard work on the committee, I would like to provide an opportunity for him to tell us more about the witnesses whose testimony he did not have sufficient time to further elaborate on or share with us the concerns of those who believe that the bill, as currently drafted, is taking us in the wrong direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, the one area that struck me as quite compelling was the issue of summary trials, particularly Col. Drapeau, who stated, “[an] accused before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence”. Then he went on to talk about the limitations on transcripts, evidence and access to counsel, all of which could potentially result in either a Criminal Code conviction or detention. Access to counsel, transcripts, rules of evidence and a right to rebut, these are all things that we as civilians would rightly expect and all of those things are absent. That is an area where the government could have done better. However, in its reach for mediocrity, it achieved it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood would begin his speech by calling on us to bring the military justice system into the 21st century and then cite, as the only reason for supporting these amendments, a case that is quite far back in the 20th century. However, that is typical and it is typical of the stalling tactics by the opposition. In three years under a Liberal government, there was a failure to implement the Lamer recommendations, and in four Parliaments the opposition has conspired to hold back the amendments embodied in the bill.

The member for St. John's East talked about the military police being able to avoid walking into the wrong place at the wrong time because they are not stupid. What if these amendments passed and the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to provide instructions was not in the bill? Then the VCDS stupidly obeyed the law, which is that police investigations in this country are independent, and military investigators, not knowing on a battlefield that an operation was taking place or a live fire exercise was taking place, went to the place where something like that was in fact happening? Who would be stupid in that case? Would the member—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know whether I should deal with a sad and pathetic question such as that. He is impugning seasoned military officers on the military police force with a level of ignorance that is unfathomable.

We have gone through Afghanistan on the basis of the current protocol. We have gone through Libya on the basis of the current protocol. We are in Mali on the basis of the current protocol. As far as I know, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, none of the investigations that have arisen by virtue of police investigations have resulted in any military police being killed, injured or maimed in the entire process.

What really concerns me about this particular bill is that it could have been so much better. For whatever reason, the government wishes to play the “it's all your fault” game. Frankly, it is regrettable to say, but we could have done better for our men and women in uniform.

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

Mr. Speaker, before addressing clause 4 and the related amendments, I would like to provide some background on Bill C-15, so that things are clear for everyone who is watching or trying to follow the debate.

Bill C-15 has appeared in various forms. First of all, Bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper because of prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force. It was intended to simplify the structure of the court martial system and establish a method for choosing the type of court martial that would mesh better with the civilian system. After that, in 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations containing amendments to be made to the National Defence Act.

Then, Bill C-41 was introduced in 2010. It responded to the 2003 Lamer report and the Senate committee report I just mentioned. It contained provisions on military justice, including sentencing reform.

The issue of military judges was addressed in Bill C-16 and therefore was not covered in Bill C-15. Bill C-15 also addressed military committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and contained a certain number of provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints processes.

Then, Bill C-41 died on the order paper because the election was called, but I would like to point out that this bill had been studied in committee and that there had been amendments—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake wishes to rise on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that I have already risen once on the issue of relevance and that chapter 13 of O'Brien and Bosc is quite clear that when we are dealing with issues, especially amendments, at report stage, the discussions should be focused upon those amendments.

I respect my friend from across the way considerably for the input that she has on committee, but I do not believe that it is a good use of our time here in the chamber to be discussing a lengthy history of the entire process of getting to where we are today on Bill C-15, when we are dealing with the amendments by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her Motions Nos. 1 and 2. We are to deal specifically with those amendments for clause 4 of Bill C-15 and I ask that you enforce the rules.

We have rules in the House to improve decorum and to improve the use of time for all members of the House, as well as making valuable use of taxpayers' resources. Members need to be focused on what matters as business, which is what has been put forward through orders of the day. Currently, we are dealing with the amendments at report stage on Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that at the beginning of my speech I briefly mentioned—and perhaps he was unable to hear—that I would begin by quickly commenting on what happened in committee before speaking to clause 4 and the provisions set out in the amendments put forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I was coming to that, but the member seems to be in a rush. He should give me a bit more time.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Once again the Chair thanks the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake for rising on this point of order and the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her reference to it as well.

I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier and possibly offer a suggestion on a go-forward basis.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake points out quite correctly that there are rules of relevance in this place, in particular that when we are at report stage and the House is dealing with specific amendments that have been put forward, debate ought to be focused on those amendments rather than on a broad, general discussion of the entire bill or the subject in general.

He has also suggested, if not stated outright, that in this way business before the House is in some ways similar to how a committee would deal with amendments. The points that he has made are all quite relevant.

The question becomes the latitude that the Chair grants to members to discuss business before the House, such as what would be considered allowable context, preamble or reference to other pieces of legislation or other amendments that had been brought forward on the same piece of business, possibly at committee, or other experiences that the hon. member has had.

Therefore, I would remind all hon. members that it is in the collective interest of this place and of all members that time in the House be used efficiently, that members stick to the matter before the House, keep their comments relevant to it and avoid repetition of points that have been made to the same end in terms of the efficiency of this place.

I would suggest to the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake that the Chair will review the comments he has made today regarding the points of order related to the debate that is taking place in the House today and will return to this matter if it is deemed necessary. However, within that context I would like the House to resume debate on this matter and would state that the Chair will continue to exercise judgment of relevance in a way similar to the way it has been exercised in the past, rather than in the more restrictive way requested by this hon. member. That will remain the practice of the Chair until the Chair has had an opportunity to review the matter. If changes to that practice of relevance are made, they will be announced in the House.

The point that the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake makes goes beyond this debate today and is a more general point. With all due respect to that point, it will be considered and if deemed reasonable or necessary, the Chair will return to this matter in the future.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my brief opening remarks.

I would like to go into some detail about clause 4, which should make the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence happy. He seems to be quite anxious that I discuss clause 4, which is the subject of the amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Bill C-41 was amended in committee, but it died on the order paper. When Bill C-15 was introduced for second reading, the amendments contained in Bill C-41, which had received widespread approval, were not included in their entirety.

As a result, we initially opposed the bill at second reading because we felt it was a step back. There had already been a similar bill, complete with approved amendments, but those amendments were not included in the new bill. We therefore decided to oppose it.

A number of amendments were proposed in committee. The NDP put forward 22 amendments and five subamendments. The Conservatives proposed two. One addressed dates and the other addressed clause 75, which would increase the number of sentences that would not result in a criminal record. That is why the amendment was passed. We have now decided to support Bill C-15 because of that improvement.

However, some problems have still not been resolved. The situation is not perfect, but progress has been made. This bill has not taken us as far backward. We are moving forward.

The NDP proposed amendments to clause 4 of Bill C-15. They were rejected. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. She does not have the right to sit on committee. The hon. member is now presenting amendments, and this is a perfectly normal part of the democratic process, since she did not have the opportunity to do so before.

These amendments pertain to the section of the bill related to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the investigations that will be conducted.

The wording of the second amendment, Motion No. 2, would be changed to read as follows: “The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) and the relevant rationale are available to the public.” “[A]nd the relevant rationale” is what is being added.

I agree with this amendment because it specifies that the Provost Marshal is not just making the guidelines available to the public but also the reasons for them.

This is a worthwhile amendment because it makes it possible to make the instructions and the reasons for them public. It makes it possible to provide a rationale for the guidelines. This lends weight to the instructions that the Provost Marshal could ultimately issue. It is worthwhile.

The other amendment, Motion No. 1, will read as follows if it is passed:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal and in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the Accountability Framework signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal on March 2, 1998, issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation, providing that the rationale for issuing the instructions or guidelines is also stated.

For the people listening to my speech, it is important to understand what the current provision of the bill says. It reads:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

The motion moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands adds a lot of details.

It is important to note that both amendments seek to ensure that a rationale is provided.

I find that really interesting because when such important decisions are made, it is crucial that there be an explanation of how and why they were made. That makes them much easier to accept and it gives a better idea of the intended direction.

I would also like to talk about the importance of strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission, the MPCC. The underlying issue is guaranteeing the independence of the MPCC.

Some aspects of clause 4 concerning the MPCC are a step backwards for the military justice system. Furthermore, there could be interference by the chain of command in military police investigations. Thus, I believe ensuring the independence of the MPCC would be the responsible thing to do.

The amendments specify that the rationale is to be provided, which would at least explain what happened. At the very least, there could be a better understanding of the interference and it might not seem unwarranted because the reasons would be provided.

I would like to point out that a former chair of the MPCC, Peter Tinsley, and the current chair, Glenn Stannard, have expressed their concerns about this provision. Both recommended that it be deleted from the bill. The provision at issue concerns the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and his authority to issue guidelines and instructions in respect of military police investigations.

One of the important things to point out is that the amendments proposed by my colleague would make it possible to provide additional information about the reasons for the investigation. However, clause 4 is problematic.

Of course the NDP will undertake to resolve this situation when it is in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

First, in light of her preamble, does she not think that 10 years is a bit long to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations?

Second, our colleagues from St. John's East and Scarborough—Guildwood have shown contempt for the reality facing members of our military. As a former member of the Canadian armed forces, does the member not agree that this bill must contain specific provisions to ensure that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal is made aware of the situation on the battlefield, if necessary, when he or she is conducting an investigation on a battlefield where such a danger exists?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I do not think that any member should claim that another member has contempt for the Canadian armed forces. I think his comments were unacceptable. The parliamentary secretary should retract his comments. Just because we have a different idea of what constitutes national defence, that does not mean that we have contempt for our soldiers. I find those comments particularly insulting. I work with my colleague from St. John's East every day, and I know that he respects the men and women of our military.

Yes, 10 years is a long time to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations. The Liberals were in power and they did not do so. I do not know why.

That said, instead of introducing a bill similar to Bill C-41, which had been amended, the government introduced Bill C-15, which was a step backwards.

If the Conservatives had introduced a Bill C-15 that was similar to what Bill C-41 had become, we would have perhaps wasted less time. Instead they chose to go backwards. What can we do? They are the ones who introduced the bill, and they decided to go backwards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I largely agreed with the sentiments of the member, at least until she got to the part about the Liberals. In addition to being a very able member of the defence committee, she is also a very mean right winger on Wednesday night hockey. In fact, she flattened the hon. colleague behind her last night. She is embarrassed, but he is even more embarrassed.

I want to ask a specific question with respect to the government's core argument on proposed subsection 18.5(3), which is about live fire exercises, et cetera: does she really believe that military police are so stupid as to not recognize when live fire is occurring on a battlefield?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry. I had trouble hearing the end of my colleague's question because of the noise in the House. I am very sorry, but I did not hear the question. If you could let—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Will the member for Scarborough—Guildwood please repeat his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member, having been an experienced member of the armed forces, really believe the government's core argument that the military police are so stupid that they will pursue an investigation into a live fire zone?

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

No, Mr. Speaker. I think that the commanders of our units and platoons are smart enough to figure out when an investigation is appropriate. You do not carry out an investigation when you are being fired upon. That would be ridiculous. When you are being fired upon, you defend yourself and you get out of there. It is not time to get out your paper and your pencil and take statements.

I think that, logically, everybody knows that an investigation will take place when the time is right, not in the middle of an attack or an operation. No military police officer would try to gather evidence while his platoon is carrying out a tactical operation or some other manoeuvre. If that was my colleague's question, I think that the answer is obvious.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I want to start my remarks by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue that was raised about relevancy. I think the various Speakers in this place are quite, pardon the term, liberal in the way that they allow us to put things into context, because each one of us brings to the House a particular life experience.

I hate to say this, but in my case it was 50 years ago that I was in the Canadian military for a couple of years. I recall one of the first things we were talked to about was good order and discipline. I want to take members back for a moment, again, in the sense of a context of the power and the control that is exercised within military circles. If we were in the military in 1914 and going through basic training, they would be firing live ammunition over the top of us as we crawled through a field. Obviously, over time, those kinds of things changed.

I was in the military in 1963-64. Two years before, a corporal would have had the right to strike me if I was doing something he was not satisfied with. That changed. At the time I was there, they still found ways to draw our attention to their dissatisfaction. As we stood at attention, they would come over and say, “Excuse me, I'm adjusting your tie” and then adjust it so tight that we would start to turn blue.

The context and the reason I am saying this is that it shows the thinking of those people in power and why there has to be some kind of limitation. Rights have evolved for all Canadians in this country over a number of years, particularly the last 50 to 75 years. Other speakers today have talked about the fact that Canadians, average Canadians on the street, would believe that those rules and rights apply to all citizens. Therefore, we find ourselves in a situation, and I will not give the history as others have done, where corrective measures were started in previous houses of Parliament. We did not succeed at those times in concluding them. Then we got to the point where Bill C-15 was brought forward. I understand it was a year, roughly, since the last report calling for change had been received.

There are other remarks I would like to make but I want to speak directly to the amendments that have been proposed today. I want to say very clearly that we do not agree all the time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. However, in these two amendments, she is attempting to go further than the members of the committee were allowed to go by the government, because some of the amendments we proposed in that committee were voted down by the government.

This, at least, affords us all the opportunity to discuss at length some important aspects of the bill that are missing. If we give consideration to the requirement of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to make a relevant rationale available to the public regarding his or her instructions or guidelines given to the Provost Marshal, that is a very serious application of accountability.

When I describe the things that have changed within the military from those past years, from the live fire in training to striking people and all those things, over time people came to clearly understand what improper usage is.

This is one of those cases where now we have the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff put in the public purview where the public will be able to see what his rationale was. I think that would improve the situation. It would require a level of due diligence that is not required today. Therefore, I certainly support that amendment.

The second amendment would require that instructions or guidelines given by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, again, to the Provost Marshal, be in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the accountability framework, signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and Provost Marshal back in 1998. Think of that date. We hear government members on the other side talk about how long it has taken to accomplish changes. It certainly has been a while.

Again, I want to stress that the NDP supports these amendments.

The accountability framework states that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff shall not direct the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal with regard to military police operational decisions relative to an investigation. We have an area here where we are going to have a contradiction in the framework resulting from the amendment, which could be problematic going forward. From our perspective, that whole provision should have been removed. Hopefully I am being clear in the sense of the relationship between these things.

We do believe, though, that the amendment is an improvement. It does not go where we would like it to go totally, but it is an improvement on what is in the bill. We strongly believe that granting the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the authority is in clear violation of that previous aspect. Very clearly, that just means, to the government side, that there is going to be more work required here on this.

I would like to go back to some of the notes I put together a little earlier. I had added those additional thoughts as I was sitting and listening to the debate here. In this place we often comment, particularly across to the other side, about the limitations on debate and the fact that time allocation, over and over, has prevented us from properly looking at a bill.

In this place we all know that sometimes when we are sitting here on House duty that there are debates that do not have the depth that they should have. Most times there is something we can learn from listening to the other members of Parliament. For example, for myself, the first few minutes of my presentation today came about because of the reminders coming from the statements from the government side and from previous members who spoke before me. The value of having that open debate is so important to this place and to what we are able to do.

Let us go back to a previous bill, Bill C-41, which I have not studied to the depth that committee members would have. When it came out of committee it had some recommendations that had passed at the committee stage but were left out of Bill C-15. We are kind of struggling on this side of the House to understand why that was necessary. When there was agreement in the previous committee on Bill C-41, why would the government not say, “We have looked at this. We have studied it. We will advance it forward in Bill C-15”? The government chose not to.

I would suggest a major omission was the failure to include a broadened list of offences, removed from the consequences of a criminal record. During the process on Bill C-15, New Democrats, both in the House and in committee, pressed for changes and amendments in that area. The purpose of that was to reduce the effect of disciplinary offences regarding possible criminal records.

We also challenged the failure of full charter rights in these cases. Full charter rights are as fundamental as it gets. There is no excuse or justification in my mind for a person who is serving their country, in some instances putting their lives at risk, to not have the value of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as every other Canadian has. Our military members, if anyone, who defend our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, who defend our very freedom, should have the absolute rights of all Canadians. I think it is incumbent upon this place to ensure that happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand by the view that members opposite have shown scorn and disregard for the particular situation that military members find themselves in when on mission, which requires the military justice system to be separate from the civilian justice system.

That is at the heart of the debate we are having today about these amendments. It would not be necessary to empower the VCDS to give instructions to independent military police if that special situation the Canadian Forces face did not exist. Does the member who has just spoken understand the bill?

At 18.5(4), in the unamended version, it says that:

The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) are available to the public.

That is in the bill as unamended.

The member also mentioned the desirability of not having some offences heard at summary trial translate into a criminal record. Is the member not aware that the bill as unamended contains an amendment of article 75, which would do just that? By making more speeches in this place, we are delaying the coming into—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that in Bill C-15 there were measures put in place that we agree with. We have already said that we agree with them. However, there are other aspects we are putting forward. To some it is repetitive, yes. Some people have similar comments, because our beliefs are similar.

We believe that the government has not gone far enough. We have had several reports over a number of years delivered to various governments. It is not the sole responsibility of the government. However, the onus has been on the government for the last eight years, and it has not responded. To take it a step further, one of the things that interfered with the delivery of previous bills was the prorogation of the House, which was done by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member started out in 1914 and said that he had been in the army, I thought that the hon. member was older than I remember him to be.

We all know the hon. member has a very keen interest in matters to do with human rights, and human rights do not end just because one puts on a uniform. He made that point quite eloquently.

I would be interested in his comments on the way the British do it with respect to summary trials. The British say that a summary trial cannot take place unless the accused is represented by counsel. There is a right of appeal to a summary appeal court. The appeal court is presided over by a civilian and two military members, and as a general rule, imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the soldier does not have legal representation.

It seems simple, straightforward and consistent with 21st century values. Why is it not here?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Parliament in Britain is our mother Parliament, in some sense of the word. The evolution of democracy, in another sense of the word, occurred--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was no syllable, no particle of that question, and presumably not of the answer, that had anything to do with the amendments in the two motions that are now before this House.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before I address that point of order, I would remind all hon. members of another practice, and that is that when the Chair rises to deal with a point of order, other members will take their seats.

On several occasions this morning, the issue of relevance has arisen. The last time it was raised by the member for Selkirk—Interlake, the Chair recognized the point the member was making. The member for Selkirk—Interlake was essentially taking issue with what I would call the standard practice of how the Chair deals with relevance in this place.

That was recognized, and it was suggested that the Speaker would review this matter and return to the House to clarify those issues. At the same time, I said that for the balance of the debate today, in the interest of proceeding with the business before the House, the interpretation of relevance that has been the standard practice in the House will continue to be exercised, notwithstanding that some members think it is too broad.

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary and other members to respect that judgment from the Chair. The question of relevance, particularly as it arises related to report stage when the House is dealing with amendments, and whether comments that relate to general aspects of the bill should or should not be tolerated will be looked into. However, it has been suggested that at this point, the Chair will not be re-categorizing or re-establishing what those parameters are for the terms of this debate today.

Was the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle rising on the same point of order?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour this point of order for no reason.

However, what I heard this morning helped me to understand the situation. I did not feel that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and my other colleague were being repetitive in their remarks. They gave the matter a lot of thought. They have a sense of duty, and they are doing their work as elected representatives very conscientiously.

However, I did hear very repetitive arguments from the other side of the House, and I know their talking points by heart by now.

That being said, when I heard the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue earlier, I knew exactly what she was getting at. I knew that she was explaining to people what was going on with this so that they could be better informed.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what you have said on the subject.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I will state one more time, to clarify, that I believe the issue raised by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence was more focused on relevance than on repetitiveness, even though the two are often linked. Once again, I would ask all hon. members to allow the House to proceed with the debate, as has been the practice in this place, with the assurance from the Chair that the matter will be reviewed. If it is deemed appropriate, the Chair will return to this matter in the future after having had an opportunity to review all the relevant facts.

We will go back to the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for a short answer to the question.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to prove that I am not as old as everyone thinks, because I can actually remember the question.

The important thing to consider is that we hear from the government side how much delay there has been, yet it has delayed repeatedly in the House today by interrupting speakers and questions. Who is doing the delaying?

Getting back to the commentary on the British system, the rights given their military personnel are exactly what Canadians believe we have already. If we were to go out on the street and talk to average Canadians, they would believe that we have that. The government would be wise to consider the approach of the British government in dealing with its military and in protecting its rights. Canadian soldiers, sailors and personnel deserve exactly the same rights as well, as their charter rights.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate. I had the great pleasure of being before the committee with the Parliamentary Secretary when there were some witnesses who were talking about the very things the amendments today refer to.

I am pleased, because during that debate in the committee, there was a sense, on the issue of summary conviction, that we were not going to get to where we needed to be. I can say to my friends across the way from the committee that I am pleased that we almost got all the way there. I say almost, because it was not all the way, in our view. Nonetheless, on the summary conviction piece, it seems that the testimony was heard.

Without a doubt, the fact that the government side brought forward a change to that piece was welcome. Those are the things we were talking about during those particular two hours with the witnesses. It was a key piece to finding our way through, as much as we had asked for it before. It had been passed historically. Lots of folks have gone through that history and have noted where we were at certain points in time.

This brings us back to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and his authority. There is no question that ordinary people who have never served in the military—I am one of them; there are more of us who have not served than who have—do not truly understand the nature of the criminal justice system within the defence department, because it is unique. Folks are asked to do things that the rest of us are never asked to do in most circumstances. Some of us may have been asked to do certain things, but certainly not to the same degree. As a result, it becomes a unique piece unto itself. The issue is whether that uniqueness changes our ability to give those folks who are in that unique area the same rights as everyone else.

I am not suggesting that it is easy. It is not. This is a complicated piece. The parliamentary secretary, quite articulately, asked about being under live fire. That does not necessarily mean being at war. It could be a live-fire exercise. Live fire could be on Canadian soil at a base somewhere where they are actually doing something.

How do we make sure that folks do not do that? The government's sense is that we need a chain of command, because that is what the forces are used to. They have a sense of a chain of command and who gives the orders. That is how the system works. It is a hierarchical system, and it has to be that way in the sense that when one gives a command, someone has to follow the command and do whatever that is.

How do we fit that piece in a civilian justice system? These are still Canadian citizens, albeit in the armed forces, who we expect to be treated a certain way. I would suggest that they need to be treated in a special way, but not necessarily inside the justice system. That is simply out of respect for them for the things they do.

How do we manage to do that piece? I hear the government side saying that we need to have a chain of command, and we need to trust it. I do not want to put words in the government's mouth, but my sense is that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff can instruct the Provost Marshal and the Vice Provost Marshal to do the right thing. I am not saying that it is wrong to have that trust. However, what if they get it wrong? Is there a check and balance in the system so that if we get it wrong, we have the ability to check it? Unfortunately, the way the legislation is, we do not have that.

In a normal justice system, we absolutely have checks and balances. We may see folks who we would all agree should maybe be incarcerated. Perhaps they should be, but the system was not followed the way it was meant to be followed, with the right evidence, the right to a fair trial, the right to be told that one might be charged and the right to representation.

Some of us may have read about, and many of the folks here who are lawyers may have had experiences with, the fact that folks have been discharged from a criminal charge in the civil system because of their rights not being followed in an appropriate and correct manner. Yet we could probably agree that the people might be guilty. However, the rules are meant to protect all of us who might be charged unjustly. The weakness is not so much a mistrust for the armed forces because we have none. The piece is about the safeguards for the individuals. We need to consider whether their rights under the charter have been waived. There is a lot of evidence to say that is not the case. When people sign on the dotted line to say that they intend to come and work on behalf of whomever, they have not waived those rights as individuals under the charter. Therefore, how do we work with those pieces?

My friend from St. John's East has been working on this file for a while now. I have to thank him for the opportunity to go and sub for him from time to time when he is elsewhere. I have had the great pleasure to hear what folks have commented on this. That was the intent that this side had in proposing amendments. We were pleased the government took hold of the amendment on summary conviction. The other amendment is around this sense of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and how he or she might instruct an investigation.

In the past we have seen where instructions in a civil investigation can go sideways if it looks as though it is not being done in an open, transparent and fair manner. In civil society we then hear the traditional phrase that it is a whitewash because there is no faith in the system. It is not good enough for a system to function, especially a criminal justice system. It must be seen to function not only effectively but fairly and justly, otherwise it is deemed to not be working at all, regardless of who is inside it.

That is the piece we are trying to get the government to see. It is not the case that we cannot trust the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. I do not believe my friend from St. John's East has ever said that. From this side, I have heard a number of my colleagues talk about the great faith they have in the defence department and the men and women who serve in it and the honour they carry forward. The issue is one of how we make the system such that people look at it and deem it to be fair, just and transparent enough so they can say that it works.

I suggest that not everybody who is charged is actually guilty. We get what the parliamentary secretary has called the live fire exercise, which is a situation where we are engaged in hot theatre. Those are two particularly unique circumstances where one would hope the training of the military police officers would not enter into. However, let us assume they did not know there was a live fire at Gagetown, Petawawa, or wherever in the country. Would they expect the commanding officer to say that there was a live fire? We would expect that to happen. The issue then would they could not go in until, rather than they could not go in at all. The problem with a command not doing it at all perhaps becomes not seeing justice done fairly.

Both sides are not far away from where they want to be. What we are debating is this whole sense of how we get there. The belief on the government side is to do it through a chain of command that we trust. Our sense is through a civilian piece or a part that looks like a civilian piece that could be included here. Some of the key witnesses who have experience in the area of military court proceedings, whether it be Lamer, Létourneau or other justices of the courts, have said that we ought to head in that direction. Frankly, I place a lot of trust in where they have decided to take us and where they think we should go.

Therefore, I would encourage the government to take a look at those pieces and move in a holistic approach to this. A band-aid on a problem is just that, a band-aid. It does not heal the situation or fix the overall piece. It simply puts a band-aid on it, which is really where we are with this.

I look forward to questions or comments from my colleagues.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go to another portion of section 18 that we have not discussed yet in relation to my amendments. It is one of the ones that disturbs me.

We heard from the parliamentary secretary that there are safeguards because these instructions will eventually be made public from the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, who in my view should not be interfering in military police investigations. However, when we look at section 18.5(5), we find that there are instances where the legislation contemplates never making it public at all. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff has given instructions and interfered with an investigation if the Provost Marshal considers “that it would not be in the best interests of the administration of justice for that instruction or guideline to be made available to the public”.

We know military justice is different. How far from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do we move if there are also provisions that these instructions are never made public?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the thing about justice is it must always be seen to be transparent, being done as well as accomplishing a fair trial and process. The justice system is not just about charge and conviction, or charge and acquittal. It is about a process that starts from an investigation, to a charge, to a process trial of some description and an outcome. It has to be seen as being open, fair and transparent. That means we need to be inside that piece.

There is special legislation around certain aspects where that is not the case. However, inside the military in these aspects it is very much necessary for it to be open. It cannot be any other way if we are to truly have a fair justice system that folks respect. That is really what it is about, respecting the system. It is not about the outcome of individual cases. It truly needs to be seen as being transparent. It needs to be seen as being done in a fair and honest way and cannot be done in any other fashion.

To have pieces where we can say “This can go, but this cannot” then starts to impugn the system in the minds of folks looking at it. It is not necessarily the way to have a system that would actually, at the end of the day, deem itself to be fair or seem to be fair. That is a major problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I want to thank all the members of the committee who did yeoman's service in getting our bill through and back here at report stage. I also appreciate the amendments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I have two main concerns about the motions being brought forward to amend Bill C-15 at report stage. One is making the reports and the rationale public. I am concerned about how that might impact upon the privacy information of those who were investigated. I am also concerned about how that could, in some situations, have an impact on national security matters that national defence and the Canadian Forces have to deal with from time to time. That is one set of concerns I have with Motion No. 2.

With Motion No. 1, we are setting a dangerous precedent. This is something where we would refer to a technical document in legislation. It could be expanded and become more of a policy document. Usually in legislation we only refer to regulations and never to technical documents. We are taking away the ability of parliamentarians to review everything that is legislatively responsible to Canadians, in this case the Canadian Forces. We are turning that technical document, which is a living, breathing entity that changes from time to time, depending on who the vice chief of defence staff is, and others are, into legislation. That management document should never be referred to in legislation.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear what my colleague, the chair of the defence committee, is saying about the first piece. That needs to be reviewed by folks who understand the technical aspects and nature of it, and that is fair. Regarding the second piece, clearly, there are provisions where massive security is involved. That type of issue would have to be dealt with because it would be a national security issue.

The court system deals with the rights of privacy all the time. It is judged whether it is in the public interest to be open or to be closed. That happens on the civilian side quite often, such as in the most recent Magnotta trial, where folks ask if it should be closed or open. Those rights are determined by the judge inside of the courtroom. That determination would be done on a case-by-case basis, not a unilateral basis.

My view is it needs to be open as many times as it possibly humanly can, with the exception of unique situations that the judge would determine at that moment in time, with the rights to appeal and all those other pieces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be on my feet today to talk to Bill C-15 at report stage and to deal with a colleague's proposed amendment to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The title is interesting. One wishes there were a shorter handle on the title, but it is also more commonly known as the “strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act”.

We have had lots of discussion this morning on the issue of relevance of the debate and what we are talking about. What is important to understand and appreciate here is that the amendment before us for discussion and debate is a piece of a system. It sits in the broader context of the military justice system. It is important to understand the relationship of that amendment and the issues implicated by that amendment in the context of the broader justice system.

Members may recall that we had opposed this bill at second reading on this side of the House, but an important amendment has come out of committee that allows us to reluctantly support the bill when we move on to third stage. I say “reluctantly” because the bill would still be far from what it ought to be. It would make a number of changes to the military justice system that would be positive, but not all of its changes would be positive, and that is why our colleague's proposed amendment to the bill is welcome today. It is an important issue to contemplate and debate.

The bill has had a long history. It was 10 years in the making to get to this point, and it is important that it get a thorough vetting. The parliamentary secretary talks as though his party was not in government for seven of those years, but in fact it was, and he should be asking questions back in the lobby about why we waited around for seven years for this important bill to arrive.

Nevertheless, there is a long history to this bill. It emerges out of a couple of very comprehensive reports.

The Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer had a crack at it in 2003. He made 88 recommendations, which is suggestive of some of the very significant deficiencies in the military justice system.

There was a Senate committee report dealing with the same matters. Then again there was another report by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Patrick LeSage, and the parliamentary secretary should contemplate why the Conservatives sat on that report for a year before bringing it forward if he is in such a hurry to see this bill and these changes implemented.

In the interim, we have had elections. The Liberals had two years with it as well, and they did not do anything, and we have had a Conservative prorogation. It seems there is a general resistance. In fact, we have even walked backwards from where we have been in earlier Parliaments, when we had Bill C-41 die on the order paper.

The significance of Bill C-41 was that it dealt with an issue that is very important to our party, and that is the issue of service-related offences that can proceed through summary trial and result in a criminal record.

Former Colonel Michel Drapeau has spoken at length about the unique nature of military justice systems and the need to balance an expeditious justice system providing for deterrence and ensuring discipline, and the importance of that in having efficient armed forces while also ensuring that the rule of law predominates.

Therefore, in the military justice system we get this summary trial process which, in the normal course in civilian life, we would not recognize as a form of fair justice.

In this process, one's own commander can sit in judgment and there are no transcripts, no right to counsel, et cetera. This is important, because about 95% of cases that go to trial go through this system.

However, we are supporting the bill because at the end of the day we have managed, over the years, to persuade the Conservative Party that fewer of the offences that can go through the summary trial procedure can actually attract a criminal record that a member of the armed forces might take into civilian life. Bill C-15 would lessen the number of those offences. That is a very positive thing and that is why the bill, with or without this amendment, is worthy of our support.

Nevertheless, we are left with an approximate form of justice with this summary trial process, and this is where the importance of the amendment comes in. It is the investigation that precedes that approximate form of justice that becomes extremely important, and that investigation process must be done properly.

The Conservatives have taken the accountability framework that was put together following the Somalia inquiry that set out the relationship between the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal and are turning that administrative document into statute, which is a worthy thing to do. However, in the course of doing so, the Conservatives have done something quite unfortunate, and that brings rise to the amendment today.

This amendment is worthy because the bill would provide new powers to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff with respect to military police investigations, those very investigations that will end up in summary trials. Clause 4 of the bill proposes adding a subsection 18.5(3) to the National Defence Act to say that:

(3) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

Currently the accountability framework language says:

The VCDS shall not direct the CFPM with respect to specific military police operational decisions of an investigative nature.

Further, it says under section 7(a) that:

The VCDS will have no direct involvement in individual ongoing investigations but will receive information from the CFPM to allow necessary management decision making.

Those provisions are there, and they flow from the principles and purpose of the accountability framework. Of course, this accountability framework flows from the extremely unfortunate incidents in Somalia, which, although they may have been in the last century, are critically relevant to this discussion today.

The purpose of the accountability framework that came out of the Somalia inquiry is to ensure the provision of a professional and effective military police service for independent investigations, to balance competing interests and priorities and, critically, to ensure that the Provost Marshal is accountable to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff for “developing and maintaining police standards which are consistent with those of other police agencies”. Who in Canada would want to deny the men and women of our Canadian armed forces an investigation into alleged misconduct that is consistent with those of other police agencies?

That is what the accountability framework allowed. History proves that it is a workable document and provided for reasonable, fair investigations leading into these summary trials.

It is most unfortunate and very much a backward step for the government to now propose in Bill C-15 an investigation process that is inconsistent with those of other police agencies in this country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to contemplate how the government side can say that turning this key component of the Federal Accountability Act on its head is in the interests of military combat situations.

We are talking about military police investigating events of a criminal nature after the fact. The Provost Marshal would certainly be able to control when military police are investigating an event. The idea had never occurred to anyone until 1998 that the Chief of the Defence Staff should ever give instructions to affect the investigation of an event being investigated by military police. We are now told that in 2013 we have suddenly realized that since 1998 this separation of authorities would have somehow put people at risk in a field of battle.

Conservatives say I do not understand it, and they are right. I do not believe it. I do not understand how it could possibly be the case that one would want to accept this reason for causing this entire bill to potentially violate the charter.

I would ask my friend from Beaches—East York for his thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government side has offered up this very narrow hypothetical set of circumstances to put a bill, which is on the whole a very positive step forward, in danger of being deemed unconstitutional. The general rule and principles set out in the accountability framework should survive in Bill C-15. It is the expectation of Canadians that any justice system be fair and reasonable; I would even dare suggest that most Canadians would suggest that there be a higher onus on a justice system that applies to the men and women of our armed forces in light of what we ask them to do on our behalf.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland said that there was no mistrust on the NDP benches toward the military. There obviously is, because New Democrats are not taking the advice of military people, past and present, who have knowledge of this issue; they are taking the advice of people who want to undermine the core principles of the military justice system and civilianize it.

He also said there are no checks and balances. There are. The Provost Marshal is required in the unamended bill to make public the instructions, and if there is improper interference, he has the right to go to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The only argument we have heard from the other side is what I call the argument from stupidity, from the members for St. John's East and Scarborough—Guildwood: the idea that military police are not so stupid that they would ever go to the wrong place at the wrong time. Conservatives also agree that they are not stupid.

However, what would the member for Beaches—East York think of the following situation? If the VCDS chooses to obey the law, which this amendment would have him do as we do in a civilian context, by never interfering or breathing a word to military police conducting an investigation, and military investigators went to a place where an exercise or military operation was about to take place that they did not know about, were not informed of and on which they did not have the benefit of secret operational information, where would the responsibility lie?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it is not a matter of mistrust of the military. The accountability framework emerged from an inquiry in a very unfortunate part of our military history. It set out very clear purposes and principles that Canadians believe in and that New Democrats accept and demand for civilians of this country. That accountability framework was signed by Vice-Admiral Garnett, who was the VCDS at the time, and Colonel Samson, who was the Provost Marshal at the time.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 after my colleagues. I must admit, they made very interesting and very precise speeches on the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank the hon. member for her efforts and for presenting these amendments.

First of all, I must say that I support her amendments. We had presented practically the same ones in committee. Clearly, we are going to support them because they are quite logical.

I will come back to that a little later in my speech because it has been mentioned a few times that consideration of the amendments must be very precise at report stage, which is what I will try to do as much as possible today to enlighten my colleagues on this bill and, more specifically, on the amendments.

If I may, I would like to give a little background before moving on to the heart of the subject, even if it does not please my colleagues.

I think Canadians listening to us would be very pleased to know how Bill C-15 ended up in the House, what we are currently doing and what still needs to be done for it to eventually become law.

The process began in 2003. In this debate today, we have been saying that the process began 10 years ago, following on the report of the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court. The report contained 88 recommendations.

Bill C-15 is a kind of legislative response to the recommendations in that report. However, there is a big “but”, because Bill C-15 does not completely reflect those recommendations. In reality, it responds very little to the report that contained 88 recommendations. In fact, the government has attempted to implement only about 20 of them since then.

Since 2003, the report by the hon. Patrick LeSage, retired Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has also been presented. That was in December 2011. On June 8, 2012, the Minister of National Defence himself tabled that report here in the House. Although the Conservative government has had the LeSage report for over a year, it still did not incorporate any of its recommendations into Bill C-15.

As the hon. member for Beaches—East York pointed out, the government has been sitting on that report for a year now and nothing has been implemented. The NDP, however, did try to have some of those recommendations incorporated into Bill C-15.

There have also been several other versions. I will not spend too much time on this, since that is not really what interests us the most at this stage of the bill. However, there was also Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, which both died on the order paper because of the 2008 election after Parliament was prorogued. Then, in July 2008, there was another version, Bill C-60.

The bill that was most in line with what we wanted was Bill C-41, introduced in 2010, also further to the Lamer report. All of the bills introduced after that report were basically in response to that report. Bill C-41, which had fortunately been amended in committee, also died on the order paper because an election was called, which, as some people may recall, was due to a case of contempt of Parliament on the part of the Conservative government, on a question of access to sensitive documents. That is also not the subject of today's debate. We all remember what happened.

Bill C-15 is similar to Bill C-41, which was the result of committee work in the last session. However, significant amendments made at committee stage during the last Parliament were not included in Bill C-15. When Bill C-15 was introduced, one of our biggest disappointments was that it did not contain all of the changes made to Bill C-41 during the previous Parliament. We were very disappointed, and we wondered why they had not been included in Bill C-15.

However, I should point out that we had a small win in committee and we managed to do some good. Not that long ago, we had to make changes so that nearly 95% of the offences in the code of discipline would no longer result in a criminal record. That is an important win for us. Canadians who do not serve in the Canadian Forces are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which uses a fair and balanced justice system to protect the public. However, we felt that members of the Canadian Forces were not offered the same protection as other Canadians.

That brings me to the two amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I would like to read Bill C-15, as it now stands. We are talking about clause 4 of the bill, which would add sections 18.3 through 18.6 to the current National Defence Act, after the existing section 18.2. The two amendments focus on subsections 18.5(3) and 18.5(4), which read as follows:

(3) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

(4) The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) are available to the public.

We tried to amend these provisions in committee. Unfortunately, those amendments were not accepted and the provisions remained unchanged. Today, two motions were moved. We want to expand on clause 4 to make it a bit more specific by adding the following:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal and in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the Accountability Framework signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal on March 2, 1998, issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation, providing that the rationale for issuing the instructions or guidelines is also stated.

This motion further narrows the proposed amendment to Bill C-15 in order to ensure the transparency of orders given by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, a position created by this bill. All of clause 4 is, in fact, an addition to the current National Defence Act with regard to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

In our opinion, subsection 18.5(3) was much too problematic. The statement that “[t]he Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation” means that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff has the power to give instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal with respect to a particular investigation.

I liked the analogy used earlier by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood about the military and civilian police. He spoke about the mayor of a city calling up the local police chief and telling him how to proceed with an investigation or what he can or cannot do. We would regard that as direct interference in the right to an independent police investigation, whether it was being conducted by the civilian or military police. The law must be much more clear and transparent to ensure that there is no interference in investigations, which must remain as independent as possible.

My time is up. I would be pleased to answer questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perplexed by the member for Sherbrooke's remarks. He claims that the NDP wanted to put in amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted in the last Parliament, that is, in the 40th Parliament. Bill C-41 was introduced in the 40th Parliament.

At report stage, there was no mention of clause 4 or the amendments proposed today by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Why was the NDP prepared to pass the unamended bill, with the current version of clause 4, whereas today it wants to accept the amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands? What has changed? Is this not further proof that the NDP merely wants to prolong the debate?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, as a parliamentarian and legislator, my goal is not to prolong debates, but to make a positive contribution to the debate in order to ensure that a law that is passed is well written and that there is no chance that a bad bill will have direct consequences for the people covered by the bill. That is the duty of legislators.

I cannot speak for the MPs in the 40th Parliament. Like my colleague, the member for Ajax—Pickering and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I was not a member in the 40th Parliament. However, I do know that some specific things were asked for and they were not included in Bill C-15. We were never given an answer by the government about that.

As for our position on clause 4, I would say that if the proposed amendments are not adopted, it will not prevent us from voting in favour of Bill C-15 in its present form.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleague a question about Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. My question is about amendment No. 6020589.

As the representative for Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, I would like to point out that the NDP feels that the Canadian Forces should be held to an extremely high standard of discipline, and in return, members deserve a justice system that adheres to a comparable standard. A criminal record can make the life of a former member very complicated, especially when the member is looking for work or an apartment or wants to travel. Clearly, the NDP has good intentions.

I would like to ask my NDP colleague if he could elaborate on that for our Conservative colleague across the aisle, who does not seem to understand why we are supporting the amendments, and amendment No. 6020589 in particular.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right off the bat that I share my colleague's passion for the armed forces. I have many reservists living in my riding and I visit them quite often. I also frequently visit two regiments in my riding, the Sherbrooke Hussars and the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke. These are two extraordinary regiments and I salute them today.

My colleague mentioned that everyone should have the same rights, but that military justice is unique, since there is a chain of command. My colleagues have spoken about that already today. There must be a difference, of course. We must ensure that the people who serve our country and who dedicate their lives to Canada are entitled to the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the charter gives everyone the right to fair and equitable justice and access to counsel. That is not covered in Bill C-15. Despite the differences in the military justice system, members of the military must have the same rights as all Canadian citizens, which includes access to a fair and equitable justice system. As stated in section 10 of the charter, they must also have the right to retain and instruct counsel and receive legal advice, which is not currently the case. Members of our military deserve some respect for everything they go through every day.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I am pleased to be on my feet yet again to speak to the bill. We are of course supportive of the amendments that are in front of us. We have been supportive of the negotiated and agreed bill that came out of previous Parliaments. I echo other members who have said this could have been passed quite a long time ago. It is absolutely true.

I cannot help but think of those soldiers who have criminal records from maybe six months, eight months or a year ago, who would not have a criminal record if it happened six months from now, assuming the bill actually finds it way into law. Is that not a shame, because for some time now the official opposition has been—I am going to use this word—harping on this issue of criminal records?

I was reviewing some the earlier issues of Hansard, and there are quite a few on a relatively straightforward bill. I recalled my time as our defence critic when I worked with the parliamentary secretary on the bill. I was not on the committee that crafted it, but I was the critic at the time it was working its way through the House.

I remember working with the hon. member. I enjoyed the experience. There was a great deal of co-operation. Of course we are talking about back when it was a minority government. Things were very different then. The government was a little more open to listening and considering other points of view then, and the proof that it changed was when Conservatives had a majority government and then brought in what should have been the same bill. It was the same bill sans a number of important clauses that we thought should be in it, up to and including the issue of—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the member standing for a point of order? It appears he is not.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre can go on with the debate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I glance at the other side, I will move my glance past that member and move on to the parliamentary secretary, who is clearly here to do some serious business.

Before the hon. member got up on who knows what point, I was commenting on the level of co-operation, and I was glad for that. It is an important file regardless of whether one is the minister, the parliamentary secretary or a critic for the official opposition, third or fourth party. The fact that we could come together said a lot about the members of Parliament who were on that committee and the intention of all sides.

I was saying that the level of co-operation switched when the Conservatives got a majority government. We had a document that was not perfect in the view of the official opposition. We know the government did not think it was perfect. Everybody put a little water in their wine and compromised a little, so that on the vast areas where we did agree, we could actually bring in a bill and get it passed.

However, because of politics, we are all going to be playing the blame game, pointing to other members and saying they slowed it down, saying they did not do the right thing. The fact remains that our fellow citizens in uniform cannot be too pleased with the way we are treating their legal system.

If I might say, it is one thing to be saluting the troops, acknowledging the troops and thanking them, but there is a whole lot more to it than just sending them off to be in harm's way. There is so much more to what it means for a nation to be supporting its soldiers, rather than just waving, saluting and saying “Yay, way to go.” This is one of those times and one of those areas.

I was looking at the debate last time, and it was interesting because the accusations being hurled from the government members were that we were trying to slow it down, and I think their main reason was that we supposedly did not like defence or we did not like the armed forces, which makes no sense whatsoever. The government side was accusing us of that.

We kept standing up and saying we did not want to delay it but we wanted to get some improvement. We wanted to get it improved to the point where it was as close as possible to the bill we already agreed on. If we could get that far, we were prepared to support it even if it did not contain all the changes we wanted.

However, because of the tenacity of the official opposition in refusing to let go of that issue and in refusing to allow ourselves to be browbeaten into supporting something we did not want to, we were being accused of unfairly holding things up. That argument does not hold a lot of water, given the fact that most of what we were seeking in those previous debates is now here in this bill.

We have an opportunity today to make an even greater improvement, and that is a good thing. What would be even better is if the government would take seriously the review of the entire military justice system and not just do it piecemeal. This is not just us. There are judges—and I will probably get a chance to read the quote in a response. This is coming from our jurors, our judges, saying that we should not do it in a piecemeal way, that we would better serve the defence of Canada and the soldiers who staff it if we did an entire review, wall to wall.

The government did not do it. It did not even bring in all the recommended changes from the first review. It received another review. It was tabled in June 2012, and there was no response to that one. Interestingly it took the government six months to table it.

Then a year later there is still nothing done. It raises the question of how serious the government is. We had to drag it, kicking and screaming, to this point, where we could protect the future of our soldiers through their not having criminal records.

I do not know why the parliamentary secretary is laughing at that. I do not see anything humorous in it. I did not mean it to be humorous. I was pointing out the importance and severity of the issue.

Finally, the official opposition is now at a point where, reluctantly, it will support the bill.

There has been no artificial delay. We said we would not pass the bill because it did not have these components and in particular this one here, the criminal records. We focused on it. We said so over and over, to the point where the government accused us of just deliberately delaying for some unknown reason. The government accused us of that.

However, we did not blink. We said no. The government could use its majority and ram it through; we could not stop it, but make no mistake, at every opportunity we had, we would not fast-track the bill. We would not let it go through any more quickly than necessary. We were going to stand up and keep making these points under the leadership of our defence critic, and that is what we did.

It is always a bit risky. However, at the end of the day, the government came to its senses enough to realize that, by acquiescing, it not only solved a bit of its problem with the party opposite it in the House, but I would like to think it also realized that this is in the best interests of our soldiers. That is who the legal system is there to serve.

Remember, we are a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. We respect so greatly the rights that individuals have. The government accuses us of being soft on crime and all this stuff. This is the same application. All we in the official opposition are saying is that there are ordinary citizens who voluntarily join and offer up, ultimately, their lives to the service of defending this country and its people. They deserve better than a piecemeal approach to reviewing the military justice system; they deserve better than a government just accusing the opposition of not caring enough; and they deserve better than to see it take so long for some justice to actually be brought to our military justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre spent an entire speech without referring to the motion that is before us, which is to amend the bill. He says he wishes the bill to pass, as we agreed at committee, yet he is speaking here as part of a party that has said it is in favour of the amendment.

My question for the member for Hamilton Centre is, therefore, very simple. It was not answered by the previous member. I have not heard an answer yet. Why is the NDP favouring this amendment to an article of the bill whose version in the previous Parliament, in Bill C-41, it was prepared to accept? What is it in the tenacity of the NDP that leads it to invent a principle, invent a commitment that it never showed in committee, in this Parliament or the previous Parliament, at the last minute, and put up a number of speakers today to delay debate on a point that is now suddenly important to it, which we have never heard it speak on before, in four parliaments? What is that other than delay of an important issue, delay of the very objective that the member for Hamilton Centre has himself articulated today?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the member that, apparently, there were witnesses who came forward and gave evidence to this effect.

In fact we know that once the bill is passed, it will still need more work because an entire review needs to be done. We have made the commitment that the NDP, when it forms government, will do that wall-to-wall review, even if the current government will not. There is the difference. The difference is that we recognize there is still work to be done, even with this amendment and even with this bill passing. This House will be seized with this matter again in a few short years, and we will be making things even better.

Does that mean we should not pass the bill today? No.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues on the amendment that has come up from time to time is what I call a bogus issue of the live fire exception: that somehow the VCDS—not the commanding officer, not the guy in the field—will know that there is potentially a live fire operation. When it is the VCDS sitting in Ottawa, the guy who tells the chief of police—that is, the Provost Marshal—what to do and not the investigators in the field, the real worry here is other types of investigations. What about detainee issues in Afghanistan? What about the incident that occurred when our committee was in Afghanistan, when the commanding officer was charged with conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and sent home because of an inappropriate fraternization with another officer? What about potential interference with those things?

These are the kinds of worries we have. They are worries that the relationship is not proper and professional and at arm's length. That is why we think the protocol that was signed in 1998 is the proper way to go, not the backward step that is being taken here.

Does the member have any comment to make in that regard?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my first thought is how lucky we are in the official opposition to have such a fantastic defence critic who understands these issues so well. I am not a lawyer, not everyone here is. I am a layperson so I bring whatever practical experience and knowledge, as well as tapping into expertise. However, I listened to the hon. member point out in a very short period of time the flaws in the one example that the Conservatives stand on.

Is that not what people do when they do not have a really good argument? I have done it myself, so I know it works. They take one good issue and put it down on the ground and just stand on that one little thing and do not move. That is their one position. That one example is not nearly enough for us to be swayed to see this differently.

The hon. member for St. John's East has pointed out other equally important examples that also make the case that this would be the right change to make. Therefore, the Conservatives' one example, in our opinion, is not nearly enough. It is a point, but it is just one point. It is not enough in the tsunami of points that our defence critic can bring forward to justify the position we have over the position the government has.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and to speak to the amendments made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Let me begin by underscoring the fact that there are many important reforms in the bill, and the NDP will be somewhat reluctantly supporting this long, overdue update to the military justice system when it comes up for a vote at report stage.

That being said, New Democrats also recognize that the legislation is just a first step, with much more left to accomplish to effect the type of change we are seeking for Canada's military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline, and they in turn deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard.

At its core, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41, which came out of committee in the 40th Parliament. However, important amendments passed at committee stage in the last Parliament were not included by the government in Bill C-15. One such omission was the failure to include a measure to broaden the list of offences removed from the consequences of a criminal record.

Most Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can receive a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts, which is why New Democrats fought relentlessly to ensure that the necessary changes were made to streamline and modernize Canada's military justice system.

When Bill C-15 was first presented in October 2011, New Democrats immediately recognized the deficiencies of the bill and set to work, both in the House and at committee, to ensure the legislation was the best it possibly could be to achieve the goal of modernizing Canada's military justice system. My colleagues at committee pressed for the necessary changes and amendments to reduce the effect of disciplinary offences, of possible criminal records, and challenge the failure of the legislation to grant full charter rights.

Thanks to the hard work of New Democrats on the defence committee, particularly the member for St. John's East, the list of offences and the number of cases that will not attract a criminal record has been broadened and now account for approximately 95% of offences. New Democrats additionally fought to ensure that previously convicted CF members would actually have their records expunged. We also moved a series of amendments to improve the bill, demonstrating our commitment to reform.

Some of the key amendments presented by my colleagues included giving the Chief of the Defence Staff the financial authority to compensate CF members in the grievance process; changing the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership and exclude active duty CF members, enhancing the independence of the board; a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record; and clarifying the letter of the law, as recommended by Justice Lesage, to make it clear that a charge must be laid within a year of a service offence.

In spite of all of the successful amendments that New Democrats were able to make at committee stage, we recognize that much still needs to be done to ensure that Canada's military justice system is the best that it can be. Some of the changes New Democrats would still like to see include conducting an independent wall-to-wall review of the military justice system, and providing a legislative response to the Lesage report within a year.

Here the NDP stands with esteemed Justice Létourneau in calling for the Canadian government to end its one-off approach to amending the military justice system and to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of the entirety of the sections of the National Defence Act pertaining to the military justice system. In addition, the NDP is calling for the Conservative government to bring a legislative response to the Lesage report within one year.

The members of the Canadian Forces deserve no less.

Let us look at the reforming of the summary trial system. Although some progress has been made, we believe that further reforms are necessary and a review of the summary trial system is required. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record without proper procedural fairness for the CF member. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial, and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This process can have an unduly harsh effect on the offender in question and lacks traditional judicial standards. New Democrats would like to see more reform in this area.

We would also like to see the expansion of the service offences exempted from receiving criminal records. The New Democrats understand that minor service offences should not lead to criminal records that impact CF members outside of their military duties. We fought for an expansion of these offences since Bill C-15 was first introduced and we will continue fighting on behalf of the service men and women whose post-military lives could be affected by minor service offences that result in criminal records.

We need to reform the grievance system. A major flaw in the military grievance system is that the Chief of the Defence Staff presently lacks the authority to resolve any and all financial claims arising from a grievance, contrary to a recommendation in the Lamer report. Despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence agreed to this recommendation eight years ago, the matter is still not resolved. The New Democrats believe that the minister should finally implement this recommendation at the earliest possible date.

We also believe that the government needs to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 gives the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff authority to direct military police investigations. This measure is inconsistent with existing arrangements in the accountability framework as a clear violation of maintaining the independence of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Allowing the chain of command to interfere with military police investigations is an irresponsible measure that flies in the face of the harsh lessons learned from the Somalia inquiry. Past and present chairs of the Military Police Complaints Commission have stated as much. Come 2015, the New Democrats will work to make the changes necessary to ensure the full independence of the MPCC.

In conclusion, with colleagues such as the member for St. John's East and the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, and their continuing commitment to military families and our veterans, Canadians can be assured that the NDP will continue fighting to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the members of our armed forces who put their lives on the line for the service of Canada each and every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks by the member for Sudbury, listening hard for the insight I was hoping to have with regard to the motion in front of us. We are discussing a motion to amend a bill that has already been considered at great length at second reading and in committee. However, he did not even mention clause 4, which is the subject of the motion.

Neither he nor any of his colleagues have yet to explain why today the NDP is supporting a motion that would drastically amend clause 4 when in committee in this Parliament, and in the previous Parliament, the New Democrats were prepared to accept clause 4 as unamended. Why were they happy to have the version of the bill we all agreed to in committee back in a minority Parliament, when they had more leverage and influence in committee, accept clause 4 as it was in committee in this Parliament, and then all of a sudden at report stage an amendment pops up from someone who was not in the committee and they are prepared to support it?

Does this not speak to the motives of the NDP?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have a point of order.

I would just remind members that when there is a request for a point of order, the Chair is on his feet and everyone else sits down.

The hon. member for St. John's East on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not think it is appropriate for a member of Parliament who is on a committee to put facts that are not true to another member of Parliament who was not there and ask him to comment on it.

There was an amendment proposed and defeated in committee on the section the member is talking about. The bill passed at committee on division, not supported by this hon. member. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to put untrue matters to a member and ask him to comment on it based on—

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to go back and finish the question.

He is using up a substantial amount of time. I do not know if he wanted to add anything further or if I could go to the hon. member for Sudbury to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is very simple. Clause 4 was in this version, the version of Bill C-15 that was reported back to the House in the 40th Parliament. It was in the same version after consideration by his colleagues in committee in this Parliament. Why is there suddenly, after four Parliaments' consideration of the bill, a desire on the part of the NDP to amend clause 4?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to answer that question, because it seems to me that it has been answered numerous times. The only question the parliamentary secretary has is the same one over and over again.

I thought we were in a debate. I thought we were listening to new ideas to try to find ways to make the bill better. I believe that at the top of this, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands brought amendments forward to make it better. Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary is confused. We are in the House of Commons to try to create legislation that works for Canadians rather than to ask a simple question over and over again.

This question has been answered numerous times. I would actually like to ask him a question. Why has the government not recognized that we need to fix Bill C-15 to ensure that we have the same standards that all Canadians can expect from their legal system?

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not the way the process works.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to me that the opposition, both official and otherwise, is basically saying that this is good and is a move forward but that it is not perfect and could be better, and here is a small way in which it could be made better. Yet we get this wall of resistance to what is ultimately a relatively minor change. This is what happens in committee. This is what happens here. We get this bizarre system of ridicule, which makes it very hard to support the government, even when, by the operation of random luck, it actually gets it right, or mostly right.

If the hon. member looks at the section being debated, which is a very small section, it does not restrict the VCDS to simply saying that there is live fire, so we cannot go there. It lets him or her tell the police that this is where they go, this is where they do not, and this is how to conduct its investigation. It is a pretty serious issue.

I would be interested in his comments on the enemy of perfection.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that it makes us scratch our heads as we sit in the House of Commons talking about and debating a bill, trying to find ways to make it better. When we do support something that is being brought forward, they still question it. It makes us wonder where their thinking is. Sometimes it seems ideological rather than an attempt to make the best laws for Canadians.

I would also like to mention that there are many validators of this position. Peter Tinsley, the former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, spoke to this. He said:

My very brief summary submission is that if Bill C-15 is passed into law in its present form, inclusive of the new subsection 18.5(3) authorizing the VCDS to interfere with police operations and investigations, it will be inconsistent with the principles of police independence as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as late as 1999 as underpinning the rule of law, as well as run counter to the norms of police-government relations...

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15 on military justice once again.

I would like to begin by saying a few words about what was truly an excellent week for the official opposition, the NDP. Yesterday evening, speaking of justice, one of our colleagues succeeded in getting a bill on sexual identity and the protection of transsexual and transgender people passed. Congratulations! That was a good example of our New Democratic values.

We also put forward a motion on science, which the Conservatives rejected. We revealed the truth about the Conservative government: it does not like science, rational thought or facts. We already knew that, but now we have incontrovertible proof. What a victory for the NDP.

Now, with this bill, thanks to the hard work of my New Democratic colleagues in committee and in the House, we have persuaded the government to listen to reason and we have improved this bill, which, initially, was deeply flawed.

This is a step in the right direction, and I am very proud of the NDP's work. The official opposition has made things better and ensured greater respect for the men and women who defend our country and serve in the armed forces.

There is room for improvement in this bill. The government waited too long. We need a comprehensive overhaul of the military police justice system. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has dragged its feet. It has made small changes here and there that do not meet the needs of the men and women of our armed forces. It has refused to adopt a comprehensive approach that would solve all of the problems at once.

Justice Lamer's report came out in 2003, and it is now 2013. That means that these recommendations have been pending for 10 years, over several Parliaments. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have dragged their feet, proving that even though they claim it is a priority, they do not have much respect for the men and women who serve in the Canadian armed forces. Sadly, their actions prove that this is not a priority. There is also the issue of respect for our veterans, which comes up often.

The official opposition is often accused of not liking the armed forces. The Conservatives often make somewhat dishonest, vicious and mean attacks in that respect. The NDP's work in this area shows how rigorous we are and how much we respect the people who serve in Canada's armed forces.

We ask a lot of them. We often ask them to sacrifice their family life, to go abroad and put themselves in extremely dangerous situations where they risk not only getting hurt, but also losing their lives. We cannot ask these Canadians and these Quebeckers to give so much unless we, as a country, as a government, as legislators, put in place a set of mechanisms that will ensure that they are treated with respect, fairness and compassion.

More and more countries are thinking about how to ensure that the military justice system in large part respects human rights and international conventions. Thanks to pressure from my NDP colleagues, we managed to improve the situation of our soldiers. Since we are asking so much of them, we must give them back as much.

As the representative of the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I believe it is important to move in the right direction. That is what we have done and what we are continuing to do here today. I say this in anticipation of the parliamentary secretary's question when I finish my speech in 10 minutes. Our successful work means that 95% of disciplinary code breaches no longer lead to a criminal record. That progress is in large part responsible for the fact that the NDP caucus is now united in supporting Bill C-15.

At the time, I remember rising in the House and making much more critical comments, because there had not been amendments, which were made later.

We had a problem with the current system because relatively minor disciplinary infractions left a permanent mark on the lives of these people, who are often relatively young when they retire from the armed forces and who have a career after leaving. Members can imagine how difficult it can be for them to find a new job, new occupation or new profession, especially if their military criminal record, resulting from a breach of conduct or bad behaviour when they were members of the Canadian armed forces, follows them.

It was unfair. This hung a millstone around people's necks and put them at a disadvantage for the rest of their careers. However, we fought for them. We stood strong. We argued. The members of the committee did their work. Our excellent defence critic led the fight on this. Today, given the improvements made to this bill, the NDP caucus will support it.

The amendments made to clause 75, which pertains to criminal records, are a great victory for the NDP. That is why I started my speech by talking about our recent victories, which always make us happy, despite the fact that we are dealing with a majority government that rarely listens to parliamentarians or Canadians.

That is not all. I also wanted to point out that the NDP fought to ensure that many members of the Canadian Forces who have already been convicted can have their criminal records erased. This is not simply for the future; it also rights past and present wrongs. That was very important to us.

We also moved a series of amendments to improve the bill in order to show our commitment to our men and women in uniform, as well as to a more comprehensive reform of the system that would make it possible to implement a more logical, consistent and respectful structure. For example, we suggested giving the Chief of the Defence Staff the financial authority to compensate members of the Canadian Forces as part of a grievance resolution process. This is found in the amended version of clause 6 of Bill C-41, in direct response to a recommendation made by Justice Lamer 10 years ago.

We also want to make changes to the composition of the grievance resolution committee to include 60% civilian membership and to not include active members of the Canadian Forces. This was the amended clause 11 of Bill C-41, which would help make the committee more independent. These changes are important to us, because there is a problem with the current system, in that the judge is both judge and jury. The danger of being judged by one's peers is that they are involved. We believe the judicial process must be independent to protect the rights of the accused. That is a basic judicial principle that is generally applied in civilian society.

We think that the process should be made more civil, in the sense that more civilians should be involved in the process so that people who are directly involved do not end up judging their subordinates, especially in cases of insubordination.

We also proposed a clause to ensure that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. This is the bill's famous clause 75.

The NDP also proposed that we guarantee the independence of the police by abolishing subsections 18.5(1) to 18.5(5), in clause 4 of the bill, to prevent the Chief of Defence Staff from issuing specific instructions on an investigation to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Once again, this is a matter of independence, respect and the basic principle of justice.

Lastly, we asked for precisions regarding the letter of the law, as recommended by Justice LeSage, to indicate that a charge must be laid within a year after the offence was committed.

This concludes my speech to show how much the NDP—the official opposition—cares about this issue. We care about the men and women who defend our country, who bear arms and who risk their lives. They do their job, and we—in the NDP and in the opposition—do ours too, in their best interests and in the best interests of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, my question is very simple. Why is the NDP favouring an amendment that it has never mentioned before today? It never mentioned it in committee, at second reading or during the previous Parliament.

Is it because the NDP lacks expertise and had to wait to hear from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in order to understand the idea? Or is it simply because the NDP is trying to needlessly prolong this debate?

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative government, we in the NDP like debate. We do not try to muzzle anyone. We do not stop debates unnecessarily, as this government has done by imposing 30 time allocation motions in this Parliament, showing utter contempt for parliamentarians and the work we do.

Why can we support amendments here today that come from other political parties? Because we are capable of listening. We are capable of hearing and seeing what is in the best interest of Canadians. I would remind the House that when the orange wave swept through Quebec nearly two years ago, our slogan was “Working Together”.

This is a perfect example to illustrate that we in the NDP are capable of working together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie both for his speech and his exchange with the Conservative member, who is obviously not listening to Canadians.

Before I ask my question, I would like to say that when the NDP is in power it will make the military justice system fairer for members of our armed forces who risk their lives to serve Canada. The members opposite can take notes if they want to change their policies. The Conservative government has been systematically incapable of putting in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure the independence of the Military Police Complaints Commission and the courts of the military justice system.

I will now put a question to my colleague, who takes note of amendments no matter who proposes them. Can my colleague tell me why the NDP will support the amendments? I would like him to talk to us about amendment no. 6021288, which was proposed by a colleague in the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for a short answer. Then we might have time for another question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his very specific question. I would also like to say to members that I recently had the pleasure of visiting Chicoutimi—Le Fjord with him. He is lucky to represent such a beautiful riding.

This is what we are proposing. We want to undertake a comprehensive study and reform summary trials, which are the most common type of trial, but present certain problems with respect to basic justice. We want to expand the list of military offences that do not result in a criminal record, and we want to reform the grievance system.

Therefore, unlike the present Conservative government, we are committed to a military justice system that will work in the best interests of members of the military.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the parliamentary secretary's question for the member. The NDP actually did put forward an amendment on this very item. It was a better amendment than the one being proposed and debated today, in my opinion. However, before there is too much back-patting, I want to note that the NDP has in some respects moved the debate forward in terms of a simple and elegant way of dealing with the very subject that the hon. member spoke to, namely, the disconnect between the severity of the offence and the actual service offences.

All parties in the opposition have every right to ask for a relatively simple move toward fairness and justice for our soldiers, sailors and air people, and that is the motivation behind the issues around subsection 3.

Could my hon. colleague reflect upon the issue that has been raised, namely, the openness, the way in which one could actually drive a truck through, subsection 3, if a VCDS chooses to drive a truck through this section? It is not restricted in the same manner that the government is saying it is restricted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the truck analogy.

I am rising in the House to thank my colleague from the Liberal Party for his kind words, for his appreciation of the work of the New Democrats and his willingness to set the record straight.

I spoke about science and fact at the beginning of my remarks. I thank him for taking the time to correct the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

In fact, the NDP had tabled an amendment on that issue because it was a concern. However, we, like the Liberal Party, are also capable of accepting that other political parties have good ideas. We proved that today. When an idea is good, regardless of political stripe, we can support it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we wonder why we do certain things in life. Minutes, days or weeks go by and we wonder if we were struck by lightning or something. I must have dreamt about the parliamentary secretary last night, and I mean nothing untoward by that. I do not want to start any rumours.

After a crazy day filled with justice issues, I knew that I still had to prepare a speech on Bill C-15. I do not believe that there are many military justice experts in the House, and I do not claim to be one myself. Some members have some military experience that must surely help them.

Still, I did as I always do and I began by reading the bill. Then, I enjoyed reading what happened in committee, because we are at report stage and we are looking at the amendments proposed by the Green Party member.

Since this morning, the parliamentary secretary has been rising, proudly bringing us to order and trying to convince the Speaker that we are breaking the rules because we are not talking about the amendments or the business at hand. It is as though I were reliving my nightmare from last night.

After reading what happened in committee, I was not surprised to see that they took this path, which does not do justice to the file we are debating. The majority of those who have spoken in the House have said that this is not the first time this has been studied during a parliament. However, it could be said that this is being used as an aggravating factor.

It is clear that, on a number of occasions, federal parliaments have decided that changes needed to be made to military justice. There is nothing inherently wrong with pushing for amendments that are fully warranted for a sector of the Canadian public.

We need to move beyond slogans about how great the army is and how wonderful our men and women in uniform are. We need to move beyond words. We need to do more than what this government constantly does. No matter what the topic, they focus on photo ops and headlines. However, when it comes time to act, nothing happens.

Yesterday evening, I was definitely having a nightmare, but I was very happy to be reconciled with the fact that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I sometimes find it tedious to have to convince my colleagues to propose certain amendments to various bills, however well-meaning they may be. I got a glimpse of another committee, of which, thank God, I am not a member.

I considered the file before us and the proposed amendments. The official opposition is not proposing those amendments like some sort of crude magic trick, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. These amendments are being proposed as a result of testimony heard from people who have experienced military justice first-hand within our armed forces.

Just for fun, I decided to dig up some of the testimony that was particularly relevant to the amendment proposed by the member from the Green Party. Here is some of what Colonel Drapeau had to say:

At the end of the day, I hold a firm belief that we owe our soldiers an immeasurable debt of gratitude for bringing glory to the Canadian flag, for bringing unflinching solidarity to our allies, and for impeding a global threat to national security.

In deploying to Afghanistan, our soldiers carried with them our rights and values....they put their lives at risk so as to give the Afghan people a taste of democracy and the rule of law. Sadly, many did not return.

I believe that Bill C-15 should in many ways be in recognition of, and be the incarnation of, their courage, their commitment, and their sacrifices. Out of gratitude as well as justice to these soldiers, Bill C-15 should be first aimed at protecting their rights, not creating more bureaucracy, military lawyers, and military judges. It should be written from the perspective of soldiers and their commanders, not the military legal staff serving in the safe enclave of National Defence Headquarters.

I will spare the House some of his other comments, for he had some criticisms of various aspects of the bill.

We are at report stage, looking at the amendments proposed by the hon. member from the Green Party.

I have been hearing a bitter undertone to these criticisms even though the debate should touch on as many aspects as possible out of respect for the men and women who sacrifice themselves, dedicate themselves and do things on a daily basis that very few of us would do. They risk their lives in defence of our values. They deserve more than a petty debate that cannot seem to get past the comments and insults that I have read about people who gave their lives. I am astounded at how some Conservative members treated some of the witnesses, including Colonel Drapeau, by accusing them of just trying to sell books.

Back to the amendments. I would like to go off on a tangent because even though I am not an expert on the subject, this issue is important to me. Many of the people who live in the riding of Gatineau work for the armed forces. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them.

Yesterday evening, I was reading testimony to prepare for this and become more informed about the subject, knowing full well that I would be hearing the outraged and sometimes outrageous remarks of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Life is full of coincidences. I realized that one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee was a former law school classmate, Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Marie Dugas. I would like to give him my regards. He came to talk about his experience as a lawyer and as the director of the Canadian Forces Defence Lawyers. I would also like to congratulate him on the work he has done defending the rights of these people.

The Green Party amendments were not pulled out of thin air. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence may have been ignorant of the facts or may have failed to understand, when he said that the NDP never suggested any amendments. That is false and insulting and not the case at all. My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood was absolutely right.

The good thing about the NDP's proposed amendment is that it was based on something even better than what the Green Party amendment attempts to do. It was based on the recommendation of the Military Police Complaints Commission. That is exactly what the NDP suggested. The commission recommended removing the section in question.

However, as we know, and I see it all the time at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, government bills are often so badly written and fundamentally flawed that we know they will wind up in court one day. We would like to be able to delete clauses, but we all know that we cannot. They cannot be deleted simply because they go beyond the scope of the bill.

When these kinds of amendments are proposed, we are told that they cannot be presented. We have to proceed as our Green Party colleague did and introduce an amendment that makes the bill a little more palatable, although not perfect.

I probably will not have time to repeat everything that the Military Police Complaints Commission had to say about the famous new subsection 18.5(3) in clause 4, the subject of the Green Party member's amendments. Basically, the Commission believes that there is a problem in the clause related to the independence of operations and accountability. We would have preferred that the clause be deleted.

I highly commend the NDP members who sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence. I commend them for their patience. They were subjected to a number of unpleasant and mean-spirited comments. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie mentioned this earlier. This sometimes surprises me coming from people with diplomatic experience. I just cannot fathom it.

Therefore, I congratulate the team that did its utmost to make this a fair law that respects our charters. I am saying that for our men and women in the Canadian Forces. Unfortunately, because we have a closed government that does not want to listen to anyone, the bill is the way it is. It improves on what we had in the past, but it could have been so much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, during previous discussions about Bill C-15, we spoke about the interference of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in the Military Police Complaints Commission. We want to avoid such interference. The parliamentary secretary gave examples of investigators that could find themselves in the middle of a conflict.

I would like the hon. member to better define the concept of interference. I think that there is a distinction to be made between a situation in which a commander tells someone that this may not be the best time to conduct an investigation without necessarily being able to say why and one in which he gives instructions and interferes in an investigation. Can the hon. member explain that distinction?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has already mainly explained this nuance. She is one of the people I would like to sincerely commend for the patience she showed on the Standing Committee on National Defence. In all seriousness, despite my almost respectable age, I would not have had such patience and I might no longer be an MP because I might have said some really disgraceful things. I will avoid doing that.

Since my colleague has presented me with the opportunity, I would like to quote the commission. The commission said that it does not take issue with the general supervisory role of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff—the VCDS—vis-à-vis the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal—the CFPM—set out in subsection 18.5(1), nor with the authority of the VCDS to issue general instructions to the CFPM in respect of the discharge of his responsibilities. The problem arises when those instructions start to interfere in cases. Then it comes dangerously close to interference.

The government's problem is that it did not make a distinction. The government is not detail-oriented, which is not a compliment. This is a bad habit that would be in the government's best interest to break, particularly when it comes to such important portfolios that affect our men and women in the Canadian Forces. These people give of themselves to serve our country and I think that we should try to stick as closely as possible to the principles of justice, fair play, natural justice and equality before the law. There is not necessarily any evidence of that in Bill C-15, at least not as much as there should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Gatineau and to her response to the first question. However, I still do not know how she feels about the amendments. She has yet to speak about them and has not shared a single new fact about her opinion.

Does she know what is in the amendments? Why does the NDP support the amendments today, when it did not support them in committee? It did not propose them or support them at second reading or during previous parliaments. What has changed over the last 10 years?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Gatineau has one minute to respond.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he contradicted himself a bit in his question. He started by saying that he listened to my speech, but that is clearly not the case.

Perhaps he wants me to talk about the two motions moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The first motion proposes that clause 4 of Bill C-15 be amended by replacing lines 11 to 13 with the proposed amendment. Perhaps he wants me to talk about the second amendment as well. We have already said it and I will say it again. This time, he should listen carefully.

We did better. Even the member for Scarborough—Guildwood said that in committee, the NDP did more than just propose amendments such as the ones proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The NDP called for the clause to be removed completely. That would be a very smart amendment to make.

However, the amendment was not in order because it went beyond the scope of the bill. It could have been accepted by the government opposite. Just because an amendment is not procedurally in order does not mean that we cannot continue. It makes no sense.

I argued before the commission about this clause. The commission feels that it would be best to remove the clause. That is what should have been done. The member should not say that I have not spoken about the amendments. We were not about to ask for anything less than what should be done. That is what the parliamentary secretary is accusing us of. That is ridiculous.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Gatineau, who covered this topic so well.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15 as well as the committee amendments that we are debating today.

I would also like to thank our defence critic, the member for St. John's East, for the work he has done on this file. He has done a marvellous, remarkable job.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence say over and over again that the opposition was not doing anything, that it was just debating and not offering any sort of solution. When we look at what really happened, we can see that meaningful changes came out of those discussions.

This bill was introduced, debated and studied in committee during the 40th Parliament. Then it was deferred until today.

When the government introduced this bill, it did not take into account the amendments that had already been proposed, considered and passed by the parties. Once again, the government came back with a bill filled with holes and things that could have been fixed at that time.

One of the main things that concerned me, and that I mentioned at second reading, is the matter of criminal records. In the NDP, we believe it is important not to say two different things when it comes to the men and women of the Canadian Forces. These people help us, and we owe them the greatest respect. We must not change our tune: we cannot support them when we send them off and forget them when they return.

We rose to speak about the impact this could have with respect to criminal records. This is a victory for the NDP and the opposition. We made sure that the government backed down on criminal records. It gave more consideration to the consequences this would have for CF members.

One of the important points we are talking about today involves the Military Police Complaints Commission and guaranteeing the independence of the MPCC. We discussed the aspect related to the interference that this involved.

As drafted, clause 4 presents a number of problems in that respect. On February 11, 2013, Glenn Stannard, the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, stated in his testimony:

As far as the commission is aware, there have been no problems with the accountability framework that justify its revocation at this time, and proposed subsection 18.5(3) runs counter to various efforts over the years to shore up public confidence in the independence of military policing.

Therefore, we are talking about subsection 18.5(3). In committee, the NDP made some proposals and asked to have it removed. That is exactly what Mr. Stannard said as well.

It is important to listen better. Unfortunately, once again, the government did not listen to us. That is why we are rising today and discussing that point.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I must interrupt the debate at this time for statements by members. The hon. member will have six minutes to complete his speech.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, and the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie has six minutes remaining.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue speaking to Bill C-15.

Before question period, I explained that this bill had been introduced during the 40th Parliament, and that it had been studied. Some changes proposed by the opposition parties had even been adopted. Unfortunately, the government did not do its homework before reintroducing Bill C-15, which means that we had to debate it all over again. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence complained during debate at second reading that we were debating these issues.

I would also like to remind him that in the House, not only must we debate bills, but we must also explain to Canadians the issue being discussed. It was only through that debate and the fact that the opposition was in a position to put forward all those factors, that the government backed down and accepted the amendments in order to improve the bill. Unfortunately, although we said that this bill was a step in the right direction, it includes one point that is still problematic.

I heard the parliamentary secretary ask a number of times this morning why the NDP is speaking today when it did not raise these questions in committee. However, that is not the case. Our position is clear. We raised it in committee; we discussed it. The Conservatives hold the majority in the House and in committees. They choose what they want to accept and they have accepted certain amendments.

I am thinking in particular about criminal records for members of the Canadian Forces. For someone who wants a normal life after having served his country, having a criminal record has some very negative repercussions. I remember rising here in the House to push the issue. We are happy that the government listened to us, that it listened to the opposition.

However, it backtracked on aspects that had been agreed upon during the 40th Parliament. Turning back specifically to the Military Police Complaints Commission, the MPCC, we are asking that the commission be truly independent. The proposal set out in Bill C-15 has a negative impact. This bill gives the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the authority to establish guidelines and to issue instructions regarding police investigations. We also feel that has an impact on the terms set out in the current accountability framework and that it goes against the principle of independence. We feel it is a type of interference, which his problematic.

Glenn Stannard, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, raised this point when he testified before committee. I am not going to reread what he said, but I would like to make it clear that people will trust the independence of the military police when it is truly independent and when there is no interference. That is important. Again, when we say that we respect our military personnel and that they are important, we also must make sure that we have the best possible system in place.

That is why we are rising today. We are standing up for a better military justice system because the members on this side of the House have a great deal of respect for our men and women in uniform who have served and are still serving our country, and I know that the members opposite do as well. In fact, all members of the House have a great deal of respect for them. However, we must respect them not only when they are working to represent us but also once their work is complete. It is our turn, as legislators, to ensure that they have all the tools they need, to ensure that those tools are in their best interest and to support them in their return to civilian life.

Peter Tinsley, former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, testified in committee as an individual, and he supports the NDP's position.

He said that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, he also said that the independence of the police, recognized by the Supreme Court in 1999, is also a problem. The provision we are talking about right now, namely, subsection 18.5(3) of the bill, violates the judicial independence recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 as a fundamental principle underlying the rule of law. What is more, the subsection deviates from the norm with regard to the relationship between the police and the government.

That is why we are rising today. This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice repeated the same question several times. He was trying to find out why the NDP did not rise. I would like to answer him by saying that this was something that we raised in committee and that was put forward. Some progress was made on the issue and the government agreed to certain amendments, but there is a problem with this provision.

The motions moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands are a step in the right direction, but they are not exactly what we wanted. However, we know that, at this stage, these motions will allow us to move forward. That is why we are discussing this subject. It is important to debate it in the House. We have seen that this can have a positive effect because the government can learn from what is happening and move in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie is painting us a very nice picture of what the NDP could do. He says he wants a better military justice system. Excellent. He says he wants to improve the bill. In reality, his party and he himself are supporting an amendment that, over several weeks of study, was never proposed in committee.

At second reading of this bill in this House, it was never mentioned, despite the 78 speeches made by New Democrat members. In the last three Parliaments when we had a minority government and they had much more influence over bills, there was never any question of the amendments proposed today by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

In reality, it seems that the NDP wants to needlessly prolong this debate by doing what it always does, which is to vote against the interests of the Canadian Forces.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed with the tone of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. He knows full well that debate and discussion are important in this Parliament. This is the first government in the history of Canada to be found in contempt of Parliament by imposing a record number of gag orders, I do not know how many. The government clearly sees that the opposition is highlighting the issues, proposing amendments and trying to work to make the legislation the best it can be. He clearly said, "in the best interest of military justice". That is what we are trying to do and what we are trying to propose.

Unfortunately, when we arrived with some very reasonable amendments that the government could have accepted, they rejected them. That is why we are speaking about this today. It is important to discuss it today, contrary to what the government is used to doing. It is used to saying that if we oppose the government, we are against the government. That goes against what we should be doing as parliamentarians. That is why I was disappointed with the parliamentary secretary's tone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record.

The NDP did put forward a very similar amendment to what we are debating today. In my judgment, it is actually a better amendment. It was thoroughly debated, we had witnesses on the issue and it was rejected by the Conservatives, using their power of the majority. Therefore, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has put forward this amendment for debate today.

It is very difficult to support the government when generally speaking on this issue the Conservatives are actually moving in the right direction. Therefore, why, in heaven's name, do they continue to belittle the legitimate activities of the opposition members who are bringing forward what is a significant concern of numerous witnesses, expressed to the committee but ultimately rejected by the government? That is apparently what debate is for.

I would be interested in my hon. colleague's comments on doing the right thing.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We are the opposition. All parties are together. That is why we have come together with the government to make Bill C-15 a better bill. There are still holes in the bill. We want to make it better. That is why we said we would support it in the way we want it to move forward. It was a good step. However, there are things that need to be amended.

I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning that we came up with some amendments, which were better than what is currently proposed. However, they were already refused. There was debate and discussion at committee. Right now what we are saying is that we want to support the bill and make it a better bill, even though the amendment does not come from our party. We are not partisan on that front. We just want to support it, because we want to move forward, and we want to make it a better bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which brings about a number of improvements in response to recommendations concerning the military justice system.

Bill C-15 is simply the latest incarnation of various bills introduced in the House, such as Bill C-7 and Bill C-45 in 2007 and 2008, and Bill C-60, which came into effect in July 2008. Bill C-60 simplified the structure of courts martial and created a mechanism to choose a type of court martial more comparable to the civilian system. Bill C-41 was pretty good. At the time, it went farther than Bill C-15 did initially, but unfortunately, it was never adopted.

It is important to note that Bill C-15 came about because of concerns over how the military justice system has worked for years. A number of flaws were identified in the wake of the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Justice Antonio Lamer's authority was well established, and the government had every reason to take the former chief justice's many recommendations into account. To a certain extent, Bill C-15 is a response to those concerns. However, because it does not go far enough, we proposed amendments in committee. One of our amendments was agreed to, but the others were rejected, unfortunately. Nevertheless, we are pleased that Bill C-15 was improved enough for us to be able to support it at third reading.

By way of context, it is important to note that our military justice system operates separately from our criminal justice system because our military personnel play a special role in our society. Because of their role, they have certain special powers that ordinary citizens do not. Along with that, they have to comply with very high disciplinary standards related to the hierarchy and organization of the military system on the ground so that they can respond effectively during military operations. A lot of very structured preparatory work also has to happen.

There is a very specific way in which the military justice system must answer to that structure, which is separate from society. The system must be held to very high standards and must not needlessly trap veterans and former members of the Canadian Forces after they have finished serving. They find themselves trapped in needless uncertainty because of mistakes they made that, normally, would not result in a criminal record.

We can be pleased with the fact that, in committee, the NDP was able to get a major amendment passed, which changed nearly 95% of disciplinary code infractions so that they will no longer result in a criminal record.

That is the main reason we are now supporting Bill C-15.

As everyone knows, a criminal record comes with very unpleasant consequences. For example, a criminal record can keep a member from starting a new life and pursuing a second career, a career that could be limited by the member's inability to travel to the United States or to fulfill certain duties that he is qualified for because of his military experience and training. The fact that it is so easy to have a criminal record after spending one's life in the armed forces is a major irritant and totally unacceptable.

I mentioned two reports, one by Justice Antonio Lamer and one by a Senate committee. However, we would have liked the government to respond more quickly, and we want it to respond with tangible measures to the report by the former Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice LeSage. He also completed a study on the National Defence Act, which he presented to the government in December 2011. Bill C-15 does not really cover that, which is very unfortunate.

Another aspect is rather ironic. I am currently a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We recently examined Bill C-48, a huge and very technical bill that makes changes to some aspects of the Canadian tax system. Instead of a gradual, piecemeal approach, we would have liked to see a more major reform, although not a massive one that would make it impossible to study the military justice system.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I noticed a very similar approach when it was time to change some details in the Criminal Code. There was a real lack of vision, which is truly appalling. Our soldiers, who fulfill a very important and admirable role, both in Canada and around the globe, should definitely not be victims nor should they be subjected to such improvisation on the government's part. It is really appalling. Our soldiers would be much better off if the military justice system had the same or similar standards as the civilian justice system, since this would bring us in line with other countries.

When the NDP forms the government in 2015, our party will be committed to doing more to make a real difference, which will allow us to offer all members of our armed forces a justice system worthy of that name and, above all, worthy of the appearance of justice earned.

That is probably the most important aspect, and the final point I wanted to make. Ensuring the appearance of justice is a fundamental principle of our justice system. This appearance is especially fundamental because it forms the basis of public confidence and, therefore, the confidence of members of the armed forces in the military justice machine.

I hope the government has listened to our hopes and wishes. I thank the government again for accepting a fundamental amendment regarding the consequences of possibly getting a criminal record.

I am now ready to hear my colleagues' comments and answer their questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer's recommendations in that regard have been shelved for almost a decade. Justice LeSage's recommendations will never give rise to legislation until this bill is dealt with.

A number of opposition members have already said that the bill is good enough. Let us be clear and have unanimity on one point: the amendments are not very good. You do not refer to an administrative document in a bill. There is no precedent for that. The bill, without the amendment, already requires the Provost Marshal to make the instructions available to the public.

Does my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou agree that this is a good time to vote on this bill?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before recognizing the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, I would tell hon. members I realize that we have a large gallery here in the afternoon just ahead of the budget, and of course we will do whatever we can to accommodate that in the best spirit we can. You may want to increase the audio on your control. We will seek the best co-operation we can from the gallery in all instances, but it is welcome to have members of the public here for the budget.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my voice carry. I can do it because I had the pleasure of being involved in the theatre when I attended university.

I heard the interpretation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I am disappointed with his whining about expediting the process. That was the kind of comment I heard during consideration of Bill C-48, the mammoth 1,000-page bill. Our witnesses said that it was time to adopt the huge tax bill, but they did not ask us to expedite the process. They thought the bill was so lengthy that, given the time allotted, it would be adopted without really having an opportunity to make improvements and that we would have to live with it.

Who is acting in good faith? In a few minutes, the government will introduce a bill and it will probably be impossible for us to study it in its entirety given the time allotted. Therefore, I reject the member's claims.

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

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government cannot take yes for an answer. The parliamentary secretary seems to not understand that the opposition parties will likely support the bill, but the opposition parties are also pretty clear that the rejection of an amendment with respect to proposed section 18.3 is not acceptable.

The government has taken what is generally not a bad piece of legislation and made it less good than it could be, which is regrettable because we do not get that many opportunities to amend a justice system, let alone a military justice system.

Various speakers have gone through various reiterations of how the bill has not seen progress for a long time, and here we are on the brink of making some progress. There is one little speed bump left: the government is digging in its heels. It rejects the amendment out of hand and says we have debated this for way too long.

I would be interested in my hon. colleague's views on this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment.

As they say, the devil is in the details. When we start to tinker with this kind of a justice system, it is not unreasonable to look at every possibility. In fact, doing so is a necessary precaution.

I urge the government to be open to potential amendments, in addition to the ones that have already passed, so that we can create the best possible bill and offer our soldiers the best conditions.

We have a long way to go to be able to give our men and women in uniform—who give up so much of their lives—the best we have to offer.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, which would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice. This is following a couple of studies and papers put forward, one in 2003 and one in 2009. The 2009 report was of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Among other things, the bill would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process. It would provide for additional sentencing options. It would include absolute discharges for minor offences, intermittent sentences and restitution. It would modify the composition of a court martial panel in accordance with the rank of the accused person. It would modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and would allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods. It would clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and would make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

As we heard earlier today, the New Democrats are supportive of this legislation because it would be a step forward. Unfortunately, and perhaps anticipating a question from the parliamentary secretary from Ajax—Pickering, why take one step when we could take two, three, four or more steps? It has been a pattern with the current government in legislation that comes forward. The member for Ajax—Pickering is a very intelligent and well-spoken man, and I am sure he understands more steps could be taken but is unwilling to take them. Perhaps in the question period we will have an opportunity to hear from the member about why he will not take that extra step.

For the most part, Bill C-15 would be a step in the right direction. However, as we have heard from other speakers, it could go further. Let me speak to a couple of amendments that are coming forward at report stage from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

There are two amendments, and although they are not perfect, they could be amendments that need to be discussed. Canadians expect us to be in this place, to work in committees and to make legislation the best it can possibly be. That means putting forward amendments. Sometimes the amendments are not perfect, but if an amendment is not perfect as put forward, it should be the responsibility of the committee, and in particular of the parliamentary secretary on that committee, to ensure that there could be a counter-amendment, or other amendments or things that could make the legislation better in almost every instance as it comes before the committee. Canadians expect us to do that. Therefore, I hope these amendments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which I will briefly outline, will be considered in the light in which they were given, which is to improve the legislation.

The member put forward two amendments at report stage regarding proposed subsections 18.5(3) and 18.5(5) of the National Defence Act. Clause 4, which would add section 18.5 to the National Defence Act, would give the Chief of the Defence Staff authority to direct military police investigations. The Green Party's amendments would amend that section of the act, which the NDP targeted as problematic and attempted to amend without success during committee.

The second amendment put forward by the member is a measure that would increase the transparency of this problematic authority that would be given to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff by Bill C-15. While this amendment would be an improvement, we strongly believe that granting the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff this authority could be a violation of maintaining the independence of the Military Police Complaints Commission, so we will be looking at that.

When these amendments are put forward, we and all Canadians expect both opposition and government members of the committee to look at them, take them in the spirit in which they were brought forward and deal with them in an appropriate manner to make the legislation better.

What we as the opposition are hoping for, and what I hope the government members are also interested in with this bill, is to come up with a fairer military justice system. That is the bottom line on Bill C-15. It could be fairer than the final product is likely going to be, and it would be nice to have gone that extra step forward.

There are many important reforms in the bill, and the NDP supports this long overdue update to the military justice system. Members of the Canadian armed forces are held to a very high standard. In turn, they deserve a judicial system that is also of a very high standard. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to understand that this is a step forward, although there could be another step and another step.

Let us briefly talk about, in the time I have left, five items that either need to be looked at or that are included in the bill.

The first thing, and maybe one of the most important, is conducting an independent wall-to-wall review of the military justice system and providing a legislative response to the LeSage report within the year. One of the things that has not happened is a wall-to-wall review. Recently, a recently retired judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, Gilles Létourneau, outlined the need for such a review. Therefore, there are still things that will need to be done moving forward.

A reform of the summary trial system is another thing. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record without the proper procedural fairness for the Canadian Forces member. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. These are things that will be looked at as we move forward.

Another item is expanding the service offences exempted from receiving criminal records. There are a number of minor service offences that result in criminal records right now and I believe this will be expanded by about 95%. That is certainly a good thing. I do not think that the military term is “goldbricking", but I know there is an official term and perhaps the parliamentary secretary will help me out with that in the questions. However, offences such as that should not lead to criminal records as often happens outside of the military duties of the Canadian Forces members. Certainly, outside of the Canadian Forces, it would not be an issue.

In my remaining time, let me talk about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. I know, again, that the parliamentary secretary will have a comment on this. While a lot of Bill C-15 is a step forward, it does not move forward enough. Elements of clause 4 regarding the complaints commission are a clear step backward within the military justice system.

I have been listening to the debate over the course of today and the parliamentary secretary was commenting to some of the other speakers about this particular issue. The reason I am bringing it up at the end is that we might have an opportunity to speak to it further. He will probably be concerned about why we did not say or do anything about it earlier in the process of the bill. We moved amendments earlier in committee on Bill C-15 to remove the power to interfere with military investigations. This was after listening to the testimony of a number of witnesses. We opposed that power then and we still oppose it. However, we do support the bill on the whole because it is a step forward.

This is a dilemma that we have had since 2006 with the government putting forward legislation that may have something in it that would not allow us to vote for it in all good conscience. The government may also put something into a bill where it could have gone further and taken the steps necessary to make it good legislation, perhaps legislation that would not be challenged in court at a later date.

I want to emphasize that we do support Bill C-15, but it certainly could have been better.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, there is a lot of noise in the chamber and I would remind hon. members that we are still in debate. I know there is a lot of anticipation on an afternoon like this, but we recognize that other hon. members will have the floor.

Questions and comments, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his contribution to this lengthy and lengthening debate. However, he has called for a wall-to-wall review of the military justice system.

That review was done 10 years ago by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice. We have still not translated those recommendations into legislation. We have quite an audience here today and across the country for an issue that has been before four Parliaments. Canadians are asking why we are still debating these urgent matters that need to come forward.

Will the hon. member please tell us why, if this amendment is so good, it was not raised by the NDP in committee. It certainly was not raised in this forum. It was not raised in the 78 often repetitive, to be very honest, speeches by him and his colleagues at second reading. It was not raised in the 40th Parliament. It did not even feature among the amendments brought forward at report stage in the 40th Parliament where we were in a minority position and the NDP had much more influence over the shape of the bill. Why is it coming so late? Why the delay? Why no military justice updated and modernized for our Canadian Forces?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As I said before, I know this member from Ajax to be a highly intelligent and very committed member of Parliament, but to answer his question, I have to remind him that we are not government yet. The time will certainly come in 2015 for Canadians to make that kind of decision.

A call for a wall-to-wall review was done in 2003, but it is 10 years later. Of course, the Conservative government has been here for most of that time, and the member is asking why it has not been done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I may not share the member's optimism about 2015, but I do find passingly bizarre this line of questioning from the government about this wall-to-wall review.

Bill C-15 is the wall-to-wall review. We are 98% done. There is a small section that is being debated, and the government is putting up this wall of resistance to what is, in many people's judgment, a very simple fix. It can be fixed. It can be done. It is a system that is currently working, so why mess with it?

I would be interested in the hon. member's speculations as to why the government is putting up such bizarre reasons for what many argue is a simple fix.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the government has a piecemeal approach to these sorts of things, and it is not just this bill but all kinds of other bills. I cannot speak on those before 2008, but almost every bill that has come before the House in this Parliament and the Parliament before are piecemeal, rather than having one comprehensive bill come forward and everybody is standing in this House when it comes time to vote.

If it were ever deserved by this government, I would be happy to say, “Thanks very much; that is a fabulous bill and I support it”. Unfortunately, the best I can do in this particular case of Bill C-15, and just about every other bill the government has put forward, is to say, “That is an interesting attempt from the Conservative government, but why did it not go that needed step further to make legislation of which we and all Canadians could be proud?”

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of time for my speech, since it is getting late and there is an important speech coming up.

The parliamentary secretary has been repeating the same question since early this afternoon. I just want to point out to him that the NDP proposed 22 amendments and 5 subamendments to improve this bill in committee. We are not talking about one or two amendments. It was 22 amendments and 5 subamendments. How many of these amendments were approved? Not a single one.

We worked very hard to get one amendment passed, and this amendment is essential to our support of this bill. This amendment was eventually presented by the Conservatives. We worked very hard to ensure that members of the armed forces do not end up with criminal records.

This bill is very important, even though it is a long time coming. The bill responds to reports dating back to 2003, as my colleagues mentioned earlier. They made some excellent speeches and showed that this bill does a lot of good and that it represents a good step forward.

I would like to talk about the important point that the NDP gained, because we work very hard in the House and in committee. As a result of our hard work, 95% of disciplinary code breaches will not lead to a criminal record, as was the case previously. That is thanks to the NDP.

That is why we will support this bill. We worked hard in committee, did our homework and were on the front line.

As I mentioned, we proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments to improve this bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against them.

We are very proud to have managed to get the main amendment. Our Canadian Forces are people who sacrifice their lives and sometimes ruin their family lives to serve our beautiful country and its people. When they leave the Canadian Forces, they do not deserve to have a criminal record for breaches that are not serious or are minor, and for which they would not receive a criminal record in the civilian system.

For that reason, I will say that this bill is a step forward. However, I would like to tell the parliamentary secretary who just rose a number of times to tell us that we are not doing serious work, that the opposite is true. We are doing serious work. We proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments in committee. The parliamentary secretary voted against all those measures.

We finally have a bill that we managed to improve. We are very proud of it. We are very pleased with it. We will not give up, and we will continue on.

Some people had some doubts earlier, but it is true that we will be in power in 2015. It is true that we will do what needs to be done in 2015 to have a true democracy and adopt budgets that do not come in an omnibus package and that can be studied.

That is how things will go in 2015. The budgets would be proposed in committee and will be studied as they should.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have six minutes left to conclude his remarks the next time this bill is up for debate.

It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 15, concerning the budget presentation.

The House resumed from March 21 consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-15. I have had the opportunity to provide comments on Bill C-15 at earlier stages and I would like to think I spoke a great deal on the importance of the issue. I have a bit of a bias, I must say right upfront, in the sense that I had the privilege and honour of serving in the Canadian Forces for a few years back in the 1980s. I have a great amount of respect for what the men and women do in Canada and abroad and the important role they play in who we are as a society and in protecting our interests, again whether here or abroad.

It is important to recognize that there are two different systems of justice: the Canadian civilian justice system and the military justice system. As much as possible, it is important that we recognize the differences and, where we can, we need to narrow the gap in the disparities between the military and civilian justice systems. We need to recognize the importance, for example, of the Charter of Rights. I hope to highlight that fact.

We could argue that this or that should happen, but what I do know is this has been an issue for a number of years already and we have seen the government in the past few years attempt to rectify the problem. Unfortunately, many questions have gone unanswered. If we were to confer with different stakeholders, we would find that there was a bit of optimism at the committee stage and the government could have listened a little more to what some of the concerns were. I do not think the government acted in areas it could have or should have acted, which ultimately would have provided a healthier bill today.

I have had the opportunity to read over some of the comments made at the committee stage and there was one in particular by Justice Létourneau. He said it in a wonderful way when he made reference to soldiers. He stated that they were, in fact, citizens of Canada and should enjoy the same constitutional and charter rights that all citizens had. I will quote specifically what he had to say in committee, which is as follows:

We as a society have forgotten, with harsh consequences for the members of the armed forces, that a soldier is before all a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen in uniform. So is a police officer...he’s not deprived of his right to a jury trial. Is that what we mean by “equality of all before the law”? Is not the soldier who risks his life for us entitled to at least the same rights and equality before the law as his fellow citizens when he is facing criminal prosecutions?

He went on to answer the question by stating “yes”.

That is what I mean about the disparities between the military and civil justice systems and the need for us to narrow the process so we can ensure, as much as possible, the rights that are so very important to all Canadians. I highlight the importance of something which we in the Liberal Party are very passionate about; that being our Constitution and Charter of Rights.

In committee Mr. Drapeau, a retired colonel, also gave some fairly striking testimony that I thought would be appropriate for all members to at least take note of. In reference to this whole military justice regime, he stated that an accused:

—before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence. This is despite the fact that the verdict and sentence are imposed without any regard to the minimum standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, such as the right to counsel, the presence of rules of evidence, and the right to appeal.

In Canada, these rights do not exist in a summary trial, not even for a decorated veteran, yet a Canadian charged with a summary conviction offence in a civilian court, such as Senator Brazeau, enjoys all these rights, as does someone appearing in small claims court or even in traffic court.

He went on to say:

I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of these charter rights when facing a quasi-criminal [law] process with the possibility of loss of liberty through detention in a military barracks.

Those two paragraphs summarize the concerns the government was unable to or failed to address at the committee stage. We find that most unfortunate.

We recognize there are numerous changes being suggested in the legislation with respect to, in part, the 10-year clause for military judges; outlining sentence objectives and principles; amending the composition of the court martial panel selection, which would be based on the rank of the accused; changing the name from the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the military grievance external review committee, which gives the impression it is more at arm's-length, at least in name; and imposing a criminal record for certain service offences. There are more aspects being dealt with in Bill C-15, but those are just some of the ones I would highlight. I recognize I am limited in how long I can speak to this issue.

However, if we deal with the idea of imposing a criminal record, which stays with the individual after he or she has left the forces and can have a very profound impact on the opportunities that he or she would have after serving our country, we must be careful in what we are putting on our men and women of the forces who find themselves in awkward positions at times while serving. There are different types of crimes that take place.

Having been a previous member of the forces, I recognize the importance of compliance and obeying superior officers and so forth. We understand there is a huge difference if someone is working at company X in Toronto versus that same person working in the Canadian Forces and he or she shows up late. If a member of the Canadian Forces is late, there is a significant penalty. If he or she decides to disappear for a few days, or go AWOL as it is referred to, there is a fairly significant consequence to that action compared to in civilian life depending on the job.

We recognize there is a need to have discipline within the military, but we also recognize that it is important for all of us to understand that a Canadian soldier is a Canadian citizen first and foremost. We have laws today, whether by charter or otherwise, but we want to ensure that members of our forces are treated, as much as possible, in the same fashion as civilians would be treated. This legislation was an attempt at narrowing the differences between civilian law and military law. Had the government worked a little more with the stakeholders, we would probably have better legislation than what we have now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has noted that the changes to the military justice system to update it and modernize it have been a long time coming. However, his speech makes it clear that he has not been following the debate in all of its breadth and depth over recent months. Could he confirm to the House that he understands that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually explicitly recognizes a place and the constitutionality of an independent military justice system?

Could the member also confirm to the House that the changes foreseen in Bill C-15, which would ensure that continuing constitutionality and would ensure, for example, that a wide range of offences would no longer generate criminal records, are urgently needed and that the only thing standing between those changes, which the members supports, and their enactment is this debate? Is it not now urgent to move on from report stage to adoption of the bill so our men and women in uniform can benefit from the improvements to the military justice system foreseen in Bill C-15?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member does not reflect on many of the comments that were made in committee, dealing with issues such as summary trials and pardons. This is something the Conservatives got rid of.

I use the example of the charter because it is something to which people look. I am not necessarily saying that Bill C-15 would contradict the charter. That is not the purpose of me raising it. It is just that there is this expectation Canadians have, whether it is issues like the charter or other criminal laws, that members of our forces are treated as Canadian citizens.

I recognize the difference between our civil court system and our military justice system and there is a need to have some difference. However, I do not necessarily believe the government has done what it could have done to narrow the scope and get the different stakeholders on the same page.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments shared by my colleague from Winnipeg North, who has distinguished himself with military service in our country.

His reference to the testimony that was cited through the committee hearings is important because the witnesses who gave testimony brought a great deal of credibility to the issue. In particular, I refer to comments by retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who had identified the fact that without a pardon system, which was recently revoked by the Conservatives, and the summary trial being set up as it was, with no record and no means of meaningful appeal, Canadian Forces members were left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

In his experience, would he see the same? It is tough getting work after someone finishes a career, I do not see that—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we have a retired colonel come before the committee and address it with those types of issues, it is very important, in particular for those Conservative backbenchers, to really tune in and listen to what has been said. For someone leaving the forces after serving, not all of these incidents that occurred in the forces deserve to have a criminal record upon exiting the forces. However, the impact that this will have on individuals in their ability to get the type of job that would be of great benefit for them and their families, has been somewhat restricted. That was why the pardon system was there. There was a great deal of merit in it. It was one of the issues brought up time and time again as one of the inequities that the government did not really give any—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Halifax West.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-15 today, a bill that involves the military justice system.

We in the Liberal Party recognize the need to reform the law in this regard and to reform the Canadian court martial system. It is very important to ensure it remains effective, fair and transparent and to look for ways that it might be improved. However, we do not accept the idea that a Canadian citizen who joins the Armed Forces ought to thereby lose the basic rights of a Canadian citizen, especially before military courts.

Like almost all Canadians, the Liberal Party believes that human rights and equality are universal issues. They are universally important, and that is why, back in 1982, the Trudeau government, along with the provinces, changed the Constitution, repatriated the Constitution of Canada from Britain and brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those rights are extremely important.

It is a shame that last year, on the 30th anniversary of the charter, the government did not feel very much inclined to celebrate, whereas the vast majority of Canadians hold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms very near and dear to their hearts and believe it is very important. We could ask for the views of anyone from former Eastern bloc countries, for example, or anybody else who has emigrated from a country where the kinds of rights found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not respected.

In this case we are talking about the summary trial system within the military. It is important for it to be a good and properly balanced system and for it to respect the rights of Canadian citizens who take on the task and show the courage to make the fundamental offer to put their lives on the line for our country. It is important that we treat their decision with respect and appreciation and ensure that their rights are protected.

Our concern, though, is that within the summary trial system, not having an effective means for appeal and not having recorded proceedings are important shortcomings that ought to be remedied.

I cannot imagine people not being allowed to have an appeal in the civil or criminal court system in Canada, or that even if they were allowed to appeal, the lawyers on the appeal would not have access to the written record from the trial court.

How could we possibly put forward appeal arguments without referring to what was found or what the evidence was before the trial court? That makes no sense to me. It is fundamentally important that an individual have a record of the evidence, because otherwise appeal judges cannot make the kind of judgment they have to make about the evidence and about whether, for instance, the evidence actually supported the findings of the court in a particular case.

We do not believe, in some cases, that introducing a criminal record for Armed Forces members for certain offences is just and fair. Some of those offences would not be considered criminal offences outside the military, so we should consider very carefully whether we want to give people who have offered to serve their country a criminal record for some offences that would not be considered serious enough outside the military to justify a criminal record, especially considering that the means for pardoning offences in this country has effectively been removed by the Conservative government. It has made it much more difficult, it has made it take much longer and it has made it much more expensive for anyone who has a record to get a pardon, regardless of the merits of their cases.

That is very unfortunate, because surely my hon. friends across the way would agree that there are cases in which people convicted of a criminal offence have redeemed themselves, have done wonderful work after that, and have shown themselves to be model citizens who are deserving of a pardon. How do we do that when we are removing that opportunity from people who have served their country in the Armed Forces?

We also find it problematic that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff can intervene and give direction in a particular, specific police investigation by military police.

Again, if we look at the system in Canada outside of the military, we would never dream of saying that the Prime Minister should be able to stop an investigation by the RCMP if he does not like it, nor would we say that he should be able to give the RCMP directions on how to conduct an investigation. Surely nobody on either side of the House would suggest, I hope, that we ought to do that or that we ought to give that kind of power to the Prime Minister.

In specific investigations it is obviously important that we have a separation between the elected powers in the executive branch and the people who actually run the investigations and run the police. It is vitally important and it even extends, in our country, to the legal actions taken by the Government of Canada.

For instance, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is involved very little in legal proceedings involving the Government of Canada. He or she may be called upon from time to time to give policy direction in relation to something the department is doing or in relation to a matter, but not to get involved in the actual prosecution of a case or in determining what the government's position would be or in how it should be argued before the courts.

This is for obvious reasons. It is not the role of an elected official of the executive branch to do that. Maybe at times we may have someone in the role of the minister of justice who has expertise in an area, but it is still not appropriate, and generally speaking, that person would not have particular legal expertise in the area that is being adjudicated before the courts. It is very important to have that separation.

In this case, there is the idea that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff could step in and call the Provost Marshal and say, "Stop this investigation. We do not like it politically. It is not popular with the government. Cut it out." I am not suggesting that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff would do that; I have great confidence in the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff at the moment, and I trust we will have good ones in the future, but we have got to have that separation. It is a fundamental issue of justice.

There are a number of disparities and differences between the military and civil justice systems that we think should be narrowed as much as possible. Yes, where it is essential, we are going to have differences, and that is fine; however, where it is not essential, let us remove those differences.

While we recognize that updates to the military criminal justice system must be made, we think the government is missing a real opportunity to make those changes properly and in a way that respects the rights of Canadian citizens who have made the choice to serve their country and put their lives on the line by joining the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is inexplicable that many aspects of the military justice system remain unimproved or provide powers that we feel are unnecessary. For example, Bill C-15 enshrines in law a list of military offences that now carry a criminal record, some of which we think are hardly necessary. We no longer have the pardon system—as I was saying earlier, the government has basically revoked it—and summary trials are set up in the military with no record and no means of meaningful appeal. How could one appeal without a record of evidence? We think it leaves the possibility of Canadian Forces members being haunted by a criminal record and being unable to find employment upon release. Is that really what Canadians want if someone is convicted in the military of a very minor offence that would not be an offence under the criminal law of the outside world?

I think Canadians have a great appreciation for the military. We should oppose and defeat this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again we have a speech from the Liberal Party in which it is not clear what proposals and specific changes to the bill the Liberals would be looking for at this stage, after literally 10 years of consideration of many of these proposals, after exhaustive consideration in committee, where the Liberal Party is still represented, and after exhaustive consideration in this House.

My question for the hon. member is this: why continue this debate, which is in fact delaying the day on which Canadian Forces members who now face a criminal record for minor offences might no longer carry that criminal record into civilian life? Why is the hon. member delaying that?

Second, why is the hon. member challenging the whole summary trial system? It is a cornerstone of the military justice system, and its constitutionality has been accepted, even with the different rules of evidence and the lack of appeal to which he has referred. Is he proposing at this late stage to demolish the whole military justice system?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the question, but I have the feeling that he did not listen to my speech.

For instance, I talked about the fact that there ought to be a record kept. People ought to have access to a record of the trial in which they are convicted. That is one obvious change. As well, there ought to be an appeal.

Those are two pretty basic things. To suggest that I was not calling for any particular changes and did not put any forward for consideration and discussion by this House does not make any sense. I thought he was listening to what I had to say, but apparently I was mistaken.

I do not think he was listening either to the previous speaker, my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North, who quoted some of the judges and other experts who have expressed grave concern about provisions in the bill and the ways in which they do not comply with fundamental justice.

I hope my hon. colleague will listen to other speeches from members on this side of the House, because I think he would benefit from doing so.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely worried about the proposal that the government has on the books, and my colleague mentioned his concerns as well. There is this whole problem of the balance of justice, and I wonder whether the proposal for the military justice system whereby people may be denied their rights in terms of fairness under the law is actually creeping into our civil justice system.

We heard the announcement on the weekend that if a member of Parliament wants to talk to a commanding officer in the RCMP, the minister's office will have to be notified. This goes against everything in terms of the separation between the political process and policing in this country. It is just pure wrong.

I ask my colleague whether we are seeing that creeping in from the military system. Is everything going to be politically influenced, whether it is in the civil justice system or the military justice system?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague for Malpeque. Of course, he has some experience in relation not only to the RCMP but also in relation to the justice system. As a former Solicitor General of Canada, he dealt with issues like this.

However, I can assure members that he would not have been interfering and trying to tell the RCMP how to conduct an investigation, which is the kind of thing we are talking about here in relation to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, who, under these rules, would be able to call a halt to a session like that. Like my hon. colleague, I am concerned about this idea.

We know that members of Parliament cannot talk directly to members of the RCMP to seek information on what is happening in their area and get information that they need to do their jobs. We know how little the Conservative government enjoys the idea of allowing members of Parliament to have access to information about what is happening in government. We know the problems that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has had in extracting budgetary information from the government, to the point that just the other day the Prime Minister had the gall to suggest that the PBO was being partisan by asking for information on behalf of members of Parliament generally. That is outrageous and inappropriate.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and to follow my colleague today in raising some of the concerns we have with Bill C-15.

It seems the longer we are here in the House, the more we see a variety of things happening. My colleague from Malpeque mentioned that now, in order to speak to members of the RCMP, MPs must have permission from the minister. I have had many conversations with the RCMP on the issue of sexual assault and harassment in the RCMP in the last year or so. That announcement just helps to bring forward more of these issues about a balance of justice and fairness in the system for everybody, whether they are in the military or a private citizen. We all need to be very much concerned when the politics get too far into the issues of policing or justice. Hence, the reason that I am on my feet and commenting on Bill C-15, which is an act to amend the National Defence Act.

I will read a bit of the information, so that we and anybody who is watching will know why we are raising some issues on something that we are not 100% against and at one point we may have even supported. It will put this in the context of so many other things that seem to be heading in a direction where we are going to politicize the police force the same way that everything that the Government of Canada puts its hands on is politicized. We need to flag these issues, so that we all are thinking them through very carefully. Therefore, I offer a bit of a summary on Bill C-15 and what it is about.

Bill C-15 would “(a) provide for security of tenure for military judges until [they reach the age of 60];...”, which is the retirement age for military judges, contrary to all other Canadian citizens who would have to wait until they are 67 to get their pensions. They could be removed for cause on the recommendations of an inquiry committee, or through resignation. It would also “(b) [allow for] the appointment of part-time military judges;” and outlining sentencing “...objectives and principles;”.... The bill would “(d) provide for [new] sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution [orders];...”.

As my colleague across the hall mentioned, there are some things in here that are supportable. Unfortunately, the question is whether there would be a true balance of justice in all aspects of it. Like many things that are introduced into this House, it does not necessarily qualify on many avenues. There are some parts of it that would be good, but there are always so many other parts in legislation brought forward by the government that are not good. We do not just adapt something because, while it has three good parts in it, the rest of it is no good. Because of that we have to support it? No. If it is not good in the overall 10 points that need to be examined, then we should not be supporting it.

Bill C-15 would look “...at amending composition of a court martial panel [selections] according to the rank of the accused...”, and it would change “...the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee”.

That raises another issue. In the RCMP or the military, when the members have a serious grievance, where do they go? In the RCMP, from what we have heard in the sexual harassment hearings, they have to go to their own supervisors. Many times that is the person causing the problem. Or they go to another person above that person, but it is always within the same confines of that same family. For the RCMP in particular, there needs to be an external review board that is 100 yards away from anything to do with the RCMP, that is truly independent and can hear a grievance from anyone who is working for the RCMP. Similarly for the military, there needs to be an arm's-length grievance committee, or a place where members can go and truly get a hearing on their issue. Complaining to their supervisor's friend who is going to keep everything within the same confines, and is not going to want to see anybody pay too big a price for a grievance, really jeopardizes justice in this country. Certainly, from what I have heard from the hearings, there is a need for a union to represent many of the officers.

If they want to do things right, then there has to be an arm's-length committee, as many of the police services across Canada have. It is an external body, where people can go with a serious complaint and get a true hearing. It is not just “passing the buck” from one to another; then people end up not getting true justice. One of the things that we hear a lot about in the Liberal Party, as I think all elected members of Parliament do, is justice. Justice does not only need to be done, it needs to be seen to be done. The perception out there is that is not way it is necessarily happening.

As Liberals, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. Canada has been the leader in so many areas when it comes to human rights, when it comes to the charter, and when it comes to issues of fairness, of ensuring that what we do in Canada is balanced and fair and respectful of everybody's rights. More and more we are having to question whether that is exactly what is happening or not. We believe, as Canadian citizens and as Liberals, that people who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose part of their rights before the courts.

Again, we are back into that system. We want to attract more and more young people to a career in the military. We see the men and women who are out there fighting for us and representing us, and we are grateful that they have the courage and the commitment to do this. We want to make sure that they are treated fairly.

Bill C-15 does not answer all those questions. It leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Before we pass Bill C-15, we should make sure we have perfected the bill so that those in the military are not losing their opportunities for a fair and just trial.

The Liberal Party also understands that rights and equality are universal. We talk a lot about that. That really means that it is for everybody. It does not matter who a person is, where they come from or what job they are doing, we would like to think that everybody in Canada is treated fairly and equitably. Without an effective means for an appeal and no recorded proceedings, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not represent the basic rights of a Canadian Forces member.

We also do not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain offences is fair and just as a means for pardoning offences, which has recently been removed by the Conservatives. Again, we go back to trying to be fair and balanced, and treating people with respect, making sure that everybody has their role and that they do not violate that.

We also find it problematic that the VCDS can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the code of service discipline.

Bill C-15 is in keeping with a lot of Bill C-42 and a lot of other things that continually try to give other people more power rather than making sure that we really have an equitable system that is going to be there to represent everyone, that we are not going to discourage people from joining the service, that we are not going to have people join the military and then leave, speaking very negatively about their experience.

Shifting the power around to different people rather than having an independent body do the review makes us question where we are going with this issue. I met yesterday with a group of people from Venezuela who were upset about the recent election. They were talking about how the government of the day controls everything. These things keep being raised.

I am really concerned that little by little we are losing the things that we value the most here in our own country, that there is an eroding of the power of parliamentarians, and that a real miscarriage of justice is happening.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak, and she is talking about fairness and justice for all. Our government is very intent on seeing those things happen and making sure that there is fairness in the process.

If my colleague sees these things as not being fair, then they were unfair under her government as well. She was there for 13 years. Why did her government not fix it—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thirteen long productive years.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thirteen long forgotten years, the member is absolutely right.

Why did the Liberals not put fairness into the process to ensure that these people were treated equitably? Why did the member allow it to go on for so long?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thirteen long years, Mr. Speaker, and I am looking forward to being back in government for another 13 years. We will make sure that we have a lot of time to undo all of the miscarriages that the Conservatives have produced.

I want to go back to the minister's comments on Friday about my colleagues and I continuing to work on issues like the RCMP and justice in general. I really and truly am very worried about the road that we are heading on where there will be no justice any longer. We are going to end up like those very countries that we are so critical of when it comes to people being able to speak out. The government has been muzzling RCMP officers and its own members, but it is not going to muzzle any of us.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put two ideas to my colleague for her response.

First, why would Colonel Michel Drapeau, perhaps Canada's most experienced military lawyer, a long serving member of the Canadian Forces and now a veteran, be opposing this legislation as aggressively as he is?

Second, if we look at other countries, which is a good thing to do when new legislation is being brought in particularly in an area as sensitive as this, we understand that the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania and Netherlands, to name a few, have improved their very legislation in this area by adopting the kinds of ideas we have been putting forward as an opposition party. Why would the government not want to do that to be in concert with so many other nations?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the shortcomings of the current government. The Conservative government is focused on our own boundaries, as if we live in a world by ourselves.

Canada has brought forward model legislation in many areas. We learn from things that happen in other countries. I want to quote Justice Létourneau who said so eloquently:

We as a society have forgotten, with harsh consequences for the members of the armed forces, that a soldier is before all a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen in uniform. So is a police officer; he is a Canadian citizen in uniform, but he’s not deprived of his right to a jury trial. Is that what we mean by “equality of all before the law”? Is not the soldier who risks his life for us entitled to at least the same rights and equality before the law as his fellow citizens when he is facing criminal prosecutions?

Justice Létourneau and the others are clearly very experienced people. Colonel Drapeau indicated similar concerns. It means we should take a step back and see how we can improve this legislation so it would achieve for all what is necessary as true Canadians and encourage people to join the military and continue with a great career.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently for equality for those individuals in the military who serve Canadians. This particular legislation purports to update our military criminal justice system, but in fact has some significant gaps.

It is always good to review our laws to make sure that they reflect present realities and that they are equitable, appropriate and consistent with our Constitution. The military criminal justice system is no exception. This legislation has been worked on for a long time but the Liberal Party of Canada believes it is not where it needs to be in order to get our support. The members for Winnipeg North, Halifax West and York West made that case in quite a specific and compelling way. We are being asked to support something that still has so many flaws; that is politics.

Clearly, many aspects of the military justice system remain inexplicably unchanged or give unnecessary powers in this bill. For instance, the bill enshrines in law a list of military offences that will carry a criminal record in the future, which is not necessary in many cases.

Given that the pardon system was recently revoked and that summary trials are what they are—with no record and no means of meaningful appeal—the members of the Armed Forces will find themselves with criminal records and unable to find employment upon release.

Clearly there are some flaws in the bill. The one I want to focus on in particular is the issue of human rights and equality. It really boils down to what kind of society we want to have in Canada, and I think Canadians are clear. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada is widely supported right across the country and is a very proud part of our framework for protecting rights but also for enshrining responsibilities in our country, to make sure those who are vulnerable have the law on their side to protect their right to equality.

It has been shameful and disappointing that the Conservative Party of Canada has chosen to minimize the importance of this very important part of our Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, essentially dismissing and not celebrating its great anniversaries. Last year was the 30th anniversary, and there was not much of a murmur from the government, but hundreds of millions of dollars went into celebrating the anniversary of a war.

That goes down to what kind of society we want to have. Do we want to have one that protects rights and freedoms, or do we want to have one that is all about punishment? We see changes to immigration. We see in Bill C-10, that grab bag of bad public policy, that the Conservative government is much more focused on punishment than on equality. That is reflected in this bill as well.

In his testimony before committee, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau noted:

...someone accused before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence. This is despite the fact that the verdict and sentence are imposed without any regard to the minimum standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, such as the right to counsel, the presence of rules of evidence, and the right to appeal.

In Canada, these rights do not exist in summary trials, not even for a decorated veteran, yet a Canadian charged with a summary conviction offence in civilian court... enjoys all of these rights. So does someone appearing in a small claims court or in a traffic court.

He goes on to say:

I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of these charter rights when facing a quasi-criminal process with the possibility of loss of liberty through detention in a military barracks.

Clear questions of inequality have arisen here. There are problems with the bill that are fundamental to the kind of society we want to have, not just a few tweaks that we could have put into the bill and that the government has not done. This does go down to fundamentally what kind of society we want to have. This kind of inequality is being unfortunately cemented into other bills and other laws brought forward by the Conservative government.

I want to refer to some comments made by my colleague from Mount Royal recently on the occasion of the 31st anniversary of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to Justice Létourneau, soldiers are citizens and they should enjoy the same constitutional rights guaranteed by the charter as any other citizen.

This is what he said:

“We as a society have forgotten, with harsh consequences for the members of the armed forces, that a soldier is before all a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen in uniform.”

In other words, they should be able to count on all of the rights and protections that citizens enjoy in our country.

Referring to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the member for Mount Royal raised a question of privilege in the House this past March and expressed concern that the government is failing to live up to its own statutory obligation, which is expressed in section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.

In law, this is requiring that the government, that the Minister of Justice, examine each and every government bill introduced in the House to ensure it is consistent with the charter. That would seem like a simple step to respect our fundamental constitutional obligations as parliamentarians and as government in law-making and public policy-making.

How often has the government actually done that? How often has the government checked and done a review to ensure that its bills introduced in the House are consistent with the charter and receive the constitutional seal of approval? How often has the government reported any inconsistencies, or otherwise, to the House?

Does anybody have an answer to that question?

[Some hon. members]

Never.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That is right. My colleagues are on the ball. No such report has ever been tabled by the Minister of Justice.

This is not just a procedural rule. This is actually fundamental to protecting our rights and freedoms that are engraved in our country's framework for justice.

Why has the government never actually done that kind of review, and what is the consequence of that?

Actually, the consequence is very expensive, because that means the government continually comes forward with bills that are then contested, either at the provincial level or through other organizations. That ties up court time. That ties up resources. For example, there are challenges now to other government bills. I think there is very likely to be a challenge to the bill we are debating today because this government omitted an important part of our equality framework from the bill, disadvantaging our troops, our Canadian Armed Forces, whom we all respect and would want to see treated equally. I think there may well be a challenge to the bill, because it is flawed, and it will then go through the hoops of being contested and found failing.

Let us avoid that. Let us pull the bill back. Let us fix it before it goes forward, on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of rights and equality and on behalf of our Armed Forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to begin by saying that many of us on this side of the House, on the government benches, are taken aback by the member's speech and the other speeches we have heard today from the Liberal Party members. While the member for Vancouver Quadra may have prided herself on running a leadership campaign that was pretty far to the left, many of her proposals today are actually more extreme than those proposed by the NDP in committee or at any other stage of this debate.

My question is: If she thinks the summary trial system is unconstitutional, does not cohere with the charter, then why did the Liberal Party not do something about that during the 15 years it was in government under the charter and with this military justice system?

Second, why were these points not raised in committee by the Liberal Party? Why are we suddenly, at report stage, hearing these radical musings from Liberal members about our military justice system, which never came up in committee?

Also, why are they relying on only two witnesses—two witnesses who took extreme positions?

Why are they delaying necessary changes, modernization updating in the military justice?

Finally, why do they not take pride in a military justice system that, as part of our larger justice system, is the envy of the world?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it amusing, actually, that the member opposite is using words like “radical” and “extreme” for a proposition the Liberals are making that in fact was applied by the British Parliament, and we have a Conservative government in Britain. The British government did actually go a long way to ensuring the fair treatment of soldiers facing summary trials. In Britain, I would claim that the requirements of independence, impartiality, fairness and equality are very similar to those in Canada.

If we are proposing that this law, before becoming law, should incorporate those kinds of changes that have been incorporated in Britain and so many other places, I fail to understand how these can be considered radical and extreme proposals.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reference to the member saying that the Liberal caucus was on the ball. I have to say it is a little late to come to be on the ball. When the bill was at second reading and report stage, only one Liberal member spoke at each of those stages. Furthermore, the Liberal Party never made any recommendations for amendments at committee. Now the member is saying these changes should be incorporated into the legislation before it is adopted. The place to actually make proposals is in committee, which the NDP did. We made recommendations for amendments at committee to make the bill better.

I would like to ask the member why more Liberal members did not speak on previous stages of this bill; why they did not recommend these changes or any changes to the bill at committee; and why they did not support the NDP amendments.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the NDP member prefers process over principle. This is about principle. Is the member saying that committees are an absolutely ironclad place to do great public policy? Do amendments actually happen in committee these days? Does the member feels that committee is a place that he and his party can get great public policy to happen? I would posit that is not the case. To rest a decision on the process in committee rather than the fundamental principle of human rights and equality is not something with which I agree.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the comment that was just made by the member from the official opposition. We still have time to amend this legislation. I put forward amendments that would preserve the independence of investigations and prevent senior military officials from interfering in the scope of an investigation. It is exactly the opportunity to pass those amendments today. I would be very grateful if the official opposition and the Liberal Party would change their current position of allowing this bill to pass on division and, instead, support a vote on the amendments to improve Bill C-15.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member ask a question of process to support a principle rather than a question of process to undermine a principle, as we heard from the NDP.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to join in the debate. It has been informative. Being neither a lawyer with a legal background or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces with a military background, I have certainly learned quite a bit from the debate here today. It has been worthwhile.

That being said, our caucus is blessed with a great depth of legal knowledge. My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, and my colleague from down the road in Halifax West have addressed many of the rights issues woven throughout this piece of legislation. I am certainly respectful of their opinion on it.

As well, our caucus boasts a number of people who have served our country in military service. The member for Winnipeg North is a former member of the Canadian air force. He was posted in Edmonton for a number of years. Our colleague, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, is a former naval officer, a colonel, in the Canadian navy. He went on to become involved in the space program and was Canada's first astronaut. He is a man whose opinion is widely respected across the country.

Then, of course, from the red chamber, there is Senator Romeo Dallaire. His vast experience and understanding of all issues military has a great deal of equity in his opinion. When people of that calibre bring forward concerns on a particular piece of legislation, such as Bill C-15, obviously it is worth taking note.

One of the key provisions brought forward today is the provision for security of tenure for military justices until they reach the retirement age of 60, resign or are removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee. The outlining of sentences, objectives and principles is another provision. The legislation would also amend the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused. The bill also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee. One of the other key components is that it allows certain service offences to carry a criminal record.

In our party, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court martial system and to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. However, we also believe that Canadian citizens who make that career decision, that life choice, to join the Canadian Forces should not lose some of their rights before the courts.

We believe and understand that rights and equality are universal. Without an effective means for appeal, and no recorded proceedings, which was mentioned by my colleague from Halifax West, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not respect the basic rights of Canadian Forces members. Our party does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, as the means of pardoning offences has been recently removed by the government.

Finally, we find it problematic that the VCDS can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the code of service discipline.

Obviously, there are a number of disparities between the military and civil justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. While we recognize that updates to the military justice system must be made, the government is missing an opportunity to make these changes properly.

Many aspects of the MJS inexplicably remain unimproved or provide unnecessary powers. For example, Bill C-15 enshrines in law a list of military offences that will now carry a criminal record, and some are hardly necessary. Without a pardon system, which was recently revoked by the Conservatives, and summary trials set up with no records and no meaningful appeal, a Canadian Forces member would be left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

I would think it would have twigged on the government that many Canadians, after they finish their military service, have challenges securing that first job out of the service. Many times, the skills an individual acquires, even the technical skills, do not align with accepted or traditional construction trade skills.

The Helmets to Hardhats program, which works with members who try to seek employment after having left the military, is recognition of that. The Conservatives take a great deal of credit for it, but they have put only $150,000 into the program. The program is really run by Canadian building trades and a number of corporate sponsors. That being said, it is a program that recognizes some of the challenges members of the Canadian Forces face upon release. It would be nice if the government would play a more significant role.

That being said, if the Conservatives were attuned to the challenges of departing members, one would think they would understand that coming out of the military with a criminal record because of an offence that in our own court system would not be recognized as a criminal act becomes a burden in itself. That is yet another challenge that has to be overcome by an individual. It is truly unfortunate and unnecessary.

My colleague from Ajax—Pickering said that the testimony given by a couple of witnesses was somewhat extreme. Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau is a respected Canadian with a very distinguished military career. I will read into the record his quote from the testimony presented:

I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of these charter rights when facing a quasi-criminal process with the possibility of loss of liberty through detention in military barracks.

We cannot dismiss testimony from individuals whose opinions we greatly respect. We should take that into consideration. Certainly the testimony of both Retired Colonel Drapeau and M. Létourneau was very compelling and should be reflected going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, the Liberal Party in the past, like us, has accepted the authority of former senior members of the judiciary, such as Justice Dickson, Justice Lamer and Justice LeSage, who have served at the highest levels with either the Supreme Court of Canada or the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. None of them have recommended that the summary trial system be dispensed with. None of them have said that it is unconstitutional or contrary to or at odds with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We now have the Liberal Party suddenly claiming support for the charter while ignoring the advice of these eminent jurists, who are great champions of the charter itself. It seems to me that the Liberal Party on this issue, as on so many, no longer has a position.

We just heard the member for Cape Breton—Canso say that Bill C-15 would strengthen the role of the grievance board. It would give it more independence and give it a new name. The member for Vancouver Quadra said that there was no such change in the bill.

It is clear that the Liberals are improvising. They are making up these changes that were never spoken about in committee. Why is that? Why delay the modernization of our military justice system and disregard the sage advice of eminent—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his opinion.

As we know, in every piece of legislation, a number of items will be impacted and a number of items will be changed. Our caucus, and I am sure the House, can agree that probably two-thirds of this bill are worthwhile and well founded.

As a matter of fact, we have seen other aspects of this bill brought before the House in the past. Bill C-7 was here in 2006, and Bill C-41 was in 2008. Both died on the order paper, but many of the components of this bill were brought forward at that time.

There are aspects of this bill we have absolutely no problem with. However, the concerns we have raised through the debate today are real, and I hope that the government is taking note.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to be a little confused this morning, but I will let it slide, since it is Monday morning.

In committee, they had the opportunity to oppose the bill. When they had the chance to move amendments, they did nothing. They also opposed all the amendments proposed by the NDP.

Could the Liberal member name one amendment proposed by the NDP and explain why he is opposed to it?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will host a party back at my office if anybody ever gets an amendment passed in committee, because we are being force-fed. I know that the member is a new member, but unlike anything I have seen in my 13 years, the impact of amendments now being brought forward at committee is, for the most part, laughable.

When there is testimony on the record, presented by such respected Canadians, I think it is worthwhile. It is never too late to bring it forward.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is bringing forward amendments. We will certainly look at those and take them into consideration to see if they can improve the legislation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important debate we are having today. This is about the men and women in the Canadian Forces, full stop. It is about whether they will be treated like every other Canadian citizen. It is about whether the government is manifesting what I would describe as stubborn pigheadedness when it comes to improving the military justice system that is in place.

It is impossible for me to speak about this criminal justice bill without being reminded of the typical conduct of the government under the Conservative Party. It is a government that consistently has refused to be bound by its responsibilities under section 4(1) of the Department of Justice Act. For Canadians watching, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, a lawyer, went to the bar when he was sworn in and pledged an oath to uphold the law. When he was sworn in to the role as a lawyer in the province of Ontario, he was sworn in to uphold the law for his entire legal career.

I would argue that since the arrival of the Conservative government, in some quarters described as a regime, it has seen fit to consistently leave aside its responsibilities in this regard. I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada may, for example, be in breach of his own code of conduct and his code of ethics as a lawyer. However, that is not what we are debating today.

I am reminded of the words of David Daubney. Mr. Daubney, for my colleagues in the Conservative caucus who do not know, was a member of Parliament with the Progressive Conservative Party. He then went on to a very distinguished career as a lawyer in the Department of Justice, where he served in his last post as director of the criminal law policy unit.

Two day after retiring from his distinguished career, he lashed out at the Conservative government in terms of its conduct with respect to the use of evidence, analysis, research, things that we would rely on as parliamentarians to make the right calls for everyday Canadians, in this case, everyday members in our Canadian Forces.

Mr. Daubney went on to say that he was extremely disappointed and that was one of the reasons why he left his career. Despite the fact that with his team he delivered hard evidence and good analysis to the government, particularly in areas like mandatory minimums, the government would not hear them. It was more than tone deaf; it simply shut it off.

Here we have another example of a bill. I would like to go back to some words spoken earlier by the MP for Ajax—Pickering, who stood up and boasted that Canada was the envy of the world. He is right. I could not be in more agreement with my colleague, but he knows better. During his time serving as a young ambassador in Afghanistan, he knew that one of the foundational documents we were trying to inculcate into the Afghani system of criminal justice was to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the baseline.

For Canadians who are watching or following, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now the number one document used in the world for strengthening the rule of law for helping to amend and strengthen constitutions all over the world. When I trained in the former Soviet Union after the wall fell in over 20 countries, I used the Charter of Rights. When I was in the Ukraine last fall, strengthening its legal system, I used the Charter of Rights. Many jurisdictions now look to Canada and look to our charter as the foundational document.

When my colleague for Vancouver Quadra rose to express her concern about the human rights implications in the bill, she was right. I know many members in the Conservative caucus know in their heart of hearts that the bill is incomplete, but it is capable of being, not perfected, but certainly improved, which is why the Liberal Party of Canada is raising these important foundational questions today.

This is about the average man and woman in the Canadian Forces. Should they make a mistake, should they make the wrong choice, as so many Canadian citizens do in their lives from time to time, we want to make absolutely categorically sure that these citizens have the same protections afforded to them as any other citizen living in Canada and walking our streets today possess.

This was why I raised questions this morning around why, for example, the government of the United Kingdom, the British government, had ensured that the requirements for independence and impartiality were woven into its domestic criminal justice system so it was in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a powerful precedent for Canada and for this Parliament, and I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada knows that.

In the U.K. context, the British government has ensured that the accused may be represented by counsel and entitled to an appeal under a newly created summary appeal court. It has ensured that the summary appeal court would be presided over by a civilian judge, yet assisted by two military members who were officers or warrant officers to ensure adequate military representation. Also, as a general rule, it has moved to ensure that imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the offender is not legally represented in court or in a court martial. This sounds to me to be an important and powerful precedent that we should look to weave into our amendments to the criminal justice system.

Comparatively, beyond our common law founding mother ship United Kingdom, why have countries like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and dozens more all moved to ensure that independence, impartiality, fairness and justice are hallmarks of their amendments and improvements to the criminal justice system?

Why only here are we seeing, as I described earlier, the stubborn pigheadedness that seems to find its way into every justice bill the Conservative government brings forward? When in the face of so much evidence, in the face of the opportunity to get it better, why is the government not seizing the opportunity and doing right by Canadian citizens, and more important, doing right by the men and women in our Canadian Forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the world continues to be inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Canadian Bill of Rights enacted by Mr. Diefenbaker. Those too are anchors of our judicial system, just like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, the real question is this. Why is the Liberal Party changing its position, or is without a position?

On the one hand, the Liberals are saying that the summary trial system is incompatible with the charter. On the other hand, for 15 years, when they governed under the charter, they did nothing to change the situation.

Second, some of the speeches today seem to imply very ambitious amendments, which were either not made by the Liberal Party or not supported by Liberals in committee. Why are they coming at this late date?

Third, when did the Liberal Party stop being inspired by and guided by Canadian legal excellence and start being guided by Lithuania?

Former Chief Justice Lamer, former Chief Justice Dickson, former Chief Justice Lesage have all agreed that the summary trial system, as updated in this bill, would serve Canadian men and women in uniform extremely well. Why does the Liberal Party not think so?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to take those in order.

First, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is now saying that the Liberal Party's amendments would pass in the committee, we should have that discussion. However, given the actual behaviour of the government in the last several years, amendments in committee never see the light of day because, with all due respect to my good colleague from Ajax—Pickering, he has no authority here. All the shots are being called by the Prime Minister's office.

Second, with respect to looking to other judicial traditions, the member is either not a lawyer or is disparaging of the Baltic States, of a 1,000-year-old legal tradition. I am not prepared to disparage Lithuanian legal jurisprudence.

Of course we stand on our own two feet. Of course Canada is a wonderful contributor. However, we look to other jurisdictions because we admit our limitations and we know there are really good valuable lessons to be had in other jurisdictions.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as to what the Liberal member has said about making amendments in committee, we realize is difficult. We realize the Conservatives have a majority on committee and they are not inclined to make any amendments.

However, we on this side of the House, the NDP, the official opposition, are not willing to sit on our hands. We will make proposals. We will try to make amendments in committee. We will let the Conservatives vote against the amendments. They have the majority.

Why will the Liberal Party not join us in making amendments at the committee?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our role and our obligation as members of Parliament in the House is to seize every available opportunity to try to make a positive contribution, which is precisely what we are doing today.

It is simply too important to be, in my view, tangled up in procedural wrangling. This is an appeal to the Government of Canada, and particularly the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who as I alluded to earlier I believe is in breach of his own code of ethics, his own responsibilities as a member of the bar.

We are saying that we can get this better on behalf of the men and women in the Canadian Forces. We owe it to them.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As with most bills, there are some good points and some problems with some of the clauses in this particular bill. I will spend most of my time on concerns with changes to the military justice system. I want to outline a few good points that are to the government's credit, but overall the bill does not have the balance that is needed.

Providing for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement is a good proposal. Permitting the appointment of part-time military judges to conclude cases in a timely manner is fine, and specifying the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process makes a lot of sense.

However, the area of concern is that the bill makes amendments to the delegation of the power of the Chief of the Defence Staff as the final authority in the grievance process, and it makes consequential amendments to other acts to make that possible.

The Liberal Party does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, since the means for pardoning offences has been recently removed by the Conservatives. What Bill C-15 would do is enshrine in law a list of military offences that would carry a criminal record, some of which are hardly appropriate for a criminal record, and others before me have spoken about the seriousness of this measure.

I expect many offices, both on the government side and this side of the House, have dealt with people who have applied for pardons, have found the period has been extended for a longer period of time and as a result have found themselves in an employment category that is probably not as good as they otherwise would have had if they had been able to receive their pardons in a timely fashion. In fact, I have talked to a quite a number of people who said that obtaining a pardon used to carry a reasonable cost but is now very expensive and difficult to afford.

There is an attack by the Government of Canada on people who have, yes, done wrong in life, but punishment is everything on the government side, it seems. Yes, a lot of these people got into trouble, but they can be productive players in Canadian society, and the ability for people to be productive players in Canadian society has been diminished by what the government has done on the pardoning provisions alone, and that hurts us all. It hurts society and it hurts the economy.

Under the new rules, Canadian Forces members would be left haunted by a record, would be unable to find employment upon release and would face greater difficulties in getting a pardon.

Michel Drapeau, who is a retired colonel, noted the following in his committee testimony:

—[an] accused before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence. This is despite the fact that the verdict and sentence are imposed without any regard to the minimum standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, such as the right to counsel, the presence of rules of evidence, and the right to appeal.

That is a serious matter in terms of the list of military offences, some of which should not be criminal charges, that would affect individuals and individuals' families. As I said, tougher rules to obtain pardons even diminish the ability for folks to contribute to the Canadian economy.

The other very serious matter in the bill that we find extremely problematic is that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff can intervene and give direction in military and police investigations. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff is certainly subject to the code of service discipline, but the ability to intervene in a case and maybe deny a case or have more authority in a case is a concern.

I am personally worried by the lack of separation we are seeing in the military justice system. I am worried about the balance of justice, the fairness aspect and in this case, the ability of the command structure to influence and control. As well, as I said earlier when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence was on his feet and laughed at this, thinking it was not possible, I am also worried that the situation in the military of superior authorities influencing decision-making down the line is starting to creep its way into the criminal justice system.

Let me spell out what I mean in that regard. This weekend we found out about the decision of the Conservative government to forbid any RCMP official from meeting with members of Parliament without prior approval from the office of the Minister of Public Safety.That decision carries with it all the implications of the government transforming the RCMP into a Conservative Party security service.

I say that in relation to this bill because we are seeing influence higher up in the chain, whether it is through the military system or now, seemingly, through the civil justice system by the Minister of Public Safety imposing rules that the RCMP is not allowed to talk to members of Parliament unless the minister's office is first notified. It is political influence on the day-to-day policing carried out by Canada's national police force. That is absolutely wrong.

The Minister of Public Safety with the Department of Justice and cabinet designed the law, and that is good and appropriate, but for a minister to be involved practically in the day-to-day affairs of policing is way beyond the pale.

As a former solicitor general, I was well aware that one of the principal obligations was to ensure that there was never a hint of direct political interference in the activities, obligations and duties of the RCMP. That standard of professionalism no longer exists under the current Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety. We found out about that this weekend.

What will this mean? I see what is outlined in Bill C-15 creeping into the civil justice system under the authority of the Minister of Public Safety.

It would mean that before approval of any requests by members of Parliament to meet with members of the RCMP to discuss what at times could be sensitive security issues related to constituents, the political staff within the minister's office will have access to the request and, of serious concern, the reasons for the request. This, in short, will give Conservative Party operatives sensitive information related to individuals, information that should only be shared with law enforcement personnel who have the training and the mandate to have access to that information. That is a serious matter.

Being compelled to inform the political staff in a minister's office about a simple meeting, maybe just over law enforcement in my riding, could jeopardize individuals or investigations. I make that statement in relation to Bill C-15 because it is a recent issue that has not been talked about: the creeping aspect of the authority of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in all things related to the military justice system.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's dissertation, and his tinfoil hat may be on just a bit tight.

He talked to Bill C-15, which has been debated through three different bills in three different Parliaments. I really think it is time that we moved on. It may not be perfect in every aspect, but it makes great progress on an issue that is important to the Canadian Forces and it is important to the men and women in the Canadian Forces, who understand it far better than my hon. colleague does.

The members rambled off into other issues that have nothing to do with Bill C-15, other than the aforementioned headpiece. I believe I heard the member say that members of Parliament are being denied the ability to be involved in day-to-day policing. Unless I misheard him, is he saying that members of Parliament should be involved in day-to-day policing discussions with the RCMP?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member, for whom I have a lot of respect, could not have gotten what I said more backwards than he did.

I raised the issue because of the directive of the Minister of Public Safety to the RCMP, as announced by the Commissioner of the RCMP, to the effect that members of Parliament are not allowed to talk to commanding officers or whomever in the RCMP unless the minister's office is first informed. That is not getting into day-to-day issues of the RCMP from the perspective of the member of Parliament; that is doing our jobs as members of Parliament by talking to commanding officers about policing in a region, talking about what is needed if we see a problem in one area and more personnel are needed on the ground, et cetera.

However, what is terribly wrong about it is that the Minister of Public Safety now is involving himself in day-to-day policing and that operatives, political staff in that minister's office, are going to have to be informed on issues that could be serious concerns that would be better left with the police that are involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, but first, I would like to say something about the committee's study of Bill C-15.

The study in committee lasted longer than normal, about four hours. If you look at the committee transcript of those four hours, not one Liberal member spoke. During a four-hour meeting, the Liberals did not speak at all.

I would like to know why they thought it was a good idea not to participate in the four-hour debate in committee and why they are raising these issues now.

Why did his colleague not bring this up in committee when it was studying Bill C-15?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to remind my hon. colleague, but that is what this place is for. It is for debate by those members who do not have the opportunity to sit on that particular committee. It is for us to raise our concerns as individual members. I do not know if it is the same in the NDP as it is in the Conservative Party, where individual members really do not stand in their own right and have their own fair say; however, in the case of our party, our member at the committee basically supported the amendments of the NDP—not quite all, as a few were a little bizarre, but most were supported by our colleague.

The government asked where our amendments were. The fact that no sensible amendments supported by both the NDP and the Liberals got through committee just shows how undemocratic and dictatorial the government side has become.

Members who sit on that committee who are not members of the executive council take their orders from the Prime Minister's Office. They shut down debate and do not allow amendments, and that is why we are getting so much bad legislation in this House, and it is why I am on my feet. This is bad legislation. It sets a bad example in a lot of categories because it would give the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff too much power, and it needs to be changed.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about one of the points that my colleague just raised. He spoke about the role of the House of Commons within our Canadian democracy. It is a place where anyone can bring up ideas related to the topic of debate.

I am not a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We have an extremely competent critic who is a member of the committee. I was therefore not fully aware of the issue raised by Bill C-15. I had heard about this bill and I had heard that it left a lot to be desired. However, I was not able to examine the issue before the bill made it to the House and we had a chance to examine it more closely.

This once again highlights what an important role the House of Commons plays in our country's democracy. I congratulate our dear colleague who just spoke for bringing up that point.

I would also like to say something about my colleague from Winnipeg North.

I remember when the member for Winnipeg North joined the House of Commons not long ago after a very exciting by-election win in Winnipeg. He brought tremendous experience as a provincial legislator to that race and then to Parliament. I remember being very impressed by his oratorical skills, his ability to speak in Parliament and to get right to the core of an issue so that we could better understand what was at stake in any debate. When I learned that he had been a member of the armed forces I doubly appreciated his public service and what he has done for this country. He joins two eminent Canadians, one of whom is sitting to my left, the member of Parliament for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who also was a member of the military. Not only was he Canada's first astronaut in space, but he was also a member of the naval forces and used his skills and knowledge as an engineer to support that arm of the armed forces. In the Senate we have Senator Roméo Dallaire, a great military man, a great Canadian, a great internationalist, and of course a great Liberal. We have on this side of the House a fair amount of depth when it comes to discussing military issues. I am proud to say that I belong to this caucus.

The government has for years disparaged the opposition by saying that it does not support the military. In any crisis or any situation where the military was discussed with a certain amount of intensity, the government never missed a beat in questioning the esteem with which all members of the House, including members of the opposition, hold members of our military, not only veterans but currently serving members.

I ask members to look south of the border for one minute. I wonder if they can recall a time when, in a crisis or in any other situation, the military has been used as a partisan weapon by one party to attack another. In a crisis, have we heard presidents say members of the other party do not respect the military, do not believe in the military, do not have the best interests of the military at heart? I do not hear that from south of the border, yet that is supposed to be a society so much more divided than ours, so much more polarized than ours.

Government members talk a good game when they talk about supporting the military, but when it comes time to give charter rights to members of the military, they do not talk about such things but rather gloss over them.

I would remind hon. members that two weeks ago was the 31st anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That anniversary day coincided with the day that the new Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, met with--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

--his caucus for the first time, as leader of the party. That was a fine day.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

I would just remind the hon. member, and all others, not to use the names of their colleagues.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I should have known better. I have been in this House long enough to know that.

There was a time when soldiers held a very different position in society. I know that the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering, who no doubt studied history, understands that the role of the military in society has evolved over time. There was probably a time, and he probably knows better than I, when the military was considered somehow on the bottom rungs of society, perhaps there were slaves in the military, and they did not enjoy the same rights as those who governed society or as those who practised other trades.

However, society has evolved and now members of the military, to quote another individual, are equals in society. They are citizens who wear the uniform and show a great deal of commitment to the values upon which this country is based, a commitment so strong that they are prepared to put their lives on the line to promote and to defend those values around the world.

Members of the military are equal members of society. They have a right to the same protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we owe them a great deal.

Let us talk a bit about changing attitudes and about morale.

We know that if we want our men and women in the military, who are volunteers, who put themselves in harm's harm, to do their best for our country, if we want them to protect us with the commitment that they show every day, it is important that they feel respected by society, that they feel they are respected by us, that they are respected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In this sense, we are talking about enlightened self-interest. It is in our enlightened self-interest to ensure that members of the military have the morale, that they feel the respect that will allow them to do the best job they can on our behalf.

I will get a bit more into the detail of the bill, and it is not all bad. Not every part of the bill is bad. I would remind the House that the bill came out of a process that involved the House of Commons and the Senate. I would like to touch a little on the background of the bill.

The bill originated from recommendations made in a report by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, the late former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as from recommendations contained in a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled, “Equal Justice: Reforming Canada's System of Court Martials”.

I would like to underscore the word “equal”, equal justice, in the title of the Senate report. I think this is very important in the context of today's debate because this is really what we are standing up for today, on this side of the House. We are standing up for equality and fair treatment of those like the hon. member for Winnipeg North, like the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, like the hon. Senator Roméo Dallaire, who have committed themselves to protecting this country from what is obviously a very dangerous world, at times.

I think I will end on that note.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the bill, I guess, in part, because I spent my first career in the military. I always took particular interest in the justice system within the military, realizing it was somewhat different. I am glad to say that I did not have too many encounters with that justice system during my time in the navy.

However, let me summarize some of the key points the Liberal Party feels are important to talk about with respect to Bill C-15.

The Liberal Party certainly understands the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. At the same time, our party believes that Canadian citizens who decide to join the Canadian Forces, as I did, should not, thereby, lose part of their rights before the courts.

The Liberal Party understands that rights and equality are universal. Without an effective means for appeal and no recorded proceedings, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not respect the basic rights of the Canadian Forces members. The Liberal Party of Canada does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, as the means for pardoning offences has been recently removed by the current government.

Finally, the Liberal Party of Canada finds it problematic that the VCDS, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

I will provide some background.

There are a number of disparities between the military and civil justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. While we recognize that updates to the military criminal justice system must be made, the government is missing a real opportunity to make these changes properly.

Many aspects of the military justice system would inexplicably remain unimproved or would provide unnecessary powers. For example, Bill C-15 would enshrine in law a list of military offences that would now carry a criminal record, some of which are hardly necessary. Without the pardon system recently revoked by the Conservative government and with the summary trial being set up as it is, with no record and no means of meaningful appeal, Canadian Forces members would be left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

As Colonel Michel Drapeau noted in his committee testimony:

...someone accused before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence. This despite the fact that the verdict and sentence are imposed without any regard to minimum standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, such as a right to counsel, the presence of rules of evidence, and a right to appeal.

Further quoting him:

In Canada, these rights do not exist in summary trials, not even for a decorated veteran, yet a Canadian charged with a summary conviction offence in civilian court, such as Senator Patrick Brazeau, enjoys all of these rights. So does someone appearing in a small claims court or traffic court.

I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a quasi-criminal law process with the possibility of loss of liberty through detention in military barracks.

I would like to also quote from former Justice Gilles Létourneau, who provided further criticism of the summary trial system which remains largely unaddressed by the modernized version of the current bill:

This form of trial has been found to be unconstitutional in 1997 by the European Court of Human Rights because it did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality set out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As a result of this decision and others, the British Parliament enacted legislation which now provides guarantees to an accused soldier. These provisions include the following

(a) the accused may be represented by counsel;

(b) the accused is entitled to an Appeal to the newly created Summary Appeal Court;

(c) the Summary Appeal Court is presided by a civilian judge, assisted by two military members who are officers or warrant officers; and

(d) as a general rule, imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the offender is not legally represented in that court or in a court martial.

To further quote Judge Létourneau:

As a result, the British Parliament has gone a long way to ensure a fair treatment of soldiers facing summary trials. Similar changes have taken place in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand as well as France, Belgium, Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania and Netherlands, to name a few. However, despite the fact the requirements of independence, impartiality, fairness and justice are the same in Canada, and if anything they are more compelling because, in Canada, they are entrenched in the Constitution, our men and women in uniform are still denied fair treatment at a summary trial.

Furthermore, Bill C-15 gives the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff power to intervene and give direction in investigations. This is troubling, considering that he is also subject to the code of service discipline and could technically intervene on his own behalf.

Colonel Drapeau notes:

The proposed new paragraph 18.5(3) in C-15 would, in my estimation, make the current lack of independence worse by now granting authority to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) to issue “instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular investigation”.

This is very troubling indeed.

Quoting again from Colonel Drapeau:

Keep in mind that already the CDS and the VCDS has the power to call in the NIS to conduct an investigation on any issue which is of concern to them—and, frankly, under the existing command arrangements it is most unlikely that the NIS would ignore such a request. Also, the CDS does not feel inhibited to comment publicly on an open NIS investigation.

To now give the VCDS the authority to issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular military police investigation will remove any pretense that the Military Police is independent from the chain of command. Lest we forget, the CDS, the VCDS and, for that matter, the JAG, are each subject to the Code of Service Discipline. None of them should have the power to direct or influence either the initiation, the suspension or the conduct of a particular police investigation let alone to issue instructions or guidelines as to the conduct of a specific investigation.

Soldiers are citizens and should enjoy the same Constitutional and charter rights as every other citizen. As Judge Létourneau so eloquently puts it:

We as a society have forgotten, with harsh consequences for the members of the armed forces that a soldier is before all a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen in uniform. So is a police officer; he is a Canadian citizen in uniform, but he's not deprived of his right to a jury trial. Is that what we mean by “equality of all before the law”? Is not the soldier who risks his life for us entitled to at least the same rights and equality before the law as his fellow citizens when he is facing criminal prosecutions?

The answer, of course, for all of us must be a resounding “yes”.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with every part of the presentation of the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. That is why I have put forward amendments to deal with the very issue raised by the hon. member, amendments to ensure that we do not allow the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to be able to issue instructions for an investigation, something that Michel Drapeau pointed out in his testimony:

Would the mayor be able to issue a direction to the chief of the Ottawa police, even if it's in writing, about a particular investigation? The answer is “no”. Would the prime minister be able to do that with the RCMP? The answer is “absolutely not”. So why would it be here?

We would have a chance this evening to put this to a recorded vote instead of a division if only there were four other members of this place on the opposition benches who would vote for my amendments there before them and were willing to stand up and insist on the vote.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her comment, and I agree with a lot of what she has expressed.

Let me remind everybody of what is particularly troubling about allowing the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to intervene in an investigation. We all remember what happened with Somalia, and we all remember the fact that, if it had not been for media investigation, there would have been the very serious possibility of a cover-up.

We want to make sure that kind of thing does not happen in the future. Therefore, what is being suggested in terms of changes, even at this late report stage, are eminently sensible changes that we would be glad we made for the future.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of this debate today and, as both a former member of the Canadian Forces and as a lawyer, I have been concerned. In fact the member for Ottawa South made some comments in his remarks about the Attorney General that I think are really below what a lawyer should be saying when discussing policy or law with another lawyer. It is conduct or language that is really beneath him, and in the legal profession it is called “sharp practice”.

My question to the member relates to the fact that we heard in debate today that a lot of the concerns being raised today were not raised at committee. Specifically, the Liberal Party likes to quote the charter at length but does not seem to understand that the charter would provide for this law in a fulsome way. Certainly, section 1 of the charter would provide for some differences to the legal structure for military personnel who give the ultimate sacrifice.

I would like the member's comments on charter provisions specifically.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member for Ottawa South said, but I will say that we brought up time and time again at committee the changes and the concerns we expressed today.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the debate in committee, the NDP made quite a few comments.

It was important to us to participate in the debate because we wanted to stand up for military personnel and we felt that the bill was flawed. Unfortunately, during the last four hours of debate in committee, the Liberal Party said not a word.

I know that my colleague is not a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, but why did he not convey his thoughts to the Liberal member who is on the committee? The Liberal committee member could then have shared those thoughts with the committee. Why did the Liberals have nothing to contribute to four hours of debate? Worse still, for some of the votes, no Liberal member voted.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what actually happened was a four-hour filibuster. There were 57 changes that were proposed, and no attention was paid to them whatsoever. To pretend in any way that there was a proper debate during this committee, over a period of four hours, is to not recognize the fact that it was one giant filibuster by the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion defeated on division.

I therefore declare Motion No. 2 lost.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage without further amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)