Bill C-15 (Historical)

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system. The amendments, among other things,
(a) provide for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement;
(b) permit the appointment of part-time military judges;
(c) specify the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process;
(d) provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution;
(e) modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person; and
(f) modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods.
The enactment also sets out the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s duties and functions and clarifies his or her responsibilities. It also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee.
Finally, it makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now for the business ahead of us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be here.

Thank you, Minister and Mr. Wex.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for your service in both uniforms.

Overhauling a system like this is obviously not easy when it has been in place for decades.

Minister or Commissioner, did you start with a blank page or did you look at other forces' models of grievance systems in particular? The Canadian Forces is undergoing a similar kind of activity now called Bill C-15. Or did you look at the OPP or other large forces to base some of your lessons learned, best practices sort of thing...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, I will go back to Bill C-15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to stress this. He says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, that is not what they did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is where we should go back to now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us first talk about the summary trial aspect. This is a very important one, because, as we have heard in various speeches, 80% of military offences are dealt with by summary trial. The concern raised by my colleague from St. John's East in his work in committee is that, contrary to what happens in the civilian justice system, the proceedings in summary trials do not protect the rights of the accused adequately. He also introduced amendments to address this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Through proposed and accepted amendments to Bill C-41, an iteration of this bill in the previous Parliament, we had gone much further down the road of reconciling this tension in the military justice system of expediency and the inclusion of fundamental legal principles. For example, a key New Democrat amendment to Bill C-41 was the provision ensuring military personnel convicted of offences during a summary trial would not be subject to a criminal record. We believed then, and we still believe, that those who bravely serve our country should not be deprived of the rights and protections that other Canadians enjoy.

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

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

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

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

That is not happening presently in the Canadian Forces.

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

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

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

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

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

I will leave the government side to ponder that question.