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.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safe Streets and Communities Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not the case with section 165 of the act addressed by Bill C-15. What you are saying is contradicted in subsections 165.21(2) and 165.22(2) that Bill C-15 intends to amend. I think that is another liberty the person who drafted it took.

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

I have just one comment to make. I have no objection to withdrawing the amendment. In Bill C-15, using "le juge militaire" sometimes and sometimes "il" is confusing. The person who drafted it did not pay attention. It was not very important to that person to put either "il" or "le juge militaire". The fact that the translation is not equivalent is solely due to the fact that the English and French versions were drafted by two different people without consulting one other. In my opinion, that is the bigger problem.

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

I would agree with the comments that have been made: that it wouldn't make a substantive change in the legislation.

I would just point out, as I think Mr. McKay very correctly observed, that it's the current drafting convention. To inform members of the committee, it's used multiple times in Bill C-15, which we're certainly hoping will be before you relatively soon, so if you were going to make that change here, you're going to have to be prepared to make it multiple times in Bill C-15.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It is often pointed out to me that the way the wording has been done in French versus English in Bill C-15 is also quite deliberate. It's consistent with what we see in Bill C-16.

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

There is a provision for a reserve for our military judges panel under Bill C-15. Of course, that is not part of the very narrowly focused provisions in Bill C-16 currently before the committee.

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

We are very much aware of the differences in sentencing regimes between what currently exists under the civilian Criminal Code and the code of service discipline in part III of the National Defence Act. As you will be aware, Chief Justice Lamer made a recommendation that we should try to enhance the flexibility of sentencing options. In fact, Bill C-15 tries to accomplish that by proposing to introduce a number of new sentencing options, such as intermittent sentences and absolute discharges.

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

I beg two points in response. For exactly the reason I just described, on a functional basis the attributes that are required of the court are best fulfilled by people with that military experience. Justice Ritchie agreed with that in the MacKay case, and specifically said that with all respect to people with a contrary view, that function was best performed by officers with military experience.

I think the bottom line is that there are differences between the civilian justice system and the military justice system, and those differences exist for a reason. The real question should not be why it isn't the same as the civilian system; the real issue is whether it is constitutionally compliant and effective for the purposes it needs to fulfill. Those two purposes are: to enhance the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces through the promotion and maintenance of discipline, cohesion, and morale; and to do justice.

You'll see that in Bill C-15, clause 62, our statutory articulation of sentencing, we've tried to set out the fundamental purposes of the system to exactly delineate in statute--

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

The provisions in our law regarding an inquiry committee are largely consistent with similar provisions set up under the Judges Act with respect to civilian judges. So currently, today, the inquiry committee is constituted in the Queen's regulations and orders and would be composed of three judges of the Court Martial Appeal Court selected by the chief justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court. It is meant to be a safeguard of independence that the composition of the committee is determined by an external independent authority and that the actual members of the committee would be judges of the Court Martial Appeal Court who would examine this.

Under the proposals in Bill C-15, the inquiry committee as recommended by former Chief Justice Lamer would be shifted from regulations into the National Defence Act itself to give greater prominence to that and to give even greater perception of the security of independence.

So to answer your question about how difficult it is to get rid of a judge, of course, that is something that would not be undertaken lightly in either the military or civilian justice system. It happens extremely rarely, and the conditions that would be required for that would either be that the judge had sufficiently misconducted himself or herself in demeanour so as to no longer be able to continue as a judge or that the judge was medically incapable of continuing.

The conditions and the criteria for removal are specified in law, and the decision to make a recommendation is made by an external independent authority.

[Col Michael R. Gibson, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to briefly address you regarding Bill C-16, Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act.

I am pleased to be with you this morning as you begin your examination of this bill, which, as members will be aware, is a companion bill to the more comprehensive Bill C-15, which is currently at the debate stage of second reading.

Bill C-16 is specifically aimed at expeditiously and effectively responding to the recent judgment of the Court Martial Appeal Court in the case of R. v. LeBlanc regarding the constitutionality of the appointment and tenure of military judges.

Currently under section 165.21 of the National Defence Act, military judges must be officers and barristers or advocates of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province before they may be appointed by the Governor in Council. That section further provides that a military judge holds office during good behaviour for a term of five years; is removable for cause by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of an inquiry committee; and is eligible to be selected for renewal for a second or subsequent term on the recommendation of a renewal committee.

On June 2, 2011, the Court Martial Appeal Court delivered its judgment in the case of R. v. LeBlanc. In its decision the court determined that those portions of section 165.21 regarding the appointment and tenure of military judges do not sufficiently respect judicial independence as required by paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court specifically declared that subsections 165.21(2), 165.21(3), and 165.21(4) of the National Defence Act were constitutionally invalid and inoperative. However, it suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of six months to allow Parliament to enact remedial legislation. The court's declaration, absent of such an enactment, will be effective on December 2, 2011.

This decision is consistent with the recommendations of the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, the late former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who submitted an independent review of the National Defence Act in 2003. Former Chief Justice Lamer found that while these current provisions were not unconstitutional, military judges should be awarded security of tenure until retirement, subject only to removal for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee.

Bill C-16 responds directly to the recommendations in the Lamer report and to the decision in R. v. LeBlanc. The proposed amendments will enhance security of tenure for military judges by providing that they serve until the retirement age of 60 years unless removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee or if the military judge resigns.

As mentioned earlier, Bill C-15, Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, introduced at the same time as this bill, addresses the same security of tenure issues and proposes broader systemic changes. Coordinating amendments have been added to Bill C-15 to ensure that in the event both bills enter into force, it will be the provisions of Bill C-15 that take effect. Those provisions in this regard are identical to this bill.

I would be pleased to assist the committee by answering any questions you may have regarding Bill C-16.

Thank you.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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