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.

National Defence Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lieutenant-Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Director of Law, Military Justice, Policy, Department of National Defence]

Thank you.

I want to highlight that this right is already in force in the National Defence Act. It's something that was brought into force on September 1, 2018, as part of the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, which was known before as Bill C-15. Bill C-77 is adding provisions to that. It's giving more bones to it, but the right is already there in the act and can be used by courts martial.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Mr. Chair, I want to correct myself. I talked about one year, and I had forgotten that the regulations pertaining to Bill C-15 had come into force on September 1, 2018. That statute of limitations has been reduced to six months—six months for charges to be laid after the alleged commission of an offence.

The responsibility for legal education as it pertains to the military justice system falls to me. I define the standards. I define the content of the legal education. For example, presiding officer courses are developed under my authority. Of course, I do not have the wherewithal to ensure there's proper delivery, so I rely heavily on the defence academy to support and to ensure there is distributed training and support for training, and more to the point, that this training is decentralized and carried out at the unit level. The chain of command has also a great role to play in that regard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His second principle was that it was necessary to recognize the particular context of the military justice system, meaning that we, “need to have a system that will properly operate under those special conditions that our men and women are placed in, often abroad, under conditions from peacekeeping to peace-making, in what is often a hostile environment, and indeed sometimes outright war.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

Then we know you have the experience to do the job.

One thing your predecessor was sometimes uncharitably criticized for was the failure to fully implement Bill C-15, the law that was passed more than four years ago on reforming military justice. I'm wondering whether this will be a priority and if you can give us any estimate of when the act would be fully implemented.

National Defence

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

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

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

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

Thank you for that question. I was confused about the question and the response. If you're talking about the annual reports that I'm responsible for as Judge Advocate General, they are not with the minister. Those are my reports. They are still being worked on. They're close to completion. I take full responsibility for not meeting the timeline as set out to do so on an annual basis. I can go into great detail as to the reasons why. The short answer is that there were many other equal military justice priorities, not the least of which you're familiar with, Mr. Harris, dealing with legislation such as Bill C-15.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Julie Besner]

I believe it's as a result of motion NDP-14 with respect to the address of the accused being provided to the victim. That motion amended the National Defence Act provision that provides for that amendment.

There is also in clause 32 a coordinating amendment with Bill C-15, which also amends the National Defence Act. It is currently in third reading in the Senate, if I'm not mistaken. An amendment to that—

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

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

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

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

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

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us look at the current government's record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the Minister of National Defence had introduced Bill C-15 with the amendments from Bill C-41, we could have perhaps avoided a few hours of debate. However, I do think it is important for this bill to pass. That is why we have decided to support it. We will see what happens, but I think that we should be prepared to vote quickly so it can pass.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence understands there are still some flaws and I hope that he will continue to work on the issue of military justice along with the Minister of National Defence, so they can introduce other bills in order to enhance and improve the military justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-15 at third reading. The bill seeks to strengthen military justice.

As some members know, I serve on the Standing Committee on National Defence. For obvious reasons, I have been following the debate surrounding this bill closely. As some members also know, I am a former member of the military. In my opinion, the military justice system is a really important part of the Canadian Armed Forces, but it can be difficult to understand. Discipline is crucial and requires a unique justice system. The goal is to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces' operational capability.

I would like to mention that it is important for our men and women in uniform that we take this seriously and carefully study legislation that will apply to them. They make incredible personal and social sacrifices for our country. It is essential that we try to provide them with the best military justice system possible.

Clearly, justice systems are complex. We are not talking about new paint colours; we are talking about a justice system, which is extremely complex. Sometimes, there is no perfect solution, and sometimes it is too complicated to find the one solution that will fit and make everything work.

When the bill was debated at second reading, one of the first things my colleague from St. John's East, the official opposition's defence critic, said was that an amendment passed when Bill C-41 was being studied had not been included in this bill.

A minority government was in power when Bill C-41 was being studied. It had no choice but to work with the other parties. A consensus was reached about Bill C-41, which, at the time, had support from all the parties. Unfortunately, the Conservatives prorogued Parliament. Bill C-41 was not voted on at third reading.

In his speech, my colleague from St. John's East emphasized, as I did, that the proposed amendment to Bill C-41 would have lengthened the list of offences eligible for summary trial under the National Defence Act. It would have increased the number of offences that would not result in a criminal record. The Minister of National Defence promised that the parliamentary secretary would bring that amendment back to the Standing Committee on National Defence during the study of the bill, and that is what he did. The amendment was passed.

Because of that amendment, Bill C-15 was improved at the committee stage.

Since we are talking about amendments, I will quickly point out that the Conservatives proposed only that amendment and one other to correct a date. That is all.

For its part, the NDP proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments that were rejected in committee. Still, we did our work, we studied the bill and we proposed amendments to improve it.

I believe that we demonstrated our support for our men and women in uniform. We showed that this bill was important to us, that it was important to study and improve it. Unfortunately, our amendments were rejected, but at least the Conservatives' amendment was passed, which improved the bill. I do not think that amendment would have gone through without the persistence of my colleague from St. John's East and all NDP members.

Although this was a Conservative amendment in the beginning, it is important to understand that it was made because of the NDP's work.

Before I go into more detail about criminal records resulting from convictions at summary trials, I would like to briefly mention that the Liberal Party did not propose any amendments in committee. I think that this is an important bill and that we must at least try to improve it. Nevertheless, the Liberals did not put forward any amendments.

A quick look at the record shows that the Liberal Party did not have anything to say when this bill was examined clause by clause or during the votes. We also see that no Liberal members voted during the recorded votes.

In my opinion, this serious issue deserved careful examination. I think that it is unfortunate that all parties in the House did not show the same commitment to our men and women in uniform. That is what I wanted to say about what happened in committee.

I would like to deal more specifically with the issue of criminal records resulting from convictions at summary trials. Clause 75 was amended to expand the list of offences included in the National Defence Act that can be dealt with by summary trial and that will not result in a criminal record following a conviction.

Right now, 95% of summary trial convictions are exempt from a criminal record, which leaves only 5% of people who can end up with a criminal record even though they would not necessarily have one for a similar offence in civilian life. At least things are improving.

It is important to understand that the issue of summary trials and criminal records is extremely complex. On one hand, summary trials are known to be efficient and they make it possible to deal with cases quickly. On the other hand, we also know that the rules of law for these summary trials are not followed.

For example, we would not want soldiers to be exempt from receiving a criminal record for offences that would have resulted in a record in the civilian world. However, we also would not want soldiers to have criminal records for offences that would not have resulted in a record in the civilian world. We need to find a balance. The issue of military justice is therefore extremely complex.

What is more, the National Defence Act is somewhat problematic in the sense that certain offences are very broad in scope and can include both very serious crimes and offences that are more benign. That is part of the reason why I wanted to make subamendments in this regard when we examined this bill in committee.

In the case of a demotion, the individual could still end up with a criminal record. It only makes sense that someone who commits a serious offence should be demoted. It would not be possible for a new recruit, who cannot be demoted, but it would be possible for all of the other ranks. If the offence is serious enough, the person should logically be demoted and the soldier would therefore have a criminal record.

I would like to talk about some sections that are very broad, such as section 113, which deals with fires. The problem is that section 113 of the National Defence Act covers a wide range of offences related to fires, whether those fires are caused wilfully or otherwise.

Here is an example of an accidental fire. A recruit could be tired when he is on training in the countryside, and he may not necessarily have any camping experience, any experience being in the forest or any life experience to rely on in this situation.

I mention this because it is something I have experience with. He could mistakenly put kerosene instead of naphtha in the stove. This could cause a fire. This person is not doing so wilfully or for the purpose of hurting the Canadian Forces. He is simply tired and is not following directions, yet it is all the same offence. If someone wilfully burned down a building, he would be charged with the same thing, and section 113 on causing fires would apply. These two people would have criminal records when they leave the Canadian Forces. However, everyone at home understands that these two situations are drastically different.

That is why this issue is so complicated. We understand that someone who wilfully causes a fire in civilian life would have a criminal record. Logically, we do not want this person to be exempt from having a criminal record. However, we would also want this person to have a trial that observes the rules of law. We cannot give someone a criminal record if the rules of law are not observed. The issue was examined from this perspective.

Also, someone who accidentally made a blunder would have a criminal record too. I assume the fines would not be the same for the two offences and that the punishment would fit the crime. We need to understand that the same section can in fact mean two different things.

Another section was rather odd. It had to do with setting a prisoner free without authority or helping a prisoner escape. That may seem odd, but in clause 75, under the Conservative amendment, escaping from prison does not warrant a criminal record. However, if you help someone escape, you can have a criminal record. I think it is a little unclear. It makes no sense that the person who escapes has no criminal record.

An unauthorized release or helping someone escape can also include involuntary actions. If someone who is very tired does not properly lock a door, the action was not voluntary. The person had no intention of letting the prisoner escape, but they made an error. Of course people should be punished for the error, but should they have a criminal record? Twenty years later, if they have a job interview, a potential employer will see the criminal record and may or may not ask why. That is the problem. At least, if the employer asks why the candidate has a criminal record, the person will be able to explain what happened and how the military justice system works. Perhaps that might not be such a problem, but the potential employer will not necessarily ask the person to explain why they have a criminal record in their file. The details of the story are not recorded. That is why I felt these subamendments were important.

I want to say once again that there has been an improvement because 95% of the cases are covered. This is a very complex issue. It is very difficult to come up with a perfect solution. We must focus on the fact that there has been change for the better, and that the provisions have been expanded considerably, which means that the NDP will support this bill.

Naturally, there will be more work to do as we continue to improve the military justice system. All parliamentarians want to improve it, or at least I hope they do. Improving the military justice system is of great importance for our men and women in uniform. I am hopeful that we will continue to try to make improvements, to find the flaws and to make good laws to correct them. This is a complex issue, and it is important that we address it for the sake of our military personnel.

I spent a great deal of time talking about criminal records. I would now like to briefly speak again about potential interference from the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff into military investigations.

I would just like to say that interference can be defined in different ways. It is important to understand that we must make a distinction. For example, someone from command could tell investigators that, for operational reasons, it is not the right time for an investigation. In that case, there is no interference in the investigation. They are simply saying that it is not safe to be investigating at that time, and that the investigation could be carried out at another time. That is not the same as really interfering in a case. It is important to make that distinction because there has been a lot of hearsay and misunderstanding about this subject. It is important to make that clear.

I have worked very hard on this bill in committee, and I am very interested in hearing my colleague's questions and comments. I will be happy to respond.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Fortunately, I have the defence critic sitting next to me here. He is a fine defence critic and knows the bill inside out. He has been briefing members of our caucus with great skill and knowledge of the bill.

We have the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff who can intervene in any disciplinary process. I would like members, especially members of the NDP, to look at the parallel with the RCMP and the Commissioner of the RCMP. There is a complaints process within the RCMP in cases where an RCMP member has been found to have violated the code of conduct. However, the Commissioner of the RCMP does not have a right to get involved in that investigation.

The members opposite say it is very important that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff has that right because he can bring the operational context to bear in the investigative process. However, the same could be said for the Commissioner of the RCMP. The argument could be made that he or she should have the right to intervene because he or she could bring some operational context into the process. There is a contradiction here. In the case of the RCMP, the Commissioner cannot intervene. In the case of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, he or she can intervene. I do not quite understand why the distinction.

Let me read a quote regarding the danger of this right to intervene, which I am told is a new right that did not exist in preceding years. This is from testimony before the defence committee by Mr. Peter Tinsley, the former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission. He said:

My very brief summary submission is that if Bill C-15 is passed into law in its present form, inclusive of the new subsection 18.5(3) authorizing the VCDS to interfere with police operations and investigations, it will be inconsistent with the principles of police independence as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada a[s] late as 1999 as underpinning the rule of law, as well as run counter to the norms of police-government relations, certainly in Canada, and I can tell you internationally in developed countries, which recognize the importance of police independence and prohibit police service boards or similar executive bodies from giving directions regarding specific police operations.

This is a very interesting quote. We like to compare ourselves to other countries, which is proper because we can learn from what is being done elsewhere, as other countries can learn from us.

I would mention that in other countries, they appear to have understood that the military justice system needs to change. We cannot just say that it has always been like that since time immemorial, and therefore it should remain like that. Maybe some people can say that, but that is not the Liberal perspective on things.

Justice Gilles Létourneau, in providing criticism of the summary trial system, which remains, as I said, largely unaddressed in Bill C-15, said the following:

This form of trial has been found to be unconstitutional in 1997 by the European Court of Human Rights because it did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality set out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As a result of this decision and others, the British Parliament enacted legislation which now provides guarantees to an accused soldier. These provisions include the following:

(a) the accused may be represented by counsel; (b) the accused is entitled to an Appeal to the newly created Summary Appeal Court; (c) the Summary Appeal Court is presided by civilian judge, assisted by two military members who are officers or warrant officers; and (d) as a general rule, imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the offender is not legally represented in that court or in a court martial.

In our system, not only does the accused have to stand through the whole process, and not only is there no transcription of the process, but the accused does not have the right to legal counsel. That sounds pretty retrograde to me. That just does not sound like modern Canada to me.

All of that having been said, I will say that there has been one improvement to the system that would be brought by Bill C-15. That would be, of course, security of tenure for military judges so that they feel that they can exercise their independence. As a result of Bill C-15, military judges would have security of tenure until they reached the retirement age of 60 or until they were removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee or if they resigned.

This bill would also allow for the appointment of part-time military judges, which I suppose sounds like a fairly good idea if the caseload is not high enough to have full-time judges or if full-time judges need some supplementary help. Why not use part-time military judges? I do not see a problem with that.

All in all, we cannot support this bill. We have been consistent in our voting throughout the process. We have not voted against it at second reading only to flip and vote for it at third reading even after all our amendments have been rejected.

I think consistency is important in this place. I am proud to say that we will continue with our previous line of argument, and we will continue to not support this bill.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct pleasure of rising for the second day in a row to discuss and debate Bill C-15 on the military justice system.

I would like to begin by saying that, philosophically, the founding tenet of liberalism is that we never accept the status quo if there is no good reason to do so. In other words, a Liberal will never say that something must be done a certain way just because it has always been done that way and for no other reason.

In some debates on the military justice system, people rely heavily on that line of reasoning. They say that it is a different system and that it has always been different. They say that military culture has been around for thousands of years, that that is how it works, and that it should continue to work that way. That is not good enough for a Liberal.

I would like to continue with what I was saying yesterday about how a soldier is a fully fledged citizen who has the same rights as any other citizen. Soldiers are simply citizens who have decided to dedicate themselves to their country, to wear the uniform with pride and to serve either in conflict zones overseas or here in Canada when they are called to help communities cope with natural disasters, for example.

The soldier's role and place in society has changed a lot. As I was saying yesterday, there was a time when soldiers were either slaves or mercenaries. Members of the society they served did not respect them. They may have had no choice but to do as they were told because they were slaves or mercenaries. That is no longer the case; society has changed.

Soldiers today stand up for their rights. We see that every day. The person sitting next to me is the Liberal critic for veterans affairs. He has risen several times in the House to ask the government why it is not treating veterans fairly on many fronts, including its efforts to claw back disability pensions.

Soldiers know that they have rights and they are ready to stand up for those rights. Modern soldiers expect society to grant them the same rights as any other citizen. This bill maintains a justice system apart from the one that we civilians enjoy as members of society.

I want to share a quote from a witness who testified in committee. The witness in question, retired colonel Michel Drapeau, has been quoted many times during debate today and yesterday. During his testimony, he said:

...someone accused before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence... [He does not have] the right to counsel, the presence of rules of evidence, and the right to appeal.

As we have heard many times, soldiers are made to stand for the entire trial. In addition, there is no transcript that could be used for appeal.

Colonel Drapeau went on to say:

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

In other words, I have more rights than a soldier who is accused of speeding. However, this person willingly chose to join the armed forces and to serve Canadian society.

There are big differences between the military justice system and the civilian justice system. I understand and accept that the military justice system is a separate system and must always be unique, but I am not sure that the differences should be so drastic. That makes me very uncomfortable with this bill.

It may be because the military justice system is not as open as the civilian justice system, but there is something else I want to point out. I heard that 98% of trials end in a guilty verdict. In other words, the accused is found guilty 98% of the time. That seems high to me.

This raises some questions about the nature of the military justice system and about whether we should make more significant changes than what is proposed in Bill C-15.

The government needs to recognize that society in general, but specifically in this case, the legal system, is a system of interrelated aspects, that is in a kind of delicate balance. What may have been acceptable a couple of years ago, before this bill, may no longer be acceptable because a certain important change has been brought to another aspect of the legal system making the current system less fair for military personnel accused of wrongdoing.

Of course, I am talking about the fact that the government has removed from the legal system the possibility of obtaining a pardon and erasing a record based on continued good behaviour after a mistake has been made. When that is taken away, all of a sudden the fact that the military justice system is less fair becomes a bigger problem.

Now, if someone is falsely accused and found guilty, based on a trial process that has not respected the principles of fairness and justice that exist, even for someone who gets a speeding ticket, then that the person is really stuck. The individual would have no recourse, and that would impede his or her ability to perhaps obtain gainful employment after leaving the military.

We recognize now that many former servicemen and servicewomen suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, this is something that was not recognized a few years ago, and it was certainly not recognized after the Second World War.

We are talking about people coming out of the military who may have gotten into trouble because of post-traumatic stress disorder and now they cannot get a pardon. They are out of the military, trying to find a job and may be having trouble adapting to the demands of employment. Not only that, they are dragging this offence around, which they cannot have pardoned. Therefore, we have a whole new set of problems that flow out of this situation of unfairness.

We have to understand that society has changed. We have PTSD, which is something we did not understand a few years ago. Therefore, this creates a problem that is perhaps going to get worse because of not having properly thought through Bill C-15.

There is a delicate balance, but the government has upset that balance in the judicial system by making certain changes that it thought might have some value for it politically.

I would like to speak to the issue of the VCDS. I can never remember what that stands for. The vice chair of disciplinary services, is that correct?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

Matters are not moving forward quickly, but they are moving forward. Ten years after the report of former chief justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court, and four years after the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we are finally ready to amend the National Defence Act. The proposed amendments have long been awaited by this country’s military, and I want to lend my support to Bill C-15, stressing the significant contribution the NDP has made to the process.

Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, we still have some way to go in order to have a system of military justice that is genuinely fair. To that end, I shall also be suggesting a few measures to be taken in the future. As I was saying, Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. It brings Canada’s judicial attitude towards its military up to date and will ensure serving members of the forces greater fairness in relation to other Canadians.

In particular, the bill allows greater leeway in sentencing, with additional sentencing options, including an absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and restitution; a change in the composition of the court martial panel depending on the rank of the accused person; a change in the limitation period for summary trial and the ability for an accused person to waive the limitation period; and so on.

It is also quite clear that Bill C-15 gives new powers to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in relation to military police investigations. In my humble opinion, this is a retrograde step. It signals that the government could have done more, but overall, this bill will nevertheless ensure greater justice for members of the military.

This situation was made possible by the recommendations of my New Democratic Party colleagues, whose hard work made it possible to include necessary amendments in the initial bill. Through its efforts, the NDP made it possible to expand the list of offences and cases that do not entail a criminal record, which happens in 95% of military cases. That is no small thing: 95% of military justice cases lead to a criminal record. We know what that means.

Moreover, the crimes in question are not all comparable to those committed by Corporal Lortie. We are talking about disobeying an order, feigning sickness and facilitating an escape, even though the escape in itself does not even lead to a criminal record.

Former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court Patrick LeSage said that the harm done to a person by a criminal record was far too serious a consequence and that its effects were out of all proportion to the offence in question. As we know, a criminal record can have very negative repercussions for an individual in civilian life. When military personnel return to civilian life with a record, things are difficult for them.

It is deplorable that the Conservatives refused to include in Bill C-15 the recommendations Justice LeSage made in 2011, when they had more than a year to think about it. We in the NDP tried hard to have them included, but the government refused, so we will have to wait until next time. It is vital that Canada continue to look at the issue of military justice. The men and women who choose to defend their country deserve our highest consideration.

One aspect to consider, in addition to the severity of sentences, is the speed with which they are imposed.

In the military, summary trial resolves most issues. At such a trial, the accused person is not entitled to counsel. Furthermore, there is no transcript and no appeal.

I know I am repeating what my colleagues have already said, but I believe it has to be said again and again, so that people are informed. The worst of it is that the judge is the accused person’s commanding officer, which naturally opens the door to abuse. While we have equipped Canada with a professional army, we have to admit that this kind of trial looks like a distressing anachronism.

Fortunately, the NDP proposed a series of amendments to improve this bill, in particular to enhance the independence of the military police by eliminating the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to give specific instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal respecting an investigation.

The NDP also drew inspiration from Justice LeSage's recommendations when it said that a charge must be laid within a year of the commission of an offence. This will spare members of the forces from having to live in fear that an earlier offence may suddenly draw severe and unexpected punishment.

I am proud to vote in favour of greater judicial equity for Canada’s military, who are entitled to our greatest respect. I also find it deplorable to have to wait so long for a report to be translated into a bill, and I would ask the government kindly to supply a legislative response to the LeSage report within a year, which will make it possible to provide greater fairness within the Canadian Forces.

In conclusion, I maintain that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. It will lighten the judicial burden borne by our military, who have many other stressors to deal with.

Nevertheless, we will have to do more and do better to complete this picture, and that is what we will do when the NDP is in power. For these reasons, and because the NDP’s efforts have underpinned one of the most significant reforms designed to establish a more equitable system of military justice by limiting unreasonable criminal records, I give my full support to Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, more commonly referred to as “the military justice act”. I am happy to say today that, as a result of improvements that have been incorporated into the bill by amendments at the committee stage, I will support Bill C-15 at third reading.

One of the most progressive provisions of our military justice act, which was made in 1998, was the mandatory five-year review process. The first of those reviews was completed by a very distinguished former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in September 2003. Mr. Justice Lamer's conclusion was that our military justice system was generally working, while not without room for improvement, and he made recommendations in three main areas: actions to increase the protection of the independence of military judges; improvements to the current grievance process; and actions to address deficiencies in the overall military justice framework.

The recommendations in the area of independence of military justice were dealt with in the fall of 2001, with all-party agreement, and received Royal Assent at that time.

The second area that Mr. Justice Lamer made recommendations in was the area of improvements to the current grievance system. He judged that while the grievance process was unsatisfactory, this was largely due to its failure to deal with grievances in a timely manner and the resulting backlog of grievances that resulted. At the time of his report, there were over 800 grievances outstanding, and grievances were often stuck at the level of the Chief of the Defence Staff for more than two years. Apparently, this is still the case.

Mr. Justice Lamer suggested a 12-month limit and that this deadline could be met if several things happened. One of those was if the Chief of the Defence Staff were given the ability to delegate responsibility for some grievances to subordinate officers. This would be a provision in Bill C-15. The other two recommendations were not really legislative measures in nature. What he said was that we needed both adequate resources to deal with grievances and adequate training for the grievance officers. Unfortunately, both of these two objectives would be very difficult to accomplish in view of the large cuts to the DND budget again this year.

The third area of his recommendations came in addressing deficiencies in the overall military justice framework. The former chief justice set out four principles that he thought should guide the system. I will go over those again. I know I have spoken about them previously in the House, but they are very important to understanding why military justice is so important.

The first of those principles was that we understood that maintaining discipline by the chain of command was essential to a competent and reliable military organization. However, in order to maintain that discipline, they need to have confidence in the disciplinary measures. Therefore, anything we can do to improve the military justice system will improve maintaining discipline and will make our military more competent and more reliable as an organization.

The second principle he stressed was that it was necessary to recognize the peculiar context of the military justice system, meaning that we, as he said:

—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 peacemaking, in what is often a hostile environment, and indeed sometimes outright war.

His third point was that those who risked their lives for our country deserved a military justice system that protected their rights and freedoms according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Finally, with his fourth principle, he argued it was necessary to recognize that any doubts about, or lack of confidence in, the military justice system would have negative consequences on morale within the Canadian Forces.

Therefore, these aspects of the context of military justice make it particularly important in Canada that we operate a model system of military justice. As I said, I now believe Bill C-15 does make progress in some areas. One, which I mentioned in my second reading speech, I would like to mention again, and that is progress in placing limits on the power to arrest without warrant under the existing sections 155 and 156 of the National Defence Act. A second, in Bill C-15 from the beginning, is in providing more flexible sentencing options, again as recommended by Mr. Justice Lamer, and a provision that would bring military justice in line with civilian justice by adding some new sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders.

While Bill C-15 would make some improvements in the summary trial system, which accounts for 96% of all cases dealt with in the military justice system, we believe, because of the volume of those cases, that a full review of the summary trial process is still necessary.

Another area of concern that remains for us is the failure of Bill C-15 to address the need to strengthen the role of the Military Police and the Military Police Complaints system so it can act as an effective oversight body with full investigative powers and with the full confidence of all members of the Canadian Forces.

We call for the elimination of the new clauses from subsection 3 and subjection 5 in section 18.5, which would allow the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the authority to direct Military Police investigations. We know from our past experience with the investigations in Somalia that this is a very dangerous provision. Both past and present chairs of the Military Police Complaints Commission have expressed their concerns about this step backward. Unfortunately, that provision remains in the bill. This provision illustrates an unfortunate tendency by the government to misunderstand the importance of the concept of independence of police and a misunderstanding of its essential importance to maintain the confidence of all parties in the integrity of investigations and therefore the outcome of judicial processes.

We have seen similar attitudes recently illustrated by the Minister of Public Safety in his apparent political interference in the operations of both the RCMP and Correctional Service Canada for which he is responsible. Again, we would very much like to have seen this provision allowing the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to direct police investigations to have been removed to guarantee that the integrity of those investigations and the confidence in those investigations would remain very high because that would affect the ultimate outcome and the ultimate acceptance of discipline within the military justice system.

One area in which I believe the committee made significant progress in improving Bill C-15 came in the amendments that significantly reduced the number of offences for which a conviction would result in a criminal record. Now it is estimated that more than 93% of convictions for disciplinary offences will not result in a criminal record. This will remove a major inconsistency between our military and civilian justice systems and perhaps most important to me will at the same time remove a major employment obstacle for some of those leaving the forces who unfortunately had disciplinary offences that would never have received a criminal record in civilian life, but became obstacles to their employment in civilian life because of this discrepancy between our two civilian and military systems of justice.

There is one other concern that I touched on briefly before that is not addressed in the bill. As Mr. Justice Lamer acknowledged in his statement, all the solutions are not legislative in nature. His concern in his report was very much the general under-resourcing of the military justice system. This continues to be the case today. I have a particular concern with resourcing at CFB Esquimalt in my riding, which has seen cuts to the alternative dispute resolution programs, which will result in the ending of those programs by March 2014.

One might ask what the alternative dispute resolution has to do with military justice. What was found at CFB Esquimalt was that the use of the alternative dispute resolution programs led to lesser involvement with the military justice system and fewer disciplinary problems by being able to solve apparent conflicts between members of the forces at a very early and a very low conflict level.

Those cuts have been based on the argument there is no explicit mandate within the National Defence Act for alternative dispute resolution services and therefore they should not be funded. What it ignores is that this would in fact reduce the demands on the already overstressed military justice system and that the costs of this program are very low.

In conclusion, let me restate the obvious importance of improvements to our military justice system. It is very obvious that they would help to both increase discipline and reliability of the military, that they would help increase morale within the military and that they would respond to the basic rights of those who served in the Canadian Forces.

Members of the Canadian Forces, as I said, are held to a very high standard of discipline, and therefore our judicial system should reflect that fact. Ensuring that our military justice system ranks as a model system and a system that all Canadians, both members of the Canadian Forces and the public at large, can justifiably be proud of is an important goal we should keep in mind.

While work remains to achieve the high standards that can make us all proud of our military justice system, co-operative work at the committee level has made enough changes to Bill C-15 to convince me that it represents significant progress in that direction, and for that reason, as I said, I will support the bill at third reading.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I am pleased to rise today to speak about this bill, which at the outset contained a number of clauses to which the NDP was opposed at previous readings.

After a difficult battle over amendments to clause 75, regarding criminal records, an issue on which we very publicly expressed our views, our party is satisfied that we forced the government to change nearly 95% of the offences under the Code of Service Discipline. They will no longer result in a criminal record. This is why I will be supporting Bill C-15.

It must be said that my colleagues worked very hard to ensure these changes were made. Today, we are proud of the tangible results we obtained for members of the Canadian Forces. Our efforts will make it possible to reform one of the most important pieces of legislation aimed at establishing a more equitable military justice system.

By way of background, Bill C-15 is a legislative response to the recommendations made by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, who tabled his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act in 2003. It contained 88 recommendations regarding the military justice system, the Military Police Complaints Commission, and the grievance process up to and including the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. In addition, another review of certain provisions of the National Defence Act was conducted by the Ontario Superior Court. This report was given to the government in December 2011, but it was not until June 2012 that the minister tabled it in the House.

Despite the fact that the Conservative government received the LeSage report more than a year ago, it has not yet incorporated a single one of these recommendations into Bill C-15. In fact, the Conservatives voted against the amendments put forward by the NDP, which was attempting to have a number of recommendations from the LeSage report included in the bill.

Bill C-15 has appeared in various guises in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Bill C-41 was tabled as a follow-up to the 2003 Lamer report and to the report by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It contained provisions on military justice, including sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and a number of provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints processes. Bill C-41 was amended in committee, but died on the order paper because an election was called.

Basically, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of the committee’s work during the previous session. However, major amendments that were put forward in the last Parliament at committee stage were not included in Bill C-15.

At present, a conviction following a summary trial for a military offence may result in a criminal record for the Canadian Forces member even though there is no guarantee that the trial was fair. In fact, during a summary trial, the accused may not consult legal counsel. There is no appeal, nor is there a transcript of the trial, and the judge is the commanding officer of the accused.

This results in consequences that are too severe for Canadian forces members who are found guilty of minor military offences, such as disobeying a lawful command, feigning an illness and permitting or assisting an escape, even though the escape itself does not lead to the establishment of a criminal record. This is why the Right Honourable Patrick LeSage stated that the damage that flows from a criminal record and the potential effect on a person’s life is “far too severe a consequence” for most offences tried by summary trial and that the consequences are “totally disproportionate to the violation”.

Although some progress has been made, we feel that additional reforms are required and that there must be a review of the summary trial process.

Both in the House and in committee, the NDP has asked for changes and amendments to reduce the impact of disciplinary punishments and of a potential criminal record, and to raise the issue of the absence of a comprehensive charter of rights.

The NDP fought to improve the bill in committee. Our efforts resulted in a longer list of offences and cases that will not lead to a criminal record, as well as a number of other amendments to improve the bill, and this shows our commitment to reforming the system.

The NDP supports this update to the military justice system. We understand that members of the Canadian Forces must comply with very high standards of discipline, but we strongly believe that in return they must be able to rely on a justice system that meets standards that are just as high.

Many Canadians would be astounded to learn that the men and women who serve our country with valour may be given a criminal record because the system does not follow the procedural rules that are normally applied by civil courts. They may be subject, as the Right Honourable Patrick Lesage writes, to consequences that are “totally disproportionate to the violation.”

Moreover, for the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to be seen as an external and independent civilian oversight body, as it is intended to be, the appointment process must be amended to reflect this reality. Consequently, some members of the board should come from civil society.

One NDP amendment stated that at least 60% of members of the grievance board must be people who had never been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was passed in March 2011 as part of Bill C-41, but it was not kept in Bill C-15, as the Conservatives rejected it.

In order to guarantee the independence of the external committee, the NDP put forward an amendment to clause 11, to exclude serving members of the Canadian Forces. This measure was called for both by Justice LeSage, following his independent review, and by Bruno Hamel, chair of the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

Here again, the Conservatives voted against this measure, just as incapable as they always are of setting up the measures needed to ensure the independence of the grievance review committee, the military police or the judicial elements of the military justice system.

The NDP will work toward making the military justice system more equitable for all Canadian Forces members who put their lives in danger in order to serve Canada.

Many of our allies have considered it worthwhile to amend their summary trial processes, which leads us to wonder why it is taking Canada so long to modernize the military justice system for our troops.

The eminent jurist Gilles Létourneau has called for an independent and comprehensive review of all the National Defence Act provisions that deal with the military justice system.

When will the Conservative government stop making ragtag, piecemeal changes to the military justice system? When will it carry out an exhaustive and independent review?

I would like to end by saying that the official opposition has at heart the best interests of the men and women who defend our country and who risk their lives to make the world a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, just before question period and members' statements I was outlining why we have seen fit to indicate our support for this bill at third reading despite the fact that we voted against it at second reading, second reading being approval in principle.

We raised quite a number of points concerning the deficiencies of the bill through speeches and debate at second reading. The deficiencies of the bill are also deficiencies of the status quo. In other words, the things that we were seeking to improve have been there for a long time.

We complained about the inadequacy of the summary trial procedure, because people did not have the full availability of all of the charter procedures. That was there in 1983, when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came in. It was there in 1993, when the Liberals came to power, and it was there in 2006, when the Conservative government came into power. When Bill C-41 came about, I started talking considerably about this issue and about the need to bring about changes in the act.

In the last parliament, under Bill C-41, we brought about changes in committee similar to the amendment to clause 75 that was passed here in committee. Other measures that we brought forward went further in different areas, but did not achieve success. Nevertheless, the changes contained in Bill C-15 regarding military justice are, on the whole, positive, although they are not where we want to be.

As I said before question period, we are making a commitment that when we form a government in 2015, we are going to fix these things. We are going to fix the fact that the grievance board would not have a requirement for civilian as well as military members. We are going to fix the fact that grievances would not have to be heard and completed within one year. We are going to fix the fact that a change would be made in legislation to allow the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue instructions on investigations that the Provost Marshal could undertake, for example.

There are a series of things that need to be done. We need to go further in reforming the law with respect to summary trials and the protections that need to be present. These are things that we are committed to doing.

However, we are also committed to the progress that has been made. I would like to put it on the record that we claim credit for that. We put it on the table and we made the arguments at second reading with those 50-some speeches and we got a commitment from the government to make an amendment to that provision. Because of that, 93% of summary conviction trials will now not result in a criminal record.

We brought in a number of amendments. I think it was 22. I do not recall any of them being warmly accepted by the government, but they were brought forward for a very important reason: they were brought forward to fix the deficiencies in the act. We are not satisfied with the result, but that does not mean we are going to throw out the progress that has been made.

We brought those amendments because we want to make it clear that we are not satisfied and we want it to be fixed. We want it to be improved. We want the changes that we brought forward to be made. We want to give the Chief of the Defence Staff, for example, the financial authority to compensate CF members as a result of the grievance process. We want to ensure that there is police independence and that any charges must be laid within a year. We want to expand the procedure for summary trials so that no one gets a criminal record without having the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in terms of proper due process. These things are part of our commitment to the men and women in uniform, and we want to see them happen.

We brought before the committee people such eminent personages as Clayton Ruby, a renowned and probably pre-eminent Canadian lawyer. The member opposite said “infamous”; he may be infamous in some circles, but I tell the member that as a member of the legal profession, he is extremely highly regarded.

He was treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which means president. He has been honoured across the country for his work. He has the most comprehensive work on sentencing in Canada. His works are quoted by all courts in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada. He is an eminent personage who came and testified before our committee and talked about the need to ensure that members of our military have the same protections in law and the same rights as others.

We had former justice Gilles Létourneau of the Federal Court of Canada. He had also been chair and commissioner of the Somalia inquiry, which probably was what first brought to light to Canadians the deficiencies in our military justice and policing systems. That gave rise to reforms, although they took a long time to get here.

We can point fingers all ways to Sunday as to who is responsible. The government ultimately is responsible because it has control over legislation, except in the case of a minority government, which has less control. We are here now with significant reforms, if not all the ones that need to be brought in, and we should claim progress. Certainly we are claiming, on behalf of our party, some significant progress in addressing this particular concern that we brought to the table and that got us to the point where we are today.

Therefore, I want to encourage members to support the bill. For some reason the Liberals have decided not just to vote against it but to attack the New Democrats for supporting it. If the enemy is the government, I do not know why they would not attack the government. However, I am not in charge of their strategy, so I do not know.

If they want to oppose it, they could just get up and quietly vote against it, but instead they want to make some issue of the fact that we, who opposed it in second reading, got a substantial improvement in the committee in favour of individuals so that 93% of the people charged with summary conviction offences would get no criminal record. The Liberals think there is something wrong with that, and at the same time they approved the bill in principle at second reading, offered no amendments in committee and are now going to vote against it and oppose it here today. That is for them to explain.

I am here to explain to the House and to the men and women in uniform why we are supporting the advances that are being made and why we are making the commitment to bring about some significant changes, including what was proposed by Mr. Justice Létourneau in his testimony: a fundamental wall-to-wall review of the National Defence Act, conducted outside the control of National Defence, that would give Parliament truly independent advice on how to fix this situation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Scope of Private Members' Bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

They might want to check the committee records, Mr. Speaker. If there is one, they have 10 or 15 minutes to maybe explain exactly which amendment of theirs passed.

I know that a couple of Conservative amendments passed. There has been a different style of government ever since this Reform-Conservative government came into power. Unless they are Conservative amendments, they do not typically pass. We have seen that. Liberals have introduced well over 1,000 amendments. The Conservatives do not like to pass opposition amendments. They have their own agenda. It is very difficult. At times, there may be a bit of a bend here and there, but not beyond that.

The New Democratic Party members ultimately voted no in committee on the legislation itself. Something happened in between. I suspect it may have been the opposition House leader working with the Minister of National Defence, because they have a good working relationship, as I pointed out at the beginning of my comments. Now they are happy and are supporting it and are taking turns taking shots at the Liberal Party in the House, because it is actually taking a principled stand on the legislation and is saying that there are serious issues. We are not prepared to do what the NDP has done and abandon them. We believe that we should seriously look at voting against it.

I would like, and I say it somewhat tongue in cheek, the NDP to revisit the issue. As best I can tell, it is voting in favour of the government's bill today because of the issue of minor offences. Whereas an individual who committed a minor offence could have ended up with a criminal record, the government has minimized it by way of an amendment it brought to the House of Commons. As a result, it has garnered the support of the New Democratic Party. That is an important issue.

When we look at the legislation as a whole, there are some positive things being done in Bill C-15. Liberals do not question them. However, there is a very serious issue, which the government has refused to look at. I made reference to it when I posed my question a few minutes ago. I said that I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I always considered myself a Canadian first and foremost, as all members of the Canadian Forces see themselves. At the end of the day, we would all like to think that they have a fair system. We recognize that there are discrepancies between military justice and the civil justice system, and we know that in some situations, that has to be the case.

I have cited in the past examples of being at work on time. There is a much stiffer penalty in military discipline with respect to showing up late or missing a day or two. If they miss a day, they could be accused of going AWOL, and there is a huge consequence for doing that. In the civil service, it is quite different. Within the private sector, it is quite different.

We recognize the need to allow that difference, but we should be trying to narrow the gap wherever we can so that we have a system that is fair. I believe that the NDP has missed the boat, or has maybe jumped out of the boat, on the issue of fairness in dealing with individuals who are members of the Canadian Forces.

At committee, Justice Létourneau spoke eloquently, I thought. He said that soldiers are citizens and should enjoy the same constitutional charter rights as all Canadians. He stated:

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

He then answers the question by saying that yes, it is.

Another presentation was made by Michel Drapeau, a distinguished Canadian. He served in the Canadian Forces brilliantly, I must say. He is actually a retired colonel. I think it is important to take note of some of the things he said in committee.

Again, I will quote directly what the retired colonel said:

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

He continues:

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

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

To me, this is one of the underlying principles of the legislation. It is something to which we should all be giving special attention. Do we want the fairness provided to the civilians to be provided to individuals who put on our military attire?

As someone who has been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I would have liked to have seen that sort of system in place.

I cannot say how many times I have sat here and listened to New Democratic members of Parliament talk about how legislation is not perfect, so they are voting against it. They say that if it goes to committee, it needs to be made good. If it has to be amended, they will make amendments. If the government does not pass the amendments and it is not perfect legislation, they will not support it.

I have asked questions about that. I have challenged the opposition members and asked if they would support legislation if, on balance, it was good but there were some issues they had problems with. The wonderful thing about Hansard is that we can look at it. Time and time again, they say no, they want perfect legislation.

That is not what we are seeing here today. This is not perfect legislation by any stretch of the imagination. There is a need for us to make some changes to the legislation. In many pieces of legislation, one would find that there is a need to make amendments. We already know what the government is going to do with amendments. If it is not one of its amendments, it will not pass.

In many cases, we attempt to bring forward amendments. In other cases, we hope and have faith that the government will do the right thing. In this situation, the government has not chosen to do the right thing. That is unfortunate.

This is legislation that has been before the House before. The government talks about having 100 members of Parliament who have spoken to it. It has spent time in committee. Through the years, the government has failed to bring in the legislation. They have to take responsibility for it not always passing. An example is that the government chose to prorogue a session, something that had a huge, negative reaction from the Canadian population. That killed the bill.

Whether it is elections or the proroguing of sessions, the government has not been successful in bringing forward this legislation in a timely fashion.

It has also demonstrated that it does not recognize the importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our Constitution and fairness in our justice system when it comes to our military personnel.

A number of changes are being proposed in Bill C-15. It would provide security of tenure for military judges. It would allow for the appointment of part-time military judges. It would outline sentencing objectives and principles. It would amend the composition of the court martial panel according to rank. It would change the name from the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the military grievances external review committee.

In fact, there were even some amendments brought forward from the government that ultimately passed. They dealt with an issue I made reference to yesterday.

The idea of giving someone a criminal record for something that took place while they were serving in the military in relatively minor situations is just unfair. We needed to see some changes on that front.

We are glad that the government has seen the light, at least in part, on that issue. It is exceptionally difficult, when individuals go for an interview, after serving x number of years, whether it is three years, eight years or whatever it might be, in the forces, during which time one day they were a little upset and used some profanity toward their superior officer, and a profound disciplinary action was taken.

Let us compare that to civilian life. In the military life, that could actually lead to a criminal conviction. They would not even have had the opportunity to see a transcript or to appeal the decision in a summary trial. We have to think of the consequences of that. Those individuals now go out into civilian life, and because of that moment of stress, anxiety, pressure or whatever it might be, when a question is posed on the application about whether they have a criminal record...we have to think about that outcome.

That is the reason there was a need for change. Having said that, I really believe that when we talk about summary trials, what is really at the crux of it is the idea that someone does not have a right to counsel, does not have a right an appeal and there is no transcript.

We are not saying we have to go it alone; other countries in the world have moved in that direction. One could ask the question, why not Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I did not use any unparliamentary language. I was reminiscing about something that took place here.

It was nice to see this morning that there was affection, once again, between the New Democrats and the Conservatives on this bill, Bill C-15. In fact, as has been pointed out, there was a time when the NDP opposed Bill C-15, to the degree that it voted against it going to second reading. Liberals were actually quite open-minded about it. We had suggested that we should wait to see what took place at the committee stage, recognizing the value that could potentially be gained on the government side.

Then the bill went to committee. I understand that the New Democrats made in excess of 20 amendments. I believe that is what members have said time and time again. What they do not say is that they were blanked out. Not one amendment passed from the New Democratic caucus. Then—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-15. The other day I had the opportunity to say a few words prior to its coming to third reading. It is always a pleasure to share some thoughts and ideas and provide comments on the important issue of military justice versus civilian justice.

I would like to start off, as I have done in the past, by indicating that I had the privilege and honour of serving in the Canadian Forces for a number of years. I was posted to Edmonton. The Griesbach and Lancaster Park is located in Edmonton. The military jail is located in Griesbach. The jail was quickly pointed out to us. Fortunately I never had to use the facility other than to visit it. However, I have an interest in this area.

I have been trying to follow the debate today. The NDP has been all over the map on the issue. I came in this morning shortly after 10 o'clock when the debate had just started. The Minister of National Defence and the NDP House leader were here. It was if they were coming together, and it is not the first time. I instantly had a flashback to the anger moment when the leader of the official opposition was quite upset and the Minister of National Defence had to walk over and possibly prevented a fight because of the anger issue within the New Democratic Party—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 does not deal with the issue of rights for counsel for summary appeals. There is no right to an appeal. No transcript is kept. On the other hand, in other forms of justice systems that is allowed to take place. Could she provide an explanation as to why she does not believe those types of needs are good for our military personnel?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This is the second time I have spoken about this bill, because I made another speech during second reading.

It is a privilege to speak to this bill even though, as we have seen today, the other parties seem to think we should be cutting debate short. They are saying that we should not take the time to discuss it since everyone is in favour.

I believe it is important to talk about it, however, so that my constituents will understand what we are voting for and so that I can explain why the NDP voted against the bill at second reading and why we are voting for it now.

Many of my colleagues have said that they have reserve units in their riding. Unfortunately, there are none in my riding; however, many of my friends, acquaintances and family members serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I would like to say hello to them today. I would also like to acknowledge the three legions in my region because I think that the work they do is very important, even though they fall under a different department. I am talking about the legions in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lachine and Dorval.

I would like to give some background on this bill. In 2003, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Lamer, issued his report, which contained 88 recommendations and resulted in the current bill. In May 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also tabled a report, and on October 7, 2011, the first version of this bill was introduced.

What does this bill do? Basically, it provides for greater flexibility in sentencing. This means additional sentencing options including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders. It modifies the limitation period applicable to summary trials. It sets out the Canadian Forces Provost Marshall's duties and functions. Finally, it amends the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

Today, I will focus on two points, but first, as my colleagues pointed out, I want to say that we will support this bill even though it was a long process. Things happened bit by bit. The minister should have been working on this for the past 10 years. Still, none of this should come as any surprise considering what the minister has done so far. The minister made mistakes with respect to helicopters. He made mistakes in the fiasco involving soldiers in Afghanistan, where some soldiers were paid more than others because of danger pay. Who could forget the F-35 fiasco and the millions of dollars spent on advertising? Clearly, the minister is incompetent, but at least we have a bill that is good enough for us to support.

The reform did not happen fast enough, but we will work with what we have.

We have agreed to vote in favour of this bill because the committee passed an amendment concerning criminal records that was very important to us. That was the focus of my speech at second reading. Under some circumstances, soldiers who committed certain minor offences could end up with a criminal record. A criminal record can close a lot of doors in a person's life. Consider travel. It can be harder to travel to certain countries if one has a criminal record. Some employers want to know whether a potential employee has a criminal record.

I know that soldiers, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, represent rectitude, that they should be role models for everyone and that they should always do the right thing. However, when I see the minor offences that could result in a criminal record, that seems pretty heavy to me.

I am glad that provision was withdrawn. I would like to talk briefly about how that happened. In committee, we proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments. The Liberals did not propose any, and the Conservatives proposed two. The amendments often overlapped, but at second reading, most of my colleagues emphasized their concerns about the issue of criminal records. By the end of the committee stage, we managed to resolve the problem. This is also an excellent example of co-operation, of a bill that can make its way through the legislative process, referred from the House of Commons to a committee and then sent back to the House, while being amended to ensure that all parties can support it.

Unfortunately, we do not see this very often in this Parliament. When I was first elected, I was extremely disappointed to see how hard it is—especially in the current political context of a majority government—to have our voices heard, to share our point of view and move bills forward in the right direction. We want to represent all Canadians. If the government constantly shuts down all debate and ignores others' comments, we are not going to get very far. I would therefore like to thank the government for listening to us—this time—and for supporting our amendment. That is what happened at committee in March.

The second thing I wanted to talk about, which some of my colleagues have already mentioned, is how summary trials work. I would like to read what the Department of National Defence website says about summary trials:

The purpose of summary proceedings is to provide prompt but fair justice in respect of minor service offences and to contribute to the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency, in Canada and abroad, in time of peace or armed conflict.

Summary trials are a very important part of military justice. They were put in place because they work well in the military justice system. One aspect of the bill that I find interesting concerns changes to the duration of summary trials. That is very important. As we mentioned, if we want members of the Canadian Armed Forces to have fair trials for minor offences, the trials cannot be rushed, as my colleague said. If we speed through trials, and people do not have the time to defend themselves properly or to fully present their arguments, the trials will not be as meaningful and may not get to the bottom of things. Therefore, it is very important that we improve this system in order to ensure that it works better and is more fair and just, one of the first things mentioned on our website.

Several elements of the LeSage report were included in the bill. We would have liked a more direct legislative response. The report was submitted to the government in December 2011. It was tabled and presented to the House on June 8, 2012. There was a six-month interval. I really mean it when I say that the reforms are piecemeal. We would have appreciated a more direct legislative response. I understand that the bill refers to the report, but we could have done more.

In closing, I want to quote at least two people who support our position. I will only quote one as I have little time left. At least two people supported our position.

I am referring to Glenn Stannard, Chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, a key player. In February, he said:

As far as the commission is aware, there have been no problems with the accountability framework that justify its revocation at this time, and proposed subsection 18.5(3) runs counter to...

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words regarding my skills. For the record, I do not plan on embarking upon any new careers. For the time being, I will focus on my work here and dedicate my time to trying to foil the defence.

That said, we certainly worked very hard on this bill, particularly at the committee stage, where we presented 22 amendments and five subamendments, and we managed to score a victory.

The issue of criminal records is something that we are extremely concerned about. We have been talking about it since the very beginning of the process, even before Bill C-15 came along, but we voted against the bill at the time. Now, however, after examining the bill in committee, we scored a victory. We were as fair as possible and we managed to work hard to achieve this success.

My speech focused on the less positive aspects, but generally speaking, the bill is a step in the right direction.

We hope that Parliament will not wait another 10 or 15 years before reviewing military justice again, for that is how long it took this time. If any changes need to be made in the future, because someone sees something wrong, we hope those changes will be made as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on whether the hon. member is fit for a military career. I can comment on whether he is fit for a hockey career, and certainly on that score, the Montreal Canadiens could use his shooting skills, but possibly not his skating skills.

The hon. member's party voted against Bill C-15 at second reading. It submitted 22 amendments, all of which were defeated, filibustered the bill and voted against the bill at committee. Now members have made quite a number of half-hearted speeches.

I actually agree with the content of the hon. member's speech. I do not quite understand how, after voting for all of this period of time and speaking against the bill, and in some instances quite eloquently, they have now decided to support the bill.

I wonder if he could enlighten us as to their thinking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who will undoubtedly echo my remarks today.

First of all, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, it is important to say that the NDP will support the bill at third reading stage. We remember the process that the bill went through in the House at second reading and then in committee. It has now come back to the House, and it will have the NDP's support for a number of reasons that I will discuss.

I will provide a bit of background on what happened with this bill and where it came from. I will be brief because my comments are not necessarily related to third reading stage. On October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, or the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act in order to strengthen military justice. It was introduced in response to the 2003 report by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Those are the origins of the bill.

To give everyone some context, I will go through the objectives of this bill. It provides for more flexibility in the sentencing process. It also provides for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It would modify the composition of a court martial panel in accordance with the rank of the accused person. It would also modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and would allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods. The bill sets out the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal's duties and functions. It makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

That is a summary of the bill, which is rather long and impressive. It includes many things that deserve to be debated and discussed at length in the House.

As members know, the NDP feels that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, it is very important to note that the government could have perhaps done more, including listening to the opposition, which expressed a number of concerns and continues to do so, even as we are at third reading and approaching the final vote. However, perhaps the other place will consider the concerns we have raised.

Today I will discuss four issues that I think are the most important. I will first talk about the summary trials process and about police investigations conducted by military police. We know that there is the possibility of interference in these investigations. I will also talk about criminal records, and more specifically about our victory with certain crimes, which we are very happy about. I will talk more about this. Lastly, I will talk about the grievance process.

We thought that the summary trials issue was very important. We felt that sometimes, members of the Canadian forces did not necessarily have the same rights as other Canadians who are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We did not think that was right. Unfortunately, the government did not address this in the bill and the summary trials process remains unchanged.

I have a great deal of respect for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I often cross paths with them because there are two reserve units stationed in my riding. I therefore often have the opportunity to interact with them, to talk to them, and to learn more about them. I did not have the opportunity to serve myself, even though I wanted and intended to. In the end, it did not happen. I took another path that led me here today. However, this job still allows me to talk about the armed forces, to get involved and to have fairly frequent contact with members.

I could not believe that all members of the Canadian Forces did not necessarily have the same protection.

As Canadians, we are protected by the charter. We have the right to a fair and equitable trial and we have access to a lawyer and legal advice. That is not necessarily the case in a summary trial. Members of the Canadian Forces do not always have access to this type of counsel, and the NDP believes that they do not have the same rights as Canadians who are not members of the Canadian Forces. We must do everything we can so that those who decide to serve our country and give their time, energy and sometimes their lives get more respect from our government, are well protected and have the same rights as everyone else.

We have another concern about this bill. It pertains to military police investigations. The bill makes a few changes to a provision that would allow the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to intervene in military police investigations through the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. I am using some terms that I am not really familiar with, but I know enough about them after examining the bill, especially since I had the opportunity to speak about this bill at second reading. I familiarized myself with this process. I found it unbelievable that this potential interference could not be avoided since the provision gave the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the authority to intervene with regard to how the military police investigation should or should not be conducted. In my opinion, this provision caused the military police to become somewhat less independent.

To draw an analogy with the current civilian police, it would be inconceivable for the mayor of a city to call the chief of police in that city to say that there is no need to continue an investigation or to tell the chief how to carry out the investigations under way. The same goes for provincial police and a premier. We can draw a parallel. In the case of military police, we must make sure that no interference is possible and that the police maintain their independence. When the police carry out an investigation, they have to do so as independently as possible so that the results are as reliable as possible.

In terms of criminal records, we have some good news. As my colleagues mentioned today, we were particularly concerned about the issue of criminal records. From the very beginning of the process, when various bills were introduced in the House, we have expressed reservations on a number of occasions. It was inconceivable that, after a summary trial, which I mentioned earlier, members of the Canadian Armed Forces would often end up with a criminal record. I will not list everything, but the NDP worked very hard to include exemptions for minor offences and to ensure that the people who decide to serve us will not have criminal records for those minor offences—which a regular Canadian would not have—especially after going through a process that is not necessarily fair and equitable.

I would have liked to talk about the grievance system. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to do so during questions and comments.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that advice and will stick to that when I get to my questions and comments period. I appreciate the opportunity to rise and talk about this important issue.

Bill C-15, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts is very underwhelming. It has been around since 2003 in several different forms. It has re-emerged with some improvements, but it has been kicked around this place for some time.

We are seeing it come to a conclusion. The mere fact that it does not have one of these targeted names that the government often gives bills is indicative of its mediocrity. It is named “an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts”. My experience in this place in the last number of years is that the government has introduced bills with very tempting names to try to promote them. In this situation, we do not have that. I think that is an indicator of where we are right now.

As New Democrats, we will support this bill. We will move it forward. The member for Beaches—East York has done a good job on this file, the best he can. The committee has as well, making amendments to the bill.

It is important, because it is about judicial systems and about judgment to our military families. I come from an area where military families are a tradition and an honour. The Windsor and Essex County area has been, since the birth of this nation, participating in the military on a regular basis. The first time was in 1749, a French militia, and subsequently in the War of 1812, the South African War, the First World War, the Second World War, Korea, peacekeepers, Afghanistan. We have been a regular recruitment zone for military service.

We have some of the strongest veterans' organizations out there. It is important. I have seen what happens to some of our officers and some of our regiment, and those who are supporting them, and their families when they have come home. I have had a chance to sit in on some sessions at the Legion, involving everyone from Afghan vets to World War II vets still talking about how difficult it is to get to the next day. It is very difficult, but at the same time they are very proud of those traditions.

I have a little personal experience with this as well. My grandfather, John Clifford Addison, was an ordinary code man who went down on the HMS Scorpion in the fall of Burma. I did not know my grandfather. I never met him. I do not know much about him. I have his medals. I have his soccer medals, as well.

I was very fortunate. Like so many others, my grandmother, Irene Attwood, was in England at the time. She married Fred Attwood. When he came to Canada, he treated me as his own grandson. I was at the house all the time, listening to my grandfather telling his stories, talking about experiences and his mates at the kitchen table. I can still smell the flavourful scones my grandmother would cook and the tea, with big band music in the background, as we sat and discussed what took place.

The reservation I have for this bill is that if justice is not served properly to those in the military, then we are going to have consequences outside when they finish their service. I have seen that. What worries me about this bill is that we have not done enough with regard to the amendments that needed to take place in order for this bill to be improved, whether it be giving the Chief of the Defence Staff the financial authority or whether it be making sure that the processing is done properly so that they can actually have justice at the end of the day.

There have been a number of witnesses who have come forward suggesting that this is not complete. We had a number of amendments made at committee that were not done. That concerns me, because this bill has been around this place for so long.

I am going to go through some of the changes we wanted to take place and that perhaps can get done at another date. I do not know if the current government is interested in doing that. It is a risk we have to take. The bill is going forward anyway, with some modest improvements, but I hope there is some sincere attempt to go further on the recommendations that came through a lot of work, thought, discussion and debate. As I noted, this bill has been kicked around this place for a number of years, and it is time to finally get something done, but it is disappointing that we have not had some of the other elements we wanted.

One of those was to conduct an independent wall-to-wall review of the military justice system and provide a legislative response to the LeSage report within a year. Neither the report in 2003 by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, nor the report from the former chief justice of the Superior Court, the Hon. Patrick LeSage, provided a complete independent review of the entire military justice system. We think it is time to do that. We think it is time to move that point forward, and I think there is enough support to do that.

Another thing we wanted to have is reform of the summary trial system. The Hon. Patrick LeSage said:

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

This is where I get into my background of working with youth at risk and other persons who have disabilities, where stigmas are evolved or are created on a person and there are consequential effects. For example, if individuals have that on their record, it affects them in going for a job, in education, in their neighbourhood, with applications for credit or for any type of assistance, if it has to be disclosed. Those individuals are living with this cloud over top of them.

I see it on a regular basis, even in my home riding, where I have a good example with regard to a stigma staying left over. I have a Ford truck driver who smoked marijuana, got caught and has a federal conviction, so every time he goes into the United States, he is rightly pulled over because he has a record, but sometimes he is made to sit there for four or five hours. We have to intervene and say the authorities should pull him over and go through the vehicle and do all the inspections and enforcement they want to do, but the just-in-time delivery that the person is doing right there is important for both of our economies. He has to live with that type of stigma and that type of potential every single time he crosses the border. It is his own fault and he has to pay for it, but the reality is that there is a consequence.

Therefore, as an employment specialist on behalf of persons with disabilities and youth at risk, what I worry about is that even some of the minor convictions can make a difference in terms of a person being able to get a job or employment. It is critical that this issue is addressed in here, because if our military personnel have that, even if it is not something that is openly known in the community, they are still living with that bubble above them.

I have one last point. We want to expand on the service offences exempt from criminal records as well and, last, to reform the grievance system so that there are more appropriate opportunities for someone to grieve a situation.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this chamber to this issue, and I welcome comments and questions and will be prompt in terms of my response.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He talked about having done nothing and that only 29 of Chief Justice Lamer's measures were fully implemented. The government accepted 83 of the 88 recommendations, and outside of the ones we accepted, the rest are in progress. In fact, 36 more will be fully implemented by Bill C-15.

Therefore, I would not call that doing nothing exactly. It may be slower than people would like, and I grant that things do not move as fast as anybody would like, including me. I will point out that one of the reasons for the slowness of this in some people's minds is the fact that the process in Parliament can be very convoluted. As was said previously, this bill has gone through three iterations and three parliaments. In fact, Bill C-41 died the last time due to the opposition calling an unnecessary election. It is a bit rich to blame the government for delays when we have legislation that could have passed, but the opposition brought down the government for an unnecessary election. Canadians have spoken on that.

As far as cutting this short goes, I do not think 100 speeches is exactly cutting this short.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend did not know I was coming. I am sure he would have withheld those comments had he known.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor West.

It is great to talk about Bill C-15 today. My colleagues and I support the bill at third reading.

Members may recall that I spoke in opposition to the bill at second reading. I applaud the great efforts of my colleagues on the defence committee, as have others in the House today, who put forward 22 amendments and five subamendments and made a great effort to change the bill. As has been pointed out today, none of this was successful, but the bill was amended at committee: the Conservatives saw fit to amend their own mistakes, which is always helpful.

That is not to say that we support this legislation wholeheartedly; it is somewhat reluctantly that we do so.

I want to comment on this issue for a moment, because it has been the subject of much debate.

It is a bit tricky, of course, to support a government bill at third reading. We heard the Minister of National Defence waxing philosophical earlier today about not letting perfection get in the way of progress; on the other hand, we heard the Liberal defence critic express his confusion and uncertainty about how and why the NDP could support this legislation. The challenge is more difficult than either of those extremes would suggest.

This is not so much a philosophical matter; it is really a very practical one. Justice systems, as informed as they are by theory and philosophy, have very real, profound and practical implications for those who are subjected to them, and this is obviously the case before us. For reasons that we all seem to agree with, this is about balancing the need for quick and expeditious military justice against the need to keep discipline in the forces, while yet providing fairness for forces members.

Today we are considering a unique military justice system and its need for discipline, but we also need to take into consideration the issue of time. That has to weigh heavily on our considerations about whether to support the bill or not.

For all the talk about their support for the military, the Liberals did nothing with their majority government to amend the act, in spite of having before them the report of a justice who made 88 recommendations. The Conservatives have been in government now for seven long years and have similarly opted to do nothing up to this point.

It is because this legislation has such a long history that we need to consider what we can agree to and what we must agree to in order to make progress and move this legislation forward.

I will not recite the full history. I have no time for that today, but I will give a short summary to illustrate the point.

The bill had its genesis in a 2003 report on the Canadian military justice system by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer. That report contained 88 recommendations for change and was suggestive of some significant deficiencies in Canada's military justice system.

The bill is also a legislative response to a 2009 report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs dealing with these very same matters.

In December 2011 yet another military justice report was presented to the government, this time by a former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court, the Hon. Patrick LeSage. I would note that the Conservative government sat on that report for a year or so before finally tabling it in June 2012.

To date, only 28 of the recommendations from that original Lamer report of 2003 have actually been implemented, some in the form of legislation, some as regulations, and some as changes in practice.

We have even lost some ground, it needs to be noted. In the previous Parliament, Bill C-41 died on the order paper. That bill included important updates to the National Defence Act that are interestingly absent from the bill we are considering today. The change got moved back upfield, and that is disappointing.

However, I think the length of time that the current government and the previous Liberal government have taken to bring some sense of fairness to the members of our armed forces with respect to the justice system means that we need to consider very seriously what we need to do now, because we do not know when we will get our next opportunity to make change. It is important that we make tangible change to this system so that it is a military justice system worthy of this country and worthy of the commitment that members of the Canadian Armed Forces make to this country.

As frustrating as all of that is, we focus on the progress that is being made. We see some progress, although I would shy away from calling it significant. It comes in the form of greater flexibility, for example, for the sentencing process to more closely parallel the civil criminal justice system. It would provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, et cetera; it would modify the composition of a court martial panel; it would modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and would allow an accused person to waive limitation periods; and it would clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

It would also make amendments to the delegation of the powers of the Chief of the Defence Staff as the final authority in the grievance process.

Above all, as tangible as these changes are, one stands out as critically important and most certainly worthy of support. It is an issue that we in the NDP have pushed for many years, including in the previous Parliament, and we actually had made some progress with it in Bill C-41. It is this issue more than any other that tips the balance in favour of supporting this bill, and it has to do with the number of offences that could result in a criminal record.

The NDP, through the long history of the bill, has consistently pushed for a reduction in the number of these offences. With this amendment from Bill C-15 emerging out of committee, it would be the case that about 95% of cases would not attract a criminal record. In addition, those who have been previously convicted of these offences would have their records expunged.

This is an important issue because many of the offences that we have been focusing on do not generally have a civilian equivalent. They are, for example, offences described in section 85 of the act that involve threatening or insulting language or contemptuous behaviour toward a superior officer. Section 86 involves failing to stop someone from deserting, and section 97 deals with drunkenness.

We have long considered it unjust, as have many other experts who have weighed in on this matter, that convictions for those kinds of offences through this kind of summary trial process could result in criminal records that could follow members of the Canadian Armed Forces into their civilian lives.

It is important to note that the summary trial is used to try about 95% of disciplinary cases in the forces. It is this process that is used to effect a balance between the competing interests of discipline and returning a soldier to service. As such, fairness and justice are compromised.

For example, a commanding officer or a designated superior officer could act as the judge, and there would be no legal counsel, no appeal, not even a transcript of the file. We consider it unfair for criminal records to flow from that and follow a soldier into civilian life, so we are pleased to see that amendment and we will be supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard on her excellent speech and her handling of the members' questions. She explained quite nicely how important it is to the NDP to bring forward strong legislation, especially since the Conservative government tends to propose such flawed legislation, as they did with Bill C-15.

Canadians can rest assured that the NDP will be here every step along the way to improve these bills and to ensure that we can live in a country with laws that properly reflect the values of Canadians. I would therefore like to reiterate what my hon. colleague already mentioned—that the NDP will be supporting this bill at third reading.

On March 21, 2013, I spoke on this issue and expressed my concerns in that regard. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I represent many members of the Royal Canadian Air Force, since the Bagotville military base, which I love, is located in my riding. I care deeply about the well-being of these military personnel, so I was outraged that such simple and minor breaches of the Code of Service Discipline could lead to a criminal record, which would in turn have truly negative repercussions on their lives, both through their years of active service and afterwards.

In committee, the NDP fought to defend those military personnel, 95% of whom would have paid the price for that imperfection in Bill C-15. After the NDP proposed amendments, the government finally came to its senses and changes were made to Bill C-15. That is why will be voting in favour of the bill.

On October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The bill would provide for greater flexibility during the sentencing process and it would provide for 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. It would also modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allows an accused person to waive the limitation periods. It sets out the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s duties and functions and would make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

Generally speaking, Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, the government should have done more. Bill C-15 also gives new powers to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff regarding military police investigations, which we consider to be a step backward.

Bill C-15 suffers from the Conservatives' slow-footed response to the LeSage report, which was not incorporated in the bill, along with the lack of wall-to-wall review of the sections of the National Defence Act pertaining to military justice. We are letting our soldiers down with this unnecessarily slow pace of change. I encourage the Conservative government to adjust its attitude about amending laws that affect the military.

We want to reassure Canadians that the NDP will continue to lay the groundwork for a larger review of the need for the modernization and civilianization of the military legal system and the implementation of greater civilian oversight. We will make sure that that happens whether we form the official opposition or the government. I feel it is in the interest of all Canadians and particularly Canadian military personnel.

As I mentioned earlier, as a result of the NDP victory after a long and hard-fought battle for the amendment to clause 75 on criminal records—an issue on which our party has strongly and publicly expressed its view—my party is now ready to support the improvements to the military justice system set out in the bill, despite the fact that the bill has no teeth and the reform is not being implemented quickly enough.

Once in power, we are determined to continue to move forward with the reforms and to reverse the regressive measure providing new powers to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff with respect to military police investigations.

Clearly, Canadians will understand that we have to wait until 2015 to do so. However, we are still going to hound the Conservative government for the next two years.

As I said, the NDP victory forced the government to make some amendments so that almost 95% of disciplinary offences would no longer result in criminal records. We will support Bill C-15. The NDP is proud to vote for a significant, tangible result for the members of the Canadian Forces, a result that we fought hard for and successfully managed to have included in the legislation.

Our efforts have established one more important reform in building a fairer military justice system.

People may not be aware that, when the bill was studied in committee, the NDP did what a real party must do: it proposed amendments in order to improve the bill and eliminate its flaws. In committee, the NDP proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments, while the Liberals proposed none. That shows that the NDP is the party that cares about improving Conservative bills, especially those that affect our Canadian Forces.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces must uphold standards of discipline that are among the most rigorous. In return, they deserve a justice system with comparable standards. The NDP will support the improvements proposed by Bill C-15, because it is a step in the right direction. However, the government should have done more, as has already been mentioned.

The NDP also regrets that the Conservative government is determined to adopt a piecemeal approach. Changing the military justice system requires an independent review of the entire National Defence Act, which governs the military justice system. The NDP is also asking the government to provide a legislative response to the LeSage report within one year because it has yet to do so. Members of our Canadian Armed Forces deserve no less.

I will now speak in more detail about Bill C-15. This bill is similar to Bill C-41, which came out of a committee in the previous Parliament. However, important amendments made at committee stage in the last Parliament are missing from Bill C-15.

One of the main omissions is the lack of any provision to expand the list of offences that do not result in a criminal record. The NDP, in the House and in committee, asked for changes and proposed amendments in order to reduce the impact of disciplinary sentences and ensure they do not give rise to a criminal record, and also to raise the issue of the lack of a full charter of rights. In committee, the NDP fought to improve the bill and to reform the military justice system in a more meaningful way.

As I already mentioned, through our efforts, the list of offences that will not result in a criminal record was expanded. We also presented a series of amendments to improve the bill, thereby showing our commitment to truly reforming the system. I will talk about five of those amendments.

We asked that the Chief of the Defence Staff be granted the financial authority to compensate members of the Canadian Armed Forces as part of a grievance resolution process, in direct response to Justice Lamer's recommendation. We also proposed changes to the composition of the grievance resolution committee to include 60% civilian membership and not to include active members of the Canadian Forces, which would make the committee more independent. We also proposed a provision that would guarantee that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. We also wanted to guarantee the independence of the police by abolishing subsections 18.5(3) to 18.5(5), in clause 4 of the bill to prevent the Chief of Defence Staff from issuing specific instructions on an investigation to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Finally, I believe that it is important to make the House aware of the final recommendation we made, which involved precisions regarding the letter of the law, as recommended by Justice LeSage, to indicate that a charge must be laid within a year after the offence was committed.

Mr. Speaker, since my time is quickly running out, I am going to stop there. Canadians can take comfort in the fact that the NDP is there to ensure that the Conservatives' bills are improved in committee and in the House of Commons. We will continue to fight for the men and women who protect our country.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, as a person who was involved in the military justice system for over 30 years, on the receiving end for very minor things and on the dispensing end for some things that were minor and some that were somewhat more major.

We are talking about the equitableness of the system. In my experience within the system, it was equitable within the context of the military, which is different, and we acknowledge it is different. I do not think it will ever be precisely like the civilian system, for some very good reasons.

My colleague talked about reform and bringing more civilianization to the system. That is being done. One of the things that is being done with Bill C-15 is another advancement on that. The bill has been through three Parliaments in various forms and three bills in various forms.

The previous speaker talked about taking the advice of Ruby over the advice of the parliamentary secretary. I would certainly take the advice of Justices LeSage and Dickson over that of Mr. Ruby. He has agendas that I am sure are pure at heart, but some others may attribute something else to it.

We have had more than 100 speeches this time on this subject. As I said, it has been through three Parliaments and three bills. It is not perfect. It will never be perfect in the eyes of the opposition members, and that is fair ball. The member talks about wanting to do an end-to-end review and come back in another year. If they want to pursue that, it is fine, but is it not time to quit this continuous 100-speech marathon and just get on with it because it is improvement and we can work on it as we go forward?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I am honoured to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in LaSalle—Émard to talk about Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, at third reading.

I would first like to talk about my riding of LaSalle—Émard. This past weekend, I had the opportunity to participate in an activity organized by the ladies auxiliary of the LaSalle Royal Canadian Legion. These volunteers hosted this activity at the legion for the veterans they visit at Ste. Anne's Hospital.

These women are volunteers. Some of them have been volunteering for over 40 years, while others have been volunteering for 25 or 15 years. They provide a very valuable service to the veterans who served Canada during the world wars and other conflicts in which Canada participated.

I always find it very worthwhile to attend events such as this. It gives me the opportunity to meet with these men and women and better understand what they did for us and what their lives were like when they were members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

In Canada, we are lucky to live in a country that is peaceful, safe and prosperous compared to other places in the world.

I will speak about veterans, but also about current members of the armed forces who do more than we know to serve our country, both here and abroad.

I would also like to say that, in my family, one of my great uncles served in the Second World War. One of my uncles was in the army, and I have a cousin who is currently a member of the armed forces. I do not often have the chance to talk to them about their experiences.

However, I know that members of the Canadian Forces are very disciplined, rigorous and dedicated. When they make a commitment, they follow through on it.

This bill, which amends the National Defence Act, meets a long-standing need. We have had discussions about this and we have talked about the report issued in 2003 by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer. Other reports have been released since then, including the recent LeSage report, which was published in 2011.

Various bills have been introduced in response to the recommendations made in these reports, but they died on the order paper either because an election was called or for other reasons.

Bill C-15 went to committee. As was mentioned, the NDP worked very hard to correct certain shortcomings in this bill.

As my colleague mentioned, it is a small step in the right direction. We must take into account this bill's long history and the recommendations that have been made over the years. This bill addresses a need. The government has taken a step forward by acknowledging the NDP's proposed amendments. Nearly 95% of breaches of the Code of Service Discipline will no longer result in a criminal record. That is one of the reasons why we support Bill C-15.

Earlier in my speech I mentioned that the NDP recognizes the importance of the hard work and dedication of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. We want the justice system to treat them fairly, and at the same time we acknowledge that the Canadian Armed Forces are very disciplined and rigorous. We want military justice to be fairer, and that is very important to us. That is why the committee members and the NDP worked very hard to make their case on this bill. As a result of their work, breaches of the Code of Service Discipline will no longer result in a criminal record. We worked very hard on this, and the government was open to working with us.

We think it is very important to have an exhaustive independent study of the military justice system and to introduce legislation in response to the LeSage report within a year. Bill C-15 does not really take the LeSage report recommendations into account. I think a study on this should be conducted.

As for the reform of the summary trial system, I think we can expand the list of military offences that do not result in a criminal record. We saw some openness from the government to that. We must also reform the grievance system.

I will conclude with a very important point, which is that we must strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. Around the world, countries like Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the United Kingdom are reforming their military justice system and increasingly making room for a civilian component.

We must look at these possibilities. Many of our allies thought it was good to change their summary trial system, which makes us wonder why Canada has waited to so long to modernize our own military justice system.

I think that involving civil society would be beneficial, not only for members of our military, but also for society in general. It would ensure that our system is in line with Canadian values.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Liberal member's speech and I am a bit confused. The Liberals were supporting Bill C-15 at second reading. It now seems they have changed their minds. In his last response, the Liberal member also mentioned that the constitutionality of the bill had to be tested and all the rest.

I wonder why they did not move any amendments at committee. I am a bit confused. First, what is their current position? Second, why did they not propose any amendments? They seemed to agree with the amendments proposed by the NDP and they supported them, but, for their part, they made no proposals to improve the bill. Now, all of a sudden, they are putting forward a whole host of ideas at third reading.

Could the hon. member shed some light on those questions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate about Bill C-15. As other speakers have said before me, it is an improvement and there is no question about that.

It is probably less of a bill than the previous parliament had proposed and it appears that my colleagues in the NDP are prepared to go for less rather than more, which is quite regrettable. However, I do commend the work of my NDP colleagues on the committee. They made every procedural effort to amend the bill and improve it, all of which I supported. Regrettably, they failed at each and every turn, so it surprises me at this point that my colleagues in the NDP are prepared to accept what is arguably a much lesser bill than the previous parliament had proposed.

I will comment on three areas. They are areas that have been somewhat canvassed before, but are in effect the poison pills of the bill and make it much less than what it could have been. We could have, at this stage, come together and said we have reformed the military justice system and it would probably have been good to go for the rest of this decade, although this is a continuous review process.

When we study military justice, there are distinctions between what we would consider to be civilian justice and military justice. Let me say at the outset that I do understand and I do support the concept that the military is a unique culture and does need a justice system that is unique and designed for it. However, as one witness, Clayton Ruby, pointed out, “It has been said that when you enlist in the military, you waive your constitutional rights. This is nonsense.”

When a person puts on the uniform, as many thousands of our fellow citizens do, they do not waive their constitutional rights. We cannot have a blanket exemption from the Constitution for the military. That is one point where we get into trouble with the way in which this bill has been proposed.

There are roughly 2,500 service offences committed by members of the military over the course of a year. In our language, they would be known as summary conviction offences. The offences can range from trivial right through to pretty serious offences. For some of the serious offences, confinement to barracks or even to jail is the punishment. Of the 2,500, about 30 actually result in confinement to either barracks or an actual jail system on an annual basis.

Because of that, we cannot be trivial about the process. We are in effect offending one of the core provisions of our Constitution, section 7. We are taking away the liberty of a citizen. This is a citizen who is in a uniform, but he or she is still first and foremost a citizen. Therefore, this citizen is entitled to the basics of a trial.

There is a saying in the military that I cannot actually repeat without expanding the English language beyond the proper decorum of this place, but it says “march the guilty in”. That is kind of an understood language that the military uses with respect to these summary trials. These summary trials have a conviction rate in excess of 98%. They really put the “summary” in summary trials. However, in most instances, that is actually not a problem.

There does need to be a disciplinary process for the military.

However, in the instance where there is a potential sentence of confinement to barracks or even to a jail, that is a problem. Why? Because the individual does not have the right to access to counsel, there is no transcript and the “accused” is made to stand through the entire trial. We had an opportunity to address this, but the Conservative government did not do that.

For instance, a British soldier is guaranteed access to counsel and the right to appeal. A civilian judge sits with a military judgment and no detention can be imposed when the accused is not represented by counsel.

These are not trivial matters. When we members of the opposition pressed the government on this, the Conservatives said the bill is constitutionally compliant, that it is charter-proof. We beg to differ. One of Canada's foremost criminal trial lawyers who has gone all the way to the Supreme Court on quite a number of occasions took serious exception to this. He said, “This charter justification matter is not a small issue”, so when the liberty of a citizen is at issue—even a citizen who is a soldier—the charter procedures need to be followed; not only do they need to be followed in law, but they need to be followed in spirit as well.

When people put on the uniform and defend us and allow us to in effect carry on a debate in a chamber such as this, it is no small issue. If I as a civilian get more constitutional protections at the Ottawa summary conviction court than a soldier accused of exactly the same offence, then it is not balanced and not right. We in the Liberal Party think we could have done a better job, but we did not. That is unfortunate, and I dare say will open up this legislation to charter challenge at some point in the near future.

It is not good enough for the government to waltz into committee or waltz into this chamber and say the bill is charter-proof. We heard the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety talk about that a few weeks ago. Anybody who believes that the Conservative government is serious about the charter is, in my judgment, excessively naive. It is an inconvenience. It would have given us some comfort at committee had independent people outside of the military, outside of the government, told us that these provisions are actually charter-compliant. It is not good enough to have government lawyers say it is charter-compliant. That is like investigating oneself. That is point one.

The second point has to do with the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to intervene in a police investigation. We have heard a lot of debate about this. The origin of this debate came out of Somalia, as the minister rightly said, a dark chapter in the history of the military, and I dare say a dark chapter that never would have seen the light except for the fact that the press was present at the time of the incident. The natural reaction of the chain of command is to minimize incidents such as this, and that was in full bloom. I do not think anybody covered themselves with a great deal of glory over this incident. A protocol was developed post-Somalia between the police service and the chain of command, and that protocol was no interference. There would be no interference from the chain of command in any police investigation. That, frankly, served us fairly well between Somalia and now.

However, now the government wishes to reassert itself by inserting the chain of command into a potential police investigation.

I have listened to several of the arguments with respect to the chain of command introducing itself. As we all know, “may” is a small word that has big implications. For those of us who have practised law for a number of years know that the word “may” can be expanded. Certainly when a dark incident occurs in military operations, the pressure on the chain of command to contain the incident will be powerful and, in some respects, the temptation to intervene with a police investigation is almost overwhelming. It has happened, and will happen. There is no doubt about that.

I will quote from Mr. Tinsley, the former ombudsman, who stated:

My very brief summary submission is that if Bill C-15 is passed into law in its present form, inclusive of the new subsection... authorizing the VCDS to interfere with police operations and investigations, it will be inconsistent with the principles of police independence as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada [as[ late as 1999 as underpinning the rule of law, as well as run counter to the norms of police-government relations, certainly in Canada, and I can tell you internationally in developed countries, which recognize the importance of police independence and prohibit police service boards or similar executive bodies from giving directions regarding specific police operations.

Mr. Tinsley's testimony was reinforced by the current ombudsman, a former chief of police from Windsor, who said that in his experience as a civilian police officer he would have been horrified, shocked and probably hung up the phone on any police service board, and that is any mayor, who phoned him up to tell him what to investigate and what not to investigate.

If one wants to derail a civilian investigation, a good way to do it is to have political interference. Therefore, in some respects the government has retained the ability to insert itself legitimately and legislatively into a police investigation.

On this point, I would conclude with Mr. Tinsley's final observations. He stated:

It would also effectively contradict, even repudiate, the notion of improper interference by the chain of command as established in the oversight jurisdiction of the Military Police Complaints Commission and thereby effectively eliminate oversight by statutory authorization of such interference by the VCDS, a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the complaints commission.

He ends his comments by asking, why?

My final point has to do with the grievance process. Over many months, we in the House have raised the issue of grievances that soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen have with their employer, which is the military and therefore us. When an employer employs 100,000 people, it is quite logical that some of them will not be happy with their terms and conditions of employment, which can potentially result in a grievance process. The grievance process is well defined and is a good process. By and large, it resolves many of the grievance issues that they would have with their employer.

However, there are instances, and, unfortunately too many instances, where the grievance process works its way up through the process to the desk of the Chief of the Defence Staff. The Chief of the Defence Staff largely, and almost without exception, agrees with the findings of the people who are delegated to do this work, makes an authorization for compensation, and says, “This particular soldier is legitimately upset and should be entitled to x number of dollars”, whether it is a differential in pay, or the cost of a move or whatever. Out of that, the Chief of the Defence Staff makes the “order”, but cannot write a cheque out of the military budget or any other budget. All of these complaints, particularly the real estate complaints, land on the desk of the Treasury Board Secretariat and thus far none has been authorized.

It ends up as a unique anomaly in which the Chief of the Defence Staff has said that a soldier has a legitimate grievance and thinks it is worth $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000. It does not matter what the number is. He then sends a note to Treasury Board and Treasury Board, without exception, turns it down.

Pierre Daigle, the current ombudsman, wrote the following:

Moreover, when claims are rejected—which is often the case—Canadian Forces members are informed that they must initiate legal action against the Government of Canada—

In other words, he or she must sue the employer. He goes on to say:

—in order to obtain compensation. However, unbeknownst to most men and women in uniform, legal action will rarely be heard by a court because previous courts have ruled that there is no legally enforceable employment contract between the Crown and Canadian Forces members.

I imagine this goes back to the unique position of anyone in the military, which is unlimited liability. When people sign up, they sign up entirely, and, in effect, waive their right to sue their employer. It is not a good way to treat people. We tell them they have to put themselves in harm's way and they cannot sue if their pay or compensation for moving is not what they think it should be, even if the military agrees with them. It is not right. One would have thought that on an infrequent review of military justice, we would have taken this opportunity to do what the ombudsman said, which is to, in effect, give the CDS the authority to write a cheque.

Pierre Daigle further stated:

—I would reiterate what I said when I testified before this committee in 2011. The Canadian Forces redress of grievance process will remain flawed and unfair as long as the final decisionmaker in the Canadian Forces grievance process, the chief of the defence staff, lacks the authority to provide financial compensation to resolve unfairnesses.

That regrettably is the end of it. We had an opportunity to do the right thing by our men and women in uniform and, in the judgment of the Liberal Party, we failed. My colleagues have moved good amendments, but they failed. It is a stripped-down version of the previous bill. We now have at least these three instances such as the potential of a charter challenge, an interference in police process and men and women who cannot get satisfaction from their employer.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of my constituents in Surrey North.

I want to start by talking about what the Minister of National Defence pointed out in his speech. He pointed out that this bill is long overdue and should have been addressed before the Conservatives became government. That is due to the slow pace of the government in addressing the criminal justice system and the military. It is the government that has been dragging its feet over a number of years.

Having said that, I know the minister has had a rough run over the last couple of years, whether it was the military procurement or the pay difference in Afghanistan recently. I point out that this bill is a small step in the right direction, and I have to give the minister kudos for the small step in the right direction, but more could have been done with regard to the criminal justice system.

As the minister pointed out, this bill was introduced in the House back in October of 2011 and was an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, basically strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Again, Justice Lamer made recommendations back in 2003, and it is only now that the government is getting around to addressing our broken military justice system.

Among other things, this bill would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process. The bill would provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution, and it would modify the composition of court martial panels according to the ranks of accused persons and would modify the limitations, among many other things.

Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, the government should have done more. Bill C-15 suffers from the Conservatives' slow-footed response to the LeSage report, which was not incorporated in the bill, along with the lack of wall-to-wall review of the sections of the National Defence Act pertaining to military justice.

Bill C-15 falls far short of key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. We are letting our soldiers down with this unnecessary slow pace of change. The NDP will continue to lay the groundwork for a larger review of the need for the modernization and civilization of the military legal system and the implementation of greater civilian oversight.

I am proud of my colleagues on the defence committee, who forced the government to make some amendments to the bill. As members may recall, I spoke on second reading of this bill about some of the shortcomings of the bill that New Democrats would like to strengthen. One thing was with regard to military personnel having criminal records. We were not comfortable with that particular clause in the bill. My NDP colleagues on the defence committee forced the Conservatives to accept an amendment, which would force changes so that over 90% of disciplinary offences would not result in criminal records. We will support Bill C-15 at this point. The NDP is proud to vote for the significant, tangible result that we have been vocally and legislatively in support of for the members of our Canadian military forces.

Our efforts have established one more important reform in building fairer military justice. It is important that the amendments that were offered by the New Democrats were accepted by the Conservatives. It is a small step, one aspect of the bill, not the entire bill. We would like to see more changes to the military justice system, so we can have a robust justice system in the military. This would be a small step in the right direction. One of the key elements was regarding the criminal records for military personnel, so 90% of those military personnel would not have a criminal record after going through this. That was an important first step.

Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline, and they in turn deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. The New Democrats will support Bill C-15's proposed improvements because it is a step in the right direction. However, the government should have done more. The Conservatives voted against several prudent NDP amendments at committee that asked to fully incorporate Justice Lamer's 2003 recommendations and some of Justice LeSage's 2011 amendments. They even voted against a clarification to the letter of the law in clause 35, as proposed by Justice LeSage. This has resulted in a failure to strengthen the proper safeguards for independence in the grievance system, military police or judicial elements of the military justice system.

The New Democrats are calling on the Conservatives to approach the military justice system in a holistic way. What the Conservatives have been doing is taking a piecemeal approach, a little bit at a time. The National Defence Act is a relic. We need to look at it in detail to reform it wall to wall and bring our criminal justice system in the military to the 21st century. The Conservatives had a chance to do this for the last six or seven years. However, they have not done it. They have taken a very piecemeal approach to the military justice system, and we are doing an injustice to the men and women who serve this country proudly. We can do much better. We can support our men and women by ensuring they receive justice when they need it.

Going back to Justice Lamer's recommendations, in 2003, the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, presented his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Provost Marshal. Bill C-15 would be the legislative response to these recommendations.

Former chief justice of the Superior Court the Hon. Patrick LeSage provided an additional review of certain sections of the National Defence Act, which was handed to the government in December 2011. The Minister of National Defence tabled the report in June 2012.

The Conservatives took over a year to table that report. They had it sitting on the minister's desk and he did not act at all. They have had a number of years to bring forward legislation so we can reform the military justice system, yet, as I have mentioned before, the Conservatives are foot-dragging on the issue of reforming our justice system. Even though we are supporting this particular bill, one of our major concerns is that, while it would be one little step in the right direction, there are numerous recommendations from the LeSage report and the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer recommendations that are not part of Bill C-15.

That is what the government needs to work on. It needs to take on a wall-to-wall review of the National Defence Act. The Conservatives have voted against amendments attempting to incorporate several of LeSage's recommendations.

Bill C-15 has appeared in earlier forms. Just going back through the history of it, first Bill C-7 and Bill C-45 died on the order paper due to the prorogation in 2007 and an election in 2008. In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force, simplifying the structure of the courts martial and establishing a method for choosing the type of court martial more closely aligned with the civilian system.

In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs considered Bill C-60 and provided nine recommendations for amendments to the National Defence Act. In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2000 Lamer report and the LeSage report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military justice committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the Provost Marshal and limited provisions related to grievance and the military complaints process.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. The amendments carried over included those on court martial and military judges and security of tenure, appointment and age. There are other important amendments to Bill C-41 proposed at the amendment stage and incorporated at the end of the last parliamentary session. However, those amendments that were introduced to the previous bill were not taken into consideration in Bill C-15.

That is unfortunate, because we had a bill that went through the process. We heard from witnesses in the committee. Experts, judges and many people associated with the military justice system testified. We had reached a compromise. We reached across different parties. The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP worked together to bring about amendments that would serve our military justice system in a way that is fair. In committees, input is heard from key witnesses and amendments are reached. When that process takes place, all sides can be heard from. The committee recommended a number of amendments that would have helped make the system better.

However, as we have seen in the past from the Conservatives, they have failed to incorporate those very amendments that were agreed upon in the last session of Parliament. That is very unfortunate. The amendments that came out of the last session were a consensus from all three parties.

However, the Conservatives are not listening, and they do not want to incorporate those very amendments that would have formed more consensus towards how we could take a larger leap forward in forming our military justice system. They have backtracked a little from that. This is a smaller step in the right direction.

There was one amendment, a compromise that the NDP fought for in Bill C-41, clause 75. At the prompting from the NDP and in recognition of amendments absent, the Conservatives introduced this amendment into clause 75 of Bill C-15.

While this compromise that the NDP fought hard for in Bill C-41 and Bill C-15 is an improvement on the current legislation, it does not go far enough to improve the summary trial process for our Canadian Forces. It does not guarantee that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subject to a criminal record.

Furthermore, the Conservatives voted against prudent NDP amendments that would have ensured that the proper legislative mechanisms were in place to apply clause 75 retroactively.

We brought forward a number of other improvements at committee. I believe that is what committees are for. That is where we improve bills to make the laws we make in this place better to serve Canadians in a better way. Yet the Conservatives voted down every single one of those amendments.

This is a small step in the right direction. I think we could have taken a bigger step. In fact, I believe we need a wall-to-wall review of the National Defence Act to bring the act into the 21st century. Yet the Conservatives did not want to take even a slightly bigger step.

Here are some of the amendments we proposed at committee. One of the amendments voted down by the Conservatives would have given the Chief of the Defence Staff the financial authority to compensate CAF members in the grievance process. It amended clause 6 in Bill C-41, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendations. An amendment to clause 11 in Bill C-41 would have changed the composition of the grievance committee such that it would include 60% civilian membership and would exclude active-duty Canadian Forces members, thus enhancing the independence of the board.

These are common sense amendments that would improve the military justice system. These amendments in the previous Parliament were approved by the committee. Yet the Conservatives failed to bring them into Bill C-15.

Again, this is a small step in the right direction. They could have done more. They could have taken some of the testimony we heard at this committee for Bill C-15 and also at the committee in the previous Parliament. That committee had agreed to these amendments. Yet the Conservatives took those amendments out. That is puzzling. One year they agreed to them, and the next year, in a new parliamentary session, they are going back on their word. That is failing the very people who serve this country.

Another amendment we introduced was a provision to ensure that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial would not be unfairly subjected to a criminal record. It amended clause 75 in Bill C-41.

These were very common sense amendments. I could go on about some of the changes we proposed and some of the things we would like to see in our approach to reforming the military justice system. The least this House could do is provide the Canadian Armed Forces with a modern National Defence Act so that they can carry on their jobs.

I want to go back to what I started with. The Minister of National Defence has had bad news over the last two years. He has bungled the F-35 procurement. It is a mess. It is a fiasco. I could use a number of other adjectives to describe it. We have seen a number of other scandals in the ministry of defence. We have seen recently a differential in pay in Afghanistan.

The Minister of National Defence could use a little bit of good news, and I would say that this is very little good news, which is going to reform the military justice system. We are calling for a wall-to-wall review of the National Defence Act so that we can reform the criminal justice system in the military and provide the support, encouragement and resources to our military personnel who serve us proudly.

I have a free voice to speak up in the House, to speak on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North, because of the very sacrifices the men and women in the military have made. The least the House could do is provide them with a modern National Defence Act so that they can carry on their jobs.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

moved that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill C-15, which aims to amend the National Defence Act to strengthen Canada’s military justice and grievance systems.

This legislation is a comprehensive package of amendments that will enhance the military justice system, clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and improve the military police complaints process and military grievance system.

As a former practitioner of the law, Mr. Speaker, you could vouch for the fact that the modernization of law, including the justice system for the Canadian Forces, is an extremely important undertaking and is a long time overdue.

As the House has heard throughout its considerable consideration of the bill, the military justice system is essential to maintaining the discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The requirement for a separate, unique system of military justice has long been endorsed by Parliament and the Supreme Court, and is further recognized in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The framework of Canada's military justice system has also been validated in two independent reviews. The first was conducted by Chief Justice Lamer and was tabled in the House in 2003. A second review, by Chief Justice LeSage, was tabled last year following the introduction of the bill.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-15 were developed to address those recommendations that are still outstanding from the Lamer report.

Bill C-15 encapsulates the government's previous legislative efforts to address these recommendations, namely through Bill C-7, Bill C-45 and Bill C-41, so the bill is essentially in its fourth iteration.

The content of the bill has been thoroughly debated and reviewed. It has been before the House, where some 100 speakers from all parties participated in the debate. Most recently, the Standing Committee on National Defence met eight times in February in examining the bill. Three sessions were devoted to clause-by-clause review of the proposed legislation, and the committee heard from 16 expert witnesses from the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces and non-governmental organizations.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my House colleagues and the witnesses for their diligence and dedication in the study of the bill.

I would also be remiss if I did not note the leadership of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, the member for Ajax—Pickering and members of the committee, as well as Colonel Mike Gibson, who has dedicated tremendous time and effort in bringing the bill forward to this point.

The bill before the House today will make several important changes to the National Defence Act and enhance the military justice system and grievance framework. These amendments include setting out a wider and more flexible range of sentencing options, enhancing the treatment of victims by introducing victim impact statements at courts martial, and clarifying the process and timelines for future independent reviews of the military justice system.

I am pleased to say that members from both sides of the House are generally in support of enhancing the military justice system and grievance process. However, during second reading and in committee, it became apparent that misconceptions regarding certain provisions have persisted, specifically, those provisions related to criminal record exemptions and the Vice Chief of Defence Staff’s authority to provide instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshall during investigations.

I would like to take this opportunity to make the government's position clear on these issues and to put to rest any misunderstandings that could further delay the implementation of this important legislation.

Let me begin by quickly addressing concerns related to the criminal records aspect in clause 75 of the bill, because it seemed to be the focal point of many of the comments here in the House and in committee.

While summary trials are necessary to maintain discipline within the Canadian Armed Forces, clause 75 specifically recognizes that most summary trial conviction offences are not sufficiently severe to justify a criminal record for the disciplined military members within the meaning of the Criminal Records Act.

Specifically, this clause ensures that service members would no longer be required to apply for a record suspension, also known as a pardon, for convictions that would not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act. That is to say, it simply would not show on a person's record upon leaving the Canadian Forces if he or she has been convicted under one of the offences specified in the act.

In response to concerns under the scope of exempted convictions, the committee accepted the government's proposal to amend the bill to expand the list of exemptions. National Defence estimates that this provision would exempt approximately 95% of summary trial convictions from resulting in a record within the meaning of the Criminal Records Act and eliminate any undue hardship to members transitioning to civilian life. Therefore, most would leave the Canadian Forces with an unblemished record if convicted under one of the mentioned offences.

In committee, members also expressed concerns over a provision to give the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the statutory authority to provide case-specific direction to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal during investigations. The intent of this provision is to statutorily define the relationship between the Provost Marshal and the chain of command and to enhance the transparency and accountability of military police investigations.

Unlike civilian police forces, Canada's military police may be asked to operate and conduct investigations in operational theatres, as we have seen in places like Afghanistan, where active combat is taking place. Taking this into account, there may be the need in exceptional circumstances for the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue special instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. I say this because surely an operational combat zone would qualify as an exceptional circumstance. Special instructions would balance the investigative independence of the Provost Marshal with the safety and security of those involved in the investigation and the operational imperatives of the Canadian Armed Forces.

This bill would establish in statute a mechanism for issuing such instructions, thereby achieving three objectives. Firstly, maximizing accountability by identifying a single authority for such instructions, namely, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. Secondly, establishing a statutory requirement for such instructions to be issued in writing, therefore improving transparency. Finally, further increasing transparency by requiring such instructions to be made public, unless the Provost Marshal considers that it would not be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so.

There are also provisions here where one can envision that information, particularly intelligence that was passed to the Canadian Forces by allies, would be protected in such circumstances.

In closing, our troops perform extraordinary tasks each day—often at great risk to themselves—in service of our country. They need—and deserve—to know that they can have confidence in the fairness and strength of the military justice system that governs and protects them.

This legislation before the House today has been years in the making. In fact, if we trace its history, it goes back to a period before this government came to office. The amendments have now had the benefit of a full second reading debate in the House of Commons and committee study. I strongly urge the House to support implementing these important provisions without delay.

It will benefit the men and women in uniform of the Canadian Forces and their families. It will benefit these extraordinary Canadians who do so much on behalf of our country at home and abroad.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the bill, I guess, in part, because I spent my first career in the military. I always took particular interest in the justice system within the military, realizing it was somewhat different. I am glad to say that I did not have too many encounters with that justice system during my time in the navy.

However, let me summarize some of the key points the Liberal party feels are important to talk about with respect to Bill C-15.

The Liberal Party certainly understands the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. At the same time, our party believes that Canadian citizens who decide to join the Canadian Forces, as I did, should not, thereby, lose part of their rights before the courts.

The Liberal Party understands that rights and equality are universal. Without an effective means for appeal and no recorded proceedings, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not respect the basic rights of the Canadian Forces members. The Liberal Party of Canada does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, as the means for pardoning offences has been recently removed by the current government.

Finally, the Liberal Party of Canada finds it problematic that the VCDS, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

I will provide some background.

There are a number of disparities between the military and civil justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. While we recognize that updates to the military criminal justice system must be made, the government is missing a real opportunity to make these changes properly.

Many aspects of the military justice system would inexplicably remain unimproved or would provide unnecessary powers. For example, Bill C-15 would enshrine in law a list of military offences that would now carry a criminal record, some of which are hardly necessary. Without the pardon system recently revoked by the Conservative government and with the summary trial being set up as it is, with no record and no means of meaningful appeal, Canadian Forces members would be left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

As Colonel Michel Drapeau noted in his committee testimony:

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

Further quoting him:

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

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

I would like to also quote from former Justice Gilles Létourneau, who provided further criticism of the summary trial system which remains largely unaddressed by the modernized version of the current bill:

This form of trial has been found to be unconstitutional in 1997 by the European Court of Human Rights because it did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality set out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As a result of this decision and others, the British Parliament enacted legislation which now provides guarantees to an accused soldier. These provisions include the following

(a) the accused may be represented by counsel;

(b) the accused is entitled to an Appeal to the newly created Summary Appeal Court;

(c) the Summary Appeal Court is presided by a civilian judge, assisted by two military members who are officers or warrant officers; and

(d) as a general rule, imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the offender is not legally represented in that court or in a court martial.

To further quote Judge Létourneau:

As a result, the British Parliament has gone a long way to ensure a fair treatment of soldiers facing summary trials. Similar changes have taken place in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand as well as France, Belgium, Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania and Netherlands, to name a few. However, despite the fact the requirements of independence, impartiality, fairness and justice are the same in Canada, and if anything they are more compelling because, in Canada, they are entrenched in the Constitution, our men and women in uniform are still denied fair treatment at a summary trial.

Furthermore, Bill C-15 gives the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff power to intervene and give direction in investigations. This is troubling, considering that he is also subject to the code of service discipline and could technically intervene on his own behalf.

Colonel Drapeau notes:

The proposed new paragraph 18.5(3) in C-15 would, in my estimation, make the current lack of independence worse by now granting authority to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) to issue “instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular investigation”.

This is very troubling indeed.

Quoting again from Colonel Drapeau:

Keep in mind that already the CDS and the VCDS has the power to call in the NIS to conduct an investigation on any issue which is of concern to them—and, frankly, under the existing command arrangements it is most unlikely that the NIS would ignore such a request. Also, the CDS does not feel inhibited to comment publicly on an open NIS investigation.

To now give the VCDS the authority to issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular military police investigation will remove any pretense that the Military Police is independent from the chain of command. Lest we forget, the CDS, the VCDS and, for that matter, the JAG, are each subject to the Code of Service Discipline. None of them should have the power to direct or influence either the initiation, the suspension or the conduct of a particular police investigation let alone to issue instructions or guidelines as to the conduct of a specific investigation.

Soldiers are citizens and should enjoy the same Constitutional and charter rights as every other citizen. As Judge Létourneau so eloquently puts it:

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

The answer, of course, for all of us must be a resounding “yes”.

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

Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motion

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

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

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

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about one of the points that my colleague just raised. He spoke about the role of the House of Commons within our Canadian democracy. It is a place where anyone can bring up ideas related to the topic of debate.

I am not a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We have an extremely competent critic who is a member of the committee. I was therefore not fully aware of the issue raised by Bill C-15. I had heard about this bill and I had heard that it left a lot to be desired. However, I was not able to examine the issue before the bill made it to the House and we had a chance to examine it more closely.

This once again highlights what an important role the House of Commons plays in our country's democracy. I congratulate our dear colleague who just spoke for bringing up that point.

I would also like to say something about my colleague from Winnipeg North.

I remember when the member for Winnipeg North joined the House of Commons not long ago after a very exciting by-election win in Winnipeg. He brought tremendous experience as a provincial legislator to that race and then to Parliament. I remember being very impressed by his oratorical skills, his ability to speak in Parliament and to get right to the core of an issue so that we could better understand what was at stake in any debate. When I learned that he had been a member of the armed forces I doubly appreciated his public service and what he has done for this country. He joins two eminent Canadians, one of whom is sitting to my left, the member of Parliament for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who also was a member of the military. Not only was he Canada's first astronaut in space, but he was also a member of the naval forces and used his skills and knowledge as an engineer to support that arm of the armed forces. In the Senate we have Senator Roméo Dallaire, a great military man, a great Canadian, a great internationalist, and of course a great Liberal. We have on this side of the House a fair amount of depth when it comes to discussing military issues. I am proud to say that I belong to this caucus.

The government has for years disparaged the opposition by saying that it does not support the military. In any crisis or any situation where the military was discussed with a certain amount of intensity, the government never missed a beat in questioning the esteem with which all members of the House, including members of the opposition, hold members of our military, not only veterans but currently serving members.

I ask members to look south of the border for one minute. I wonder if they can recall a time when, in a crisis or in any other situation, the military has been used as a partisan weapon by one party to attack another. In a crisis, have we heard presidents say members of the other party do not respect the military, do not believe in the military, do not have the best interests of the military at heart? I do not hear that from south of the border, yet that is supposed to be a society so much more divided than ours, so much more polarized than ours.

Government members talk a good game when they talk about supporting the military, but when it comes time to give charter rights to members of the military, they do not talk about such things but rather gloss over them.

I would remind hon. members that two weeks ago was the 31st anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That anniversary day coincided with the day that the new Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, met with--

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, but first, I would like to say something about the committee's study of Bill C-15.

The study in committee lasted longer than normal, about four hours. If you look at the committee transcript of those four hours, not one Liberal member spoke. During a four-hour meeting, the Liberals did not speak at all.

I would like to know why they thought it was a good idea not to participate in the four-hour debate in committee and why they are raising these issues now.

Why did his colleague not bring this up in committee when it was studying Bill C-15?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's dissertation, and his tinfoil hat may be on just a bit tight.

He talked to Bill C-15, which has been debated through three different bills in three different Parliaments. I really think it is time that we moved on. It may not be perfect in every aspect, but it makes great progress on an issue that is important to the Canadian Forces and it is important to the men and women in the Canadian Forces, who understand it far better than my hon. colleague does.

The members rambled off into other issues that have nothing to do with Bill C-15, other than the aforementioned headpiece. I believe I heard the member say that members of Parliament are being denied the ability to be involved in day-to-day policing. Unless I misheard him, is he saying that members of Parliament should be involved in day-to-day policing discussions with the RCMP?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As with most bills, there are some good points and some problems with some of the clauses in this particular bill. I will spend most of my time on concerns with changes to the military justice system. I want to outline a few good points that are to the government's credit, but overall the bill does not have the balance that is needed.

Providing for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement is a good proposal. Permitting the appointment of part-time military judges to conclude cases in a timely manner is fine, and specifying the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process makes a lot of sense.

However, the area of concern is that the bill makes amendments to the delegation of the power of the Chief of the Defence Staff as the final authority in the grievance process, and it makes consequential amendments to other acts to make that possible.

The Liberal Party does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, since the means for pardoning offences has been recently removed by the Conservatives. What Bill C-15 would do is enshrine in law a list of military offences that would carry a criminal record, some of which are hardly appropriate for a criminal record, and others before me have spoken about the seriousness of this measure.

I expect many offices, both on the government side and this side of the House, have dealt with people who have applied for pardons, have found the period has been extended for a longer period of time and as a result have found themselves in an employment category that is probably not as good as they otherwise would have had if they had been able to receive their pardons in a timely fashion. In fact, I have talked to a quite a number of people who said that obtaining a pardon used to carry a reasonable cost but is now very expensive and difficult to afford.

There is an attack by the Government of Canada on people who have, yes, done wrong in life, but punishment is everything on the government side, it seems. Yes, a lot of these people got into trouble, but they can be productive players in Canadian society, and the ability for people to be productive players in Canadian society has been diminished by what the government has done on the pardoning provisions alone, and that hurts us all. It hurts society and it hurts the economy.

Under the new rules, Canadian Forces members would be left haunted by a record, would be unable to find employment upon release and would face greater difficulties in getting a pardon.

Michel Drapeau, who is a retired colonel, noted the following in his committee testimony:

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

That is a serious matter in terms of the list of military offences, some of which should not be criminal charges, that would affect individuals and individuals' families. As I said, tougher rules to obtain pardons even diminish the ability for folks to contribute to the Canadian economy.

The other very serious matter in the bill that we find extremely problematic is that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff can intervene and give direction in military and police investigations. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff is certainly subject to the code of service discipline, but the ability to intervene in a case and maybe deny a case or have more authority in a case is a concern.

I am personally worried by the lack of separation we are seeing in the military justice system. I am worried about the balance of justice, the fairness aspect and in this case, the ability of the command structure to influence and control. As well, as I said earlier when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence was on his feet and laughed at this, thinking it was not possible, I am also worried that the situation in the military of superior authorities influencing decision-making down the line is starting to creep its way into the criminal justice system.

Let me spell out what I mean in that regard. This weekend we found out about the decision of the Conservative government to forbid any RCMP official from meeting with members of Parliament without prior approval from the office of the Minister of Public Safety.That decision carries with it all the implications of the government transforming the RCMP into a Conservative Party security service.

I say that in relation to this bill because we are seeing influence higher up in the chain, whether it is through the military system or now, seemingly, through the civil justice system by the Minister of Public Safety imposing rules that the RCMP is not allowed to talk to members of Parliament unless the minister's office is first notified. It is political influence on the day-to-day policing carried out by Canada's national police force. That is absolutely wrong.

The Minister of Public Safety with the Department of Justice and cabinet designed the law, and that is good and appropriate, but for a minister to be involved practically in the day-to-day affairs of policing is way beyond the pale.

As a former solicitor general, I was well aware that one of the principal obligations was to ensure that there was never a hint of direct political interference in the activities, obligations and duties of the RCMP. That standard of professionalism no longer exists under the current Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety. We found out about that this weekend.

What will this mean? I see what is outlined in Bill C-15 creeping into the civil justice system under the authority of the Minister of Public Safety.

It would mean that before approval of any requests by members of Parliament to meet with members of the RCMP to discuss what at times could be sensitive security issues related to constituents, the political staff within the minister's office will have access to the request and, of serious concern, the reasons for the request. This, in short, will give Conservative Party operatives sensitive information related to individuals, information that should only be shared with law enforcement personnel who have the training and the mandate to have access to that information. That is a serious matter.

Being compelled to inform the political staff in a minister's office about a simple meeting, maybe just over law enforcement in my riding, could jeopardize individuals or investigations. I make that statement in relation to Bill C-15 because it is a recent issue that has not been talked about: the creeping aspect of the authority of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in all things related to the military justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, the Liberal Party in the past, like us, has accepted the authority of former senior members of the judiciary, such as Justice Dickson, Justice Lamer and Justice LeSage, who have served at the highest levels with either the Supreme Court of Canada or the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. None of them have recommended that the summary trial system be dispensed with. None of them have said that it is unconstitutional or contrary to or at odds with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We now have the Liberal Party suddenly claiming support for the charter while ignoring the advice of these eminent jurists, who are great champions of the charter itself. It seems to me that the Liberal Party on this issue, as on so many, no longer has a position.

We just heard the member for Cape Breton—Canso say that Bill C-15 would strengthen the role of the grievance board. It would give it more independence and give it a new name. The member for Vancouver Quadra said that there was no such change in the bill.

It is clear that the Liberals are improvising. They are making up these changes that were never spoken about in committee. Why is that? Why delay the modernization of our military justice system and disregard the sage advice of eminent—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to join in the debate. It has been informative. Being neither a lawyer with a legal background or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces with a military background, I have certainly learned quite a bit from the debate here today. It has been worthwhile.

That being said, our caucus is blessed with a great depth of legal knowledge. My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, and my colleague from down the road in Halifax West have addressed many of the rights issues woven throughout this piece of legislation. I am certainly respectful of their opinion on it.

As well, our caucus boasts a number of people who have served our country in military service. The member for Winnipeg North is a former member of the Canadian air force. He was posted in Edmonton for a number of years. Our colleague, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, is a former naval officer, a colonel, in the Canadian navy. He went on to become involved in the space program and was Canada's first astronaut. He is a man whose opinion is widely respected across the country.

Then, of course, from the red chamber, there is Senator Romeo Dallaire. His vast experience and understanding of all issues military has a great deal of equity in his opinion. When people of that calibre bring forward concerns on a particular piece of legislation, such as Bill C-15, obviously it is worth taking note.

One of the key provisions brought forward today is the provision for security of tenure for military justices until they reach the retirement age of 60, resign or are removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee. The outlining of sentences, objectives and principles is another provision. The legislation would also amend the composition of a court marshal panel according to the rank of the accused. The bill also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee. One of the other key components is that it allows certain service offences to carry a criminal record.

In our party, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court marshal system and to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. However, we also believe that Canadian citizens who make that career decision, that life choice, to join the Canadian Forces should not lose some of their rights before the courts.

We believe and understand that rights and equality are universal. Without an effective means for appeal, and no recorded proceedings, which was mentioned by my colleague from Halifax West, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not respect the basic rights of Canadian Forces members. Our party does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, as the means of pardoning offences has been recently removed by the government.

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

Obviously, there are a number of disparities between the military and civil justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. While we recognize that updates to the military justice system must be made, the government is missing an opportunity to make these changes properly.

Many aspects of the MJS inexplicably remain unimproved or provide unnecessary powers. For example, Bill C-15 enshrines in law a list of military offences that will now carry a criminal record, and some are hardly necessary. Without a pardon system, which was recently revoked by the Conservatives, and summary trials set up with no records and no meaningful appeal, a Canadian Forces member would be left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

I would think it would have twigged on the government that many Canadians, after they finish their military service, have challenges securing that first job out of the service. Many times, the skills an individual acquires, even the technical skills, do not align with accepted or traditional construction trade skills.

The helmets to hard hats program, which works with members who try to seek employment after having left the military, is recognition of that. The Conservatives take a great deal of credit for it, but they have put only $150,000 into the program. The program is really run by Canadian building trades and a number of corporate sponsors. That being said, it is a program that recognizes some of the challenges members of the Canadian Forces face upon release. It would be nice if the government would play a more significant role.

That being said, if the Conservatives were attuned to the challenges of departing members, one would think they would understand that coming out of the military with a criminal record because of an offence that in our own court system would not be recognized as a criminal act becomes a burden in itself. That is yet another challenge that has to be overcome by an individual. It is truly unfortunate and unnecessary.

My colleague from Ajax—Pickering said that the testimony given by a couple of witnesses was somewhat extreme. Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau is a respected Canadian with a very distinguished military career. I will read into the record his quote from the testimony presented:

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

We cannot dismiss testimony from individuals whose opinions we greatly respect. We should take that into consideration. Certainly the testimony of both Retired Colonel Drapeau and M. Létourneau was very compelling and should be reflected going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the comment that was just made by the member from the official opposition. We still have time to amend this legislation. I put forward amendments that would preserve the independence of investigations and prevent senior military officials from interfering in the scope of an investigation. It is exactly the opportunity to pass those amendments today. I would be very grateful if the official opposition and the Liberal Party would change their current position of allowing this bill to pass on division and, instead, support a vote on the amendments to improve Bill C-15.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

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

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

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

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The members of the Canadian Forces deserve no less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently the accountability framework language says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

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

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

Motion No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Defence

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Chair.

We're talking here about criminal records. The amendment we've already passed will have the effect of ensuring that any of those service offences that do not meet the same threshold for generating a criminal record in the civil system will no longer generate a criminal record in the military system. But still, both before and after this amendment, they are not generating an entry in CPIC. This is the point that needs to be taken on board. Trials and summary convictions do not result, according to all the testimony and information we've heard, in the fingerprinting of the offender and transfer to the RCMP that would generate an entry in CPIC.

Trials at court martial for more serious offences have done so and will continue to do so. We have not discussed doing things differently on that front in our consideration of Bill C-15, but the effect of our amendment will be to bring the military justice system with regard to criminal records to the point of reflecting the modern Criminal Code of Canada.

If the person who has a criminal record from a summary trial wishes to have that record now expunged, removed, have that record suspended as we now call it rather than a pardon, they will approach, I'm given to understand, the Parole Board of Canada and go through whatever procedure is required because they will be considered to have a criminal record under the Criminal Records Act, which says that any violation of a federal law constitutes a criminal record.

In this case they have violated the National Defence Act, so they will be applying for a suspension of that record. At no time will they need to go to the RCMP or will they need to have their record expunged from CPIC. That simply is not a relevant dimension of this particular issue. For that reason we think it's irrelevant to the policy goal we're trying to achieve. We would encourage all members to recognize that is the case and to conclude this debate as quickly as possible.

We will certainly be opposing this amendment.

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

Chair, on a point of order, I was going to wait until Mr. Harris finished, but I think this point of order is relevant at this point.

We have heard from witnesses, and it is relevant to the amendment before us now, and I think makes it inadmissible, that all convictions from summary trials at present, and under the amended version, after Bill C-15 that we have just agreed on after amending Bill C-15 with clause 75, do not result in criminal records within the Canadian Police Information Centre. None of those convictions from summary trial do so at present. They do result in a criminal record under the Criminal Records Act, and that is dealt with by the amendment that we've already passed. I think you'll find Colonel Gibson and his colleagues can confirm that. It makes this amendment—

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

Mr. Chairman, if the opposition can drag Bill C-15 out until the death of this Parliament, they would do the same thing the next time around, dragging back t the same witnesses after the same things have been said. To unnecessarily delay passage of the bill, they're requiring these soldiers to go through the criminal records suspension process unnecessarily. By their actions, they're doing the opposite of what they say they intend to do.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Toone made reference to 2011 and a witness who was before this committee then, which speaks to the length of time, and the number of times this legislation, which is in the best interests of our serving soldiers, has been considered by Parliament. That same witness came back again before our committee during this rendition of Bill C-15. It's getting to the point where witnesses like this are just using this committee to troll for clients and shill their books. It's a total abuse of the process.

Now, the opposition can drag Bill C-15 out—

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

Thank you.

I just want to respond to some of Mr. Alexander's comments.

Clayton Ruby is not the only one to raise concerns about this. The Criminal Lawyers' Association expressed grave concerns about it. They were opposed to the giving of a criminal record to people who were charged and convicted under a summary trial, objected to the procedures and to the constitutionality of it.

Mr. Justice LeSage, himself, in his report, said:

...I have very real concerns about obtaining a criminal record from a summary trial conviction. The issue of criminal records flowing from convictions at summary trial must be reviewed. The very damage that flows from a criminal record and the potential effect on a person’s life is far too severe a consequence for most offences tried by summary trial. I am fully supportive of the summary trial as an efficient and effective method of maintaining discipline. However, because the summary trial, although constitutional for its purposes—

—and I think he's again talking in the general way—

—does not provide the panoply of safeguards of a civilian criminal trial, the unintended consequence of acquiring a “criminal record” at a summary trial should occur only in exceptional circumstances.

Now we're not talking about exceptional circumstances here. I suppose one might argue that if we're getting 94% out of 100%, the other 6% must therefore, by definition, be exceptional. I don't think that's the case. There's no particular special circumstances. For example, the mere shoving of a person is an assault. If one decided to charge someone with assault, you could get a conviction, possibly even in a criminal court. But I doubt very much that every shoving match that occurs in the military is dealt with by a charge of assault, just as every time something like that happens in a school yard or a school, the police are called. But I think it could be recognized that this kind of behaviour could be a discipline issue; fighting, shoving, even striking someone could be a discipline issue, but not necessarily one that ought to attract a criminal offence.

Mr. Alexander referred to the eight offences that we're talking about that are Criminal Code offences. If there are only eight offences that we're talking about, then you make a choice.

You invoke the police in a civilian trial system to ensure that what is regarded truly as a criminal offence ought to be treated as such, handled by the civilian authorities. A person gets all of the rights that they're entitled to under our Constitution and under the law, and if they're convicted, they end up with the consequences of that.

If it's going to be regarded as a disciplinary matter, we've all agreed that it's important to have a military discipline system, one that is, as Justice LeSage said, “an efficient and effective method of maintaining discipline” through the summary trial process. It's fast; it can be dealt with in a matter of days, not in the kind of time that a civil trial might take. It can restore unit cohesion, restore morale, restore discipline in a swift way and an appropriate way, and the punishment might be greater than one would get for the same offence in society.

We understand that may be required to maintain that discipline and efficiency. It's not being done because it should be. No one says soldiers should be punished more than civilians. That's not the purpose of it, not to provide a greater punishment.

Mr. Alexander's argument about treating them more leniently by not getting criminal records doesn't hold water in this context. Because the purpose of making it tougher on the individual is to ensure that the unit cohesiveness, the discipline, and the morale is maintained, not to punish them for the rest of their lives with a criminal record.

That's not the point here at all. The issue is the punishment that you're given, the process by which you get there, doesn't have the same constitutional protections, and therefore as Justice LeSage says, ought not to attract the unintended consequence in many respects of having a criminal record. Clause 75, with the G-2 amendment, goes some way to recognizing it, and it has taken a couple of years. It's taken the last iteration of this bill, Bill C-41, Bill C-15, and two years of arguments to get to the point where it was accepted. It was accepted in the last Parliament mainly because it was a minority Parliament. I would venture to say, given the makeup of the last Parliament and the makeup of this committee, there's no possibility that the changes to clause 75, which are now there, would have got through. If they didn't get through then, they'd be unlikely to be passed by this committee.

It's all very well to talk about ten years to get here, or six years or seven years or three iterations or whatever, but we would never have got here if it wasn't for the arguments that were made in the past two years. We're now here, but we're here obviously because the recognition of the consequence of a criminal record is a serious matter and the government and Parliament has now decided to do something about that, not everything, but something about that, and that something is contained in Bill C-15, clause 75.

We are putting forth the proposition or the argument that we must go further, that we must prevent people from getting a criminal record when they don't have due process of law, which every other citizen outside of the military has access to if they are going to obtain a criminal record. That's the distinction we're making here. We're saying to the men and women who sign up to the military that they could come out of here with a criminal record without due process of law. Every other person in our society who is going to end up with a criminal record has the constitutional guarantees, has the ability and the right to a fair and independent tribunal with the right procedural protections that are enshrined in our Constitution, and the procedures, laws, cases, and all the things that have been put into our law as the law progressed.

As retired Justice Létourneau said, the law has changed. The law changes as time goes on. There's been a development in the law and in the application of the Charter of Rights to our criminal law and our system. He suggested that the military justice system has not kept up with that. I have to agree with him; we are trying here to help it catch up in this particular aspect. Yes, we have a military justice system that may need a fundamental review but we have an opportunity here to say we want to make sure in the meantime that we don't give people criminal records who don't have legal protection.

If the concern is, and I know it is, that some people who perhaps should have a criminal record are not going to have one, well then there is a solution. That solution is to have them charged in the civil system. If someone commits a sexual assault against a minor on a base or a rape, then they can be tried civilly and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and they will have the consequences associated with that. But we don't want to have a system wherein the only people in our system of justice who don't have access, as of law, to the procedural protections of our Constitution are the people who are serving our country in the military. That's a situation we'd find ourselves in if we don't pass this amendment here today.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are not here to debate the relevant punishments for every offence. We're not here to discuss the subjective or objective gravity of the situation or the sentencing applied. We're here to discuss amending Bill C-15. This is totally out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm just saying, though, that we have to remember that our witnesses are here specifically to help with the technical background on Bill C-15 and to provide us with the background information we need as to how these amendments are affecting the National Defence Act. They aren't here to provide hypothetical information. That's where we come in, as members, to determine what might possibly occur because of the bill.

Are you done, Madam Moore? Mr. Toone wants the floor.

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

The subamendment merely seeks to add another to that list.

I don't know how we can get all caught up in principle here when what we're talking about is how to achieve a fair result in relation to section 100 as compared to sections 101 or 101.1, and the others that are included here.

There are various theories we can apply to it. Our application is based on fairness.

My colleague, Mr. Brahmi, talked about the need for mens rea, and he got an answer that yes, mens rea is needed, and it is the same. I would agree with Colonel Dufour that in either civilian criminal law or in the case of this kind of offence there is a mental element required.

But because it's either wilful or negligent.... And we're not talking about the kind of negligence that's called criminal negligence in criminal law, just ordinary negligence, which is made criminal here because the offence is to, in the case of allowing an escape, negligently or wilfully allow escape. The kind of negligence we're talking about here is not the criminal negligence. The word “negligently”, according to the commentary found in Canadian Military Law Annotated, signifies that “...the accused either did something or omitted to do something in a manner which would not have been adopted by a reasonable capable and careful person in his position in the Service under similar circumstances”, which is quite a lot of qualification.

In other words, simply being careless is enough to attract a conviction under section 100, which is totally different from what in criminal law is called criminal negligence, where somebody has to be acting with wanton disregard for the life and safety of others. But to have this particular offence, the mental element is so minor in terms of carelessness or doing something in a manner that would not have been adopted by a reasonably capable and careful person in that position under similar circumstances.

It's not so egregious as to attract a criminal negligence charge, but it's something that's simply either wilful.... Well, wilful may be pretty obvious, but wilful indicates that the accused knew what he was doing, intended to do it, and wasn't acting under any compulsion. So that's the mental element. It's wilful: you wanted to let this guy out; you opened the door; you took him out or you attached a rope to the bars and rode your horse away—as in the cowboy movies—and you did it on purpose. Or it's the other sense of being careless or negligent. That is enough to attract this.

But it's not enough, and I submit that if the circumstances are such, and all of the sentencing provisions relate to the circumstances of the individual: the seriousness of the offence, yes, but also the seriousness of the consequences of the action, the degree of blameworthiness of an individual, and all of that....

If we had Clayton Ruby here, who is the guy who has written the book Sentencing, which is used throughout the country, he would tell us that. In fact, in Bill C-15 that we have before us today, we're putting a list of the purposes of sentencing.

All we're saying here is that if those purposes of sentencing can be achieved by the imposition of either a minor punishment or a fine, in this case a month's pay, or a reprimand or a severe reprimand, then that ought to apply.

On offences that are considered minor offences, by the way, with minor punishments—because that's in our list of the least of the punishments that can be granted—those minor punishments include confinement to a ship or to quarters or to barracks, so you're confined to your ship if you're in the navy, or to your barracks or quarters if you're in one of the other forces. The second thing that's included in minor punishment is work or extra exercises, which would be telling someone to jog around the military base five times or whatever. Prohibiting someone from taking a vacation and keeping him on duty is considered a minor punishment. The last of the four matters listed in minor punishments is a warning.

For any of these lesser punishments, if somebody did something that was so minor as to only require a warning, is that something we would want to see involving a criminal offence? What if it were so minor as to only attract a warning, or some disciplinary matter such as a work detail, or giving someone an order to perform extra exercises, or confinement to barracks for a weekend or whatever? For those kinds of punishments, if these were the consequence of violating this act, even though the maximum penalty is quite high, if the level or degree of culpability were so minor and the consequence so minor as to attract a punishment up to and including a severe reprimand, then there ought not to be a criminal record.

We must have some compassion for the individual who is affected by this and recognize that if we can start off here with a bill that only has five offences listed and only talks about minor punishments and a fine of $500, an amendment submitted by the government, obviously upon reconsideration, that lists perhaps another 15 or more—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm going to stop you right there, Mr. Harris, before you start circulating papers. I'm going to rule this as inadmissible. As you guys know, chapter 16 of O'Brien and Bosc deals with the legislative process. At the bottom of page 766 and the top of page 767 is the issue of relevance as it refers to amendments to a bill. Since this is an amendment at second reading, this amendment that you're proposing is inadmissible, and I'll just quote:

...is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since you're quoting section 6.1 of the Criminal Records Act and it's not being amended by Bill C-15, your amendment is inadmissible. So, I'm ruling it out of order.

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

—then there's something significantly wrong with the process.

Thank you for correcting me.

We're still dealing with Lamer and a number of Lamer's important recommendations that this government is still refusing to put into place. And now we're being asked to put into legislation that we should wait another seven years before some of the specific sections that are dealt with ought to be considered.

I don't think that's good enough. I think if this does get passed in the near future, which I assume it will, if the government decides to call it for debate in the House and bring it through, then whatever progress is contained in this legislation—those aspects of this bill that are progress—will actually take place.

What clause 101 says is that we're going to wait another seven years before we have another go at it. Does that mean the next changes we're going to expect to see are going to come in 15 or 16 or 17 years from now? If the same pace of legislative change that you're suggesting continues, then I don't think that's good enough.

The way to deal with that is starting now. Having gone through this process, having exposed the problems that we see with this legislation, can we not actually have a fundamental review of this legislation to see where we need to go to actually bring our military justice system into the 21st century? We're just scratching the surface in terms of some of the changes that are being made here.

I recognize that to have the list we're debating in the government amendment to clause 75—a watered-down version of an amendment that I made in the last Parliament on behalf of my party, and we reached that result back in the last Parliament—is progress. If 95% of the service offences that go to court do not result in a criminal conviction, as has been suggested by the government, that is some progress. I think we recognize that. Instead of feeling blame, I take some credit for that. I say this not to boast, but to counter your suggestion that I should somehow share the blame for taking 10 years to get to this point, when it was the efforts that were made two years ago in this very room that got us to the point where we are now, and another six months in the House of Commons to get us back to there, at least on clause 75.

No, I don't share the blame for that. I think we're making a mistake here to limit the review of this legislation to something that's going to commence in seven years from the day on which this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-15, receives royal assent. That's going to mean that any further changes could be put off as late as 10 years from now.

What I do want to say, though—and I acknowledge your slight detour there to the LeSage report, which we've heard many times wasn't available in time to make changes to this legislation, which I disagree with—is you did indicate that the LeSage recommendations will require some legislative change. I wonder what kind of commitment the government is prepared to give, in terms of when the LeSage recommendations might be addressed in legislation. I'm assuming that's not going to wait seven years, and that we may have a timetable already in mind. If there is a timetable with respect to that, please let us know.

(Clause 101 agreed on division)

(On clause 102)

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

In a word, no. I accept absolutely no responsibility for the fact that it's taken, as you suggest, nearly a decade to get to where we are. This legislation has been before this House on a number of occasions for a number of reasons, and I can detail them as to why. The House was prorogued by your Prime Minister. An election was called earlier than legislation required it. There were all sorts of reasons that the previous versions of the legislation never got through.

One of the reasons, of course, was that the matter was debated and we just passed off and put aside one of the significant consequences, and that had to do with the summary trial matter, which took, I suppose, six or seven months after the debate on Bill C-15 started and took place in the House. The government finally acknowledged that perhaps they were prepared to agree to put back an amendment that was passed in the last Parliament.

In the last Parliament we had numerous amendments. We had a very thorough discussion, and I don't think the speed at which this bill passed in the last Parliament left anything to be desired. We went through clause-by-clause study fairly rapidly, in three or four days at the most, with witnesses and the clause-by-clause.

During that particular Parliament I was where Mr. McKay is. We brought forth a dozen or more amendments, of which eight or nine were passed. They were stripped out of the bill the last time, so I guess we have to argue them again. So I take no responsibility for the fact that Mr. Justice Lamer was asked to make some recommendations back in 2003, and that we're here now in 2013. I only came here in 2008, and we had an opportunity to debate Bill C-41, and we made improvements to it. It was actually sent back to the House in good time to be passed, but the government chose not to call it for debate in the House of Commons. That's not my doing.

So we don't accept any responsibility for that. The government chooses when legislation is called.

To suggest that all of these reports are being taken into consideration, I would refer you to your own comments about Mr. Justice LeSage. Whereas that was only tabled in the House in June, well, that may be, but the government had it in December because it was tabled with the government in December, and the government had plenty of time to incorporate Mr. Justice LeSage's recommendations into this report and also to deal with amendments that had been proposed the last time and which the government didn't agree with, only because they thought the wording needed to be improved. Yet they didn't take any steps to improve the wording and bring them back some two years later.

So let's not be too sweeping about these remarks. What I'm suggesting here, with what we now have from this government, after recognizing that it took some time to get to where we are, is that there'll be another seven years before we even look at what needs to be done to this legislation. That's what's wrong.

If we are here now still dealing with the LeSage recommendations going back to 2003—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to continue on with our study on Bill C-15. This is meeting number 69.

When we last met we finished with carrying clause 67. We are starting at clause 68.

(On clause 68)

Are there any questions or comments on clause 68? It starts on page 43 and continues right through to the top of page 46.

Mr. Harris.

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

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

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

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

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

[LCol André Dufour]

I can answer that.

I would like to begin by specifying that the law—chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 2011—talks about that provision. That provision was used again because there was uncertainty over whether Bill C-15 and Bill C-16 should be introduced at the same time.

To answer your question more specifically, I would say that, in proposed subsection 165.21(4), two circumstances are set out—the judge's request, or the attainment of the age of 60 years. Subsection 165.21(5) talks about how to deal with resignations. The legislation overlaps simply to cover both possibilities.

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

Sorry, but just to respond briefly to Mr. Harris' observation, there are two things.

Bill C-15 was introduced in Parliament on October 7, 2011. The LeSage report was not tabled until June of 2012. I would ask you to just bear that in mind.

The second point is that it's a matter of legislative drafting and interpretation. In this case, we consulted with our friends, the legislative drafters at the Department of Justice, who actually draft the bills, and we asked them what they thought of this. They were fairly adamant that actually, no, it was good as it stood.

In fact the amendment suggested—with the greatest of respect to Justice LeSage—in their view was not technically appropriate and would not actually contribute to clarity or be consistent with their drafting of protocols.

That's why it is the way it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Main estimates need to be reported back at the end of May, or even the first part of June. So there is a timeframe there and we have some time before the minister needs to appear on that.

Are there any other questions? If not, let's get back to our work.

We're on meeting number 68. I want to thank Mr. Harris for taking the chair while I had to table a private member's bill in the House, and we ran late, of course. It was QP today, so it caused my delay, and I apologize for that.

We're doing our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. We were in clause 20 when we adjourned on Monday evening.

(On clause 20)

Are there any further comments or questions on clause 20?

Mr. Larose, you have the floor.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

I call meeting number 68 of the Standing Committee on National Defence to order. We are continuing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15.

I've been asked by the chair to open the meeting; he is in the House of Commons presenting a bill. I suspect he'll only be a few minutes, so I don't see much point in starting the meeting....

We were in the midst of discussion with Colonel Gibson, I believe, regarding clause 20 and some of the consequences of that. But I don't think he's going to be very long. When I left the House there was a private member's bill being presented, and I think as of today he has to present his bill.

Madame Moore.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're moving on to clause 12 on page 7 of Bill C-15. Are there comments? No amendments have been tabled.

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

Okay. We've just received some comments from the drafters. They suggest that a different wording needs to be used here because the reference to the subsections isn't correct. It would now read that Bill C-15 in clause 11 be amended by adding a line after line 20 on page 6 with the following.... Then the second one would be renumbered from 2.1 to 2.01. Given that, Chair, can we stand this one down and deal with it? It doesn't look like we're going to finish today, but if we can stand down, I'd just as soon have a proper amendment before the committee.

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

Very briefly, Chair, we oppose the amendment. The financial authority of the CDS has been strengthened by order in council last June, and that is having an effect. The backlog in grievances is also being dealt with even before the further improvements provided for in Bill C-15 as unamended, come into force.

Finally, we're of the strong view that the best place to enhance financial authorities is not in the National Defence Act, it is in the Financial Administration Act, other acts of Parliament governing financial matters, and above all, in the policies and programs that are the province of the Treasury Board.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As you might have predicted, on our side we have an entirely different view. The measures contained in this amendment would remove from Bill C-15 a very important provision that is very much in the spirit of the military justice system and in the spirit of modernizing that system. It is a complement—complement with two Es—to the mandate and role of the provost marshal, which is being given legislative form here in an unprecedented way elsewhere in the bill.

This part of this clause explicitly shows the need, and enshrines the need, for the manner in which the military justice system, as it relates to the provost marshal, has to balance the interests of justice with those of military operations. And as both the provost marshal said as a witness here, and the VCDS said here, this is not a challenge to the independence or the professionalism with which the provost marshal and the military police will conduct investigations. It is a recognition that they will have to conduct investigations from time to time in extraordinary circumstances, on a battlefield in a dynamic environment, an unprecedented environment, where we've sent the Canadian Forces because they have the capabilities to operate there, and where the duty of care that we all have towards the Canadian Forces requires that there be an operational point of contact, in this case one point of contact, with the police. This point of contact would allow the chain of command to inform the provost marshal or indeed instruct the provost marshal if necessary with regard to certain circumstances that might affect an investigation.

That enhancement of accountability in the spirit of the military justice system also contains a transparency provision set out in 18.4 and 18.5 that will ensure that this VCDS and his successors are true to the spirit and letter of their commitment, which is to use this provision rarely and to use it to shore up the independence of investigations, not to compromise them in any way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Good afternoon, everyone.

We are going to continue our study of Bill C-15 pursuant to the standing order issued to us as an order of reference on Wednesday, December 12, which was to study the Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. We are going into clause-by-clause consideration pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

In light of that standing order, we're going to postpone the consideration of clause 1 and move straight into clause 2, which provides definitions. Are there any comments? Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall clause 3 carry?

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

We have an NDP amendment.

Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Colonel Gibson, and thanks to your team, for your testimony today and for your support for the committee's work throughout.

In looking back at today's earlier testimony and testimony we've had from those who see problems with the amendments to Bill C-15, it becomes clear that many of them just don't want a separate military justice system. They either question its constitutionality or would like to see the system civilianized.

It strikes me, as one observer, that they haven't fully accepted the principle on which our military justice system is based, which is that there are two objectives that need to be balanced and protected, one of which is pursuit of justice, and the other operational effectiveness in the field: discipline, morale, cohesion. That second objective doesn't exist for arbitrary reasons; it exists because our armed forces do things in the field that actually are at the foundation of our civil liberties and have been for decades and indeed centuries. This balancing act is something that we have built up over a long time, and it is fundamental.

To be fair, Mr. Ruby and the Criminal Lawyers' Association did admit that they had limited experience in the military justice system, so perhaps we simply need to take their testimony with a grain of salt.

However, I drew a contrast with the approach that Mr. Tinsley was taking, because he had claimed that when he launched his investigation back in 2007, with which we're all very familiar, it was to ensure continued public confidence in the military and the military police. In my view, those hearings and that very lengthy investigation did not serve to increase public confidence. It didn't find wrongdoing, it created doubt, and it didn't help discipline, whereas all the evidence we've had, I think from credible witnesses, shows that our military justice system by and large is functioning well, although in need of modernization and in need of continuous review.

Could you tell us how those reviews will work after the amendments take place? Because this is ultimately one of the greatest safeguards of the integrity of the system, of giving us an assurance that it will keep pace with the times and developments on the civilian side, what is proposed? How will this benefit military law and members of the Canadian armed forces with regard to reviews?

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

It is part of the obligation of any presiding officer or any judge to understand the consequences of the sentence they're handing out, so that point is addressed during training.

I should point out two additional things that are very important for the committee to understand.

Presiding officers at summary trial can avail themselves—in fact, if they have any doubt, should avail themselves—of legal advice with regard to any question or concern they have. It's their decision, since they're the decision-maker, but they can receive legal advice about it.

The second thing is actually one of the important elements of clause 62, which deals with the improvements that Bill C-15 intends to make in sentencing. It specifies, in fact, that the person who is going to impose the sentence—whether a presiding officer at summary trial, a military judge at a court martial, or indeed even an appellate judge of the Court Martial Appeal Court or the Supreme Court of Canada—has to consider any indirect consequences of the sentence.

That would include, in fact, a statutory obligation under Bill C-15 that the person understand that if they were to give a particular sentence that fell outside the exemptions provided in clause 75, presuming that passes, there would be the consequence that the person would acquire a record within the meaning of the Criminal Records Act.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the honourable members of this committee for this opportunity to appear before you today to speak to Bill C-15.

As Deputy Judge Advocate General for military justice, I, together with my team, have a played a significant role in the preparation of this legislation. I am very glad to have the opportunity to appear today to assist the members of the committee in their consideration of the bill, for two reasons.

The first is that we are lawyers and members of the Canadian Forces. The system we assist in constructing and that we endorse is one that applies to ourselves. We live it every day.

My 32 years of service in the Canadian Armed Forces have taken me to over 60 countries around the world. Between us, Lieutenant Colonel Strickey, Lieutenant Colonel Dufour, and I have multiple operational deployments, including to Bosnia, Afghanistan, Congo, and Sudan. We thus understand first-hand how the military justice system must possess certain functional attributes, including portability, in order to fulfill its purpose. We are fully committed to both the effectiveness and the charter compliance of the military justice system.

The Canadian military justice system has two fundamental purposes: to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces by contributing to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency, and morale, and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. It thus serves the ends of both discipline and justice. These purposes are stated in the statutory articulation of purposes, principles, and objectives of sentencing in the military justice system set out at clause 62 of Bill C-15.

Simply put, an effective military justice system, guided by the correct principles, is a prerequisite for the effective functioning of the armed forces of a modem democratic state governed by the rule of law. It is also key to ensuring the compliance of states and their armed forces with the normative requirements of international human rights law and of international humanitarian law.

The second reason is that having listened carefully to the testimony of the witnesses who have appeared before you, there is a concern that there may be some misapprehensions about some of the provisions of this bill. I would like to briefly address two of them now.

The first relates to clause 75, concerning the creation of records within the meaning of the Criminal Records Act arising from conviction for minor service offences.

The origin of clause 75 was our concern that although it is necessary to maintain stringent discipline in the Canadian Forces and that this may require trying persons for what could be seen as relatively minor offences, it was not necessary for the maintenance of discipline to have the collateral effect of creating a record within the meaning of the Criminal Records Act to achieve this purpose.

This could have an adverse impact on service members seeking other employment following their release from the Canadian armed forces and, as you've heard in some detail, other consequences as well. In order to relieve what could be seen as the potential for an unintended and unnecessary harshness, we adapted the scheme that Parliament has already put in place in the Contraventions Act.

The effect of clause 75 would be, employing certain thresholds relating to both the objective and subjective gravity of the enumerated offences, to preclude the creation of a record for conviction of the enumerated offences, under the threshold of the specified punishments, and thus obviate the requirement for Canadian armed forces members to have to later apply for a record suspension.

The minister has undertaken that an amendment will be introduced matching the provisions of the one adopted by this committee during its consideration of Bill C-41.

In order to assess the impact of this proposed version in terms of dealing with convictions at summary trial, we conducted a detailed statistical analysis using statistics from the JAG annual report for 2009-10 as a representative sample. This assessment indicates that if the provisions of the amended version of clause 75 are applied for that year, 94% of the offences tried at summary trial would not have resulted in the creation of a record.

Taken together with the introduction in Bill C-15 of absolute discharges as a sentencing option, we would thus predict that approximately 95% of cases tried at summary trial would not result in the creation of a record under the proposed provisions. The remaining cases would be largely made up of the eight Criminal Code offences triable by summary trial. This version of clause 75 should thus be highly effective in achieving the desired policy intent.

The second issue relates to summary trials.

The purpose of summary trials is to provide prompt but fair justice in respect of minor service offences. Summary trials are also intended to contribute to the maintenance of military efficiency and discipline, in Canada and abroad, in times of peace or armed conflict.

Summary trials are vitally important to the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. They are the workhorse of the military justice system, consistently trying about 96% to 97% of cases. They exemplify the attributes of promptness, portability, and flexibility.

It must be pointed out that some of the most eminent constitutional jurists of the charter era in Canada, former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justices Brian Dickson and Antonio Lamer, and former Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court Patrick LeSage, have conducted independent reviews of the military justice system and have supported the importance and constitutionality of the summary trial system.

The portrayal of summary trials that has recently been advanced by some is, at best, a very partial depiction of the full picture that must be taken into account in making a responsible and accurate assessment of the fairness and constitutionality of the summary trial system.

I would be glad to amplify later on other factors that should be taken into account. It does bear repeating at this point, however, that no Canadian court has in fact ruled that summary trials are unfair or unconstitutional.

A major reason that there are not a large number of amendments concerning summary trials proposed in Bill C-15 is that Chief Justice Lamer, having reviewed them, did not identify a significant number of problems and did not recommend any changes.

Legislative reform of the military justice system involves a process of continuous improvement over time, just as is the case with the civilian Criminal Code. Bill C-15 provides important updates as well as a statutorily mandated regular independent review to help ensure that this is accomplished.

Bill C-15 will not be the last word on military justice. To borrow a phrase famous in legal circles, the military justice system is a living tree. Further legislation will be necessary in the future to respond to the recommendations of the LeSage report and to other issues, but this overdue Lamer response bill needs to be passed in order to get on with addressing the next series of improvements.

To coin a metaphor, Mr. Chair, it is necessary to move the Lamer response train out of the station so that we can bring the LeSage response train in, load that one up, and deal with the next set of improvements.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. l would be pleased to assist the members of the committee by answering your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call the meeting back to order.

We're going to continue on with our study on Bill C-15. Joining us from the Department of National Defence, from the Judge Advocate General's Office, we have Colonel Michael Gibson, who is deputy judge advocate general of military justice. We have Lieutenant-Colonel André Dufour, who is director of law ,military personnel, and we have Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Strickey, who is director of law, military justice—strategic, Office of the Judge Advocate General.

Gentlemen, I welcome you all to the table. I know you've been following our hearings closely, and I understand that Colonel Gibson will be leading off with your opening comments.

Colonel, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not a point of order. I'm going to close off debate on that.

We do ask that when members are questioning witnesses, they do so with respect, but it is their time to ask questions, and witnesses are expected to answer all questions put to them.

I want to thank Mr. Tinsley for your service and for being here today, and for your service also on the Military Police Complaints Commission as well, and for the work that you've done over the many years in writing your reports.

I also thank the representatives from the Criminal Lawyers' Association for joining us and helping us with our study today on Bill C-15.

I'm going to ask our witnesses—they are excused—to leave the table in a timely manner so our next witnesses can come forward from JAG.

With that, we're suspended.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The biggest challenge when it comes to drafting a bill is articulating its intent in a legal text using legal jargon. Since we began studying this bill, I believe a consensus has emerged among the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP on the principle that an individual should not have a criminal record if the same offence would not have resulted in a criminal record in civilian court. That principle makes sense. I don't think I'm mistaken in saying that everyone is in agreement on that.

We don't agree, however, on other aspects. Let's discuss clause 75. I do realize that the proposed amendment—I am referring to what was set out in the previous legislation, Bill C-41—would mean that, in most cases, the offender would not acquire a criminal record. But the fact remains that some people could, even in cases where that would not have happened in the civilian system. So there are still a few holes.

How do you think Bill C-15 could be fixed to plug those holes and ensure that no member of the military winds up with a criminal record for an offence that would not have resulted in the same in civilian court? What can we do to rectify that?

[Eric Granger, Lawyer, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity for us to appear before you today on this important piece of legislation on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association is an association of criminal law professionals. We're here as part of our mandate, which includes running representations on issues relating to criminal and constitutional law and civil liberties more generally.

We want to be up front about the fact that neither Ms. Weinstein nor I am a practitioner in the military justice system. We're not military law experts. Some members of our association do practise in the area; we do not, but we're here on behalf of our association more generally on issues relating to provisions of Bill C-15 in which there are parallels between the civilian criminal justice system and the military justice system. We're offering our insights into the possible charter and civil liberties implications of those particular provisions of the bill.

I'm going to start by offering a few brief comments on a few of the provisions of this legislation that the CLA is supportive of and that in our view are steps that strengthen the procedural fairness of the act and implement charter values within the act. Following that, Ms. Weinstein is going to add some brief comments on one particular area of the legislation where, in our view, the legislation doesn't go far enough. This is essentially the interaction between the summary trial process and the lack of procedural protections that particular process offers, balanced against the consequences that can arise from that process. This effectively can be consequences identical to what you would see in the civilian justice system, in particular the imposition of a criminal record.

I will start briefly with some of the provisions of this legislation that the CLA is very supportive of.

The first are clauses 24 and 62, which are the two clauses particularly dealing with modernizing the sentencing provisions of the act. Certainly we're quite supportive of those, as they add additional procedural protections into the sentencing regime, in particular the introduction of a number of statements of principles of sentencing that are to be followed in the military justice system. This brings it more in line with the principles we have under the Criminal Code for the civilian system, and we'll likely be able to borrow from some of the case law that's developed in common law and civilian justice to help animate those principles as they're introduced within the military justice system.

As well, there is the notion that what we call aggravating facts, which are more serious facts that are particular to a case and can be used against somebody on sentencing, need to proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That requirement is an important procedural safeguard, because obviously the more serious the facts, the more serious the appropriate sentence. We're in favour of that particular introduction into the sentencing regime.

As well there is the introduction of additional sentencing options, including the absolute discharge, which means there won't be a criminal record imposed in some of the offences that are dealt with at the low end of the spectrum. We think that's an important sentencing option so that, as is the case in the civilian system, the punishment can be more precisely tailored to the circumstances of the offence and the realities of the offender.

The introduction of intermittent sentencing as an option is also important. Certainly the unavailability of an intermittent sentence was an issue that had been highlighted by Chief Justice Lamer, particularly with respect to sentencing of those who were in the reserve forces or of civilians under the act when there could be serious concerns that a jail sentence could be imposed. A jail sentence would have to be served consecutively, and it could cause serious prejudice in terms of possible loss of employment for individuals who were being sentenced in that manner.

I note, however, that in what is being proposed there is a limit of 14 days placed on intermittent sentences. Under the Criminal Code in the civilian system, the limit is 90 days; any sentence of 90 days or less is up to the discretion of the judge in the civilian system to impose intermittently. We would certainly encourage a longer period of sentence be eligible for an intermittent sentence.

In particular, under the summary trial regime a sentence of up to 30 days in prison can be imposed, which is supposedly for a less serious matter. It would be beneficial if that sentence was an option for a judge as a sentence to be served intermittently.

Those were the areas I was going to focus on in terms of the areas we support. Certainly there are many others in our brief.

I'll turn it over to Ms. Weinstein to address the particular area of concern.

[Peter Tinsley, Former Chair, Military Police Complaints Commission, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Members of the committee, good afternoon.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you today, albeit it was a little late. I've scrambled to put notes together, which the clerk has, and which I'm not going to get through in the 10 minutes. The clerk has kindly indicated that he will have them translated and distributed so that you might at some point see all of my thoughts, and I appreciate that.

I'm very appreciative of participating in this process concerning a very important matter regarding the military justice system. As the chair has indicated, I come at this not just based on being the former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission but having a career-long history in military justice, first as a military police officer, then as a military lawyer, and subsequently, both nationally and internationally, in matters of police management and governance.

I'm going to focus the few minutes I have with respect to one small provision of Bill C-15, namely subclause 18.5(3). I will proceed on the assumption that the contents of that proposed subclause are well known to the members of the committee. It is specifically with respect to the new-found statutory authority for the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to direct the Canadian Forces provost marshal in respect of specific military police investigations.

Proposed subsection 18.5(3), as I've indicated, is very small, but in my view it is very large in terms of its negative impact on both the independence of the police, both real and perceived, and the oversight mechanisms, specifically the oversight mechanism in the military police commission oriented toward the prohibition of interference with police investigations.

It's my respectful submission that if realized, this small provision could be a retrogressive step and serve as the single most significant contribution to Bill C-15's short title of strengthening the military justice system.

The strengthening of the military justice system, of which the military police are a critical component, has been an evolutionary process since the Somalia commission of inquiry report in 1997 and the subsequent passing of Bill C-25 in 1998. Prior to that, Canada's military justice system, as embodied in the National Defence Act, had remained largely stagnant and largely unchanged for half a century, from the mid-1950s, when the first National Defence Act was passed, until 1998.

In fact, in 1992 there was a collective sigh of relief when the military justice system survived its first significant challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the Supreme Court of Canada found the centrepiece of the system, trial by court martial, to be charter-compliant as a result of regulatory changes that were made, such as tribunal independence.

What could not be foreseen was that just over the horizon events occurring in Somalia in 1992 and 1993 would result in the Canadian Forces, including the military justice system, being subjected to public scrutiny, the likes of which had never been experienced before. Notwithstanding that the conduct of the Canadian Forces members in Somalia was investigated by the military police and charges were laid, including those of murder and torture, and notwithstanding that trials by court martial took place and that appeals were made to the Court Martial Appeal Court as well as to the Supreme Court of Canada without judicial criticism of the process, the court of public opinion was not so satisfied.

I appreciate that the committee has already heard extensively about this evolutionary process, but in that so much reliance seems to be placed on the very worthy opinions of former chief justices of Canada in respect of issues of constitutionality, I want to invite your attention very briefly to their specific and equally worthy advice in respect of matters of police independence and oversight.

First, the Somalia commission examined in detail the institutional response to the events in Somalia, including that of the military police. In so doing, it was particularly critical of the positioning of the military police within the military hierarchy and the influence of commanding officers as well as the chain of command over police operations, which vitiated any notion of independence and gave rise to the potential for the perception of improper influence being exercised. Accordingly, one significant recommendation was that the head of the military police be responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff for all purposes except for the investigation of major disciplinary or criminal conduct.

Bill C-25 was also significantly informed by the 1997 report of a special advisory group, called the SAG on military justice and military police investigation services, chaired by the late Right Honourable Brian Dickson.

Concerning the military police, the SAG report dealt with many of the same themes as those probed by the Somalia commission, including the competing or conflicting imperatives of command and control for the military police role in support of military operations and those for the purely police investigative function.

In order to meet the requirements of both roles, the Dickson SAG report recommended a bifurcation of the process, with military commanders retaining command and control over military police personnel employed in operational support or intelligence roles, while all others would be under the direct command and control of the head of the military police. In the latter regard, the report stressed at length the importance of the independence of policing to ensure the integrity of the justice system.

An additional significant feature of the SAG report was that in the vein of ensuring confidence and respect for the military justice system, it recommended the establishment of an independent office for complaint review and oversight of the military police consistent with the established norms for the civilian police.

The subsequent Dickson report, the report of the military police services review group, received in 1998, found that the accountability framework signed by the VCDS and the provost marshal in 1998 conformed with the recommendations of the SAG report in respect of the independence of the policing function. A key feature of the accountability framework was that the VCDS would have no direct involvement in ongoing investigations and would not direct the CFPM with respect to operational decisions of an investigative nature.

As you're well aware, the first statutorily mandated review of the NDA was completed by the late Right Honourable Antonio Lamer in 2003. Of particular note, regarding the highly connected matters of military police independence and oversight, were two significant observations made in the report.

One was in respect of the role of the provost marshal, where Justice Lamer observed that it

...is largely governed by the Accountability Framework that was developed in 1998 to ensure both the independence of the Provost Marshal as well as a professional and effective military police service...

“This legislative omission”, he then observed, was in an accountability framework, like a memorandum of understanding, but was not within a statutory framework as existed for those such as military judges, the JAG, the director of military prosecutions, etc.

He went on to say that

Support has been given to the military police through the creation of the MPCC, a quasi-judicial civilian oversight body and operating independently of the Department...and the Canadian Forces. The MPCC was established to make the handling of complaints involving the military police more transparent and accessible

—and most specifically—

to discourage interference with military police investigations....

My submission is that Bill C-15 does comply with Lamer's recommendation to fill the legislative void concerning the responsibilities of the CFPM by proposing they be codified in the NDA. However, in so doing, and notwithstanding the consistent recommendations of the Somalia commission, the Dickson report, and Lamer in respect of the necessary independence of the military police from the chain of command in respect of police operational decisions and investigations—as well, it is in stark contrast to the accountability framework—it includes a provision that specifically authorizes the VCDS to

issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

Justice systems must continuously evolve to meet the ongoing changing circumstances, standards, and expectations of the societies that they are intended to serve. The military justice system has experienced a long overdue and rapid period of evolution over the last two decades, including recognition that the military police are a Canadian police service—in fact, the seventh-largest in Canada—with a public expectation that they will enforce Canadian law at home and abroad at the highest standards.

Bill C-15 is part of that continuing process. What is under discussion here is whether a significant part of that evolutionary process and the consistent recommendations in terms of the key issues of police independence and the associated matter of effective oversight of military policing will be inexplicably disregarded and the clock, in fact, turned back.

My very brief summary submission is that if Bill C-15 is passed into law in its present form, inclusive of the new subsection 18.5(3) authorizing the VCDS to interfere with police operations and investigations, it will be inconsistent with the principles of police independence as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada at late as 1999 as underpinning the rule of law, as well as run counter to the norms of police-government relations, certainly in Canada, and I can tell you internationally in developed countries, which recognize the importance of police independence and prohibit police service boards or similar executive bodies from giving directions regarding specific police operations.

It would also effectively contradict, even repudiate, the notion of improper interference by the chain of command as established in the oversight jurisdiction of the Military Police Complaints Commission and thereby effectively eliminate oversight by statutory authorization of such interference by the VCDS, a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the complaints commission.

I'm here to answer your questions as you may have them, but I leave off by asking you one: why?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. From an entertaining question period, we're glad to have everyone here for meeting number 66, as we continue with our study on the order of reference from December 12 on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Joining us for the first hour today is Mr. Peter Tinsley, who is the former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, and from the Canadian Criminal Lawyers' Association, we have Eric Granger and Anne Weinstein.

Our first presenter is Mr. Tinsley. We appreciate his coming in on short notice, since there was an inability to get some witnesses here for today. As most of you know, he has a long, distinguished career in the Canadian armed forces, serving not only overseas but also as a military police officer. He was in the Office of the JAG, and more recently served as the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Mr. Tinsley, perhaps you can bring us your opening comments, and if you can keep them under 10 minutes, we'd appreciate that.

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

You're saying that if that document were to be incorporated into this Bill C-15, we wouldn't be worried about section 18.

[Gilles Létourneau]

Thank you.

I'm willing to acknowledge that there are substantial reforms proposed in this bill, which I accept. To show you how it's sometimes hard to understand why they stop at that, for example, if you take the civilian court, the judge who gets an offender in front of him can decide to suspend a sentence for two years and allow a monitoring of his behaviour. If at the end of the two years he's been of good behaviour, he can grant an absolute discharge or conditional discharge, which means he has no criminal record.

We don't get that here in the military. They can suspend the execution of the sentence, but the sentence is passed. What I'm talking about here is the suspension of the passing of the sentence to monitor.

Unless I've missed something because I was still sitting on the court, I see that there is an absolute discharge mechanism in Bill C-15, but there's nothing about conditional discharge. Conditional discharge ends up with the same result, except that you have the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the guy: if he's of good behaviour, then everything is wiped out, but if he fails, then he gets a sentence.

Why do we stop at that? I don't know. If you look at the bill as a whole, there are a number of provisions like that.

I'll give you another example. There's a provision dealing with the power to arrest. If you go back to the bill, you'll see that the police have the power to arrest, but a duty not to arrest if it's a less serious offence and you know the identity of the person and there's no likelihood that the offence will carry on, and so on. This is borrowed from the Criminal Code, no doubt about it, except that they have not borrowed the code entirely.

If you go back to sections 495 and 496 in the code, you will see that this duty not to arrest applies to less serious offences and to hybrid offences. What's a hybrid offence? A hybrid offence, like sexual assault, is an offence that can be prosecuted summarily—we have summary trials in civilian courts—or as an indictable offence. If the person is arrested for sexual assault, because it is a hybrid offence there is a duty not to arrest unless the conditions of the code are fulfilled. What we are importing here is a duty on the military police officer that is less stringent than what we have on the civilian police. I'm not sure this is constitutional, and I'll tell you why.

In the Gauthier case in 1998, the Court Martial Appeal Court was facing an abuse of police power to arrest. The unanimous Court Martial Appeal Court ruled that the guarantees found in the Criminal Code were imported by the charter into the National Defence Act and found that the arrest was unlawful because there was a duty not to arrest.

In the Du-Lude case about six or seven years later, the Federal Court of Appeal gave $10,000 to a soldier who had been unlawfully arrested when there was a duty not to arrest, as a result of the Court Martial Appeal Court decision in the Gauthier case, on the basis of a violation of his constitutional rights.

However, here we have a provision that gives less than the Gauthier and the Du-Lude cases have been giving to a solider.

I'm sorry if I took too much time.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today.

My questions will be for Justice Létourneau.

I know that you have been intimately involved with the military justice system for many years now and that you have made many public comments with regard to the potential for reform.

There is a preamble to my questions, which are two.

The bill currently before this committee proposes several changes to improve this review and reform cycle; specifically, Bill C-15 proposes to fulfill the Lamer report recommendation to entrench independent review provisions in the National Defence Act.

Bill C-15 also proposes to move beyond the limitations of Bill C-25 review mechanisms by permitting a greater focus and in-depth review; by allowing a given review to focus on specific thematic issues, such as military justice grievances, the Canadian Forces provost marshal, and the Military Police Complaints Commission; and by changing the review period to seven years between reviews as opposed to the current five years. This will increase the likelihood that any review would be conducted only after a sufficient period of time has elapsed to provide an adequate track record upon which to base subsequent assessments of the operation of provisions.

My questions are these: first, do you think that this iterative approach is a prudent way to approach military justice reform? Second, do you think it is a good idea to implement the recommendations of the Lamer report on strengthening and entrenching the independent review of the military justice system in the National Defence Act?

[Gilles Létourneau, Retired Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am proud and honoured to share my knowledge in Canadian military justice with this committee in the context of Bill C-15.

Let me open, Mr. Chair, by noting that I have already provided the clerk of the committee with five copies of a bilingual book, which I recently authored, on Canadian military justice. It is entitled Introduction to Military Justice: An Overview of the Military Penal Justice System and Its Evolution in Canada. I will make reference to the contents of this book as a complement to my remarks today.

I have followed, with much interest, the discussions that have taken place within this committee on Bill C-15. While I acknowledge some of the improvements the bill contains and proposals that have been made for changes to the bill, I have to deplore the lack of a wall-to-wall review of the National Defence Act, which, in my considered opinion, leads to a short-sighted, if not distorted, view of the Canadian penal military justice system.

Hence, my first point is that there is a need for a fundamental wall-to-wall review of the National Defence Act, a review that has to be conducted outside the control of the Department of National Defence so that Parliament can be provided with a legislative proposal that addresses not only the wishes of the military leadership but also, first and foremost, the expectations of our civil society, who demand that our soldiers who serve in uniform be afforded rights equal to those provided in the civilian penal system in Canada and other militaries abroad. This is currently not the case.

In the short period of time I have, I can only give you an overview of some of these problems. In fact, both from a constitutional and a practical perspective, I would like to draw your attention to the shortcomings of this piecemeal approach taken so far by the military to the reform of the military justice system. I shall provide a few examples that will help you understand what I mean by its structural shortcomings and that will highlight the resistance of the Canadian military to real substantive changes that would actually strengthen the military justice system in Canada.

Let me begin with the prolonged struggle to bring about the constitutionality of the courts martial, as an example. In 1990, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada—I'll refer to it as the CMAC—found the standing court martial unconstitutional. In 1992, while it recognized the constitutionality of separate military tribunals, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Généreux case, ruled that the general court martial also was unconstitutional. Since nothing whatsoever was done to amend the National Defence Act to remedy this, it should come as no surprise when six years later, in 1998, in the Lauzon case, a unanimous Court Martial Appeal Court concluded that the standing court martial was unconstitutional.

After the Lauzon case, the case law with respect to the independence of courts in general continued to evolve. Military judges' security of tenure became, along with administrative independence and financial security, a component of judicial independence. However, it seems this jurisprudential evolution never reached the Canadian military, because nothing was done to review the status of the courts martial on the issue of security of tenure, so in 2007, in a unanimous and powerful obiter dictum in Dunphy, the Court Martial Appeal Court made a certain number of observations on the issue of renewable terms for military judges. This reconsideration took place in the case of Leblanc, a decision handed down on June 2, 2011. This led to the passage of Bill C-16 last year.

In retrospect, it is interesting to observe that despite the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the independence of provincial judges, in spite of the excellent obiter dictum of Justice Hugessen of the CMAC in Dunphy, and despite decisions handed down by courts martial holding renewable terms for military judges to be unconstitutional, the military prosecutor strenuously objected to the making of a declaration of unconstitutionality requested by the appellant in the Leblanc case. Instead, speaking for the crown, he argued that the security of tenure of military judges, if desirable, was not constitutionally required.

Meanwhile, not to be forgotten is that military judges enjoyed unparalleled powers and dealt with crimes of a most serious nature. Consider this: they were, for instance, the only judges in Canada who, operating under renewable terms, could until 1998 sentence an offender to death.

They were also the only judges not having security of tenure who were called upon to try the most serious offences in our criminal law or to preside at general courts martial.

Also, they have tried offences including murder and manslaughter committed outside Canada. Examples include the Deneault case in 1994, for murder committed in Germany; the Brown case in 1995, for manslaughter and torture in Somalia; and recently the Semrau case, for second-degree murder and attempted murder in Afghanistan.

To sum up, as a result of legislative inaction and military resistance to changes required by the charter, it took nearly 20 years of legal challenges in a civilian appellate court to achieve—although not completely, as we shall see—the judicial independence of the courts martial and their incumbents.

Let me give you another example. Contrary to the Criminal Code, the National Defence Act gave the right to choose the mode of trial to the prosecution rather than to the accused. In 2008, in the case of Trépanier, the CMAC found the provision unconstitutional. Again, notwithstanding a Supreme Court of Canada decision to the effect that the choice of the mode of trial is a tactical advantage that belongs to the accused as part of his right to full answer and defence under the charter and the CMAC's serious concern expressed about the constitutionality of the provision in the Nystrom case in 2005, some three years before Trépanier, the military prosecution again showed no willingness to confer to a soldier facing criminal proceedings this advantage granted to him by the charter. It bitterly fought the Trépanier case, and the court had to intervene to ensure that a military accused's rights were equal to those under the civilian penal system.

With this background information, allow me to bring to your attention concerns l have about some of the provisions of Bill C-15 in respect of either their constitutionality or the unwarranted unequal treatment they afford to a member of the armed forces charged with a service offence based on the Criminal Code.

Let me start with the summary trial. I won't repeat here what has been said by the two previous speakers. I endorse their submissions and their fears. I think the system is unconstitutional, and it is still in place only because there's no means of contesting it other than a declaratory relief in the Federal Court, at the expense of the soldier, with two layers of subsequent appeals.

It has been mentioned that the British have changed the system. I won't repeat the fact that there's a right to counsel and so on, but as a general rule, imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed when the offender is not legally represented in the court of appeal in a summary trial or in a court martial. There can be no imprisonment or detention unless he's represented by counsel.

Mr. Drapeau has alluded to the fact that changes have taken place in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, and the Netherlands, and despite the fact that the requirements of independence, impartiality, fairness, and justice are the same in Canada as they are in England—and if anything, they are more compelling here, because in Canada they are entrenched in the Constitution—our soldiers in uniform are still denied fair treatment at a summary trial. I'll be pleased to answer questions on that.

I can see how under Bill C-15 the provost marshal is appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff and removed from office by the CDS. However, for example, if you look sections 56 and 58 of the Quebec Police Act, you will see that the director general of the Quebec Police Force is appointed not by the Minister of Public Security, who is responsible for the police, but by the government. The director is removed by the government only pursuant to a recommendation of the Minister of Public Security after an inquiry.

This process provides not only an actual and better guarantee of independence to the incumbent but also increases in the general public and in the individuals subjected to the police powers a perception of real independence, as well as their confidence in the administration of justice.

According to section 6—

[Glenn Stannard, Chair, Military Police Complaints Commission]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'd like to thank you for inviting us today to testify relative to this study of Bill C-15.

I'm accompanied today by my general counsel and director of operations, Ms. Julianne Dunbar, who has been with the commission virtually since the beginning of the commission.

I'm not going to bore you with issues relative to the mandate. Many of you will know it, or it's written in our brief. I'll simply say that the Military Police Complaints Commission's mandate is to review and investigate complaints concerning military police conduct and complaints of interference in military police investigations.

Today we're here on one issue, and it's the proposed authority of the VCDS to direct military police investigations, in particular the proposed new subsection 18.5(3) in clause 4. The provision would create a new NDA subsection that would expressly authorize the Vice Chief of the Defence staff to direct the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the head of the Canadian Forces Military Police, in the conduct of specific military police investigations.

The commission takes no issue with the general supervisory role of the VCDS vis-à-vis the CFPM as set out in proposed subsection 18.5(1), nor with the authority of the VCDS to issue general instructions to the CFPM in respect to the discharge of his responsibilities as provided in proposed subsection 18.5(2). These provisions merely codify the existing relationship as set out in the 1998 accountability framework between the VCDS and the CFPM.

The proposed subsection 18.5(3) is an important departure from the status quo, and it runs counter to the present-day accountability framework. On March 2, 1998, the accountability framework gave the authority to the VCDS.

To quote a bit of it:

The VCDS may give orders and general direction to the CFPM to ensure professional and effective delivery of policing services.

It specifically stipulated:

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

It goes on to say:

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

Further,

The CFPM has a duty to advise the VCDS on emerging and pressing issues where management decisions are required.

What is prompting the reversal now?

The accountability framework was reviewed and endorsed by the Military Police Services Review Group in 1998. It was developed the same year that Parliament made amendments to the NDA in Bill C-25, following the troubling incidents during the CF deployment to Somalia in the early 1990s. Also, part IV of the NDA was established, which created a complaints regime for the filing of interference complaints.

You've heard in previous testimony that the independence and integrity of military policing has been further supported through changes to the military police command structure effective April 1, 2011, with all military police members, other than those deployed on military operations, under the command of the CFPM.

The proposed authority for the VCDS in proposed subsection 18.5(3) is thus out of step with the efforts over the past 15 to 20 years to recognize and support the independence of military police within the Canadian Forces, particularly when conducting law enforcement investigations.

In its 1999 decision in R. v. Campbell, the Supreme Court affirmed that when engaged in the investigation of offences, police officers are answerable only to the law and do not act on behalf of the broader government.

You have as part of our brief an independent opinion commissioned by the military police commission from Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. He concluded that the proposed new clause “violates core concepts of police independence” and that the proposed authorization of interference in particular military police investigations could well run afoul of the Constitution, specifically the unwritten constitutional principle of the rule of law.

As commission chair and as a past serving member in policing for 38 years, with 14 years as chief and deputy chief of an organization, I well appreciate there are differences between military and civilian policing. However, the authority proposed to be conferred in the new subsection is specifically and exclusively aimed at the heart of military policing duties, i.e., the investigation of offences.

The dual role of MPs in the CF as police officers and as soldiers does not, in the commission's view, diminish the applicability of the legal principle of police independence to the military police when conducting law enforcement investigations. If it were otherwise, one must question why Parliament created the interference complaint mechanism in the 1998 NDA amendments that established the commission.

The 2003 report of the first independent five-year review of the 1998 amendments to the NDA, conducted by former Chief Justice Lamer, is said to provide the basis for many of the proposed amendments to Bill C-15, yet it should be noted that this report contained no recommendations for conferring such power on the VCDS. To the contrary, Justice Lamer's only concern with the 1998 VCDS and CFPM accountability framework was that its non-legislative status provided insufficient protection of the CFPM's policing independence.

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

If we equate this to civilian policing—and I know there are differences, and maybe during questions some of that may be discussed—the VCDS could be said to be analogous to a police services board. Both are involved in general policy matters, budget, and administrative issues.

There are examples across this country in provincial legislation that prohibit members of the board from interfering with policing investigations. This is not new. I've dealt with this during the last 14 years. Board members, mayors, government officials, and I cannot imagine any of you as government officials wanting to direct the policing investigations in your communities.

There are many precedents. It's provincial, federal with the RCMP, and internationally there is one in New Zealand, but let's just stay in Canada.

The Ontario legislation, as an example, provides all the steps for all the issues that can be dealt with by the board—in this case, the VCDS. The one thing that they can't do is give orders and directions on policing investigations or on day-to-day operations of the police organization.

Knowing that the independence of the police is paramount for them to do their job free of interference, what is the rationale to now include subsection 18.5(3) and apply it to the VCDS? What is the interest in having this provision and then still say that the CFPM is independent?

The commission is recommending at this time that proposed section 18.5, as it is written, be deleted, as it would be a step backwards, in our respectful submission.

Finally—and I'm only going to touch on it briefly because it's in the brief—there's an issue at page 5, as outlined. There is an additional item to correct the French version of the act. As you know, Bill C-15 includes many corrections in the French version of the act to better align it with the English version; however, one correction is overlooked, and I'll refer you to paragraph 250.42(c), which just needs to be.... We see it as a housekeeping item.

Those are my submissions. I look forward to any questions that anyone may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Let's bring this meeting back to order.

We're going to continue with our study on Bill C-15.

Joining us for the second hour is Mr. Glenn Stannard, who is the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Appearing as an individual is recently retired Justice Gilles Létourneau.

I want to welcome both of you to our study.

Mr. Stannard has a long and distinguished career with the Windsor Police Service, serving for 37 years, nine of those as chief. He was appointed to the commission in 2007 and became the chairperson in 2009.

Mr. Stannard, could you bring us your opening comments first?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired, and our hour with these witnesses is up.

I want to thank both Monsieur Drapeau and Mr. Ruby for joining us and for providing their expertise and input into our study on Bill C-15.

I'm going to ask you to leave the table and for our other witnesses to come forward.

We will suspend.

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

Does Bill C-15 contain provisions to the effect that mental health will be taken into account? Were provisions on mental health added?

[Colonel, Retired) Michel W. Drapeau (Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members, for giving me the honour to appear before you.

Over the past decade I have watched our army transform itself into a world-class organization whose performance in Afghanistan has gained the unrestricted admiration and respect of both our allies and Canadians. This is due, in my estimation, to two interconnected factors: a second-to-none field leadership and the unremitting performance by the rank and file who serve above and beyond the call of duty.

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

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

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

I have five major concerns with Bill C-15.

First is the summary trial system. Although they are by law part of the criminal process, these trials are heard not by a judge, but by a member of the chain of command. There are close to 2,000 such trials each year. Since summary trials had an average conviction rate last year of 97%, this means that one out of every 30 Canadian Forces members ends up each year with a record of conviction by a quasi-criminal tribunal, yet Bill C-15 totally ignores summary trials.

However, so does Canadian jurisprudence. Why? It's because someone accused before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence. This is despite the fact that the verdict and sentence are imposed without any regard to the minimum standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, such as the right to counsel, the presence of rules of evidence, and the right to appeal.

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

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

If Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland have seen fit in the recent past to overhaul the summary trial process when it was found to be non-compliant with universally recognized human rights, it raises the question of why Canada is not at the very least considering the same sort of overhaul.

My second concern is grievances. If Bill C-15 is enacted in its current form, the Chief of the Defence Staff will become almost totally disengaged from the grievance system. I believe that the CDS, the most senior officer in the Canadian Forces—not the minister, not the ombudsman—has a moral and legal duty to look after his people and become personally interested in and aware of what is causing disgruntlement and why an individual soldier finds it necessary to use a grievance process to receive a modicum of justice. This is what leadership, at least in the armed forces, is all about.

My third concern is military judges. I am surprised at the amount of beneficial attention being paid in Bill C-15 to military judges. Currently the four military judges handle a total of 65 courts martial per year. In 2011-2012, this required each military judge to spend approximately 4.5 days per month in court. In my estimation, this is by far the lowest caseload of any criminal court of record in Canada. Perhaps the time has come to have the Auditor General conduct a performance audit of this military justice system. Canada and the military simply cannot afford such extravagance.

Be that as it may, one would think that government should be reducing the number of military judges or transferring that function to the Federal Court of Canada. Instead, in Bill C-15, there is a call to appoint a deputy chief military judge and, worse, to form a reserve force military judges panel. The only ones who could possibly benefit from this would not be the military at large, but a very small handful of senior military lawyers who would qualify for such extra appointments in the first place.

My fourth concern is the military police. During the past year I have acted as counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Fynes concerning their allegation against, inter alia, the alleged lack of independence of the military police and in particular the National Investigation Service.

In its investigation, the Military Police Complaints Commission conducted 62 days of hearings, during which disturbing evidence was presented on that very subject. The proposed new subsection 18.5(3) in Bill C-15 would, in my estimation, make the current lack of independence worse by granting authority to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular investigation.

Keep in mind, please, that already the CDS and the VCDS have the power to call in the NIS to conduct an investigation on any issue that is of concern to them. Quite frankly, under the existing command arrangement it is most unlikely that the NIS would ignore such a request. Also, the CDS does not feel inhibited about commenting publicly on an open NIS investigation, but to now give the VCDS the authority to issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular military police investigation will remove any pretense that the military police are independent from the chain of command.

Lest we forget, the CDS, the VCDS—and, for that matter, the Judge Advocate General—are each subject to the code of service discipline. None of them should have the power to direct or influence either the initiation, the suspension, or the conduct of a particular police investigation, let alone to issue instructions or guidelines as to the conduct of a specific examination.

Fifth is the civilianization of the military justice system. There are growing worldwide concerns regarding the compatibility of the military justice system with international human rights standards. In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights has had an impact on national military law, particularly in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, to name a few. These countries have concluded that the presence of a civilian judge in military tribunals would reinforce the principle of civilian supremacy over military justice and also the impartiality as well as the independence of such tribunals, since they are no longer part of the military hierarchy.

Would this work in Canada? Absolutely. All one has to do is to look at what happened to Sub-Lieutenant Delisle last Friday in a Halifax sentencing courtroom. In the vernacular, the civilian judge got it right. Moreover, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand have gone one step further: they have now civilianized the positions of the Judge Advocate General and the Director of Military Prosecutions and moved their offices outside the military headquarters to the corresponding civilian department or ministry. We should do no less.

In closing, Mr. Chair, let me say that it is an honour for me to play a part in your examination of this bill. In my respectful submission, both as a former soldier and as someone who reads military law day in and day out, I urge you to balance the proposition being made to you by the proponent of this bill against the rights of ordinary Canadians serving our Queen and country in uniform.

I appreciate your attention and I am now available to take your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. I welcome you all to meeting number 65 of the Standing Committee on National Defence and our study on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

For our first hour, we're being joined by Michel Drapeau, a professor at the University of Ottawa, and by Clayton Ruby, a lawyer from Toronto.

Mr. Drapeau was born and raised in Quebec and served 34 years in the military. He served as the director of National Defence Headquarters Secretariat as well as secretary to the Armed Forces Council. He graduated from the civil law program in 2009 and the common law program in 2000, and he has clerked at the Federal Court of Appeal under the supervision of Justice Gilles Létourneau, from whom we will hear in the next hour. He was called to the bar in 2002 and is an adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa. We are very pleased to have him with us today.

Monsieur Drapeau, please proceed with your opening comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all three of our witnesses for appearing today, for helping us with our study of Bill C-15 , and for providing recommendations and advice. We appreciate that counsel.

I also want to thank all three of you for your military service and your service to our country. Thank you for the personal sacrifices you have to make in serving in the Canadian armed forces.

With that, I want to entertain a motion to suspend the meeting, and when I drop the gavel, I'm going to ask everyone who's not with a member of Parliament to vacate the room.

Is there a motion to suspend?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Very briefly I'd just like to say how impressed I am—and I think some of my colleagues are—by the general level of confidence that you all show in the military justice system and the prospects for improving it through Bill C-15 and subsequent improvements. I would like to reassure you that the government maintains its commitment to amend clause 75 relating to criminal records, which would have the effect of excluding approximately 95% of convictions from summary trials if you take a recent sample from trials resulting in a criminal record.

Given that we intend to make that improvement as well and given that the LeSage recommendations are still under review, do you—I guess I'm putting this to Dean Holloway and Mr. Dugas—agree that the changes in Bill C-15 will constitute a substantive improvement to the summary trial system?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I have a question for Mr. Hamel.

One of the propositions advanced during the debate on Bill C-15 at second reading was to impose a quota on the composition of the Grievance Board, specifying that 60% of the members must not have had previous military service.

The Grievance Board is an administrative tribunal, and you know that I have participated in different administrative tribunals. The role of the administrative tribunal is to apply expertise to a particular body of facts or mixed facts of law. Given this, do you think it is a logical proposition to have a quota that would exclude persons who have relevant experience from being selected as members of the board?

Specifically, I'm asking you why are you for the exclusion of a member who is a serving member in the forces? I think I understand from your proposal that you are against having a serving member on the board.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Dugas.

Thank you for being here. It's an honour to have you.

I want to discuss the issue of summary trials. I would say that context and culture are important factors. A bit earlier, we talked about the quality of the officers responsible for advising people who are subject to a summary trial. I do not agree. I want to tell you about something that happened to me.

In 1994, I was in training in Shilo, as a recruit. I spent seven weeks there. The environment was very challenging: very little sleep, intense training, temperatures of 30 degrees below, and so on. The instructors were tremendous. Our NCOs and officers had combat experience and wanted to teach us everything they could to ensure we were well-trained.

One day, an instructor even started crying because the situation was emotional. He had lost a friend in combat. At one point, we were given a day of rest, and when we got back,

we got charged. We had no idea what we were getting into. We were very nervous. Frankly, the only thing that was going through my mind, and there were six of us at the same time, was that we wanted to go to Mexico, because we had no idea what we were getting into. When we sat down with the officer who explained the process to us, we didn't hear anything. You have to understand that we were tired and we were nervous.

The fact that today we're talking about choices, I find that a little ironic. I think there's a double standard here. We say that the Canadian armed forces is unique, and yet we expect that human beings are going to respond normally as if everything is hunky-dory. We ended up going in front of the commanding officer and being charged three days pack drill. It was a basic mistake. I can only imagine people going overseas in combat situations where an officer is going to give them a choice.

I think Bill C-15 is good. It goes a certain way, but it doesn't go all the way.

Do you think Bill C-15 needs some improving as far as summary trials are concerned? I told you what happened to me, but I would say a lot of other members have had all kinds of experiences, including yourself, for that matter.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Holloway, I would like to pick up on the matter of summary trials and clause 75 of Bill C-15.

According to the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, or QR&Os, prior to passing sentence, the presiding officer of a summary proceeding shall take into account many factors, including the number, gravity and prevalence of the offences committed, as well as the family problems and financial situation of the accused. What that means, then, is that, when two individuals of the same rank commit the same offence, there is no way to ensure that both receive the same sentence, owing to the numerous factors the presiding officer must take into account. I don't object to the requirement to take those factors into account.

Pursuant to clause 75 of Bill C-15, and even in its previous incarnation, Bill C-41, the determination as to whether the accused will be subject to a criminal record is based on the sentence imposed on the accused. I would like to hear your take on that.

Furthermore, looking at the amendments contained in Bill C-41, among the sections of the National Defence Act that were added, some were not added to the amending legislation. For instance, section 98 of the act concerns those who aggravate disease or infirmity. That was not included in the amendments under Bill C-41.

I have met people who were accused and subjected to a summary trial under section 98, because they had sprained an ankle during a particularly challenging leader's course and had asked for a bandage in order to be able to walk on the ankle for three days, as they did not want to have to start the very difficult course over again. It's common for people to do that kind of thing, depending on the mission. Since that section was not included in the amendments under Bill C-41, the accused could have been subject to a criminal record.

In light of the fact that numerous factors must be taken into account, I would like to know whether clause 75 of the bill could not use more effective wording, to prevent people from having criminal records as a result of a conviction or summary trial, a proceeding that would not have happened in the civilian justice system for the same offence or act. I realize, of course, that we're talking about legal language for a bill and that kind of thing isn't done on the fly. I would appreciate it if you could provide some suggestions in writing afterwards.

I'd like to hear your take on what I just said.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dean Holloway, can you please comment on the sentencing provisions in Bill C-15? In your view, is this a positive development for the military justice system?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have questions for each of you, if time allows. Thank you all for appearing today. It's an important piece of legislation and we appreciate your expertise.

For Monsieur Dugas, you mentioned your view that privates should be allowed to sit on courts martial. You cited precedents and arguments from the civilian system. Obviously that's why we're here today. Developments in the civilian system do influence the military justice system, but the military justice system does have its own particular characteristics.

You will remember that former Chief Justice Lamer asked in his report for the discrepancy in rank in courts martial to be removed or reduced. Our current proposal in this bill would see sergeants sitting on courts martial, not privates, thereby reducing the potential discrepancy in rank quite significantly.

The argument that was put to us as this bill was developed is that it is very much in the spirit of the military justice system, which has to combine rendering justice with attention to discipline, morale, and cohesion within the chain of command within the military as a separate entity with special responsibilities.

Would you not agree, in spite of your own view, that the proposal as contained in Bill C-15 on this front does meet the formal recommendation that Lamer put forward in his report?

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

I'm just telling you, in the bill that's now before this committee, Bill C-15, of the six or eight amendments that were made last time, only one of them appeared in this bill when it was submitted to the House.

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

I don't want to be correcting you, but, in fact, amendments were made last time that did go some considerable way in removing the number of offences that were to be subject to a criminal record. Unfortunately, that amendment did not appear in Bill C-15 when it was presented to the House. We're kind of back to square one here and we're having that debate this time out, although there's some suggestion there may be an amendment coming forward.

[Bruno Hamel, Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chair, honourable members, good afternoon.

It is a pleasure to be here with you today to answer your questions concerning the role of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board in the military grievance process, given that there are provisions in Bill C-15 that directly affect us.

I would like to begin by giving you an introduction to the board.

In operation since June 2000, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal, independent from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. It is, in effect, the only external component of the Canadian Forces grievance process

Since its creation, the board has earned a reputation as a centre of excellence in analyzing and resolving military grievances. It has developed substantial expertise on a variety of subjects relating to the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces. In addition to reviewing individual grievances, our work enables us to identify larger trends and areas of dissatisfaction, which we are then able to share with the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces.

In law, the board is mandated to review the grievances referred to it under the National Defence Act and the Queen's Orders and Regulations for the Canadian Forces.

Operationally, the chairperson is responsible for delegating the work among board members. Once a grievance is assigned to a member, he or she is responsible for the review of the file, as a sole member. Upon completing the review of the grievance, the board member simultaneously submits findings and recommendations to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the griever, and the Chief of the Defence Staff is the final authority. The Chief of the Defence Staff is not bound by the board's findings and recommendations; however, he must provide reasons, in writing, should he choose not to act on them.

Turning now to Bill C-15, I am pleased to note that the bill includes a proposed provision that would change the board's current name to military grievances external review committee. This may appear to be a minor matter, but it is in fact an important change, and one that has been long sought by the board.

The board has found that its current name often leads to misunderstandings and complications. The proposed name change will lead to a better understanding of the specific and unique role for which the board was created. It will also underline its institutional independence while clarifying its mandate. In his December 2011 report, Justice LeSage agreed with the board’s reasoning, and supported the name change, in recommendation number 48.

Bill C-15 is intended to be the legislative response to the report on military justice submitted several years ago by late Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. Therefore, I would like to reaffirm the board's support for the 18 recommendations related to the grievance process that are included in his report.

Several of the recommendations have already been implemented and others are included in Bill C-15. Unfortunately, three recommendations that specifically relate to the board and that were intended to facilitate its work do not appear in the bill. One of these recommendations proposes that board members be permitted to complete their caseload after the expiration of their term. A second would provide the board with a subpoena power, while the third calls for the alignment of the board's annual report with the fiscal year rather than the calendar year. To give effect to these recommendations, legislative amendments to the National Defence Act will be required.

The importance of these three recommendations cannot be overstated. For example, the inability of board members to complete the review of their assigned grievances following the expiration of their term has recently had negative consequences for the board directly. From file receipt, it takes, on average, two to three months for a board member to complete their review and issue their findings and recommendations report. Accordingly, last fall, I was unable to assign grievances to three experienced board members during the last three months of their tenure, despite having files that needed to be reviewed.

I would now like to turn to an ongoing matter of concern for the board, that only certain types of grievances are sent to the board for review. The National Defence Act places no restrictions on referrals to the board. However, under the regulations, only four types of grievances must be referred to the board. This represents approximately 40% of the grievances that reach the final level of the grievance process. Other grievances can also be referred to the board, on a discretionary basis.

Because of this, the majority of Canadian Forces members whose grievances reach the final level do not benefit from the external and independent review of their grievance by the board. We believe that every Canadian Forces member should, at the final level, have their unresolved grievance reviewed by the board, regardless of the subject matter. This is a question of fairness, transparency, and access, concerns that were raised by Chief Justice Lamer in his report.

As you may also be aware, the latest review of the National Defence Act completed by Justice LeSage last year made a recommendation to the effect that any grievance not yet resolved to the Canadian Forces member's satisfaction should be reviewed by the board once it reaches the final authority level.

In Justice LeSage’s opinion, the board’s review would provide a more balanced input to the Chief of the Defence Staff. The board shares this view and feels that if all unresolved grievances were reviewed by the board, Canadian Forces members and the Chief of the Defence Staff would benefit from an independent and expert review, and the board's potential to contribute to the grievance process would be optimized.

The board firmly believes in the benefits of a new model of referral, as supported and recommended by Justice LeSage. We are optimistic and hopeful that it will be adopted and implemented by the Canadian Forces.

Finally, during the debate on Bill C-15 in the House of Commons, I noted the interest of many honourable members in the makeup of the board. Some members proposed that 60% of the board's members should not have any experience within the Canadian Forces.

While the appointment of board members is the responsibility of the governor in council, as the chairperson, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some of my experiences, as well as my concerns on this issue.

The independence of the board is essential for delivering on its mandate. The board is not part of the Canadian Forces or the Department of National Defence. It is established by statute, and board members, as mentioned before, are appointed by the governor in council. The chairperson, vice-chairpersons and board members serve during good behaviour, not at pleasure, for a term not exceeding four years and can be reappointed. The chairperson is the chief executive officer of the grievance board, supervising and directing its work and staff.

Finally, as a deputy head, the chairperson is accountable to the portfolio minister and before Parliament for ensuring that the board functions effectively and fulfills its mandate. These, in my opinion, are all safeguards already in place that provide for the independence of the board.

That being said, the independence of the board from the Canadian Forces must be shielded and preserved. However, as I testified during my previous appearance before you in February 2011, the current statute does not provide such protection. Section 29.16(10) of the National Defence Act allows for the appointment of an officer or a non-commissioned member, on secondment, to the board as a board member.

One of the fundamental reasons for the creation of the board was the provision of an external review to the Chief of the Defence Staff and to the Canadian Forces members who submit a grievance. Should a serving Canadian Forces member be appointed as a board member, the board’s independence from the chain of command would be in jeopardy. In his report, Justice LeSage recommended that serving Canadian Forces members not be appointed as board members. I agree.

I hope that through the work of the honourable members of this committee, consensus can be reached during the review of Bill C-15 so that this provision is removed from the National Defence Act. This would go a long way in ensuring that grievances are reviewed independently and externally from the Canadian Forces.

With respect to the composition of the board, after four years as the chairperson, I can attest that having a military background is definitely an asset for a specialized tribunal like the Canadian Forces Grievance Board. That being said, I also believe there is a place for diversity among board members. In fact, in his report, Justice LeSage indicated, “appointments made to the Board/Committee should reflect a variety of backgrounds, including persons who do not have a military background.”

Knowing that the board’s mandate is entirely devoted to the review of military grievances, I believe it would be a mistake to exclude potential candidates on the basis of previous military service or simply because a set quota has been reached.

Experience and knowledge of the Canadian Forces, a complex, dynamic, and unique military organization, is undoubtedly an asset. As with many other existing specialized tribunals, boards or commissions, experience and knowledge of the profession from which the acts, decisions, or omissions being reviewed have originated is always considered an asset, if not a requirement.

It is not unusual for professionals to review professionals. The profession of arms should not be treated any differently. Board members with previous Canadian Forces experience understand the language, the structure, the modus operandi, and the culture of the profession. Their knowledge allows them to understand issues faced by the griever and to put arguments in context and perspective. Their experience allows them to ask the sometimes probing questions and to question the right individuals.

In my opinion, having some military experience, especially in the context where currently all unresolved grievances, regardless of type, may ultimately come to the board for a review, should be viewed as an asset rather than an impediment or employment limitation.

In addition, imposing a quota may also delay the appointment process given that labour, employment, and regulatory law in a military setting may not be so appealing to many, particularly in the cases of part-time board members. Ultimately, it is my belief that the decision by the Governor in Council to appoint a board member should be based on competency, experience, and knowledge. Only the best candidates should be appointed, regardless of their background. Canadian Forces members, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and Canadians deserve no less.

Mr. Chair, in conclusion, the board welcomes the name change proposed by the bill, believes in the benefit of having all unresolved grievances reviewed by the board at the final authority level, requests the removal of the statutory provision allowing serving Canadian Forces members to be appointed as board members, and supports board membership diversity where competencies are not compromised.

I thank you for inviting me to speak here today. I would be pleased to answer your questions afterwards. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have unanimous consent to move ahead with the letters of thanks and appreciation, and congratulations on the retirement of the outgoing generals and admirals, and go on from that standpoint. We shall do that. Thank you.

With that, let's get on with our business at hand, which is the study of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Appearing as a witness today is Professor Ian Holloway, who is the dean of the faculty of law at the University of Calgary. From the Canadian Forces Grievance Board we have Bruno Hamel, who is the chairperson. Appearing as an individual is retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Marie Dugas, who is the former director of the Canadian Forces defence counsel services.

Thank you all for appearing. I hope you can keep your opening comments to less than 10 minutes.

Professor Holloway, you have the floor.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I also found it to work at the lowest possible level with the least administrative burden, so I found that useful.

Further to that, I see there's provision in Bill C-15 that would impose an additional limitation in respect to summary trials, but it would also allow for an option for the accused to waive the summary trial limitation period.

Could you explain a little bit more about that, and why it's included in the bill.

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

Great. Those are very important questions. I don't mean to make light of them, but they reflect a natural...some tensions around town between lawyers. It's not unusual; you see the same in private practice. I will address that in a second.

I will address the second question first, if I may, Mr. Chair, on the concept of civilianizing military justice. We have heard that out in the public as a suggestion perhaps to improve the military justice system. I fundamentally disagree with such a proposition. I think it's critical to have those judges. We are talking about the military judges who actually sit at courts martial. We're not talking about the judges who sit on appeal at the court martial appeal court who are civilian judges. I fully support and always have supported the concept of having civilian judges on the appeal review, because those are matters of law and they will have a broader perspective from across Canada and in their Federal Court roles. But internally, I think it is vital to have people who sit in judgment of our men and women in uniform on either mundane or very serious charges, as we saw recently with Captain Semrau, or the courts martial involving Major Watts and others that are in the press these days.

To me at a very fundamental level it's common sense that you want somebody who obviously knows the law, is very practised in the rules of evidence and criminal law and discipline. But again it's that point: discipline. That's what separates the military justice system from the civilian system. It's discipline that requires the troops to pay attention so that when they are in times of crisis, in firefights in the middle of Afghanistan, they are going to respond to orders without questioning them. It's that habit of obedience that discipline really goes to form.

You have to have, in my opinion, clearly someone who fully understands that, who has actually been brought up in that culture, if you will, of understanding what discipline really means, and the context in which our men and women in uniform actually conduct their activities. It's one thing for us to sit sometimes in the relative comfort of offices here in Ottawa, and another to actually be out there and understand what it's like on the front lines.

I think it would be very dangerous, in my respectful opinion, to have that part of the courts martial system civilianized. I think we would lose not only the experience of those judges, but the understanding of the concept of discipline.

In regard to the part-time judges that you mentioned, what we're really referring to is the ability to have what we call a surge capability in times of heightened activity when we may need more military judges at courts martial. Right now the way the scheme is proposed, we would have to appoint them as military judges. As you know, with Bill C-15 and Bill C-16, they would have tenure until the age of 60. We may have a surge of activity; let's say we were in a major conflict again and we needed more judges to sit on courts martial and then after that surge we're left with perhaps a pool of 15 to 20 military judges of which a lot of them functionally we don't need. This gives us the ability to surge when we need to, to have part-time military judges, reserve judges, who could then not be required once that surge element is over.

Regarding the interaction, overall I can say with a great amount of confidence that Parliament and Canadians as a whole should be very proud of all of the government's legal advisers. We do some tough work, a lot of times in anonymity. We're not asking to be put in the headlights, that's for sure, but there's a lot of hard work done in the trenches, literally. We work closely with the Department of Justice, Foreign Affairs, and Privy Council legal advisers.

Having said that, as I said, in response to Mr. Harris's question earlier, reasonable people can agree reasonably to disagree over interpretations. It doesn't mean one is wrong or one is better than the other; it simply means there is a different perspective.

What we bring to the table, not to put it too lightly, is 100 years of critical experience of military operations and understanding of how they're done not only at the strategic level, but right down to the tactical level as well.

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

Again, I can't speak for the government. You heard the minister last week addressing those issues, and on clause 75 he's obviously said publicly many times that the government has gone back and reviewed that. I think that's just an indicator, frankly, of the process.

In vibrant democracies such as ours there's great debate. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably, review matters, and come back with a final answer that will hopefully fit the bill. Ultimately in some cases that will be determined not by our judgment but by the judgment of a court perhaps, as in the case of your reference to Bill C-41, and Bill C-15. That's what makes our system strong and vibrant: we think we have it right; the courts don't, and we'll respond to that as we have.

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

That's a very, very probing question, Mr. Harris. Obviously I'm not prepared to comment on the specifics of Mr. Schmidt's own circumstances or the case before the Federal Court. I can't do that. I can only refer you to our roles and the roles we had with our government colleagues in Bill C-15, and, as I said, absolutely assure you that from our perspective the provisions as proposed are constitutional and would withstand challenge.

As a lawyer, you know well that every time a provision is challenged, whether it's in this type of legislation or any other, or an exercise of other government authority, you never know what the final outcome is going to be until a judge pronounces on it. As professionals who have been around this topic for many, many years, not only me personally but the long tradition of JAG lawyers dealing with military law, military justice, I can reiterate with great confidence that the bill is sound.

[Major-General Blaise Cathcart, Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, a huge thanks to you and the entire committee for extending the invitation to speak to you today on this very important matter, which is important not only for military justice but for the entire Canadian Forces as a whole, and that is Bill C-15.

As you know, the primary intent of this bill is to respond to the recommendations made by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer in the first independent review of the legislation in 2003.

As Judge Advocate General, it is my statutory role, pursuant to section 9.1 of the National Defence Act, to act as legal adviser to the Governor General, the Minister of National Defence, the department, and the Canadian Forces in matters relating to military law. I have the additional statutory responsibility pursuant to section 9.2 to superintend the administration of the military justice in the Canadian Forces.

As stated by Chief Justice Lamer in his 2003 report, the JAG's role as superintendent of the military justice system is largely analogous to that of an attorney general. The military justice system has two fundamental purposes, as recognized in clause 62 of Bill C-15: (a) to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces by contributing to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale; and (b) to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

To put it in a nutshell, it is to maintain discipline and to do justice.

I would like to take a few moments to address some points that arose during the committee's proceedings related to Bill C-15 when the minister appeared last week.

Bill C-15, similar to any other government bill introduced in Parliament, advanced through a prescribed process of development and consideration. This process includes: the development of a memorandum to cabinet that includes a review by all other departments, including the Department of Justice and the Privy Council Office; interdepartmental meetings at which the legislative initiative is scrutinized and discussed and other departmental officials have the opportunity to express their concerns and to comment; consideration and approval of the MC by cabinet; and, following approval by cabinet, drafting by the legislative drafters at the Department of Justice working in conjunction with instructing counsel from the relevant department.

These legislative drafters have, as part of their mandate, an obligation to raise any charter concerns. Thus, as part of the legislative process that I alluded to above, many stakeholders are involved before a bill is introduced. This particularly includes an opportunity for the Department of Justice, pursuant to subsection 4.1(1) of the Department of Justice Act, to raise any concerns it may have regarding the compliance of the bill with the charter.

However, having regard to my statutory mandate, in terms of any proposed legislation impacting on the National Defence Act, it is my duty to advise the minister on the constitutionality of proposed legislation.

As the superintendent of the military justice system, it is my statutory responsibility to ensure the system serves the operational requirements of the Canadian Forces while respecting the charter.

Contrary to one concern that has been expressed, there is no conflict of interest in the office of the JAG advising on the constitutionality of legislation relating to the military justice system, anymore than there is in the Attorney General of Canada advising on the constitutionality of proposed legislation drafted by the Department of Justice. This is the job that Parliament has given me to do in the National Defence Act.

I have an outstanding team of legal officers to assist me in doing that. Within their areas of expertise, they do not take a back seat to anyone in terms of their quality, their education and training, their professional standards, and their devotion to the rule of law. We are Canada's leading authorities in matters of military law and military justice.

To be clear, I have no doubt that the military justice system is constitutional and satisfies the guarantees set forth in the charter, and I stand behind this bill. As recently as 2011, Chief Justice LeSage adopted the views of Chief Justice Lamer, who stated, “Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians...have trust and confidence.” Further, Chief Justice LeSage made recommendations that would assist in ensuring the continued strength and viability of the military justice system.

Therefore, while you may hear criticisms of the military justice system during your study, I would refer you to the comments of two eminent jurists, Chief Justice Lamer and Chief Justice LeSage, during their respective independent reviews that served to reinforce my view that the military justice system is fair to accused members while serving the operational needs of the Canadian Forces.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I leave you with comments of the former Chief Justice of Canada, the late Honourable Brian Dickson, who stated that there “is a need for a separate and distinct military justice system, consistent with the primacy of the rule of law”.

Like chief justices Lamer and LeSage, I am confident that Canada has a sound and fair military justice system.

Bill C-15 would serve to further enhance the military justice system. The improvements it would make are necessary to enable the military justice system to fulfill its two fundamental purposes: to promote operational effectiveness and to do justice for the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.

With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you and the committee for this opportunity, and I welcome any questions you or the committee members may have.

[Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Chair. I hope that General Cathcart will have an opportunity to give a couple of opening remarks as well. I am thankful for the chance to be back before you. I apologize,

I wasn't able to have my remarks translated in time, but a translation will be provided later.

My brief opening remarks will focus on four areas of Bill C-15 that we believe are of particular importance: offences under the military justice system, military police complaints, the office of the provost marshal, and the grievance process, specifically the role of the Chief of the Defence Staff within that process.

We have attempted to bring into line those convictions under the military justice system that would be deemed not to constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act. Therefore, service members would no longer be required to apply for a record suspension, formerly known as a pardon, for these offences. You will recall that Minister MacKay indicated that the government intends to submit an amendment that will expand the list of exemptions that mirrors the amendments made by committee during its consideration of Bill C-41.

The military police structure, regarding both the complaints process and the role of the provost marshal, has evolved and will continue to do so with this bill.

Since the last time I addressed this committee, we have completed implementation of some very important changes to the command structure of the military police. On April 1, 2011, command and control of the military police for the purposes of policing was transferred to the Canadian Forces provost marshal. Not only has this provided additional agility to address the policing needs of the CF and DND, but more importantly, it has firmly established the requisite investigative independence of the military police as a critical part of the military justice system. This bill addresses the findings of Chief Justice Lamer with regard to the powers of the Military Police Complaints Commission. For example, provisions within this bill require that the Canadian Forces provost marshal resolve any complaint dealing with the conduct of the military police within 12 months, as well as protecting those people making complaints in good faith from being penalized for doing so.

It is important to note the operational role of military police in support of both domestic and international operations. This proposed legislation clarifies the reporting relationship of my office, the vice chief's office, vis-à-vis the provost marshal, while providing balance between the independent role of the Canadian Forces provost marshal in support of the military justice system, as well as providing the necessary oversight to ensure Canadian armed forces missions are supported effectively by the military police. This bill clarifies the role of the office of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and its relationship with the office of the vice-chief of the defence staff, and increases transparency through the formalization of reporting measures to the Chief of the Defence Staff.

I would now like to turn to the subject of the Canadian Forces grievance process. Allow me to underscore that dealing effectively with grievances in the Canadian Forces is a key leadership responsibility. I would also like to draw attention to the singular importance of the office of the Chief of the Defence Staff. The roles and responsibilities of the CDS in the grievance process are twofold: to safeguard the institution that is the Canadian armed forces, and to promote the welfare of the members of the Canadian armed forces. These responsibilities converge in the person of the Chief of the Defence Staff when he becomes the final authority for grievances.

Yet Chief Justice Lamer recognized that it is unrealistic to expect the CDS to personally decide every grievance that must be reviewed by the grievance board. The authority sought in Bill C-15 would allow the CDS to choose the grievances he wishes to determine as final authority and to delegate all others primarily to an officer directly responsible to him. In fact, that current officer, Colonel François Malo, is sitting here behind me. This would allow the Chief of the Defence Staff to focus his time on systemic issues, on matters that touch the core of our profession or on the demands that service places upon military members.

I must emphasize that the CDS is well versed in the status of the grievance portfolio on an ongoing basis. He remains ultimately responsible and accountable for all decisions made by his delegate.

Bill C-15 would also empower the CDS to cancel the release of Canadian Forces members as a potential remedy in the grievance system when it is discovered that a member has been improperly released.

In addition to these amendments, I'm pleased to inform you that the government recently authorized the CDS, under an order in council, to make ex gratia payments to grievers while making a final decision in certain circumstances within the grievance process. The Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority is in the process of implementing this authority. Obtaining the authority for the CDS is a significant step. As the implementation process continues, the CDS will assess the scope of the authority given to him through the order in council, and determine whether it fully addresses the issue identified in the Lamer report.

We have also taken other steps to improve the grievance process, including reducing the number of grievances submitted by encouraging CF members to inform their commanding officers of their intent to grieve. This new process helps a commanding officer to engage early, and when able, to resolve issues locally. We continue to work with the grievance board to explore ways to expand the types of grievances they review to ensure that the final authority's determination of grievances reflects the approach taken to similar issues across the public service.

I'm pleased to report that as a result of improvements over the last few years, the number of grievances submitted by CF members annually has declined by 10% since it peaked at nearly 1,000 in 2010. I am, however, also keenly aware of a large number of grievances on compensation and benefits matters that are working their way through the system. I directed last fall that additional personnel resources be provided to both the Canadian Forces grievance authority and the chief of military personnel to address these grievances and reduce this backlog.

We remain committed to the goal of determining grievances in a timely manner and continue to strive to reduce the staffing of grievances to a maximum of 12 months, while increasing the transparency and the fairness of our grievance system.

These proposed amendments to the National Defence Act constitute an important step forward not only in the adjudication of military law, but in the effectiveness and transparency of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the overall efficiency of the grievance process.

These changes will help to ensure the integrity of the institution that is the Canadian armed forces, and as importantly, further protect the welfare of our men and women in uniform.

I would like once again to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter.

Mr. Chair, I turn the floor back over to you, but I recommend that we give General Cathcart, our Judge Advocate General, the opportunity for some opening remarks.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call the meeting back to order. We're going to continue on with our study on Bill C-15.

Joining us now from the Department of National Defence we have Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, who is the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, and Major General Blaise Cathcart, who is the Judge Advocate General.

Admiral Donaldson, I will turn the floor over to you for your opening comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm going to have to cut it off there so we have time to clear the table and move in our other witnesses.

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Daigle and Mr. Gauthier, for sharing your expertise with us in our study of Bill C-15.

With that, we're going to suspend for a couple of minutes.

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

One of the amendments contained in Bill C-15 enables the CDS to delegate his power as a final authority in the grievance process under certain circumstances. Do you believe this is an effective change to the National Defence Act?

[Pierre Daigle]

There are two aspects to Bill C-15, but obviously with respect to the grievance process, you're talking about the grievance board. The grievance process as such, which is part of the National Defence Act, is a good process. It has been streamlined. It has been improved over the years. All I'm saying is an important part is missing in order to close this process.

I might seem to be an advocate, but we're not advocates for people or for the institution. We're advocates for fairness. The reason I am pushing this issue is there are people in uniform in this country who are not treated fairly because of this particular aspect, and just by closing this loop, we'll once and for all conclude what Justice Lamer and Justice LeSage said should be done, and eliminate the rest of the bureaucracy.

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

In your opening statement you indicated that your office remains neutral and is an objective sounding board. For obvious reasons we've talked a lot about shortcomings, perhaps, in Bill C-15. Do you have examples of where the grievance process is being improved in this new legislation, or can you not provide those?

From your perspective, is there any good in what the government is doing with Bill C-15 and the grievance process?

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

I have some questions on women, specifically.

Should Bill C-15 have put in place measures to protect women, particularly victims of sexual harassment? For instance, are there measures that prevent the perpetrator from being assigned to the same base or unit as the victim? Men, too, can be victims of this type of harassment.

Does the bill include measures of that nature?

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

The Report of the Second Independent Review Authority recommended a certain number of amendments to the National Defence Act.

Do you think the committee should amend Bill C-15 in accordance with the recommendations made by former justice LeSage in his report?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you for that.

We are going to continue to try to improve the system. Part of the reform of the grievance system is part of Bill C-15 in response to recommendations made by Chief Justice Lamer.

As ombudsman, you undertook a study on the grievance system and you've spoken publicly a number of times about it. Can you tell us, sir, the role that the ombudsman plays in the grievance system? Perhaps you can also outline some of the other types of complaints and investigations you undertake and if the proposed legislative changes would assist in resolving some of those complaints.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you both for coming in. We appreciate it.

Just going back on this thing, I've seen a number of case summaries. One person lost $76,000; another person claimed $101,500; another person claimed $53,000, another claimed $53,000; another person claimed $29,000, and another claimed $45,000. These are pretty unhappy people, and it doesn't really much matter that 98% of the people who moved are not making any claim. What matters is the pool. The pool is the people who don't feel they've been properly compensated.

I have a letter from somebody in Bracebridge whose son-in-law was moved from Petawawa to Afghanistan and back to Petawawa, then to Borden, then to Edmonton, and then to Halifax, all within —well they don't actually say the period of time—and then they just got blown away. They are not happy campers.

It is no answer to say there are ex gratia payments if the person making the ex gratia payment can't actually write the cheque. That seems to me to be the issue.

You have limitations on your ex gratia payment, which you've articulated well. Treasury Board has this policy, which the government wishes to argue is a good first step, but it strikes me as no step at all. If the CDS, during the period of time since the June guidelines have been out, hasn't actually written one cheque, then this is not a step; it is the appearance of a step.

You can't sue. The government has presented Bill C-15 as a piece of legislation in which they could have rectified it. This appears to be going in circles for a bunch of people—maybe not a huge bunch of people, but a bunch of people—who have taken significant hits on their family situations. I'm sure you're pretty frustrated at this point.

What's the cheap and cheerful solution here? Do we simply allocate an authority to the CDS and be done with it?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be back to discuss Bill C-15, or Bill C-41, C-45, or C-7, whatever it is in the latest iteration.

[Pierre Daigle, Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman]

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting us to testify today in its study of Bill C-15. As you mentioned, Alain Gauthier is my director general of operations.

Although not cited in the National Defence Act, the office of the ombudsman was established in June 1998 to help increase transparency in the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence and to ensure fair treatment of concerns raised by members of Canada’s defence community. This community includes members of the Canadian Forces, both regular force and reserve force, civilian DND employees, family members, and anyone in the recruitment process.

The ombudsman draws upon his or her powers from a ministerial directive and reports directly to the Minister of National Defence. The ombudsman operates independently of both the Department of National Defence administration and the Canadian Forces chain of command. The office of the ombudsman remains neutral and is an objective sounding board, often acting as both mediator and investigator.

Stated simply, the office has a mandate to investigate and make recommendations to improve the overall well-being and quality of life of the members of the defence community. While our investigators attempt to resolve complaints informally and at the lowest level possible, some complaints require thorough investigation leading to a formal report with findings and recommendations that are made public.

Over the past 15 years the ombudsman’s office has helped more than 21,000 individuals navigate existing channels of assistance or redress when they have had a complaint or concern.

In February 2011, I appeared before this committee to discuss the findings of my 2010 report entitled, “The Canadian Forces Grievance Process: Making It Right for Those Who Serve”. The report highlighted deficiencies in the grievance process that are causing further hardship for Canadian Forces members who have already been wronged.

At that time I testified that we found the redress of grievance process to be flawed and unfair. It is supposed to provide soldiers, sailors, airmen, and airwomen with a quick and informal mechanism to challenge Canadian Forces actions and resolve matters without the need for courts or other processes. Specifically, we determined that the chief of the defence staff, who is the final decision-maker in the grievance process, does not have the authority to provide financial compensation to fully resolve unfairness.

Moreover, when claims are rejected—which is often the case—Canadian Forces members are informed that they must initiate legal action against the Government of Canada in order to obtain compensation. However, unbeknownst to most men and women in uniform, legal action will rarely be heard by a court because previous courts have ruled that there is no legally enforceable employment contract between the Crown and Canadian Forces members.

Our findings were consistent with those of both former Chief Justice Lamer, who in 2003 recommended that the chief of the defence staff be given financial authority to settle financial claims in grievances, and former Justice LeSage, who indicated in 2012 that the issue should be addressed in legislation.

The Minister of National Defence expressed his commitment to providing the chief of the defence staff with the financial authority to resolve grievances and was looking at mechanisms to achieve the result. Short of Justice LeSage’s recommendation to address this issue in legislation, a resolution is not obvious.

The minister advised me in a letter on July 26, 2012, that Treasury Board approved the authority for the chief of the defence staff to make ex gratia payments in the grievance process. Minister MacKay said this was an initial basis from which to address my recommendations.

Ex gratia payments have significant limitations in that they are prohibited by Treasury Board policy from being used to fill perceived gaps or limitations in existing acts, policies, or other governing instruments.

In closing, I would reiterate what I said when I testified before this committee in 2011. The Canadian Forces redress of grievance process will remain flawed and unfair as long as the final decision-maker in the Canadian Forces grievance process, the chief of the defence staff, lacks the authority to provide financial compensation to resolve unfairnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to answer any questions you may have at this stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to start meeting number 63 and continue with our order of reference from Wednesday, December, 12, to study Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Witnesses joining us for the first hour are, from the Office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Pierre Daigle, who is the ombudsman, and his acting director general, Alain Gauthier.

Mr. Daigle, you have the floor for your opening comments. Then we'll move right into questions and answers.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Sure.

The Lamer report does make recommendations with respect to the review period for the military justice system and the Canadian Forces grievance process that can be specifically required and entrenched within the act, within the bill. Bill C-15, to answer your question directly, would accomplish that. As well, it would improve the current system and mechanism for review by moving the review process and provisions into the defence act so that it becomes codified, specifying the scope of the review, the thematic basis—that is, the military justice system, the grievance, the Canadian Forces military policy complaints schedule. All of this would increase the utility of reviews by changing the review cycle from five to seven years. To do this, I would suggest, accords a sufficient period of time to provide the adequate track record upon which to base subsequent assessments of the operations of provisions.

We find ourselves today in this place where there was a review called for in earlier iterations of this bill, and because of the fact that this particular legislation has been unable to move forward for a number of reasons, the time has essentially passed.

Putting this bill in place and then allowing seven years to pass will allow us to sufficiently study the impacts of these amendments and then respond appropriately at the next review period. We've had two reviews. We've incorporated reviews into this legislation, and we'll do the same in future legislation.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, I'm pleased to be with you again. I note that this is my 32nd appearance before the committee as a government member. I recognize that we're here for the important examination of Bill C-15.

I should also note that I'm joined by Major-General Blaise Cathcart, who is our Judge Advocate General, as well as by Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, who is the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff.

The proposed amendments to the National Defence Act found in this bill will ensure that Canada's military justice system remains one that the Canadian armed forces, and I suggest Canadians at large, can trust. These amendments will also clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian provost marshal and will enhance the military police complaints process and the military grievance system, among other amendments.

The need for a military justice system to maintain the discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Forces, one that is separate from the civilian system, has been endorsed by Parliament, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1992 Généreux decision. The existence of a separate military justice system is also expressly referred to in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, this system, the existence of a separate military justice system, in addition to being endorsed by both Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada, is also expressly referred to in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As members here will know, the strength of Canada's military justice system was confirmed as well in two independent reviews, material that I know you have reviewed.

The first independent review, conducted by Chief Justice Lamer in 2003, for example, found that Canadians would continue, and could continue, to have confidence in Canada's military justice framework, a framework that meets the disciplinary needs of the military, whether in times of peace or conflict and whether in Canada or abroad. That said, Chief Justice Lamer also recognized that there were opportunities for improvement, and he made recommendations to strengthen our system.

His assessment was supported by the findings of the second independent review of the military justice system, conducted by Chief Justice LeSage and tabled in the House last June, following the introduction of this bill, Bill C-15.

The bill before you today is required to implement those recommendations from the Lamer report that are still outstanding, and it maintains the essence of the government's previous legislative efforts to address this report, mainly through Bills C-7, C-45, and C-41. It is a bill that clearly identifies the objectives, purposes, and principles of sentencing in the military justice system. It sets out a wider and more flexible range of sentencing options. It enhances the treatment of victims by introducing victim impact statements at courts martial.

I view this, Mr. Chair, as someone who spent a bit of time in the courts prior to my career in politics, as extremely important. This is a modernization of many of the basic principles we've had in our criminal justice system, going back almost 20 years, that we are trying now to bring forward for victims who would be affected within the military justice system.

All of this is in line with amendments set out in Bill C-41. The bill also clarifies the process and the timelines for future independent reviews of the military justice system.

Now, since this bill was introduced, the government has worked hard to respond to concerns and certain misconceptions regarding the state of Canada's military justice system. It might surprise some to know that a relatively small number of Canadians even realize that we have a separate military justice system. So I'd like to take this opportunity to briefly, Mr. Chair, speak to some of these issues and clarify any lingering misunderstandings that might exist.

I want to begin by first addressing the summary trial system. This system has been validated by both the first and second independent reviews of Bill C-25. The 2012 most recent independent review confirmed that the summary trial system is both vital to the maintenance of military discipline and essential to the life and death work the men and women of the Canadian Forces are asked to do each day. Moreover, this review concluded that the current system is constitutionally sound.

The 2012 LeSage review made several helpful recommendations for improving summary trials, and the government will certainly pursue them following the passage of this bill. That is to say that the LeSage report, and there may be questions on this, was actually tabled after this bill was presented to Parliament.

Speaking specifically to clause 75, there's also been confusion over the matter of criminal records flowing from convictions of service offences in this particular clause of the bill. To be clear, under clause 75, service members would no longer be required to apply for a criminal record suspension, formerly known as a pardon, for convictions that would be deemed to not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act.

Some members have expressed concern over the scope of these exemptions that will be created by this clause. I've listened carefully to these concerns. As I've indicated, and as I've previously indicated during second reading, the government will submit an amendment that will expand the list of exemptions to mirror those amendments made by the committee during its consideration of Bill C-41.

We hope this will help facilitate a quick progress through the committee of this important legislation, as it is now in its fourth iteration and has appeared before the House of Commons for debate now, by my estimation, in five different parliaments.

Some members have expressed concerns over the scope of the exemptions that will be created by this clause. I have listened carefully to those concerns. And as I indicated during second reading, the government will submit an amendment that will expand the list of exemptions to mirror the amendment made by the committee during its consideration of Bill C-41. We hope that this will help facilitate the quick progress of this legislation through committee.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, over the last 10 years a number of changes have already been made to the Canadian Forces Grievance Board. These changes have reinforced the responsibilities of the chain of command to address grievances quickly and directly, and they have simplified the review process to make the grievance system more responsive to the needs of military members. The amendments proposed in Bill C-15 will further enhance the effectiveness of the grievance system.

This bill allows the Chief of the Defence Staff to delegate his power as the final grievance authority when appropriate. This measure allows grievances to be resolved more swiftly and efficiently, while allowing the Chief of the Defence Staff to focus on those grievances with strategic consequences.

The bill will also formally change the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board—at its own request—to the Military Grievances External Review Committee. The new name will better reflect the board's independent status and increase the confidence of our military members in its impartiality.

Mr. Chair, let me conclude by saying a few quick words about the military police complaints and the provost marshal. For any complaint dealing with the conduct of military police, the bill requires the Canadian Forces provost marshal to resolve the issue within 12 months—this, I suggest, is a move to expedite cases in that system and to prevent long delays of justice—and protects those making complaints in good faith from being penalized for doing so. The provisions of the bill regarding the Military Police Complaints Commission are consistent with the recommendations of both the Lamer and the LeSage reports.

With regard to the position of the provost marshal itself, this bill specifies its roles and duties and clarifies the relationship with the provost marshal and the chain of command and increases transparency by requiring the officer to submit an annual report to the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree that a sound and fair justice system for our military is key to maintaining the discipline and effectiveness and the morale and justice for members of the Canadian armed forces and their families, and to protect the public and project public confidence. That is precisely what the government is working toward through the delivery of Bill C-15.

I'm also proud to be here, along with officers from the Canadian Forces, to respond to any questions the committee has on this important legislation, and I look forward to seeing the committee's support and work on this bill.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Sorry for the delay because of the bells and the vote. We know there is another vote coming at us, so we are going to have a limited amount of time with the witnesses today.

We are starting off with our study of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which is pursuant to the order of reference to this committee on Wednesday, December 12, 2012.

We're going to welcome as our key witness today the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, the Minister of National Defence. He's no stranger to this committee.

In the interest of time, Minister, I'm going to ask if you can bring your opening comments. My hope is that before bells start ringing, we'll get around to each party for their one round of questioning.

With that, Minister, you have the floor.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-15.

The House resumed from December 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is trying to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. I have already said that it is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough, which is why we are opposing it. If it passes, of course we will make the amendments at committee.

However, it does not address the key elements that I said very specifically: that the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in a grievance process must respond directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; we have to change the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership; and that there has to be a provision to make sure the person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. Those are the key elements that I believe need to be in place for justice to be served.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-15 on the military justice system, which is long overdue.

This discussion of a person's collective and individual rights is fascinating. On the one hand, in the military it is critically important to have discipline and an efficient process for that, while keeping morale high. That why there is a different system of justice in the military.

We understand that it is important to ensure that everyone respects the law and that the military maintains a just, peaceful and safe society, its top priority. That is why a military justice system needs to be fast, flexible and portable.

Presently, 96% of the disciplinary cases result in a summary trial, with the other 4% being courts martial. I am mostly interested in talking about the summary trials and the individual rights of soldiers and fairness.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of the summary trials. Right now, for a minor offence, a soldier could end up having a criminal record. However, in a summary trial, a soldier does not have access to counsel, there is no appeal process, there is no transcript of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer.

Very minor offences, whether a quarrel, small disturbance or absence without leave, could be matters important to military discipline, but I am not sure they are worthy of a criminal record. A criminal record for a soldier leaving the military could mean that he or she would have difficulty getting credit from a bank, buying a house, or being hired in any number of jobs.

Bill C-15 proposes exemptions from a criminal record for a number of offences carrying minor punishments or fines of less than $500, as defined in the act. We support these exemptions, but the list does not go far enough. There is another list of very minor offences that should be exempt from a criminal record.

As for the grievance process, there is a grievance committee but no external review. Presently, it is staffed entirely by retired Canadian Forces officers. We believe that the grievance committee should be external and have independent civilian oversight. Soldiers do not have the right of appeal, but they do have a grievance process. Therefore, it is important that the grievance process be fair and independent so there is no chance of a miscarriage of justice.

We believe that at least 60% of the grievance committee's members should be civilians, with a fresh eye on the situations before them. However, even though an amendment to the previous Bill C-41 was passed, unfortunately it was not retained in Bill C-15.

The other flaw in the military grievance process is that the Chief of Defence Staff right now has no authority to resolve any financial aspect arising from a grievance. We know there was a report by Brian Dickson and Chief Justice Antonio Lamer saying that it was important to give the Chief of Defence Staff the authority to resolve any financial aspect. At the time, the Minister of National Defence agreed with this recommendation. Yet after eight years, there have been no concrete steps to make sure this becomes part of the law. We moved an amendment passed at report stage of the old bill, but unfortunately it is not included in this new bill.

The other aspect is that we have to give the Military Police Complaints Commission the framework and ability to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament. Right now there is no legislative provision empowering it as an oversight body. We believe that also needs to be part of this bill.

At the moment the National Defence Act, through Bill C-15, has a timeline in which a complaint can be resolved through the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. It protects complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. That is important, because whistle-blower protection needs to be in place for everyone, including soldiers.

In summary, we believe that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, there have to be some key amendments to reform the grievance and summary trial systems and to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission.

As members know, this bill has been in front of us, first through Bill C-7 and then through then Bill C-45, which died because of prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008. We are eager to see Bill C-15 become law, with substantial amendments. If not, then we cannot support this bill. I hope that when this bill goes to committee there will be more discussion of it.

Finally, I want to quote Michel Drapeau, who said:

—the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and until you, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted. As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

That was an open statement by a retired Canadian Forces colonel and expert in military law on February 28, 2011. I hope we listen carefully to these experts who are experienced in military justice, and that we move forward to make sure there is discipline, efficiency and high morale while also respecting the individual rights of all soldiers and all Canadians.

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her excellent speech. She gave an accurate picture of the situation as it relates to Bill C-15 and military justice.

It is really important to respect the people who have served and who continue to serve our country and all Canadians through their work. The hon. member spoke well of a real problem with Bill C-15, namely the grievance committee. I wonder if she could elaborate on this problem with Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech on Bill C-15.

We often hear the Liberals say that, on this issue, we are delaying things a bit. We said—and my colleague stressed that point—that amendments had already been proposed and accepted by all committee members, including the minister. Later on, the government came back with a bill that excludes all these amendments and, somewhat blindly, Liberal members are supporting the government on this issue. As for us, we have taken a different position.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on her experience and on our confidence in this government when it comes to accepting our amendments.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, which amends the National Defence Act and other Acts.

This bill responds to the 2003 report of the Honourable Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It is important that we have a good look at our whole military justice structure because there are a number of problems that need to be resolved.

Military justice needs to fit into our overall justice system. We need to ensure that our military justice laws are consistent with other laws in our general justice system, particularly when it comes to the fundamental principles of law. It is important to understand that there are differences between military law and our general legal system, and for good reason. The military justice system recognizes the relationship between the justice system and discipline within the armed forces.

Michel Drapeau, a retired Canadian Forces colonel and military law expert, had the following to say before the Standing Committee on National Defence:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and until you, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted.

Mr. Drapeau is a lawyer in private practice and has considerable military experience. His advice is worth its weight in gold and must be followed, which does not appear to have been the case here.

The bill provides for greater flexibility in sentencing, establishes new sentencing options—such as absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and restitution—makes changes to the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person, makes changes to the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allows an accused person to waive the limitation periods. The bill also clarifies the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

When Bill C-41 was before the House, we referred it to the Standing Committee on National Defence where our party tried to do two things. First, we tried to ensure that the procedures in the military justice system were effective and consistent with the need for the timely resolution of disciplinary matters in some cases. Second, we also tried to ensure, to the extent possible, respect for the protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, we did not want an efficient military justice system to trump the fundamental principles of justice just because the people in question are in the military.

Although Bill C-15 is similar to Bill C-41, important amendments adopted at committee stage at the end of the last Parliament have not been included in Bill C-15.

To no one's great surprise, these rejected amendments include the NDP amendments concerning, first of all, the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process—clause 6 as amended in Bill C-41. By the way, this was a direct response to a recommendation in the Lamer Report. They also concern changes in the membership of the grievance board so that 60% of the members would be civilians—clause 11 as amended of Bill C-41—and of course the provision ensuring that a person convicted of an offence at a summary trial would not be unfairly given a criminal record—clause 75 as amended of Bill C-41. This is very important.

When Bill C-41 was debated in the spring of 2011, the long hours of debate between the parties appeared to be leading toward a positive breakthrough. It makes me wonder why the Conservatives did not keep the amendments the NDP proposed in Bill C-15.

By excluding these amendments from Bill C-15, the Conservatives are undermining the important work done by all the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence, including their own colleagues, as well as the recommendations made by the representatives of the Canadian Forces during the last Parliament.

Many significant reforms were proposed in this bill. The NDP has long supported a necessary update of the military justice system. Canadian Forces members are subject to extremely high standards of discipline and they deserve, of course, a justice system of equally high standards.

That is why the NDP and I will oppose Bill C-15 at second reading. There are a number of shortcomings in the bill and we hope they will be discussed in committee if Bill C-15 is passed at second reading. This is probably what will happen, given that the government has a majority.

In terms of changes to the summary trial process, we believe that the amendments to Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. At present, a summary trial conviction at the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the accused being allowed to consult counsel. There is no appeal and no transcript of the trial. Furthermore, the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This is too severe for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences.

These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobedience. I agree that this is probably very important for military discipline, but it does not warrant a criminal record. I think everybody is in agreement on this point.

However, Bill C-15 provides an exemption so that certain offences, if there is a minor sentence determined by the act or a fine of less than $500, will no longer lead to a criminal record. In our view, this is a positive element in the bill. However, we believe the bill does not go far enough, unfortunately.

At committee stage, last March, the NDP proposed amendments to Bill C-41. These amendments included extending the list of offences, from five to 27, that could be considered minor and that would not result in a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor sentence.

The amendment also extended the list of sentences that could be imposed by a tribunal without being included in a criminal record. Such sentences include a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equivalent to one month's salary and other minor penalties. This was an important breakthrough in terms of summary trials. However, as this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15, we are not prepared to give our support to the bill. We want this amendment to be included again.

A criminal record is not a small thing, as they say. Having a criminal record can make life after a military career very difficult. It can make it very difficult to obtain a job, to rent an apartment or to travel. Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that the members of the military who so bravely served our country may have a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system.

I would now like to talk about reforms to the grievance system. At present, the grievance board does not allow for any outside review. In theory, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board should be viewed as an external, independent civilian body. Right now, the board members are retired members of the Canadian Forces, some of whom are very recently retired members of the military. In terms of a guarantee of objectivity, to my mind, this is hardly ideal. In fact, the NDP amendment suggested that at least 60% of the members of the grievance board must not be former officers or former members of the Canadian Forces, in order to guarantee a little more objectivity in cases of this kind.

With regard to the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, contrary to a recommendation in the Lamer Report, the NDP believes that the lack of authority of the Chief of Defence Staff to resolve financial issues arising from grievances is a major weakness in the military grievance system.

Since the Lamer Report came out, no concrete action has been taken to implement the recommendation, even though the recommendation was approved by the Minister of National Defence. In my view, we must all ask questions and we must study the bill in a little more detail, become aware of the opinions of those concerned and work with the official opposition.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

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

At this stage, I am opposed to the bill but, as always, I will keep an open mind and watch how it progresses through the various stages. As we have waited a long time for these reforms, we need to ensure we get them right, which is what I will speak to today.

I thank the MP for St. John's East for all his work on the bill, as well as for preparing us for these debates. He really does Newfoundland and Labrador credit.

I will take a moment to speak to the value of our armed forces personnel and to recognize their service and sacrifice. We are talking about a fairly detailed bill that would amend a lot of little clauses in other bills, including the National Defence Act, but we also need to recognize the service that the armed forces give in general. Many of my family members have served in the armed forces. I admire their professionalism and discipline. We are also addressing a very small portion of those who have served so proudly in the armed forces with this bill.

Every time I get a chance to speak to defence or military aspects of government policy, my mind drifts back to my great uncle, F.R.W.R. Gow, who was a commander in the Royal Canadian Navy working for military intelligence. Sadly, he died in service in November 1942 on the same day as my birthday, which always brings him to mind on Remembrance Day and during occasions such as this. Because of that, and when I think of my other relatives who have served in the armed forces, as well as all of the great veterans in my constituency, Remembrance Day is the most important day of the year for me as it marks the reason that we celebrate all of the other holidays. We should keep that in mind as we move through these bills to ensure we do the best we can for those who serve us so well.

Before I speak to the details of the bill, I will talk about a few other laws and policies surrounding the military, many of which are far from perfect. For example, with respect to recognition of those who have served in the past, I have been working in my office with a constituent who served in the Korean War who has not yet received official recognition for his sacrifice despite numerous appeals. This gentleman is t past 90 now and it is time to ensure that we recognize all of those who have served Canada in the past. We have taken some steps in Burnaby to recognize Korean War veterans. We have a beautiful Korean War memorial in Central Park in Burnaby. However, individual recognition is also crucial and I will continue to work on behalf of my constituent for that recognition.

This whole idea of lump sum payments for injured veterans is really abhorrent to me and goes against how we should treat those who have given so much.

I will now move to Bill C-15. It was introduced in response to a 2003 report tabled by the right hon. Antonio Lamer, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning his independent review of the National Defence Act. In my mind, this is a housekeeping bill but an important one as it would adjust current laws concerning military justice. As we can tell from the title of the bill, it is not just the National Defence Act that would be altered but it is also consequential acts. Therefore, the bill would make broad-sweeping changes to a number of different pieces of legislation.

The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal.

The bill has seen many iterations since the Lamer report was tabled. It is important to keep in mind that in response to the 2003 Lamer report, Bill C-41 was introduced in 2010 and has been the subject of much of the discussion today.

The bill outlined provisions to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels and a number of other institutions and procedures. More important, during the debate on Bill C-41, we submitted a number of amendments during that committee stage, which have been talked about, but many of the amendments that were agreed to at that committee are not in the current version of the bill, which is why we are objecting.

The amendments include the following: the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted for an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. I will return to these points through my speech, but as it stands, we can talk a little about the good parts of the bill.

Bill C-15 would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process. It would provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and restitution. It also would modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person. It would modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and would allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods. It would clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and it would make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grieving process.

For those positive few points I have pointed out, I believe Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. It would bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it does fall short on key issues that we have pointed out over and over again and that we will take pains to do it again today and in the future. The issues it falls short on include reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I will speak to two of these shortfalls in more detail, beginning with the military grievances. At present, the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. Currently, it is staffed entirely of retired CF officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the CF grievance board is to be perceived as external and an independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality.

We believe that some members of the board should be drawn from civil society. In fact, our NDP amendment provides that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This civilian oversight process is something common in other government institutions, including, for example, CSIS, which has a civilian body appointed to oversee its procedures. Therefore, this seems to be an entirely reasonable request that we have put forward in the past and will continue to press for. The amendment was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41 but was not retained in Bill C-15. Therefore, it does seem that there are at least some on the other side of the House who agreed, at least at some point, that there should be some civilians present in this oversight process. We think it is important to see this amendment included in the bill.

I will now to strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Although what is included in the bill is seen as a step forward, we believe that more needs to be done to empower the commission. The complaints commission must be empowered by a legislative position that allows it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament. Transparency is key here.

We oppose the bill at second reading because we do not think it is complete. There are key amendments missing that had been agreed to in the past and have not been included in this form of the bill. We ask that they be included. We ask that we do as well by our military personnel as they do by us.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a great pleasure for me to try to put in my two cents' worth today in this debate on Bill C-15.

I have studied labour relations. I have also worked as an employee representative in grievance procedures. In my field of studies, I also did human resources management. I have been on the employer side and the union side. So I have been on both sides.

I am going to try to show why it is extremely important that we have a fair and equitable system for our soldiers for handling grievances relating to all the various disputes that arise between them and their superior officers and their institution, the Canadian Forces.

We have a bill that amends eight acts: the Access to Information Act, the Criminal Code, the Financial Administration Act, the Privacy Act, and others.

This bill is in fact 60 pages long. That is almost modest, compared to what we have been used to getting from the government for some time now.

To begin, let us do a review of part of the history of this bill.

In 2003, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, submitted a report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. He is not just anybody. He had much to say about judgments concerning grievances that had gone to the labour court, the Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court. The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations concerning the military justice system, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance procedure, which I will address at greater length today, and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

Bill C-15 is the legislative response to those recommendations. However, only 28 recommendations have been incorporated into this new version.

Bill C-15 has appeared in several forms over the course of its history.

First, we had Bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007—I think we know it is the practice of the Conservatives to cut off debate—and the 2008 election was called.

However, in July 2008, Bill C-60 made a comeback, simplifying the structure of courts martial and establishing a method for choosing the type of court martial that would be most consistent with the civilian justice system. That was precisely the objective that should have guided the sponsors of this reform and Bill C-15. That should be our goal: harmonization with the civilian justice system.

In 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs considered Bill C-60 and made nine more recommendations to amend the National Defence Act.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 Senate committee report. Provisions relating to the military justice system were included, such as provisions relating to sentencing reform, judges and military boards and committees, summary trials, the court martial panel and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and certain provisions relating to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Essentially, Bill C-15 is similar to the version that came out of the Senate committee in the last Parliament. The amendments carried forward include the composition of the court martial panel and the appointment of military judges during good behaviour until the age of retirement.

Since I was elected, in May 2011, I have spent time on many occasions with soldiers of all ages, whether at Remembrance Day ceremonies with our courageous Canadian Legion members or at various meetings with soldiers and cadets in my region. I have met courageous, dynamic people who are very proud of their military profession.

However, when the time comes for them to return to peacetime life, these soldiers’ lives can be full of surprises and sometimes twists. All of them, the generations who lived through the major wars—the world wars, the Korean War or the Vietnam War—and other generations who have worked hard on numerous peacekeeping missions in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe, or more recently in Iraq, Darfur and Afghanistan, deserve not only our admiration, but also our respect, for doing their duty.

That is why they deserve justice, a justice system in which they will be able to see themselves as individuals who are part of today’s modern society.

All these brave men and women have proudly carried the colours of our Canadian flag and staunchly defended the democratic principles we hold dear. Sometimes, however, and it must be said, the aftermath has left its marks, and sometimes they are heavy marks. When they come home, their life in our industrialized society begins, where the economy is what matters above all else. In this modern civilization, social status, acceptance by others, often comes from a person’s job and of course the pay associated with it, but also, everything depends on an academic background or wide-ranging experience here and there in the real world. Soldiers do in fact have an extraordinary background when it comes to understanding giving and duty. They are capable of great effort and courage.

And then, soldiers return to work in civilian life. This is why I focus on this when I talk about grievances in the military system and the consequences of those grievances. Whether or not it is appropriate, a candidate for a position that is available in a business is judged, most of the time, against objective criteria, I hope, but sometimes the candidate is assessed in a way, and let us not be afraid of the words, that may be more subjective. And so a little notation here or there about a minor problem during the person’s military service or in the performance of their duties during missions can sometimes become a major wrongdoing in the eyes of an employer who decides to make use of this workforce, which is so important to manufacturing and industry, but also to the service sector. That is why the NDP is truly disappointed that some of the amendments it proposed to Bill C-15 have not been incorporated.

I would like to mention the amendments concerning the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process. These amendments were a direct response to a recommendation by the Right Hon. Justice Antonio Lamer, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. There are also the changes to the composition of the grievance committee so that 60% of its members would be civilians to make it more objective and to ensure that the grievance process is not conducted strictly by the military. Finally, there is the provision to ensure that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. All too often, this criminal record will scare employers who need this labour force. As I mentioned, this workforce is important not only to the future of that business, but also to Canada's future.

As I already said in my speeches here, do not ask what this country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Those words are from John F. Kennedy, but they still apply. It is often said that Canada is a land that needs workers. The doors are open. We welcome them. However, we must not create problems for these applicants, for this workforce that is essential to our country's future. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, this kind of situation can seriously undermine a soldier's return to civilian life and his career after the military.

We need this workforce. Yet in this world, they will be subjected to a grievance system essential to justice and to fairness in the handling of disputes. Why not have harmonized the military and civilian justice systems in this respect? It would have been easy to do. This grievance adjudication system is even recognized by the Supreme Court in several decisions.

Bill C-15 on the reform of the military justice system should be based on the fundamental principles of law and justice on which our country was built. It is essential to put things back in place within National Defence and to give that department the means to adapt to the modern workplace, to the 21st century.

Still, the NDP believes this legislation is a step in the right direction—really—to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. Other steps will have to be taken, and we hope the government will listen to our amendments.

May justice be done.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and I want to read directly from the Lamer report for my question to her.

The Lamer report says, to end unacceptable delays:

The Chief of Defence Staff must be given the power to delegate to someone under his [or her] command and control decision-making in respect of all grievances...

It also recommends:

A task force composed of senior members of the Canadian Forces should be created with the sole responsibility of resolving the backlog of grievances at the Chief of Defence Staff Level within a year of the tabling of this report....

This report was tabled in 2003 and we are now in 2012, and these recommendations are not in Bill C-15.

Earlier, I spoke about the fact that we cannot support bills that are incomplete, and if this bill is incomplete, why would the Conservatives not put in these sections of recommendations that were made by former Chief Justice Lamer?

My question to my colleague is: Does she agree that these are fundamental aspects of the report's recommendations that should be in this bill?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have listened to members from the NDP bring forward what I would characterize as misinformation. That is the only way I can characterize it.

We do, indeed, have the facts. The only fact we seem to agree on in this particular case is that former Chief Justice Lamer made 88 recommendations in his 2003 report. That should lend a lot of credence to this. It is independent from political purview, from a person who has a great legal track record and actually made recommendations. Eighty-one of those recommendations were accepted by this government. That is clear from all the information, if we look at it. Twenty-nine have been implemented already through legislation, regulation or policy changes; 36 are contained in Bill C-15; and the remainder that have been accepted by the government are pending implementation through regulation or are under study to find out the best way to implement them.

That is very clear. We know that. Why do the opposition NDP members continuously suggest that is not the case? They are misrepresenting the facts on how many have been accepted by the government and how many have actually been implemented.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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

In 2012, and it will soon be 2013, modernizing the military justice system has become an urgent matter. While the military justice system should not be a carbon copy of the civilian justice system, the two systems must be harmonized more.

In that light one could say, reluctantly, that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. The NDP has long been in favour of updating the military justice system. Yes, Bill C-15, in its present form, brings us a little closer to where we want to go. But the problem is that it sets its sights so low that we must oppose it at second reading.

It is like a marathon where someone just runs the first kilometre and then says they have run the entire marathon. But a marathon is 42 kilometres, not one kilometre. The Conservatives are doing something like this with Bill C-15. They are telling everyone, “mission accomplished”, rather like a certain American president a while ago, although it is not the case.

No, Bill C-15 is not a finished product, far from it. It ignores too many of the recommendations in the 2003 report by former chief justice of the Supreme Court Antonio Lamer. In his report, Justice Lamer made 88 recommendations to improve military justice. Bill C-15, which is one of the legislative responses to the Lamer report, only retains 28 of the 88 recommendations. That is certainly not enough for something as important as reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system, and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. This bill does not measure up.

In the previous Parliament, we worked in good faith with the party in power in order to improve the previous version of this bill, Bill C-41, as much as possible. In committee we proposed a number of amendments that were mostly adopted. The government could live with the amendments we had proposed at that time. We arrived at a compromise on several elements of the bill, but Bill C-41 died on the order paper.

When the current session began, we got a surprise. The main amendments that the NDP had proposed and the government had accepted had disappeared from the new version of Bill C-41, now known as Bill C-15. The amendments we had worked on together, most of them based directly on the recommendations in the Lamer report, had disappeared, as if by magic.

Among them were the amendments concerning the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process and that of the grievance board. At present, the Chief of Defence Staff lacks the authority to resolve the financial aspects arising from a grievance. That flaw was pointed out by Justice Lamer in his report.

As for the grievance board, we had suggested that at least 60% of the members should be civilians who had never served in the Canadian Forces, which would have helped a great deal. It was logical. If the objective was to have the Canadian Forces Grievance Board perceived as an external, independent body, then it would have to include a good proportion of civilians. As we know, one plus one makes two, or at least I think it still does.

However, the government decided not to include this suggestion in Bill C-15. One other element of this bill, which we studied carefully before deciding whether or not to support it, is the whole issue of reforming the summary trial system.

In our opinion, Bill C-15 does not respond adequately to the injustice of summary trials. Canadians should be aware that, at present, a member of the military who is found guilty of a minor offence such as insubordination, drunkenness or misconduct will be given a criminal record. That criminal record, of course, follows the member into civilian life after the Canadian Forces. We understand the need for the army to enforce strict discipline but this kind of sanction for minor infractions is really too severe.

We must also remember that the way guilt is determined in the military is very special. In the summary trial system the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. The accused has no right to appeal and no access to a transcript of the trial. In short, the system is very harsh and particularly so for those accused of minor offences.

As I said in the beginning, Bill C-15 is not completely bad. Among other things, it offers some relief for the problem I have just outlined, the injustice of military members getting a criminal record for minor offences. But, once again, Bill C-15 does not go far enough.

During consideration of Bill C-41 in committee, we proposed extending the list of minor offences to 27. In Bill C-15, the number of minor offences is just five, which is not nearly enough. Let us be clear: we realize that the military justice system has to be different than the civilian justice system. But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to its flaws. A criminal record is a serious stain on a person's file. It is an impediment to getting a job, renting an apartment, travelling and so forth.

For people who proudly served their country to end up with a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system is outrageous. I am sure that Canadians agree with us on that. Let us not forget that these people serve our country and are entitled to a fair justice system that will allow them to return to civilian life without completely destroying their future.

I am ready to take questions.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, seeks to address problems with military justice under the National Defence Act. It follows up on the 2003 report by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

In Canada, we have a separate military justice system that includes military tribunals, and this is not a unique situation. Under the National Defence Act, there is a code of military discipline that includes specific military offences and all offences under the code or any other federal legislation. This code of discipline applies to members of the Canadian Forces. The system has evolved significantly since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, because some provisions violated the fundamental rights of our men and women in uniform.

Military justice must be a part of Canada's justice system as a whole. We must ensure that military justice laws are consistent with other laws in our broader justice system, at least when it comes to the fundamental principles of law. We need to understand that there are differences between military law and the rest of the legal system, and with good reason. The military justice system recognizes the relationship between the justice system and discipline within the armed forces.

Discipline is very important in the army. I will quote an expert in military law, retired colonel Michel Drapeau, who is a lawyer in private practice and has considerable experience in the military. He is also the author of the only significant military legal text in Canada, an annotated book on the military aspects of the National Defence Act. It is quite a useful source of information. This is what Mr. Drapeau says about the importance of discipline in military law:

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.

The military justice system is important for two reasons. It serves not only to quickly and severely punish those who break the law or disobey the rules of discipline but also to allow recourse to different procedural rules in the military context. Furthermore, it is extremely important that everyone adhere to the rule of law when engaged in a combat situation.

Our country certainly wants its troops to be capable of using force in a lawful manner, regardless of the circumstances or great peril they might face. As a result, the military justice system does not just exist to punish wrongdoers; it is also key to command, discipline and morale.

The reform of the military justice system set out in this bill is problematic. First, there is the summary trial process or, rather, the possible consequences of a summary trial conviction. This makes a big difference. According to the Canadian Forces' own information, which is available on their website, the summary trial is by far the most important and most commonly used form of service tribunal. When a solider is accused of a service offence, a summary trial is the simplest way of dealing with it.

The other advantage of the summary trial process is that it allows problems to be resolved within the unit. The trial is usually presided over—and this is important—by a superior officer. Right now, a summary trial conviction can result in a criminal record. We are talking about a trial before a superior officer who, by National Defence's own admission, does not need any legal training, where no lawyers are present, and that can lead to a criminal record for soldiers.

What is more, there is no transcript of the trial. The consequence is too severe for disciplinary measures. A criminal record will make life difficult for our soldiers when they return to civilian life. A criminal record is a barrier to finding employment, renting a place to live and even taking a week's vacation in the United States.

The bill does contain a few good things. It defines offences that will be considered minor and therefore will not result in a criminal record. However, when the previous bill, Bill C-41, was examined in committee, the NDP proposed that the list of minor offences be expanded from 5 to 27.

Let us be honest: offences such as insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying an order warrant disciplinary action but not a criminal record. The Minister of National Defence himself told the committee studying the former Bill C-41 that:

...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.

I think he is right, but his bill does not achieve this balance. Colonel Michel Drapeau, a military expert, agrees that summary trials are problematic. He said:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and until you, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted. As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

A number of countries have already made changes to their military justice system to better regulate summary trials. These countries, which have a lot in common with Canada, include Ireland, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. We must also make changes, and the sooner the better.

Many Canadians would be surprised, and probably shocked, to learn that the people who have served our country with such valour can have a criminal record under a system that does not have the procedural regularity that is ordinarily required in the civilian criminal courts. They would be horrified to see the kind of problems this can cause in careers and lives post-military.

The government already does not give veterans the services they deserve, so we should at least be fair to the people who are serving the country right now.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

First, I would point out that the Lamer report included 88 recommendations regarding military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Bill C-15 is the legislative response to those recommendations. However, only 28 of the 88 recommendations are included in the bill, which means the bill is inadequate. A report outlines problems, but the government was unable to translate those recommendations into measures in a bill.

What is more, as far as my colleague's other point is concerned, a criminal record has an impact on the veterans who gave everything for their country. When they transition to civilian life, we want them to be able to find work and housing. A criminal record could severely hinder their chances of finding suitable employment during their transition to civilian life after serving their country so proudly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what has become fairly clear is that we have an interesting bill before us in Bill C-15. In principle, the Liberals support it. We would like to see it go to committee. We hope the government will move amendments.

What is equally clear is that NDP members do not want to see the bill go to committee. They oppose the bill. I have watched the debate for a number of days and it is interesting how many members of Parliament from the New Democratic Party have stood to speak to the bill. Because they are opposing the bill, I do not want to limit their ability to speak. However, I find it interesting.

Why has the NDP put up so many speakers in opposition to this bill, but when it came to the budget bill, which is probably the most significant piece of legislation the House deals with in any given year, I think it only put up one speaker?

Why so much opposition to Bill C-15 and very little opposition to the budget bill, which has a much more profound impact on all Canadians?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This very important initiative, which deserves our full attention, has been under consideration by the House since 2007.

What I find most regrettable is that the bill responds to only one-third of the recommendations made by former justice Lamer. He had raised some very interesting issues that need to be addressed to ensure a fairer and better military justice system for those who proudly defend and represent our country.

During recent minority governments, the House supported the amendments tabled by the NDP. However, after reading the bill, I realized that many of these recommendations had been left out, including important ones concerning the powers of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes to the composition of the grievance board so that 60% of the members would be civilians, and a provision that would ensure that a person convicted at a summary trial would not be unfairly subject to a criminal record. These are important amendments that are critical to the reintegration of veterans into civilian life once their tour of duty is over.

Even though the bill does contain some worthwhile ideas, I am afraid that I must oppose it given that it does have several major shortcomings that we must address.

For example, I am concerned about the summary trial provisions. Sentences imposed on accused persons have enormous ramifications, especially when they result in a criminal record. Given that the accused person is only entitled to a trial without the possibility of consulting with counsel and without any appeal or trial transcript, and given that the judge is the accused person’s commanding officer, I highly doubt that such a trial can truly be fair to the accused person. Although it is extremely important to me that the behaviour of our Canadian Forces members be above reproach, I think that saddling an individual with a criminal record that will stay with him when he returns to civilian life is too harsh a provision.

People still have much to contribute to their communities once their career in the military has ended. A criminal record can make it difficult for them to secure employment, rent an apartment or travel abroad. I want to make myself clear on this. While I do believe that a person should be punished for breaking the rules, he should not be saddled with a criminal record that could ruin his life.

While I am on the subject, I would like to point out one of the positive provisions in the bill. People convicted of certain offences are handed a sentence that no longer results in a criminal record. Personally, however, I think the bill should go even further and exempt more offences. Last March, at the committee stage, the NDP recommended that a total of 27 offences be on this exclusion list, and not just the five originally listed. I suggest that this amendment be included again, as it constitutes a major step in the right direction.

In my view, we need to take a closer look at the long-term implications of creating criminal records for Canadian Forces members. I am convinced that my constituents would be shocked to learn that shortcomings in the system could ruin the lives of people who have committed minor offences, when they have given their all for our country.

I am also concerned about the independence of the grievance process. At present, the board does not allow for an external review. To my way of thinking this board should be perceived as an external, independent civilian body and changes need to be made to the appointment process.

The NDP had suggested that at least 60% of the board members be civilians. This amendment was adopted in March 2011 when Bill C-41, an earlier version of this bill, was before the House. However, it was left out of Bill C-15.

I am very disappointed that an initiative aimed at lending greater transparency and legitimacy to such an important process has been left out when we had agreed earlier to include it.

I also feel the same way about a proposed amendment to grant more powers to the Chief of Defence Staff when it comes to dealing with financial considerations arising from grievances. I will continue to fight for the inclusion in the bill of these two forgotten amendments.

And finally, the Military Police Complaints Commission should, in my opinion, be granted more powers to conduct legitimate investigations and report back to Parliament.

I would like the members of our military to have a transparent and fairer justice system, where the consequences are more balanced when members return to civilian life and where those responsible for imposing sentences and reviewing grievances have the powers they need to ensure that justice is delivered diligently and effectively.

I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to veterans in my riding of Terrebonne—Blainville about issues that are important to them. Unfortunately, many of them live isolated lives with depleted means. It breaks my heart to see people who fought bravely for our welfare and freedoms forgotten in such a way.

I met with them last February when I led a round table discussion on poverty among seniors. I was completely flabbergasted when they told me they were forced to choose between housing, food, drugs and transportation because of their meagre pensions. Is this what we want for all of our seniors, including our brave veterans? I do not believe so.

I believe we can offer them more security and some hope that they can live out their lives more comfortably. I would like to mention at this time three agencies in my riding that are doing amazing work with veterans. They are the Amicale des vétérans de Terrebonnne, the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 208 in Sainte-Thérèse and the NATO Veterans Organization of Canada. The primary goal of staff, volunteers and members of these organizations is to provide a meeting place for military veterans and retired police officers.

Since 1945, the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 208, in Sainte-Thérèse, has provided veterans with a location where they can meet, talk and have fun. The Legion supports our war heroes by providing them with advice and assisting them in their dealings with the government so that they are treated with dignity. It also helps educate future generations about their heritage and our history, in order to keep our collective memory alive.

For more than 60 years now, the Amicale des vétérans has served veterans through meetings, discussions and entertainment. The agency is involved in the community by associating with other veterans' organizations in order to enhance the services provided, thereby contributing to the members' well-being.

For its part, the NATO Veterans Organization of Canada works in a number of areas with former and active members of the Canadian armed forces, the RCMP and the merchant navy. Its goal is to ensure recognition for the contribution of members of the Canadian armed forces, the RCMP, the merchant navy, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NORAD, the United Nations and other multilateral and bilateral institutions. Its actions make it possible to perpetuate the memories and deeds of members who lost their lives in the service of Canada. It provides support and contributes to the welfare of all its members, their families and their dependents. It fights to promote the interests of all veterans, brings together all those who have served and co-operates with other veterans' organizations with comparable aims and objectives. By establishing regional organizations, the NATO Veterans Organization hopes to reach as many veterans as possible.

We are fortunate to have organizations that, despite limited resources, work to help and support our veterans.

With this bill, we as parliamentarians have an opportunity to offer those serving in the military a better justice system that may have a positive impact on their personal and professional lives after their military career. We must go even further and adapt their military reality to suit the life they will be facing once their military service has ended.

Our serving members and our veterans deserve a military justice system that is fair and proportionate. They deserve the best because they give us their all. On their behalf, I am asking this House to assess the NDP's proposals and show the same courage that they showed for us. Let us have the courage to make the amendments that are needed to give them a better military justice system, a system that they deserve.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

The many flaws of Bill C-15 speak to the fact that there is still a great deal of injustice. That is why we will be opposing this bill.

As we have said from the beginning, many amendments proposed by the NDP and several of Justice Lamer's recommendations were rejected. For example, the government rejected the amendment to make the military grievances external review committee an independent and much fairer body. In fact, it is not an external committee because its members are commanding officers. The NDP suggested that at least 60% of the committee's members be civilians who have never been a Canadian Forces member or officer.

Can the hon. member tell us why the NDP asked that these civilians sit on the committee? Would this be fairer? Would it be a more independent process?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure people will say that the NDP members ramble on, always saying the same things in their speeches on Bill C-15, but we have not finished repeating ourselves. We want to make our voice heard.

I am very pleased to be taking part in this debate on Bill C-15, which I believe says a great deal about the values the Conservative government has chosen to promote and those it has decided to disregard. When a country claims to establish democracy and social justice in foreign countries, it is interesting to see how the government of that country treats its citizens.

And it is all the more interesting to see how this government decides to treat those who defend its citizens. Unfortunately, I believe this bill neither respects the men and women in uniform who defend this country nor represents Canadian values. Although it would be a good opportunity for the Conservatives to enter the 21st century, once again, they have missed the boat.

Bill C-15 is not new to this House. It is a response to a report by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who in 2003 made 88 recommendations in his review of military justice. The Conservatives have accepted 28 of that number. Military justice was also the topic of a report by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 2009 and has been the subject of many bills: C-7, C-45, C-60 and C-41, all of which died on the order paper.

It is unfortunate to have to say it, but the Conservatives do not surprise me. They have gotten into the habit of taking half-measures by introducing half-finished bills to impose their ideological agenda on all government bodies. I would never say these kinds of things if they were not true. I repeat, only 28 of the 88 recommendations in the Lamer report were accepted for the purposes of this bill.

Even worse, the Conservatives knowingly disregarded all the work done by the Standing Committee on National Defence. The bill's title has changed, but its objectives remain the same. So why forget in 2012 work that was done in 2011? With the Conservatives, it is the myth of Sisyphus: we always have to start over, again and again.

The way the Conservatives use our institutions never ceases to astonish me. We have everything we need to conduct a discussion and come up with proposals that are more in line with what Canadians want. Unfortunately, the Conservatives prefer to squabble in the House rather than conduct a healthy debate. If that were not the case, why would they have rejected the NDP's amendments to Bill C-41, a forerunner to Bill C-15? The truth is that, in committee and in the House, the Conservatives only hear one voice: their own.

However, the government has every interest in listening to the NDP on this matter, if it wants to avoid making a serious mistake. I want to focus on one point regarding Bill C-15 that I find particularly annoying: summary trials. The Minister of National Defence claims Canadians know that the military justice system treats those who serve them fairly and in accordance with Canadian standards and values. It is all well and good to say that, but when the facts do not support the allegations, it is better to say nothing.

So let us talk about Canadian values. Aside from empty rhetoric, I wonder where those values now stand. There is a very useful document that we can refer to in these kinds of situations: the Constitution. In 1983, this country included in its Constitution a passage on the rights of military members. It states that, like all Canadians, they are entitled to a fair trial, represented here by a court martial.

In spite of the Constitution, the Lamer report, the Senate report and numerous recommendations by the NDP, the Conservatives have retained summary trials. But what is a summary trial? It is a judgment rendered by an immediate superior officer without a public trial, without any written record of the proceedings and without any right to counsel, and it automatically results in a criminal record.

Even minor offences result in a criminal record. When they leave the military, people convicted in this way may have trouble finding a job or a place to live.

Is that any way to thank those who defend us, by throwing them out into the street for a minor offence?

This is no exaggeration. In 2008 in 2009, 96% of military offences were prosecuted by summary trial. This is the armed forces, and a firm hand is called for. Our military members are used to strict discipline and expect to be treated strictly. That is why the NDP proposed that harsh penalties be applied, such as imposing fines and docking pay, but there is quite a difference between that and handing out criminal records for being 10 minutes late.

The military members who serve this country deserve all our consideration. They are career military people who know the responsibilities inherent in their choice of occupation. We no longer have conscription. It is time we recognized that fact. They are in the armed forces because they are concerned about defending all citizens and are prepared to make major personal sacrifices. The least we can do is treat them fairly.

Summary trials have been abandoned in Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia. Why should Canada insist on continuing this old tradition?

The NDP believes this bill is headed in the right direction by further harmonizing the military justice and the civilian justice systems. However, it does not address key issues involved in reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system or in reinforcing the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I have met veterans in my riding who are proud of the work they have done. Every year, we honour them on Remembrance Day. However, perhaps the best way to thank them would be to give those who follow in their footsteps a little more respect.

Ultimately, I believe that the Conservatives have missed an opportunity with Bill C-15. They are delaying Canada's entry into the 21st century.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

He is trying to clarify the debate and the discussion. I would just like to point out that my colleague said that we claimed that only 29 recommendations are included in Bill C-15. In fact, we said that only 28 recommendations are included, not 29. I can understand why he might have the number 29 in mind, but that has to do with a whole other debate and has nothing to do with the military justice system.

This bill is short on measures that would ensure that our soldiers are treated properly. Things were forgotten along the way because the Conservatives are not doing a good job. This is another example of their incompetence. They cannot seem to keep their eye on the ball and work diligently at every stage.

We think important changes are lacking, including changes to address summary trials and their repercussions and minor offences that result in criminal records. Strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission is also very important to us, as is reforming the grievance system in order to allow civilians to become members of this very important board.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been having some problems listening and it is not because my ears do not hear. I understand the member might have difficulty counting. My understanding is that he claims only 29 of the recommendations made by the late Chief Justice Lamer have been implemented by the government.

The facts speak differently. I wonder if the member could comment on that. Specifically, there were 88 recommendations made from the 2003 report, but 81 of these recommendations were accepted by the government. In fact, 29 have been implemented already, either through other legislation, regulation or policy changes. I understand that 36 are currently contained in Bill C-15.

What the member is saying is obviously an accounting error. I know the NDP, as a rule, make a lot of accounting errors because they spend much more money than is actually available through taxes from Canadians. Could the member just stick to the facts and comment on the fact that of the 88 recommendations made, 81 have actually been implemented in some way, either through legislation, regulation or are in other bills? Could the member comment on that in particular?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak after my colleague, who gave an excellent speech, not only on the substance of the bill, but also on its form and the Conservatives' process of introducing omnibus bills, proroguing Parliament and not respecting the work of parliamentarians. We are being repeatedly gagged: over 30 gag orders in a year and a half.

This highlights how the majority Conservative government is undermining the health of our democracy and respect for the work of parliamentarians. This bill is yet another example of that. In a way, the government is not respecting the work of parliamentarians because we are being asked to redo something that was already done once before.

I really liked the analogy that it is as though the government took the previous version instead of the new version of the bill out of the photocopier. The government figured it was no big deal, that it would all be sorted out in committee, since it would ask parliamentarians to redo what their predecessors had already done. It is a waste of time. The Conservatives are used to wasting money. Now, they are wasting time.

Before outlining all our concerns with this bill, I would like to make something clear. When we discuss justice or correctional systems issues that affect people's lives, we must not underestimate the importance of these debates and discussions in our society.

Mr. Speaker, you are more aware of the repercussions of the justice system, whether civilian or military, than many people here. Today we are pleased to be discussing the military justice system that affects the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces.

We New Democrats believe that some elements that are not in the current bill should be there in order to improve the bill and respond to the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people in our armed forces. The men and women in our armed forces serve under extremely strict and severe rules of discipline. We understand why that is, of course. However, it is important that they have an equally strict justice system that is functional and well managed in order to ensure that justice is done, that they are not victims of inequity and that the consequences do not follow them into their lives after they leave the armed forces.

Most people join the armed forces when they are quite young. It is not often that someone my age signs up. Thus, they are in the prime of life when they finish their service. They will need to continue working, to find a job and housing, and perhaps they will want to travel or study abroad. But under the current system, there are consequences from offences that are minor, but serious within the Canadian Forces, which we acknowledge. And that can leave its mark—it has been discussed to some extent—such as a criminal record that will complicate their lives.

We are aware of that, and I think that many Quebeckers and Canadians would be shocked to learn that people who risk their lives, their safety and their health while serving their country could be penalized for the role they have played. If they committed a similar offence in civilian life, the consequences and the price to pay would be less significant. That needs to be said. We must discuss this so that Canadians and Quebeckers have confidence in the military justice system. At this time, major improvements are needed in order to respect the sacrifices being asked of the men and women who serve in our armed forces.

In our opinion, the key issues in reforming the system are the issue of summary trials, which we will come back to; the existing grievance system; and the need to strengthen the powers of the Military Police Complaints Commission. This is not our only request for strengthening the powers of certain commissioners or officers; I am spending my days arguing in favour of more powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, but that is another topic.

There is a lot of background to Bill C-15, which we are studying today. We have been considering this matter and trying to find ways to improve it for some time now. In 2003, Antonio Lamer, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, tabled a report on his independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations on military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the roles and powers of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Bill C-15 is the response to those recommendations. However, only 28 of them were included in the Conservatives' bill. What happened to the other 60? They suddenly disappeared with a wave of the magic wand by the Conservatives, who feel they are not necessary. However, we think the recommendations contain important ideas on necessary improvements to the military justice system.

Bill C-15 is the latest version of a bill that is part of a long legislative saga. Let us not forget bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007 and an election subsequently called in 2008. The prorogation that killed Bill C-7 was caused by the Conservative Prime Minister, who was afraid his government would be overturned by legitimately elected parliamentarians democratically representing the citizens of Canada. He therefore chose to shut down Parliament rather than step up to his responsibilities.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came back with a vengeance, simplifying the structure of courts martial and establishing a method for choosing the kind of court martial most consistent with the civilian justice system. In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced as a response to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 Senate committee report. It contained provisions respecting military justice issues, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and certain provisions respecting the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Bill C-15 is essentially similar to the version of Bill C-41 that the Senate committee introduced in the last Parliament, of which I was obviously not yet a member. The amendments made to it include some aspects that were already there, whereas others have been forgotten along the way. It is as though Tom Thumb left some pebbles along his path but lost a few.

Some ideas in the amendments introduced by the NDP are thus not included in Bill C-15, and yet they are important: provisions respecting the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, which is a direct response to a Lamer report recommendation; changes in the composition of grievance committees so that they include more civilians—we have to open the door and welcome people who have a different perspective, outlook or viewpoint than those of people who have come directly from the Canadian Forces because we believe that would help strike a balance—and provisions guaranteeing that a person convicted of an offence in a summary trial is not unfairly subject to a criminal record. Once again, we are being forced to do a job that has already been done.

The bill contains many important reforms. There is a silver lining because there are some good measures in the bill. In fact, improvements have been made. However, we believe that we must do much more to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces have a good justice system. For these reasons, the NDP will be voting against Bill C-15 at second reading stage.

Important work remains to be done, including reforming the summary trial system. Amendments made to Bill C-15 do not do enough to correct the injustice of summary trials. At present, a conviction results in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the accused being able to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial, and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. We believe that this ignores the principles of natural justice that are features of legal systems around the world. The fact that the commanding officer is the judge can sometimes cause problems with the impartiality of his judgment and ruling.

Minor offences, such as insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, and absence without leave, do not warrant the harsh consequences of a criminal record. We believe that, to be fair to our soldiers, we have to improve the bill. We hope to work with all members to ensure that justice can finally be done for the people working in the Canadian Forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his speech.

I would just like to make a comment at this point. I was not here during the previous Parliament, and so I was unable to contribute to the amendments to Bill C-41, which was before the House at that time. Nevertheless, I am shocked to hear what happened to Bill C-41 when the House returned and reintroduced it as Bill C-15 without the amendments that were submitted and adopted by the committee.

Like most of my colleagues, I am quite concerned about what can happen in committee, despite the government's claim that it is open to amendments. That is what my committee was told in the case of a number of bills, unfortunately, but as we heard this morning, most bills were not passed with amendments. I am shocked to see that the government does not want to work with the opposition parties as it did before.

I just wanted to make this comment to my colleague.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the NDP skate on this bill, mentioning words like “bad rules”. I am not sure if the member is aware of the report of the second independent review, done by former Chief Justice LeSage. I will quote quickly from it. It states:

It is also significant to note the comment of former Chief Justice Lamer who stated, “Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence”. I proceed, as did former Chief Justices Dickson and Lamer, from the premise that the military justice system is sound, but some modifications will assist in ensuring its continued strength and viability.

Those modifications are in the bill. However, the underpinnings of the system have been found by three former justices to be sound. Does the hon. member want to insert his judgment over that of former Chief Justices Lamer or LeSage in finding that the underpinnings are somehow not sound, when this has been judicially studied and found to be sound?

He uses words like “bad rules”. No, these are good rules and Bill C-15 improves the rules. Why is the NDP holding up this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure I enter into this debate because both on form and substance the New Democrats have pointed out what often fails the government on the process that has been used on this very important bill.

As my colleagues have said, the official title of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, allows for some improvements that are long overdue with respect to the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces when they face any kind of charges or penalties and how those are then carried out by court martial or other services that the Canadian Forces provide. That is what the act seeks to do.

As I said in my question to my friend from Hamilton, this is not the first time the House has seen the bill. We have seen it a number of times. In the two most recent presentations of the bill, it was by the Conservatives' own hand that the bill was killed, once through prorogation, when the Prime Minister was worried much more about his job than the jobs of Canadians. By proroguing Parliament, the government clearly knew it would wipe out all legislation that was on the table at the time. That was the consequence of the Prime Minister's action. That was his choice and his choice alone.

The second time the bill was introduced into Parliament it was killed by a second act of the Conservative government. That was forcing an early election upon Canadians, breaking the Conservatives' own fixed election date laws.

I remember back in the Reform Party days when the Conservatives believed in a reformed Senate, for example, rather than stuffing it full of one's friends and cronies, which, by the way, the Conservatives have also done. The Reform movement that came predominantly out of the west, but also from Ontario and other parts, believed in the idea that fixed election dates were important. It took some of that enormous power away from the sitting government to determine when the election would be called because that was fundamentally an undemocratic power that the government, under our system, held. Therefore, fixed election dates were promoted and campaigned upon.

I remember the Minister of Justice campaigning upon this as something very important for Canadians to rely upon and that the government would introduce legislation that would allow Canadians to know when the next election would be called and that it could not be manipulated by the sitting government to play to its favour.

I remember the member for Peterborough, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, also talking about the importance of having that assuredness so democracy would be given a fair shot every time, that every party and all Canadians would know when the next election would come.

That was inconvenient for the Prime Minister. He wanted an election at a different time, so he called it early and killed this exact legislation for a second time.

Most recent the government actually tried a tactic, a trick if you will, Mr. Speaker, in the House that tried to force and extend the hours of sitting so Parliament would suddenly sit all night to get through debate on the bill because it was now in such a panic over these reforms that were so essential.

The undemocratic tendencies of the government have been well documented. The Conservatives have introduced more motions of closures and shutting down of debate than almost any government in Canadian history, which is passing strange to Canadians. After all, they have that coveted majority they narrowly won in the last election. We would think, with having the most votes in the House, it would allow them a certain level of maturity and calm on that side, to not have to abuse Parliament's rules to constantly invoke closure, time allocations and shutting down debate in Canada's centre of democracy in Parliament.

Yet the Conservatives get impatient. They get frustrated. They get a little incompetent from time to time and that incompetence then forces them to hit the panic button, shut down debate one more time and then try to blame somebody else for their own failures.

On Bill C-15, we have talked a bit about the process that we have reached on this point. One last note on that, and it has been well made but it has to be driven home for my Conservative colleagues who ask us why we simply cannot trust them. They have said that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Safety have made comments and that those comments should hold that they will fix the mistakes still in the bill.

It gives us pause because we went through that process as good members of Parliament, going through the committee stage, hearing the witnesses that came forward. We rely upon expert testimony on this side. We rely on people who are actually professionals and base their testimony on science and things like evidence.

I know the Conservative government has a certain allergic reaction to facts and figures being presented before it, but we relied on key testimony in making amendments to the legislation, which I will get into in a moment. These amendments were absolutely critical to improving the safety and certainty of our men and women who served in our services throughout Canada and around the world.

In relying on those expert witnesses, we found that there were some fundamental failures as the legislation was then put and we amended the bill. Parliament is supposed to make legislation better by finding the mistakes, look for corrections and fix them.

You will know that, Mr. Speaker, through your experience and vast knowledge of this place. I think you are regularly voted by your colleagues as one of the most, if not the most, knowledgeable members of Parliament consistently. You are even getting cheers from the Conservative benches and a standing ovation from the minister.

However, when legislation is done poorly, to then go back and correct the legislation is both very expensive within Parliament, with the amount of time we have to spend to fix it, and it can also be very expensive in human terms for the Canadians who are affected by bad legislation and rules. Therefore, could there be anything more serious than what happens under a court martial situation? If the rules and guidelines that are meant to both serve the defence and prosecution are badly designed, as they are in the bill, then clearly that will have some real human impact.

The Conservatives and the minister have said that we should not worry as they will make those corrections, which were already made a year or year and a half ago. However, it is confusing and concerning to us that the Conservatives have promised to fix a bill that was already fixed.

When the Conservatives reintroduced the bill for the third or perhaps fourth time now, all those improvements that were made last time around were suddenly gone. It is as if they pulled the old broken one off the shelf and reintroduced it. We are confused because we fixed that old broken one and made it better for the Canadian Forces, our troops and the process for any allegations that might be made.

The government said that it agreed with all those changes, but it did not put it in the legislation. The Conservatives so much agreed with the changes that they would reintroduce them into the legislation when the bill went to the committee stage. What lunacy is that? That does not make any sense at all.

One has to wonder. This is coming from a government that is going through the final stages of its second omnibus bill this year, which is a massive piece of legislation that traditionally ranged from 15 to 20 pages and affected 3 to 7 pieces of legislation. However, the Conservative omnibus bill affects upwards of 60 to 70 different laws of Canada all in one bill and sometimes strips the law down to virtually nothing, as was done to the environmental assessment. It takes out key pieces of the Fisheries Act such as habitat protection, which suddenly does not matter when it comes to protecting Canada's fisheries.

The massive omnibus bill two had to fix the mistakes made in the spring omnibus bill one, which the Conservatives rushed through the House. They did that by shutting down debate and invoking time allocation. They rushed things through and got it wrong. Now we are back taking up Parliament's time with the fixes to their first mistakes, and they have done this repeatedly.

I remember the Internet snooping bill. Canadians will remember this one well because it was so badly explained by the Minister of Public Safety. He said that we should support this bad legislation that the government had and allow the police to look at one's email traffic and whatever website one happened to be looking at without any judicial supervision at all.

I am sure the Minister of Justice had some pause when he saw the drafting of the legislation. The basic idea of invasion of one's privacy requires that there be some sort of oversight, that the police cannot take the discretion to go into a home, business or someone's email account without some judicial oversight. However, the Minister of Public Safety said to us that we were either with this bad legislation that allowed people to snoop into our emails and websites or we must be with the child pornographers.

My goodness, if there has ever been a lesson on how not to convince the public of one's initiatives, it was done by that minister, and the bill seems to have disappeared.

Therefore, on key things such as taking out more minor offences that are now in this judicial system, the grievance committee that is obviously flawed because it does not have enough civilian participation, the Military Police Complaints Commission that does not have enough oversight with these new powers that are given, on the substance of the bill, the Conservatives got it wrong again.

Of course the New Democrats will stand up when Conservatives get it wrong. The New Democrats stand up often because it is often that Conservatives get it wrong.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, although it always terrifies me when one of my colleagues asks me to get into the head of a Conservative member of Parliament. It is not a space where I am very comfortable, I have to say.

However, the member is absolutely right. When this bill was last before committee, the New Democrats participated in that process in a very constructive way. We moved amendments that the government deemed to be appropriate and, in fact, very helpful to strengthening the bill, and yet, when the Conservatives reintroduced the bill, which is now Bill C-15, none of those amendments that they agreed to not that long ago are in the current bill.

I heard the member opposite ask a question to the member for Halifax a little while ago, asking us why we were so reluctant to trust that the committee process could work once again. He wanted to know why we did not trust the minister that those amendments would be adopted again. If the minister adopted those amendments once, why are they not in the current version of the bill we are debating here today? Clearly, the Conservatives have no intention of adopting those amendments again or they would be in the text as we have it before us today.

I must say that trust is something that we are not particularly long on in this House at the best of times, but when we actually have on the record the government's refusal to strengthen a bill in a way that it agreed to earlier it takes these issues of trust to a whole new low level, unfortunately.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I do believe that bringing the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system is a step in the right direction. However, there are some key issues where the bill falls so far short that it is impossible for me to support it at second reading.

I will quickly highlight the key issues. The bill falls short when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Those three areas are critical when we go back to first principles with respect to military justice.

I would remind members of a speech made by my friend and colleague, the NDP defence critic, the member of Parliament for St. John's East. I think he articulated the challenge best in his opening remarks on this bill. He reminded us that it was important to have a good look at our whole military justice structure because there were a number of problems that needed to be resolved.

Military justice needs to fit in with our entire justice system. We need to ensure there is conformity between the kinds of laws we have in relation to military justice, as well as our general justice system, certainly in terms of the fundamental principles of law. We need to understand that there are differences between military law and our general legal system, and there are good reasons for that. The military justice system recognizes the relationship between the justice system and discipline within the military. There is a significant importance to discipline in the military.

This is what the author of the only significant legal text in Canada used in law schools, Michel Drapeau, has said about the importance of discipline in military law:

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

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

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

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

Here in Canada, we have a voluntary military and the military justice system must be seen as equitable and fair. Otherwise, we will not only have a justice problem but we may very well also have an operational and recruitment problem. We must recognize that people who volunteer for military service have a right to know that they will be treated fairly.

Therefore, we must emphasize the justice side as well as the military side. We want, expect and need a high level of morale in our system among our troops and we demand loyalty, but that is a two-way street and the system must be seen as being fair.

That is the crux of my concern with Bill C-15 as it is before us today. Yes, it finally takes steps to update the military justice system but it does not go far enough in recognizing that the members of the Canadian Forces who are held to an extremely high standard of discipline, in turn deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard.

I will now speak to the three issues that I referenced at the beginning of my speech. I hope I will be able to address each one in some detail, although I am always dismayed by the fact that we only get 10 minutes in these debates to address issues as important as this one. Nonetheless, I will give it a whirl and I will try to be a concise as possible.

I will talk first about reform to the summary trial system. The amendments in Bill C-15 simply do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel, there are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes undue hardships on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for very minor service offences.

For example, some of the minor service offences include insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absences without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline but they are not worthy of a criminal record.

Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine less than $500, to no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill but it does not go far enough.

At committee stage last March, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also extended the list of punishments that may be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a fine equal up to one month basic pay or another minor punishment. This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15 and we want to see it included.

A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records can make getting a job, renting an apartment and travelling very difficult indeed. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

A similar unfairness persists with respect to the grievance system. The way the system currently works, the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. Currently, it is staffed entirely of retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. In other words, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society.

Our NDP amendment provides that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41 but was not retained in Bill C-15. It is important that this amendment be included once again in this bill.

Finally, I will briefly touch on the third point related to the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces provost marshal will be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although a step forward, we in the NDP believe that more needs to be done to empower the commission.

Care has not been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions empowering it to act as an oversight body. The Military Police Complaints Commission must be empowered by a legislative provision that will allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament.

I will conclude by summarizing all of these issues in one sentence. Systems that impose significant penalties on individuals require increased procedural protections and surely we can all agree that the brave men and women who serve our country deserve nothing less.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot really talk about Bill C-15 unless we talk about the Lamer report. Contrary to some of my colleagues across the floor it is not the “Lay-mer” report, it is actually the Lamer report.

In 2003, the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, who is a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, presented a report that made recommendations on how we could improve our Military Police Complaints Commission. Looking at that report and then looking at Bill C-15, I can say with confidence, as many of my colleagues have, that the NDP will vote against Bill C-15.

Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. The NDP absolutely acknowledges that. However, it does not go far enough. I can only imagine the bill will get through second reading and get to committee because the Conservatives will vote in favour of it. When it does get to committee, I am very hopeful that we can bring in some witnesses and talk about how to improve the bill and what kinds of amendments we should make to it to make it stronger and to actually implement the recommendations that were in the Lamer report.

What kinds of amendments would we want to see? When we are looking at Bill C-15, the NDP takes the same approach as former chief justice Lamer took in his report . I will read from the summary because there is a nice set-up in the summary of the report. It says:

While not entirely without room for improvement, it is my conclusion that the military justice system is generally working well. However, the grievance process, also a subject of Bill C-25, unfortunately is not. The large number of outstanding grievances—close to 800 at last count, some outstanding for ten or more years—is unacceptable. As a result, I have made many recommendations to ensure that grievances are dealt with much more quickly and in a fair and transparent manner.

This set-up for the report is the same kind of balanced approach that the NDP is trying to take to the bill. We do believe, very much so, that the military justice system is working well. However, there are flaws and when there are flaws, and perhaps more importantly when there are solutions or fixes for those flaws, we must act to implement those changes.

There are important reforms in Bill C-15 and the NDP does support the long overdue update to the military justice system. However, there are important measures that need to be included in the bill and without these measures being included, the bill is incomplete. If the bill is incomplete, it is something that we should not support.

I will start with the grievance process. I will refer directly to the Lamer report. Chief Justice Lamer wrote that although the grievance process that was created seems to be sound on its face, in theory, the way that it actually operates has not been sound. That is really important. We need to pay attention to the way things play out in real life, not just how they look on paper.

He pointed out that grievances still caught in the process after 10 or 12 years are not unheard of and those of two or more years at the level of Chief of Defence Staff seem to be the norm. He further pointed out that many grievers complained that they were not advised as to the reasons for their delays or where their grievances were in the grievance process. Therefore, the Lamer report recommended new measures to end these unacceptable delays, reduce bureaucracy and ultimately increase transparency.

His first recommendation in this section was that the Chief of Defence Staff must be given the power to delegate decision making in respect of all grievances to someone under his command and control, except those that may have significant implications for the Canadian Forces.

Members will remember that this recommendation came out in 2003 and here we are in 2012. This flaw still exists for some unimaginable reason. As I said earlier, when there is a flaw we have to act to correct that flaw, particularly when we have solutions. This is a very solid recommendation and I do not understand why Bill C-15 would not take into consideration something as basic and simple as this. This is not a recommendation that creates bureaucracy and red tape or requires money or even thinking outside the box too much. It is a pretty straightforward recommendation. Therefore, I do believe it is incumbent on us to act and to make sure that Bill C-15 would include a sound recommendation such as this, because the flaw still exists.

The Chief of Defence Staff presently lacks the authority to resolve any and all financial aspects arising from a grievance, in direct contradiction to the recommendation of the Lamer report. Despite the fact the Minister of National Defence at the time agreed to this recommendation, there have not been any concrete steps over the past eight years to implement this recommendation.

It is worth pointing out that the bill has appeared in different incarnations and at committee in other Parliaments. The NDP did propose an amendment to this effect at committee when the bill was called Bill C-41. The consensus at the table was that it was a sound recommendation and the NDP will fight to include a similar amendment in Bill C-15.

At committee I will watch with great interest the testimony and discussion around the reform of the summary trial system. Here, I will say that I am proud to represent the riding of Halifax, a military town, as I am sure members know. It is the home of Canada's east coast navy. Although I meet members of the Canadian Forces every day in their role as service members, I also meet them and their families in and about the community, because they are not separate from the community. They are not separate from us. Rather, they are like us and part of our community. They are our neighbours and hockey coaches. Their families are in our schools and they volunteer there. They are part of who we are as the community of Halifax. We therefore come to know them and their families quite well and understand the incredible sacrifices their families make because one or both parents are serving. It is not easy to be a military family.

I have visited the military family resource centre in Halifax a few times and have had great discussions there. I heard first-hand from spouses about the difficulties of having their partners away for so long and not having control over that process. They are constantly moving, so even doing some things that we might think simple, such as buying or selling a house, causes great stress and often it is just one parent who has to do that. The kids have to adjust to new schools, find new friends, and figure out their new community as they move around. They undergo a lot of stress and pressure and really do sacrifice a lot because one or both parents serve in the Canadian Forces.

Then imagine a forces member going through all of these sacrifices with their families and at the end being released with a criminal record. Can we imagine how difficult that would make post-service life, and how hard it would be to get approved for an apartment or find a job outside of the Canadian Forces? That is a distinct possibility because the way the system is set up now, quarrelling or making a disturbance or even being drunk are considered summary offences. The person could end up with a criminal record because of these charges. God forbid that people in the rest of Canada, or perhaps even people here in the chamber, should end up with a criminal record for drunkenness.

While the bill does change that fact, the NDP would like to expand the list of minor offences because a lot of them are not worthy of a criminal record. If one thinks about the impact these minor offences would have on families and the community if considered cause for a criminal record outside of the Canadian Forces, they are unfair and unjust. If we talk to other organizations in the community they would agree that this is something that needs to be reformed. Therefore, I will watch the discussion on this subject at committee with bated breath.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Bill C-15 was preceded by Bill C-41, in which numerous amendments were made and passed by the then parliamentary committee. However, these amendments are not seen in the current Bill C-15.

Why on earth would we, in a previous Parliament, make good changes to a bill and then overlook them in the current session?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my colleague for his question.

The NDP is in favour of improving and modernizing the military justice system. However, as my colleague mentioned, we feel that Bill C-15 is flawed and does not go far enough. In his opinion and in that of many members who participated in the debate, it is important to correct the inequities in the summary trial system.

Could the hon. member comment a bit further on that?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to oppose this bill. It is a particularly glaring example of how this government thinks it has a monopoly on good ideas and that no one else has any, especially not the opposition.

Our party has long been calling for changes to ensure greater justice for members of the Canadian Forces. There is no denying that this is the fundamental principle behind this bill and our discussion. Why should a soldier, who is a citizen like anyone else, not have access to a fair and balanced justice system where human dignity is a priority? Whether we are soldiers or not, a person's career choice should have no bearing on the level of justice he or she can expect to enjoy. It is that simple. Changes have to be made.

Unfortunately, this bill does not go far enough and contains measures that are sometimes inappropriate. I would like to point out that it provides for greater latitude in sentencing and introduces new sentences, such as absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and restitution. It makes changes to the membership of the court martial panel according to the rank of the accused, and to the summary trial limitation period and the option of waiving the limitation period at the request of the accused. The responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process have also been changed.

In light of all these changes, there are questions that must be asked. How is this of benefit to the simple soldier, who needs recourse to a justice system that does not penalize him unduly and does not jeopardize his future after his military career? The proposed changes may even strengthen some of the powers of certain senior levels in relation to the ordinary soldier. We must be sure that our constituents can benefit from measures needed to defend themselves in these situations. The bill appears to be a step in the right direction toward greater standardization of the military justice system. However, it does not address the key issues in reforming the summary trial process and the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. These are three things that would give greater strength to ordinary soldiers in our Canadian Forces.

We have supported updating the military justice system for a long time now. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to extremely high disciplinary standards, and they deserve a justice system that is subject to standards that are just as high.

Nevertheless, we will oppose Bill C-15 at second reading, as it contains a number of shortcomings, which, we hope, will be discussed in committee if the bill is passed at second reading, something that is very likely, given the majority held by the Conservative government. Here are the major amendments that we are proposing.

The amendments to Bill C-15, for instance, do not deal adequately with the injustice of the summary trial process. Currently, a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces leads to a criminal record. Summary trials are held even though the accused are unable to consult with counsel. There is no appeal, nor is there a transcript of the trial.

Furthermore, the trial judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This is too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences. These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absences without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command.

We must be very careful, because it is obvious that soldiers, like us, have good days and bad days. They are subject to a great deal of pressure and stress, particularly in combat situations and other difficult situations. It is also perfectly normal that soldiers, who are often very young, should commit minor offences. I am not saying that people are not very smart when they are young, but they may be a little more adventurous and resist authority a little more. It is normal for people to go through this stage of life. Penalizing a soldier who has committed a minor offence by saddling him with a criminal record seems completely unreasonable. We must be absolutely sure that measures are put in place to determine whether or not an offence is a serious one.

Bill C-15 also provides for an exemption so that certain offences will no longer be included in a criminal record, if there is a minor punishment under the act or a fine of $500 or less. That is not necessarily a bad thing. That is one of the positive aspects of this bill, but in our opinion it does not go far enough.

Last March, when Bill C-41 was considered in committee, the amendments proposed by the NDP called for the list of offences that could be considered to be minor to be extended to 27 from five. The question is therefore what is considered to be a minor offence or a major offence. In our opinion, too many offences are considered to be major. The list of offences considered to be minor should be extended to 27 from five, which is entirely reasonable.

In addition, the amendment proposed by the NDP called for the list of sentences that can be imposed by a tribunal without the offender having a criminal record to be extended as well, with the addition of a severe reprimand, a reprimand or a fine of up to one month of basic pay or other forms of minor punishments. I reiterate: one month’s pay.

In speaking with my military constituents, I have realized that they are not wealthy. There is no point in pretending otherwise: an average soldier who is not an officer does not get the highest pay in the world. Their pay cannot be compared in any way with a member of Parliament’s pay. Fining someone a month’s pay is a harsh punishment, particularly when they have a young family to feed. Soldiers often have young families. We have to acknowledge that this is a severe punishment.

As a final point, I will stay on the subject of that amendment, to complete my comments in that regard. That amendment was an important step forward for summary trials. However, since it was not incorporated into Bill C-15, we want it to be included again.

A criminal record can make life after a military career extremely difficult. Having a criminal record can make it very hard to get a job, rent an apartment or travel abroad.

We ask soldiers to make the transition between military life and civilian life, but if they commit a minor offence, they have a criminal record. That is completely illogical.

In conclusion, a bill about military justice has to take into account the fact that our soldiers are also citizens who deserve justice.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise after many of my colleagues have spoken in the last few months to Bill C-15 on military justice.

In 2003, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who was the former Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, presented his report containing an independent review of the National Defence Act. That report contained 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, grievance procedures, the Provost Marshal and so on.

The bill is the legislative response to these recommendations. Thus far, however, only 28 recommendations have been implemented in legislation, regulation or by a change in practice.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the Lamer report, and in essence this bill is similar to Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. The amendments carried over include court martial composition and military judge security of tenure.

However, other important amendments—and it is really important that we all be aware of this—that passed committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session did not end up in the bill. These include the following three NDP amendments that I will mention.

First, the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process: This was amended clause 6 in Bill C-41, responding directly to Chief Justice Lamer's recommendation. That is not here.

Second, changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership: This was an amended clause in Bill C-41. Again, this is not in Bill C-15.

Third and finally, a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record: This is amended clause 75 in Bill C-41. This last amendment from Bill C-41 that did not reappear in the bill will be the main focus of my own remarks.

The NDP will be opposing the bill at second reading. However, we do hope that some of these shortcomings that I will be emphasizing, and have been emphasized by some 50 or 60 of my colleagues in the House, will be looked at seriously. The practice of committees of the House will vary somewhat in this case, I hope, and some amendments will come back at third reading.

I want to clarify that the amendments to Bill C-15 do not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. Summary trials are by far the most used military tribunal within the military justice system. The purpose of a summary trial is to deal with minor military-related offences. The objective is to quickly deal with alleged offences within the unit, so members can be returned to active service as quickly as possible, which helps promote and maintain discipline within the unit.

In his brief, Colonel Michel Drapeau stated that the summary trial was the most frequently used disciplinary method to deal with offences committed by Canada's military personnel. In 2008-09, 1,865 cases in total—96%—were resolved through summary trial, while only 67 cases—4%—were heard through court martial.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the forces can result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals, there are no transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer.

This reflects an undue harshness when certain members of the forces who are convicted of various minor service offences end up with a criminal record, leave the service at some point and enter into society, with a criminal record and everything we know that can imply for their prospects, whether it is looking for jobs or advancing in the educational sphere. The fact that people have criminal records can sometimes be looked at when they want to upgrade their education.

Some of the minor service offences include insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absences without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These, by definition, could be extremely important matters to military discipline, as we can imagine, every one that I have just listed. Discipline and efficient functioning of a military unit has to be at the very core of how the military functions, and we can see how these could be of great instrumental concern to the military. However, they are not worthy of a criminal record, I suggest.

Bill C-15 makes exemptions for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine less than $500. These would no longer result in a criminal record. This is to be welcomed, but my point is that the recommendations in Chief Justice Lamer's report and the NDP amendments in Bill C-41 have to be taken seriously. We have to go further.

What we propose, by increasing from 5 to 27 the number of offences that would be exempt from a criminal record after summary conviction, responds to a very serious need in the military to hear that society, outside the military, understands the incredibly tough job people expect of members of the military and the pressures they are under that can often lead to summary conviction trials. People also want to welcome them back into society without the burden that is the worst kind of send-off for their service to our country—namely, a criminal record.

A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult, to put it mildly. It can make getting a job, renting an apartment and travelling very difficult. Imagine having a criminal record and trying to travel to the United States these days. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn, frankly, that people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

I have spoken to my colleague from Repentigny, who has had some experience in the military. He spoke in the House, not by way of a speech but by way of several interventions, and I want to put the interventions on record as part of my speech so they can be integrated into a broader theme.

First, the member for Repentigny stated:

My experience has shown me that soldiers are subjected to conditions that are extremely different from what is experienced in the civilian world.

People are encouraged to join the Canadian Forces in order to gain experience and come out with some incredible tools. I made mistakes, minor ones. It happens to everyone. For example, you go before a superior officer and get charged, fined, patted on the back and told not to do it again. That is part of life's lessons. We are talking about young people who enlist at the age of 18, 19 or 20 and who need guidance. I do not think that providing guidance for minor offences involves encouraging young people to join the Canadian Forces, exposing them to extreme conditions and handing them a criminal record on their way out. That does not work.

In another intervention, my colleague from Repentigny had the following to say:

For the last 10, 15 or 20 years, professionals, members of the military and experts have been requesting changes that should be made.

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

I presume he means any guarantees that they actually will modify in light of common sense.

Finally, the member for Repentigny said something that I think is indeed disturbing, if what he says is true, and I believe it to be true. I spoke to him yesterday to confirm that Hansard is correct. He stated:

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

That is the understatement of the century.

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to talk about military justice, which is a very special area within the justice system.

Military justice differs from traditional justice in that the goal of the former is to ensure respect for the military hierarchy, while the principle underlying the latter is to ensure harmonious relationships between equals.

In military justice, a general is not equal to a private, and vice versa. This is a major problem because capital punishment still exists in military justice. Quite simply, in military law, the use of lethal force can be authorized against an unarmed individual. The individual can even be taken by surprise. A classic example of this is a pilot who attacks a supply convoy identified as belonging to the enemy. The death penalty exists in military law; it is a rule of engagement. Soldiers are authorized to use force against a group of people identified as enemies. That is serious.

Because the use of force and violence is legal, it must be strictly controlled and disciplined. We can all agree on that. The problem is that these elements of control and discipline must not strip soldiers of their basic rights. I have some examples of trivial offences.

This is an example of insubordination. A soldier returns to the base on Monday. He did not sleep all night because his children were sick, he is a little irritable and he swears at a superior. Under current military law, with a summary trial he could be given a punishment that results in a criminal record. The soldier, who has sworn at a superior, will have a criminal record.

Under civilian law, and under labour law, when a person is punished for the first time, they are given a verbal warning. A note is made in their file and after one year it is removed. That is the difference: one individual is subject to military justice; the other is subject to the standard rules of labour law.

If the operator of a tank has an accident and injures someone, he may face a summary trial and be given a harsh punishment, which can result in a criminal record.

In my province, Quebec, unless the person is found to be criminally negligent, there will be no punishment. Under insurance law, the injured person will be compensated by insurance, and it stops there. There are no penalties, not even a report, if the person who caused the accident did not do so intentionally. There is no punishment.

It is different in military law. Military personnel may find themselves with a criminal record. In Quebec, an explosives expert who sets off a dynamite charge but has miscalculated its size will face charges under administrative law. He will be prosecuted for a professional error. He may be sentenced to take courses or private tutoring. In the military, a criminal record may be the result, and that is serious. A person is thus branded because of the simple fact he or she was in the military and committed an error that any civilian might have committed, with a completely different punishment, if any.

That is where this becomes unacceptable. It is important and essential to maintain respect for hierarchy and discipline in the Canadian Forces. Still, these people, who are giving their best efforts for their country, should not be branded for life. It is not easy to leave military life and find work with a criminal record, especially for offences that would not even lead to a court appearance in civilian life.

The Supreme Court considered the issue and found some things that needed correction. Bill C-15 does offer some corrections. Are they enough? Unfortunately not. Several elements are missing. Amendments have been made, but only 28 of the 88 recommendations in Justice Lamer's report have been retained. That is not many. All 88 recommendations were worthwhile. They were essential to give all our military personnel the same protection the rest of us have in our everyday lives.

One of these essential amendments concerned the fact that 60% of the members of the grievance board should be civilians, so that the person handling the grievance is not directly involved and has some independence from the officer corps. We are not rejecting the officer corps, whose expertise and knowledge are substantial, but civilians should be in the majority on the grievance board. That is not unreasonable. In addition, more authority should be granted to the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process. If he is looking into a grievance, he must have some authority to be able to collect pertinent information.

At present, a summary trial leads to a criminal record. That is a fundamental issue on which we absolutely do not agree. In order to warrant a criminal record, a person would have to be court-martialled, in a court where he would have legal assistance and be able to present a defence. If the offence is serious enough to warrant a criminal record, a summary trial is not appropriate; the matter should go straight to the Supreme Court. Out of more than 1,800 cases that were prosecuted, only 67 went to a court martial.

If the offence is deemed to be serious enough to appear on a criminal record, offenders should be tried through a court martial, where they will have the opportunity to present a defence and justify their actions before an independent judge rather than before their immediate supervisor.

We have heard some important quotations about this, including one from retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who was the secretary to the Canadian Forces Chief of the Defence Staff for a number of years. He was responsible for writing the rules of engagement, which is a big responsibility. He said:

...until you, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted. As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

That is exactly what must be corrected, and we must do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I start this speech, I am reminded of several historical situations where military commissions failed a society. I go back to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in the United States and the Mary Surratt case. She had run a boarding house where the conspirators had met but had nothing to do with the conspiracy. She was put before a military commission and she was not allowed to speak, and neither were her lawyers, and ultimately she and some others were hanged. That led to a change in the U.S. at that time, which gave every citizen habeas corpus rights, the right to face an accuser to get the evidence against them.

Those who have been here for a couple of terms will know that I spoke out on behalf of Omar Khadr many times in this place, the reason being that the military commission in Guantanamo had been moved off-site to avoid the changes that had been brought in by the Mary Surratt case. From our perspective in Canada, that was seen as an abuse by some, and not so much by others.

In that light we look at our military justice and how it is applied in Canada. I in fact served in the Canadian Forces in 1963 and 1964, which seems like a hundred years ago now, but I was proud to do so. Fortunately for me, I was not in any severe difficulty but I noted at the time the difference between the administration, rules and regulations within the military compared to what civilians had to live with.

Here I would point out that his bill has been before us previously as Bill C-41. It went to committee and the New Democrats worked with the government of the day to try to improve that legislation. The bill did not return to the House and we wound up with an election, so we are back here with this bill for what is probably the third time at least. The good work done in committee the last time was not taken into account in this bill, because it does not include them.

The Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15. While it is called “An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”, the government refers to it as “strengthening military justice”. To my mind, strengthening military justice is about finding a way to balance the rights of military personnel in a similar fashion to what is done in civil society. Just prior to the time I went into the army in 1963, the non-commissioned officers could actually strike a person in the military. That changed just before I went in. There was a little trick they then used to get one's attention. They would stand us at attention and tighten our ties to the point of cutting off our breath. Of course, they were not striking the men any more but succeeded in getting their attention. While that may sound off-topic in this discussion, what we are looking at here is a justice system within the military that in many ways is a throwback to earlier times. That is something that should be addressed, and this bill goes part of the way in doing that.

While the New Democrats have stated that we will be opposing the bill, we are willing to work with the government when it gets to committee, presuming that the government takes it there, to do the best we can to improve it again because we argue that it falls short in key areas.

Our previous amendments included giving the Chief of Defence Staff authority in the grievance process to respond directly to Justice Lamer's recommendations. We felt that it was within the purview of the Chief of Defence Staff to have the authority. We also felt there should be changes in the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian representation. In a democracy, this Parliament is supreme, but the civilian authorities also have to be supreme over the military.

The Canadian military has a great history of serving this Parliament, our country and Canadians. However, when it comes to the administration of justice and these tribunals, there should be a balance between military authority and civilian oversight. Including 60% civilian membership adds a level of accountability, as originally foreseen in Bill C-41. For 10 years we have regularly heard from the government regarding its interest in accountability. Therefore, I am a little surprised that civilian membership was not included as part of the bill's provisions. Hopefully, we will be able to reason our way into that situation at committee and be allowed to add that amendment.

The provision that ensures that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subject to a criminal record is an important one because of the difference in accountability between a civilian court and a commission. The fact that some offences leave one with a criminal record in a military proceeding but not a civilian proceeding is blatantly unfair to the people who serve our country. A person in the military who has perhaps made a mistake would pay for that for the rest of their life, whereas if they had done so as a civilian they would not carry that burden.

Regarding reform of the summary trial system, the amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces can result in a criminal record. The accused are held without the ability to consult counsel. That is why I made the linkage to the Surratt case and Guantanamo Bay as over-the-top situations. Those who do not know the military or have a military background would be quite surprised to know that in a summary trial in Canada the accused cannot consult counsel. We think that is fundamentally wrong. Also, there is no appeal process, nor are there transcripts of the trials. As well, the judge could well be the accused's commanding officer. Most people would see the obvious conflict in the fact that the officer was the very person who allowed the commission to proceed. We are very troubled by that.

At committee stage last March, when Bill C-41 was before us, the NDP amendments to expand the list of minor offences were carried. Again, that goes back to our making sure that our good service people do not receive criminal records for “genuinely” minor offences. We are not proposing that people get away with what they should not be doing, but the list of punishments that might be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record could include a reprimand, a severe reprimand, a fine equal to or up to one month's basic pay, or some other form of minor punishment. The point is that it should not result in a criminal record. Obviously, if the offence were not worthy of time served, it should not be worthy of a criminal offence.

I want to go back to the question of civilian oversight and the need for 60% of the commissions reviewing these cases to be made up of civilian authorities. That balance is important; it would add to the credibility of the system. Over the last 50 years our military service has improved in many ways in this particular area of the justice system. This is an opportunity to move it further forward.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, we oppose passing this bill at second reading.

On October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill C-15 is a response to two reports. The first was issued by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and the second was released by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Our caucus believes that the bill does not meet its objective of standardizing the military and civilian justice systems. The bill also does not answer the key questions about reforming the summary trial and grievance systems. In 2003, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada tabled his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations, but only 28 of them were incorporated into the legislation.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Essentially, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of the Senate committee during the last Parliament.

Many significant reforms are proposed in this bill. The NDP caucus has been in favour of making the necessary updates to the military justice system for a long time now. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to extremely high standards of discipline and deserve a justice system held to comparable standards.

This bill has a number of flaws, which we hope will be addressed in committee if Bill C-15 is passed at second reading. It is thus very important to remember that, in the reform of the summary trial system, the amendments to Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There is no right of appeal and no transcript of the trial.

Furthermore, the “judge” is often the accused's commanding officer. We believe that this is much too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences. These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobedience of a lawful command. These offences can undoubtedly be very significant when it comes to military discipline, but they do not necessarily call for a criminal record.

I would remind the House that in committee in March 2011, the NDP proposed amendments to increase from five to 27 the number of offences that could be considered minor.

It is important to understand that a criminal record can make life after a military career very difficult. Being saddled with a criminal record can make getting a job, renting a place to live and international travel a real nightmare.

Second, there is also the question of reforming the grievance system with an external review committee. At this time, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board does not allow for external review. The NDP amendment proposes that at least 60% of the grievance committee members never have been officers or members of the Canadian Forces.

Although the amendment was adopted in March 2011, for Bill C-41, it was not incorporated into Bill C-15. It is important that the amendment be included again.

Finally, I would like to talk about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline in which the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal will be required to resolve complaints and protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith.

The NDP believes that we must do more to strengthen the commission. Giving the Military Police Complaints Commission more powers in order for it to serve as an oversight body has been very misunderstood. There should be a legislative provision to give the commission more powers so that it can be authorized to investigate and report to Parliament. Our amendments are supported by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and retired Canadian Forces Colonel Michel W. Drapeau, an expert on military law, among others.

The summary trial is by far the most commonly used form of tribunal in the military justice system. It is designed to deal with minor service offences. The objective is to deal quickly with alleged offences within the unit in order to return the member to active service as soon as possible, thereby promoting and maintaining discipline within the unit. Courts martial deal with more serious charges handled by the system and can also deal with less serious charges, depending on the decision of the accused.

This is the definition and the objective of the grievance process:

Grievances involve matters such as benefits, personnel evaluation reports, postings, release from the Canadian Forces, medical issues and harassment—all matters affecting the rights, privileges and other interests of CF members.

Unlike in other organizations, plaintiffs do not have unions or employee associations to pursue their grievances. It is vital for the morale of Canadian Forces members to deal with their grievances in a fair, transparent and prompt manner.

Finally, we want to send a message to members of the Canadian Forces. Our caucus believes that members of the Canadian Forces have to comply with extremely high standards of discipline and that, in return, they deserve a justice system subject to comparable standards.

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments deal with the actual process, something I am fairly keen on, wanting to get a better understanding myself. He makes reference to Bill C-15 and other legislation. There is no doubt that there is frustration within the Liberal Party on numerous legislation. The most recent one would have been the budget bill, where we attempted to get through literally hundreds of amendments and were constantly turned down. On other legislation such as on immigration and so forth where amendments are in fact being brought forward, the government seems to turn a blind eye to it.

Does the member believe as a result of the reaction we receive at committee ultimately should dictate how we vote on the principle of a bill going to committee? In other words, if the principle of the bill is strong enough to allow it at the very least to go to committee, should you vote for it to go to committee, or because of the behaviour of the government in terms of not accepting amendments, do you oppose all bills that would require some form of amendment?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch my colleague's whole speech, but I caught the last few minutes and there are a couple of things I want to point out.

It is not just this member but others who have said that this side had agreed to some amendments the last time that are not here this time, which is misleading the House. There were two amendments we had agreed to last time. One is in Bill C-15 and on the other one, the criminal records aspect, the minister has already stated very clearly that it will come back to committee. The members need to stop misleading the House on that.

With respect to the grievance external review board and its make-up, we did not agree to that the last time. To suggest that somehow we have changed our minds on that is simply not true.

There was a question put to me previously. Of course, I am here to ask questions and not answer them, but I will answer anyway.

There are 36 of the remaining Lamer recommendations that are in Bill C-15. There are 21 that are in fact still under study because they are extremely complex issues and they do require an awful lot of study. We have accepted 81 of the 88 recommendations, 29 have been implemented, 36 are in Bill C-15 and the other 21 are still under study.

I know it is politics, but I wish the opposition would stop misleading the House.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to address you directly, sir. I know that you would never take the opportunity to single me out. You do as you have always done and remind us all to participate in a way that we know we should. I appreciate that reminder.

Clearly, when we look at Bill C-15, we see it is about bringing justice to our brave men and women in the military for whom all in this House have the greatest of admiration and respect. I genuinely believe that. We, as a Parliament, ask them to serve Canada and they come to us voluntarily to serve.

As parliamentarians, we can disagree on what the missions are, but when a decision is ultimately taken in this House, members of the Canadian Forces serve this House and Canadians in general. This legislation should have been about ensuring that their justice system is as robust and as good as we can possibly make it. However, that is where we have let them down.

The reason we are bringing this to the government's attention is that we have such a high regard for the members of the military and hold them in such high esteem because of the service they give to all of us regardless of what role they take on here at home or abroad. We want them to have the most robust system of justice, which we know they deserve, and we should not provide anything less than that.

We have had reports that have been named many times, whether it be the Lamer report, the committee's report or the previous bill, which have been in this House before. We have had all of these things already, not necessarily in this session of the House, but certainly in other sessions. I was here last session of the House, and there was a bill here before that.

We have had all of that information, which has been studied to a certain degree, but where has it disappeared to? What happened to those pieces of legislation that folks agreed were good? Why would we lose those bits and pieces? Why would we not just say, yes, we disagree on certain aspects, but in the end, why would we not look at the pieces that are here?

There are concerns around the complaints commission. For example, a soldier who logs a grievance ends up in front of his or her commanding officer. That is the way the system works in this process. If one does not come out the other side of the process thinking one was treated fairly, then the system does not work.

The issue is not about the decision. Grievers can file grievances and not win, but if they think that the system works, then they just do not like the decision at the end of it, which is fair. Grievers quite often do not like the decision if they do not win. However, if a griever does not think the process is fair, then regardless of what happens in the decision, it is the process that is the annoyance.

I think we need to look at the grievance procedure and ask how we can make it a fair system. How do we make it a system so that those who have to enter it can say to themselves that the system works? They may not like the decision, but they would not complain that the system was unfair. This is much different from thinking that the reason they got a bad decision was that the process does not work, which ends up with two negatives and that just does not work for everyone involved. It does not work for the military as a whole or its sense of what it wants to do in making sure that justice seems fair. It is not a question of justice being done, but about justice seeming fair as well.

Ultimately, that is what we needed Bill C-15 to do, and it started down the path of taking it to a better place. However, the issue for me is: Why did we not go down the path a little farther? There is some suggestion that maybe it will happen later on. Why do we not do it now? If we were starting from scratch, I guess we might think this is a great start, but the problem is that we are not. We have started from other places. We could have built that into the bill, which is what we find disappointing on this side.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15 in spite of my colleagues across the way, who think we should just shuffle it off and not hear from people and not get suggestions, but just send it to committee and somehow, magically, that committee would work differently than all the other ones we sit on.

I have had the pleasure of sitting on a couple of committees, and I will tell the following story, because it was not in camera. I will not tell the other stories, because they were in camera and we are not allowed to talk about what should and could have happened but did not happen in those cases.

I can tell the House about Bill S-11 at the agriculture committee, where the government said, “Here is an important bill on food safety”. The official opposition said the government was absolutely right, that in principle it was a good bill, a good foundation that we could build upon and make it better. My colleagues across the way, who I have heard all day, said that we should the current bill go committee and it will be fixed there.

I can say that my colleague, the member for Guelph, and I offered about 16 amendments in total to Bill S-11 to enhance that food safety bill. They would have strengthened it, by talking about an audit and whistle-blower protection and about when the clock would start to tick on a five-year review. My colleague and friend from Guelph said that we should start the clock when we enacted the bill, and not wait six months. It was a great suggestion.

The government, in its wisdom, debated the first four amendments, argued against them, but realized that its arguments were so full of holes that it stopped. Accordingly, on amendments 5 to 16, the government members listened to us and then said, “No, no”, and on and on it went until they were all done.

Now, what should we do with that? Should we trust them and suggest that we go to committee with our amendments, where somehow a “no” will become “We are thinking about it, maybe it looks like a good idea”? Of course, the end result will be “no”.

That is why we are debating the bill here in the House, because we want folks out there to know that there are good ideas, that there are things that need to be in this bill, because they were in it before. This is not new. This legislation did not just get dropped off the shelf a few months back.

Speaking of dropping off the shelf, I hear my colleagues across the way in the government saying how they need to get these things through. This bill was introduced by them last year. If it is so urgent, why was it not equally urgent last year when the government introduced it? The government waited a year to bring it forward and now complains that we want to debate it. I thought that folks elected us and sent us here to debate legislation. Call me naive if that is not what I was supposed to do when I got here.

Clearly, if I do not sit on that committee, my only opportunity to offer input on this bill is here in the House. That is the only opportunity to say, “Listen, we have some suggestions”.

What I find really ironic about this particular bill is that it is not its first incarnation. It was here before and amended. The other side actually accepted the amendments. Then magically, after an election, the government lost those amendments and forgot about them. Something happened on the way back to Ottawa after the election. All those good amendments fell off the bus somewhere. They are out there somewhere, never to be found.

That is really disappointing, because if they were good amendments then, they are good amendments now. Why not incorporate them? Why go through this charade of, “Come on, you approve it in principle, you want to do this, so let us get it off to committee”, only then not to make any changes, but bring it back and enact the legislation because you have the majority. We accept that fact. That is the will of democracy: You won the last election, you got a majority. That is fair.

Ultimately, do not expect the committee to accept amendments when the proof so far to date has been that you do not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is some commonality in the sense that we in the Liberal Party and the New Democrats appear to support the fact that there is a need to reform our military justice system. On the surface, it would appear that the government also concurs and that is one of the reasons why it brought Bill C-15 here.

We anticipate that there could be amendments. We are being told by the government that there will be some amendments to the legislation. We in the Liberal Party have indicated that the men and women of our Canadian Forces have waited a great deal of time for this reform to take place. We believe that at the end of the day there are other things that could be done to improve and strengthen the system, but we would ultimately like to see it sent to committee. Therefore, Liberals support the bill in principle and would like to see it sent to committee with the hope that we will see the amendments.

Why does the NDP not support the bill in principle? That is where it seems a bit confusing, because if the NDP does not vote in favour of the bill being sent to committee what it is really saying is that it does not support the principle of the bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

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

I would like to start by saying a few words about my family. I had a great uncle who was a veteran of the second world war. As hon. members can imagine, he has now passed on. One of my cousins is a member of the Canadian Forces. He went to Afghanistan several times and to other hot spots throughout the world to do his duty as a soldier.

I have also had the opportunity to meet veterans in my riding, particularly at Remembrance Day ceremonies. These ceremonies are always very dignified affairs with a high level of decorum. They show a remarkable level of discipline.

In my riding, there is also a place called the Legion, where veterans go fairly often to socialize and talk to each other. This meeting place is very important for them. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to these veterans because they have welcomed me very warmly every time I have been there.

There is also another very touching event in my riding. Once a year, the ladies auxiliary—volunteers—go and get veterans with reduced mobility at the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital or other long-term care facilities. They bring them to the Legion and make them dinner so that they can all socialize. These veterans have the opportunity to meet with other veterans, some who may be a bit younger than them, and other people who are there. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the ladies auxiliary volunteers. No one asked them to do this. They do it because they have such great respect for veterans. They want to take advantage of this day to pay tribute to veterans and to give them an opportunity to enjoy some good moments together.

When we talk about veterans, we often think of people who fought in the Korean War in the 1950s, and the first and second world wars. However, we often forget the people I call our new or recent veterans, those who went to Afghanistan and other places. I cannot imagine the extremely difficult situations that these people experienced throughout the world. The same goes for all our veterans.

Some of these “recent” veterans, if I can call them that, have come to see me in my office. They often have medical problems or mental health concerns, but they are also having difficulty obtaining basic services from their government. They are completely distraught. They are having a really hard time adapting to civilian life and, once again, they cannot seem to get answers to their questions when they need them. When one feels a sense of urgency or is in distress, when one is feeling panicked, one is bound to have questions and expect service.

Those people expect a timely response, one that is reassuring. I had one very troubling case that really struck me.

I would like to talk about myself a little bit, in contrast with the people who enlist in the Canadian Forces. These people are held to the highest disciplinary standards in order to face situations that I could never face. Their world is very strict, with very strong discipline and no room for questioning. They must follow the chain of command and so on.

The bill currently before us talks about a justice system. If you will, there is a separate justice system for the military, the justice system that applies to the rest of us, and then there is the criminal justice system. The purpose of this bill is to ensure fair justice for all, whether or not one is in the military, since military personnel are citizens like the rest of us. Although military personnel are subject to specific disciplinary standards and hierarchies, justice must nevertheless be fair and consistent with that in the civilian world. This bill tries to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian system, because serious repercussions and abuses could ensue, although we hope not.

Furthermore, this bill, and also others that died on the order paper, as was mentioned earlier, were introduced in response to the existing system. In 2003, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—who is well known—made 88 recommendations, and 28 were included in the bill. I will not go over all the bills introduced. However, this shows that since 2003 there has been a desire to strike a balance so that there are no abuses of power in the military justice system.

With regard to reforming summary trials, these amendments were made because we did not want someone who committed summary offences to have a criminal record and experience its crippling effects. All these amendments will strike a balance.

With respect to the reform of the grievance system, I would like to say that if the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be seen as an external, independent civilian body, as it should be, the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that.

I see that time is passing. In short, this again is to strike a balance and ensure that members of the military have a justice system that is in line with the civilian system.

In conclusion, the NDP believes that members of the Canadian Forces must comply with extremely high standards of discipline, that in return they deserve a justice system subject to standards similar to civilian standards, and that a criminal record has detrimental effects. We must ensure that we respect this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber, for his excellent question.

In fact—I am repeating it and I can say it as many times as people want to hear it—the NDP agrees that we should take the time, right now, to improve the military justice system. That is clear. For too long, people have demanded reforms. Still, it cannot be done in a slapdash way. Since it needs doing, let us do it well.

Right now, Bill C-15 does not remove all the flaws. My Conservative colleague said, “Bill C-15 implements most of the remaining Lamer recommendations”. Why not all the judge's recommendations? Why not listen to the experts' opinions?

My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber said it very well: we have doubts about the government's willingness to work with the opposition. These are serious doubts arising from our experience with other bills like Bill C-15. That is why the NDP is not ready to work, because it does not think the government is ready to work in good faith with the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member asked me that question, with those comments. Perhaps he misunderstood what I wanted to say.

I was not saying that the opposition will oppose all bills from the government. What I said was that several attempts were made before arriving at Bill C-15 and that some amendments had been presented to the government. Those amendments cannot be found anywhere in Bill C-15. With respect to this specific bill, the opposition has good reason to doubt the government's will to work with the opposition on the amendments needed to make Bill C-15 a good bill.

Now, I would like to add that the hon. member said himself that most of Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer's recommendations have been included in Bill C-15. Why is it most and not all of them? The Conservatives cannot answer this question. Often in committee, the experts ask questions or give their opinions, but they are completely ignored by the Conservatives. That is unacceptable and it is not the way the NDP operates.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments and the conclusion I draw is that the New Democrats will never support any bill of any kind going to committee because they do not trust the government in committee. That is pretty obvious.

I will quote former Chief Justice Lamer, who stated:

I have approached the task of writing this report from the perspective of the women and men in the Canadian Forces. These soldiers who risk their lives for our country deserve a military justice system that protects their rights in accordance with our Charter, while maintaining the necessary discipline for achieving successful missions. Further, they deserve a grievance process that addresses their grievances in a fair, transparent and prompt manner. I believe that my recommendations will go far towards achieving these goals.

Bill C-15 implements most of the remaining Lamer recommendations. Would the hon. member opposite not agree, and I suspect I know the answer, that it is time to stop playing politics and agree to move Bill C-15 to committee so that the goals, so clearly and eloquently set out by former Chief Justice Lamer, can be fulfilled for the members of the Canadian Forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to take part in the debate on Bill C-15, Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

This bill is closely related to a report produced in 2003 by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer. It may seem striking for us to be debating a bill relating to a report released in 2003, but the reason will be understood when I have put everything in context.

First, Bill C-15 has appeared in several forms, as my colleagues have noted as well, including Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, but they both died on the order paper. Far be it from me to accuse any party of not being concerned about this issue. Several attempts have taken shape and a lot of work has been done by all parties to change the military justice system as we know it at present. Was the work done seriously, in good faith and collaboratively at all times? I cannot say.

I do not want to accuse anyone, I do not want to say that this issue has never been important, and I do not want to seem as if I am asking why we are beginning the debate on Bill C-15 today. That is not actually the case, since several attempts have been made in the past.

Second, in the last Parliament, Bill C-41 was introduced in response to Justice Lamer’s report, as I said earlier. That bill unfortunately died on the order paper also. It contained provisions relating to the military justice system, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, the court martial panel, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and certain provisions relating to the Military Police Complaints Commission. All of those subjects were addressed in Bill C-41.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that was introduced in the last Parliament. I would point out that a number of amendments were proposed during debate on Bill C-41. Those amendments were the product of serious consideration, testimony and the work done by members and experts. Unfortunately, those amendments were not taken into consideration in Bill C-15. Why?

The reasons are still not clear to me. Why were these amendments not included in Bill C-15? Including them would have demonstrated that the government had genuinely considered them and that it was ready to work as part of a team to create a bill that met everyone's expectations and requirements. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

That makes the opposition seriously doubt the government's willingness to accept any new amendments to Bill C-15. Amendments were clearly put forward by all parties during the last Parliament. If they were not taken into consideration while Bill C-15 was being drafted, it is not because the government members were unaware of what the opposition wanted to include. This raises serious doubt about the government's goodwill and its readiness to consider the amendments that could be proposed at second reading, when the bill is sent to committee.

Having said that, I would like to continue by listing the elements that worry us the most in Bill C-15. They are the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes to the composition of the grievance committee, and a provision to ensure that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. Those are the three points that worry the opposition.

I will explain the NDP's suggestions for dealing seriously with these three elements, which unfortunately have not been addressed seriously enough or thoroughly enough in Bill C-15.

Yes, the NDP agrees that the military justice process needs serious examination. Does that mean that the NDP will support Bill C-15? What an excellent question. But no, that is not what it means.

I would like to make some additional remarks about parliamentary procedure and operations. We often hear Conservative members and ministers say that the NDP has voted against families. We often hear the Conservatives say that the NDP has voted against investment, against trade agreements or against justice, but that is completely ridiculous. Everyone realizes that. Why do we hear them say things like that? There are several reasons. And we shall see that there is a close connection to Bill C-15.

It is not true that this is just about whether the NDP is for or against exports or trade agreements with certain countries. That is not the issue. The issue is much more complex. We can vote against a bill on a specific subject without being opposed to that subject. We may simply be opposed to the approach because we think it is not the best way to address a problem or to resolve a situation. These are reasons why a party may vote against a bill without necessarily voting against the subject matter addressed in that bill. I will not discuss this point any further because it is obvious; anyone can understand it. The ministers and members who advance these arguments have to know that. They are consciously grandstanding to deceive the public. I believe it is very important to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

So is the NDP opposed to military justice? No, Mr. Speaker. The NDP simply believes that Bill C-15 does not address the issue correctly and that, if it is going to be done, we could do it much better. That is why the NDP will not support Bill C-15 at second reading.

Exactly what is the NDP's proposal for a better solution?

First, we must take a different approach to reforming the summary trial system. Why? Because we believe Bill C-15 does not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. For example, in some instances, summary trials may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the accused having the opportunity to consult counsel. In summary trials, the judge may also be the accused's commanding officer, and that can cause problems. This has to be addressed, but Bill C-15 does not do it. It is too severe in the case of minor offences such as insubordination, quarrels, drunkenness and disobeying an order. That is the first aspect.

The second aspect is reforming the grievance system. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board must be perceived as an independent external civilian body. However, people who have retired from the forces may currently sit on the board. The NDP's amendment suggests that at least 60% of grievance board members must never have been a Canadian Forces officer or member. Is the Conservative Party opposed to this amendment? We do not know. However, we do know that it has not included it in Bill C-15, but we do not know why, and that is troubling.

Lastly, there is the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Yes, Bill C-15 addresses this matter, but only with respect to the time required to resolve complaints. In the NDP's view, we should do more to strengthen the commission, but this is not addressed.

I could go on and on, but unfortunately I do not have a lot of time. However, I want to say that the NDP has long supported a necessary updating of the military justice system. That is clear. But Bill C-15 is not the way to do it. As I explained earlier, the opposition has serious reasons to doubt that the government intends to work with the opposition to rectify that. This has not been done previously, and we do not believe the committee work on this bill will be done seriously.

Why not? Because the government insists on meeting in camera, limiting debate and controlling witnesses in committee. I could continue, because the list is long. We have reason to doubt the government's desire to work as a team with the opposition.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the previous question.

We recognize in the Liberal Party that Bill C-15 does have some issues. At the end of the day, it would be nice if the bill went to committee. The government has already indicated it will bring forward some amendments, which we hope will improve the bill. We hope to hear from different stakeholders as to why we should and how we could improve the bill.

In principle, the Liberal Party supports the bill because at the end of the day we believe it is necessary to pass it on to committee.

The NDP members have taken the position that they do not support the bill going to committee. Is it safe then to say that they do not support the principle of the bill and that is the reason why they are voting this way?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today and say a few words on Bill C-15.

As a former member of the Canadian armed forces, or the Royal Canadian Navy, my experience taught me, in the time I did spend, a lot of appreciation for the professionalism of our armed forces. I had the pleasure to serve at Canadian Forces Base Portage la Prairie. I had the thrill of going up in a Tutor jet, which my colleague understands very well. I went up only once. In the Royal Canadian Navy, I remember the professionalism when, many years ago, we were doing anti-submarine exercises. We always came out on top when it came to exercises with the U.S. Navy.

Many years after that, I went to Vladivostok in Russia as an interpreter with the Canadian Navy, the first western fleet to sail into Russia when it finally opened up the city. It was quite an experience. I saw the respect that the officers and men of the Russian navy had for the high degree of knowledge and skills of our armed forces.

I mention this because when I have a chance I speak on anything that touches on the military, in spite of the fact that at times some of us do not agree with the direction the military is going. Once people have been part of this family, as I call it, they want to make sure the current members receive the very best, whether or not we are talking about equipment, whether they agree with the mission or not, and certainly when the members come back as veterans.

We have seen some problems with people suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. We have seen problems with veterans' funerals. I just want to emphasize that we need to do the very best for them, and that also includes the justice system.

That brings me in a roundabout way to talking about this bill. The NDP believes that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bringing the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system.

However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the military complaints commission. I might add that amendments to that effect were brought into the last Parliament. For some reason they were not included in this particular bill.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced in response to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 Senate committee report. It included the military justice provisions relating to sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, the court martial panel and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and certain provisions concerning the Military Police Complaints Commission.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of the Senate committee during the last Parliament. The amendments carried over include those respecting the composition of the court martial panel and security of tenure for military judges until their retirement.

However, I would say that other important amendments adopted at the committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15. That includes the NDP's amendments concerning the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes in the composition of the grievance board so that 60% of members are civilians and the provision that a person convicted of an offence at a summary trial should not be unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

Many important reforms are proposed in this bill. The NDP has long supported a necessary updating of the military justice system. The members of the Canadian Forces are held to extremely high standards of discipline and deserve a judicial system that is held to comparable standards.

However, as previously mentioned, the NDP will oppose the bill at second reading. This bill contains a number of deficiencies that we hope will be addressed in committee if the bill is passed at second reading.

As we have previously discussed here, and from what I have personally seen in other committees, the fact that a bill winds up in committee does not mean the Conservatives will adopt amendments. What then are the amendments that we would have liked to include in the bill before it was studied here in the House?

We say that the amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There is no appeal and no transcript of the trial.

Bill C-15 would an exemption for a select number of offences. They carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine less than $500 to no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill, but it does not go far enough.

At committee stage last March, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also extended the list of punishments that might be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal up to one month basic pay or another minor punishment. This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, this amendment was not, for some reason, retained in Bill C-15, and we would like to see it included.

As far as serious offences and criminal records are concerned, the number is probably minor. However, a criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records can make getting a job, renting an apartment or travelling very difficult. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

What we are asking is that people who serve our country in the military have the same access to a fair judicial system as people in civilian life have and that if they have certain reprimands, they do not result in a criminal record for the rest of their life.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise, as my colleagues in the official opposition have done, to take part in the debate on Bill C-15.

Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, makes changes to the National Defence Act, in order to strengthen the military justice system. It provides for greater latitude in sentencing and in introducing new sentences, such as absolute discharge. It also sets out changes relating to intermittent sentences and restitution. It makes changes to the membership of the court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person, and to the summary trial limitation period, as well as making it possible to waive the one-year period at the request of the accused. It also sets out the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the power of the Chief of Defence Staff as the final authority in the grievance resolution process.

The NDP believes these changes are a step in the right direction toward standardizing the military and civilian justice systems. In this regard, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech on this bill earlier in this House. He gave a very clear explanation of why standardization is necessary. He also provided some background for the bill which, we remember, results from the recommendations made by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, in his report—the “Lamer Report—on the independent review of the National Defence Act that was tabled in 2003, and the recommendations in another report, one by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 2009.

Essentially, Bill C-15 incorporates the provisions of Bill C-41 that was introduced in the last Parliament. However, not a single one of the NDP amendments that were adopted at committee stage late in the last parliamentary session is included in the bill before us today. There were three such amendments and they dealt with: the power of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process set out in clause 6 as amended in Bill C-41, a measure deriving from one of the recommendations in the Lamer Report; changes to the membership of the grievance committee to ensure it is made up of at least 60% of civilians, as provided in clause 11 as amended in Bill C-41; and the provision ensuring that a person convicted of a service offence during a summary trial should not receive an unfair criminal record, as provided in clause 75 as amended in Bill C-41.

The NDP has called for amendments to be made to the military justice system for a long time now, but it is clear on reading this bill that this version is not satisfactory. It is for this reason that we will be voting against Bill C-15 at second reading. If the wording is passed at this stage, we hope that the debate in committee will allow for an in-depth analysis of the text and improvements to its content.

This bill has three major flaws: the reform of the existing summary process, the reform of the grievance system and the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I will discuss each of these points. First, the reform of the summary process system is unfair and too harsh towards the men and women of the Canadian Forces. If these individuals commit minor offences, they end up with a criminal record, which could be detrimental in a future civilian life.

I want to share an excerpt of a 2011 report by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association regarding Bill C-41:

Presiding officers in summary trials may have a different focus. They are military officers, not judges, and their primary concern is likely to be unit discipline and deterring future violations, not the effect the sentence they impose will have on an accused in the civilian world.

We think that disciplinary action without a criminal record is more than enough in cases of insubordination, absence without leave or disobeying an order. One of the NDP's amendments proposed including in the list of minor offences all those that would not be placed on a criminal record. We want this proposal to be taken into consideration by the Standing Committee on National Defence.

As far as the reform of the grievance system is concerned, the NDP has already been critical of the composition of the grievance committees. One of the three amendments stated that civilians should make up at least 60% of the committee members, to ensure that there is an external review of grievances. This amendment was adopted and we hope it will be again during the study in committee.

The third amendment proposed by the NDP, as part of the study of Bill C-41, had to do with the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff regarding financial aspects of grievances. This amendment responded to one of the Lamer report recommendations. I should point out that the Minister of National Defence agreed with this one. He acknowledged that the Chief of Defence Staff needed to have the authority to resolve the financial aspects of grievances.

Over the last eight years, however, the Department of National Defence has done nothing concrete to implement the recommendations made by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. As well, the present bill does not include that amendment, and the NDP would like the government to reconsider its position.

As a final point, regarding the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission, we believe that Bill C-15 does not go far enough, and that there should be another bill, separate from the one being debated in the House today, to address this important issue. As well, many Canadians might reasonably wonder why there is unequal treatment between the procedure that applies in the criminal courts and the procedure that applies to the people who bravely serve our country.

In conclusion, the NDP urges the government to adopt its amendments as presented and adopted during consideration of Bill C-41. We firmly believe that the women and men in the Canadian Forces are entitled to a military justice system that is consistent with the stringently improved and circumscribed criteria and procedure.

We are opposed to minor offences resulting in a criminal record, as this can complicate everyday life for the person in question, in civilian life. We will do everything we can to make the Canadian military justice system fairer for the women and men in uniform who risk their lives in the service of Canada.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I especially thank him for pointing out that Canada is lagging behind other countries that have already updated their criminal justice systems.

Bill C-15 corrects some of the current shortcomings, but it does not go far enough, as I said earlier. We should be looking at the countries my colleague mentioned, as they went much further in reforming military justice. We obviously need to move in the same direction and follow their lead as we reform our military justice system.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his observations and comments. Since we are on the subject, we would really like to see the amendments to the previous bill included in this one. We want to update all of those things. Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, a lot more could be done to make the military justice system more consistent and more equitable for some people who have to face military justice, sometimes for offences that are more like insubordination. When that happens, as I said, they get stuck with a criminal record. In our opinion, the bill should go even further and include more summary offences that could be—

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I listened with interest to the disinformation that my hon. colleague included in his remarks. The Minister of National Defence has indicated that he will bring the criminal record issue back to committee, so the member should calm down.

One of the other things he said was that the make-up of the grievance committee was not supported by the government in the committee. I was there and it was not supported, as were a bunch of others not supported. For the member to suggest that all of these things that had been previously supported by the government and are now is simply false. Bill C-41 died on the order paper because of the opposition calling an unnecessary election.

My colleague mentioned that only 29 recommendations have been implemented. Eighty-one of those recommendations were accepted, 29 were implemented and another 36 are in fact contained in Bill C-15. If he and his party want to make progress, because it was said earlier this is a step in the right direction, we should just get on with it and get it to committee where amendments that need to be made can be debated. Let us just get on with it, please.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously very honoured to be here in this House to discuss Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which we are examining today.

On this side of the House, we believe that this bill is a step in the right direction, but it is unfortunately a small step. We believe that military justice must be a part of Canada's justice system as a whole. Military justice laws must be consistent with other laws in our justice system, particularly when it comes to the principles of fundamental rights. Military justice must be fair and equitable so that it does not negatively affect discipline and so that it helps maintain morale among our troops. Our soldiers volunteer to participate in our armed forces. They must always be entitled to fair treatment.

During the study on a bill that dealt with the same issue, we tried to ensure that the military justice system procedures were effective and consistent with the need for disciplinary issues to be resolved quickly. However, efficiency and speed should not trump the fundamental principles of justice. Just because they are members of the military does not mean that the fundamental principles of justice do not apply to them.

The origins of this bill date back to 2003. I would like to provide some background so hon. members understand its origin and scope. In 2003, the Right Hon. Justice Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, submitted a report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. This report contained 88 recommendations on various military justice issues.

The government introduced Bill C-15, in response to this report and its recommendations. I must point out that, of the 88 recommendations in the report, only 28 were included in this bill. The provisions in Bill C-15 appeared in other bills that were previously introduced in Parliament. There was Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, which both died on the order paper.

In July 2008, the government introduced Bill C-60 to simplify the court martial structure and establish a system for choosing the court martial format that would harmonize best with civilian justice. In 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs examined Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations for amendments to the National Defence Act. In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and to the Senate committee's 2009 report.

When the committee studied the bill, it approved some of these amendments, which would have resolved some of the problems raised by the bill. Oddly enough, they are not included in Bill C-15, which has been introduced and is before us.

Some of these amendments had been proposed by the Judge Advocate General as compromises to correct the system in an acceptable manner. They removed certain offences from the list of those that would not result in a criminal record. However, the government simply deleted these amendments when drafting Bill C-15.

That is the extent of the Conservatives' respect for the work of Parliament. Unfortunately, they believe that they can do as they wish without regard for the previous work of Parliament because they have a majority. Basically, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 introduced by the Senate committee in the last Parliament. However, that bill contained the provisions of bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper, as I mentioned.

The provisions in the bill were not included in Bill C-60. The bill also implemented the recommendations made by Justice Lamer in 2003 and those made by the Senate committee in 2009. At committee stage of Bill C-41, my colleagues on the Standing Committee on National Defence proposed amendments to Bill C-41 to lengthen the list of offences that could be considered minor. My colleagues believed that these minor offences did not warrant a criminal record. The proposed amendments also would have lengthened the list of penalties that could be set by a tribunal without resulting in a criminal record.

However, many of the amendments proposed for Bill C-41 were, unfortunately, not included in Bill C-15. Although it contains some worthwhile provisions, Bill C-15 also has some shortcomings. If the bill makes it through second reading, we hope to be able to discuss those shortcomings and ensure that the bill will make the military justice system as fair and effective as possible.

I would like to focus on the provisions concerning summary trials, since some of them, as they are written, could have serious consequences for soldiers, particularly during their transition to civilian life.

A summary trial is one where the chain of command is allowed to judge subordinate soldiers. It is important to point out that these trials are held without lawyers, without a jury, without a system of evidence and without witnesses, unlike in the civilian justice system. Over 95% of military trials are summary trials. A conviction in a summary trial sometimes results in a criminal record. There is no recourse and no transcript of the proceedings. This is too severe for members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences.

These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobedience of a lawful command. These offences are undoubtedly very important for military discipline, but do not necessarily call for a criminal record.

In committee last March, the NDP proposed amendments to Bill C-41 to increase from five to 27 the number of offences that could be considered minor and would not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed. The amendment also added to the list of penalties a tribunal may impose without giving the offender a criminal record, for example, a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal to one month's salary and any other minor sentences. These amendments were very important to us, and that is why we want them to be included in Bill C-15.

A criminal record can make soldiers' lives very difficult after they leave the military. A criminal record can make it hard for veterans to get a job, rent an apartment, travel or get insurance. Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that the soldiers who so bravely served our country could end up with a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system.

I have seen first-hand the problems experienced by some veterans during their transition to civilian life and I know it has been extremely difficult for some. As I said, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Veterans shared their concerns with us loudly and clearly and talked about the obstacles they face in their transition to the civilian world. It is hard for veterans, especially for injured veterans, to find work in the civilian world. Considering the number of veterans working in the public service, it is clear that priority hiring for veterans is not always respected.

The private sector, and especially the construction industry, is trying to do its part, but this private sector initiative is not available to all veterans, since it is not available in all provinces. Veterans therefore have to obtain educational equivalencies for the training they received during their service. If they are saddled with a criminal record on top of that and have to go through the commission to get a pardon, which costs $600, we are doing nothing to help them reintegrate properly into civilian life.

As I said earlier, we would like the bill to include these provisions.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much.

Unfortunately, every opposition member has experienced this kind of situation, whether in committee or the House. We are all, unfortunately, familiar with the intransigence of a majority government, and that is not the way things should work.

Our experience today of Bill C-15 is a reminder of what has occurred previously in this House, whether in relation to omnibus bills or other problems that have warranted consideration in committee. For example, Quebec's centre for maritime research and rescue has been denied a voice in every forum it has sought one. What we are seeing here is symptomatic of what can be found in all Conservative bills: contempt for the opposition, nothing less.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk about the reform of the grievance system.

The NDP proposed an amendment that stipulates that at least 60% of the members of the grievance board must not be former officers or members of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was adopted in March 2011 as part of Bill C-41, but it was not retained in Bill C-15.

Could my colleague tell us why it is so important to include this new amendment?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

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

Many of my colleagues have already spoken about this bill, today and during previous days. I am very pleased to join their ranks today. Despite what we sometimes hear, the NDP has been in favour of making the necessary updates to the military justice system for a long time now, and we have been working to improve and strengthen this system of justice.

Members of the Canadian forces are subject to extremely high standards of discipline and they deserve to have a justice system that is held to the same high standard.

Before going any further in my discussion about Bill C-15, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her very appropriate comments about military justice for our veterans.

I come from the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where the Valcartier military base is located. A number of troops have been sent to Afghanistan over the past few years. Some of them are my age and others are younger than I am. When they come back, they do not have the services they deserve. Sometimes they are relieved of their duties after a year, without any forces' support. They receive a lump sum and that is it. Once that money has been spent, our troops no longer have any support from the government. However, they deserve more, because they gave their lives, they sacrificed time that they could have been spending with their family and they sacrificed many things in the service of their country. They deserve a lot more than they are getting right now. Therefore, I would like to thank my colleague and I would like to take the time to thank the troops. As there have been members of my family in the military for a number of generations, I understand all the sacrifices that choosing this career can have on families.

To come back to Bill C-15, it is a response to a series of 88 recommendations made in 2003 by the Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act.

His recommendations were presented almost 10 years ago now and dealt primarily with the military justice system, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces provost marshal.

When the Lamer report was tabled, the Liberals were in power. At the time, they said they supported the report’s recommendations, but they never took any concrete action to follow them up. In successive parliaments, a number of bills have been introduced in the House, which were attempts to develop an adequate response to the recommendations presented in the Lamer report. However, all of these responses died on the order paper.

One of the bills introduced in a previous Parliament was Bill C-41, in 2010. There was a great deal of discussion about it in the House. The bill contained provisions relating to military justice, and involved reforms to the sentencing process following an offence, military judges and military panels, summary trials and many other issues.

This bill was studied in detail in committee, and some amendments were proposed and accepted by all the parties, including the NDP. All the parties were able to agree on a bill that put forward a more balanced approach to military justice.

Now, Bill C-15 is clearly a first step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to try to bring the military justice system and the civilian justice system closer together. Bill C-15 includes several provisions that were in Bill C-41. However, many were not included in the new version of the bill, including amendments that were proposed by the NDP about the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes in the composition of the grievance board to ensure that members were 60% civilians, and the provision to ensure that a person convicted in a summary trial is not unjustly subjected to a criminal record.

The NDP believes that Bill C-15, if it gets through second reading, needs to be thoroughly reworked to correct the many shortcomings it still contains, such as how the summary trial issue is dealt with.

The summary trial is by far the most common kind of military tribunal in the military justice system. Indeed, more than 90% of disciplinary proceedings are handled in this manner. Summary trials were designed to address minor military offences in a context in which the sentences available are limited.

These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, being absent without leave, drunkenness and disobeying an order.

Summary trials attempt to deal quickly with the presumed offences within the unit in order to be able to return the member to active service as quickly as possible, thereby promoting and maintaining discipline within the unit. With the exception of a number of specified offences, an accused may choose between a summary trial or a court martial, which is generally for more serious offences and involves more complex procedures.

Summary trials differ from civilian judicial proceedings in several ways. First of all, in a summary trial, there is no transcript of the proceedings, and the accused's commanding officer presides. This alone gives rise to concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. In addition, the accused are not given the opportunity to consult a legal advisor during proceedings, and the sentence handed down as a result of a summary trial cannot be appealed.

Lastly, a conviction in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record for the accused, which seems much too severe for many of the minor offences.

Yes, under Bill C-15 certain offences that are subject to minor sentences or fines less than $500, would be exempt from resulting in a criminal record. That is positive, but we think that does not go far enough.

A criminal record makes post-military life very difficult, particularly when it comes to looking for a new job, renting an apartment, travelling and many other things. We know that returning to civilian life after being deployed overseas or after spending a certain amount of time in the armed forces is not always very easy. There are not always equivalents for skills transferred between various jobs. These people need a lot of support. They may need to take various remedial courses, or new training to be able to return to civilian life. This involves a lot of effort in a situation that is already so difficult. If you add to that the fact that an individual has a criminal record for a minor offence as a result of a summary trial, that really undermines the lives of certain military members. They are deprived of certain charter rights.

It is hard to imagine that soldiers who sacrifice themselves, who risk everything in the service of their country, can have a criminal record as a result of a system that does not have the regularity of the process used in civilian criminal courts. I understand that the Canadian Forces have established a code of conduct under which standards are quite strict in order to meet a genuine operational need. We cannot deny that. Discipline, obeying orders and hierarchy have a specific purpose and are essential to the proper operation of the unit and the survival of soldiers in combat situations. That is clear. However, it is nevertheless disturbing that military members can be deprived of certain charter rights when they undergo a summary trial. The NDP believes that the Canadian military justice system should be genuinely just and fair for men and women in uniform who have risked their lives in the service of Canada.

Several Commonwealth countries such as Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia have already made significant changes to their summary trial system. Why not Canada? Why does Canada still lag behind, and why have we not yet implemented all the recommendations of the Lamer report?

If Bill C-15 passes second reading and is referred to committee, it is essential that we come up with a bill similar to what was introduced in Bill C-41. The work done at that time represented a consensus among all the parties. It should not be shelved simply because the Conservative government now has a majority.

The amendments discussed last spring could have been included in the present version of Bill C-15, and we would not be here today. We would not still be engaged in the debate that we are having in this House; we would already be dealing with a much more balanced bill for our military justice system. That is what we are all trying to achieve. That is why the NDP continues this debate in this House. This is a very important issue for our troops and we must debate it thoroughly.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points that were made. I will start with the issues around summary trials. I was reading from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, bringing forward its concerns with the process in the bill. It has a number of valid concerns that need to be addressed by the House.

The member talked about the fact that perhaps they are open to amendments. However, the question then becomes this. Amendments were proposed when Bill C-41 was before committee, but the amendments are not reflected in Bill C-15. Therefore, if they are amenable to amendments why are some of those amendments not included in Bill C-15? It does not sound like good faith when we hear on the one hand that they are willing to look at amendments, and then on the other hand see them not considering any of the amendments before them.

What amendments would they consider then? Maybe they would like to actually talk in the House about the amendments they would consider.

With regard to veterans and my so-called feigned outrage, my outrage is not feigned. I would invite the member to come to my riding in Nanaimo--Cowichan and talk to some of the veterans who are not getting the services they need from the government. We have veterans who are living on the streets because they cannot find housing and do not have the necessary supports. It is not feigned outrage. The Conservatives need to pay attention to what is happening to veterans in the country when they return.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I launch into my speech, I will just pick up on a point that my good friend was making about the amendments proposed to the previous incarnation of this bill. As he rightly pointed out, those amendments have not been included in the current version of the legislation.

I will talk about some of the testimony given in regard to the previous bill, which does beg the following question. Here we have witnesses, people who have a tremendous amount of detailed knowledge about some of these issues, coming before committees on this particular bill and its previous incarnation, and yet every single proposal for an amendment is disregarded. Some of these amendments are reasoned amendments. We have seen this in committee after committee. On the aboriginal affairs committee I am involved with, I do not believe we have had a single amendment to the legislation before the committee.

We use our time here in the House to raise these issues because the public pays attention to debate in the House. Bringing forward these important points of view for consideration in legislation is part of our responsibility of due diligence as parliamentarians. I have talked about due diligence a number of times in the House. It is our responsibility to examine the legislation closely, to see where there are potential faults and to see if there are ways that we can improve the legislation. We are being responsible parliamentarians by raising these issues, and if we need to take the time in the House to do that, we will take the time in the House. The government will continue to limit debate, and here it is ironic that we are talking about military justice. Despite our talking about justice here, the government continues to limit debate, forcing time allocation, managing witness lists, and on it goes, all of which are not part of the democratic process.

Turning to Bill C-15, I am sure that others have spoken about this but I just want to read into the record that on October 7, 2011 the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. Just as a little aside, it is about strengthening military justice, and if we want to strengthen military justice in this country the other thing that we have to do is to look after veterans when they come home. If we want to talk about justice, that is justice. I have too many Afghanistan veterans in my riding suffering from PTSD who cannot get access to the education funds they need to resume their lives because of the trauma they have suffered in Afghanistan. Therefore, if we want to talk about military justice, let us also talk about supporting the troops when they come home.

Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Among other things, the bill would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process. It would:

(d) provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution;

(e) modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person; and

(f) modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods.

It would also clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

The New Democrats believe that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the military complaints commission.

I will now turn briefly to the legislative summary, because it does bring forward some of the testimony on the previous bill. The legislative summary indicates that the Bill C-15 “largely reproduces the provisions of the former Bill C-41...”. That is an important point because the New Democrats did propose amendments to that bill and there were witnesses who came forward and talked about some ways the bill could be improved. Many of us support aspects of the bill but there are some key parts that require further attention.

In summarizing some of the key witness testimony, the legislative summary states:

[They] raised concerns regarding specific clauses in the bill, including:

provisions that would permit the Vice Chief of Defence Staff...to issue instructions in respect of specific military police investigations;

provisions regarding the composition of the Grievance Board and provisions allowing active service members of the Canadian Forces to be appointed to the Grievance Board; and

provisions making the CDS the final authority in relation to grievances submitted by military judges not related to their judicial duties.

A number of submissions to the committee suggested that while the bill was a very positive step, it ought to have gone further by, for example, reforming the summary trial system to include more procedural protections for accused persons or by diminishing the consequences of conviction before such tribunals. The lack of authority of the CDS to provide financial compensation when compensation is found to be due under the grievance process, and the failure to implement certain outstanding recommendations in the Lamer Report relating to the Grievance Board were also raised as concerns during the hearings.

I want to focus on one particular aspect of this and read from the testimony on Bill C-41 by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Concerns have been raised about the summary trial aspect of the bill. In its brief called “Supporting the Troops: Fairness for Canada’s Soldiers”, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association raised a number of issues. I want to talk about summary trials first, because many of us in the House are not lawyers and do not have intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system.

The brief states:

Summary trials are a type of service tribunal used to try members of the Canadian forces who are accused of wrongdoing in an expedient, informal manner. They are the main alternative to courts martial, which more closely match the civilian judicial process and generally require more time and expense to try an accused. Summary trials are the principal method through which individuals in the military are tried. They make up roughly 95% of service tribunals convened each year under the Act, while courts martial are used to try the remaining 5% of cases.

Summary trials can be used to try an accused charged with almost every offence under the Act, aside from particularly serious offences such as mutiny and certain seditious offences, and can also be used to try individuals for offences under other Canadian statutes such as the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. While certain minor offences, such as drunkenness and being away from a post without leave, can only be tried by way of summary trial, in other cases an individual charged with an offence under the Act is given the choice as to whether to be tried by summary trial or court martial. It is to be inferred that individuals charged with an offence may be daunted or intimidated by the more complex nature of proceedings before courts martial. A majority of those charged with disciplinary violations under the Act, especially those charged with minor offences, do not choose to avail themselves of their right to be tried through a court martial....

One of the most serious deficiencies of the summary trial procedure is the fact that most accused lack adequate representation. Individuals being tried by summary trial do not have the right to be represented by a lawyer, and may be prevented from doing so even if they arrange for counsel at their own expense. The Act does require that an accused be provided with an “assisting officer,” who can assist with many aspects of the process, including preparing an accused person's case and making submissions on their behalf at the trial. However, assisting officers are not required to have any legal training, or any previous experience with the summary trial process. They are generally other officers in the accused's unit, and are appointed for the role under the authority of the presiding officer at a summary trial, which in itself presents a conflict of interest. Many assisting officers therefore lack sufficient training and experience to provide an accused with effective representation.

It also states:

BCCLA believes that the summary trial process, which is used to try individuals for offences under the Act in an expedited manner, fails to meet minimum standards for procedural fairness. Despite the potential for significant criminal penalties, including imprisonment and stigmatizing criminal records, the summary process deprives Canadian soldiers of basic standards of fundamental justice, including the right to legal representation, the right to be tried according to the standard of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, and the right to an impartial adjudication of one’s case. Weak trial procedures and limited mandatory training for decision makers tend to induce poor quality adjudication, false convictions and wrongful imprisonment. During deployment or active combat there may be sufficient reason to justify a departure from basic standards of procedural fairness, but absent such urgency and necessity, the rule of law and the principles of fundamental justice demand more for our soldiers.

There is a lot more in this testimony, but my time is running out.

Given what we require our troops to do, which many of us here would not be prepared to do, these principles of fundamental justice are critical. That is why the NDP is opposing the bill. That is why the former member recommended a number of amendments, which are simply not present in Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his interesting remarks on Bill C-15. Bill C–15 was studied in committee, and the NDP proposed amendments to the bill, which, surprise surprise, were defeated without any assurance that they were ever truly considered.

I would like to ask my colleague whether, in his experience, he has seen other similar situations and if, on the committees he has sat, he has seen other situations where amendments were defeated similarly without even being properly considered or debated.

I have seen similar situations in the committees on which I have sat. Since my colleague is talking about democracy, perhaps he would like to comment on the process Bill C-15 has undergone to date in committee.

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

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

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

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question.

I hope not. I will not presume to say what the intentions or thoughts of the government members are.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not challenged this justice system. In other words, it is tolerated by the legislative system, which sees the status of members of the Canadian Forces as being on a par with the institution.

This choice was made in the past. It may have made sense in a certain context and in terms of a mindset inherited from a very distant past. Unfortunately, given current knowledge of and progress in the treatment of diseases linked to combat or service situations, this choice demonstrates that we are on the wrong path. We must immediately get back on track.

That is why we are trying to convince the government members of the merits of our opposition to Bill C-15, so that we can go much further instead of making do with half measures, which would be truly deplorable.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-15, which is really very important. Indeed, our men and women in uniform sacrifice a lot. They play a very specific role in our society. They really have a special status in relation to other citizens. That status, that sacrifice, that life which is unquestionably so different does not justify at all the current system of summary trials. In fact, this justice system should be abolished. It is indeed a summary system that essentially bypasses the normal process. More importantly, it is very punitive and it has very serious consequences for our men and women in uniform.

The big problem is that, in its present form, Bill C-15 does not correct the profound and fundamental injustice of summary trials, and it does not deal with it appropriately. I am going to focus on that point. It is important to clearly understand the consequences. Being saddled with a criminal record when one returns to civilian life, or even while still in the military, creates a lot of economic, moral or family problems. It can be really hard to cope with that situation. Given the whole process, it is truly absurd that this is still tolerated in Canada in 2012 and that we are not trying to really correct things. Unfortunately, Bill C-15 does not do that.

I am going to briefly mention the minor offences that may be dealt with by summary trial and lead to a conviction. They include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a command.

Let us be clear on one thing. Given the military's special status and role, and the need for unity in the Canadian Forces to carry out their missions, it goes without saying that discipline is a fundamental requirement. Everyone agrees and no one is going to challenge that. However, and this is what Bill C-15 does not fundamentally correct, we maintain that this requirement does not justify a criminal record. Of course, within the context of the military service—or outside it—there is no doubt that the offences I just listed are more serious than for a civilian, but in the case of civilians they do not automatically result in a much more serious consequence and in much higher proportions.

This situation is really unfortunate because there is of course another problem. An argument was made, among others, to justify summary trials, namely that they speed up the process, so that the soldier who is accused can reintegrate into his unit more quickly.

Once again, that is debatable. First of all, clearly, relative justification can always be found, for instance, in an intervention or operational context, when the strength of the unit must be maintained at all times. Apart from that, in real life, which is most of the time in a soldier's career, the need for expediency is no more justified than it is in civilian life. So that is one thing that does not make sense.

It would also be very troubling if Canada did not modernize this system by committing to a comprehensive reform of the summary trial process. Other countries that have reformed their own systems—systems directly related to what we do here in Canada—include the United Kingdom, of course—which is more or less the mother country on which many of our institutions are based—as well as Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.

Considering that Justice Lamer released his report in 2003, why has it taken Canada so long to act? Why is the government not going even further and really fixing this?

We will focus on the issue of summary trials and the fact that people could end up with a criminal record for life. Furthermore, with a summary trial, there is no appeal process and there are no transcripts. Thus, there is no paper trail. In addition, the so-called judge is also the accused person's commanding officer. Considering the special hierarchical relationship between the superior and the accused, that is very problematic. This major point must be considered.

We all agree that officers in the Canadian Forces meet strict criteria and must face up to their responsibilities. Nevertheless, regardless of the quality of the commander, this way of doing things creates enormous potential for inequality that is not there in civilian life. In fact, it is almost impossible to find something as big that goes as far as what we find in the Canadian Forces. Just bridging this gap and removing this sort of trial from within the military unit would represent great progress.

We must not forget the difficulties that this type of trial creates for soldiers who find themselves with a criminal record as a result of a summary trial. I would like to remind hon. members that having a criminal record can create a potential obstacle for these soldiers when they return to civilian life after serving in the Canadian Forces.

As all members of this House know, military careers are usually shorter than most civilian careers because of how demanding military service is and because of the unfortunate unforeseen circumstances that can occur. When a man or woman who served valiantly in the military and made a valuable contribution returns to civilian life, that person has the right to a new life and a place in society. Yet, no matter what some may say, a criminal record is an enormous and even insurmountable obstacle to returning to a so-called normal life.

In light of the fact that soldiers can be excluded or socially stigmatized for making a mistake, such as getting drunk, after they have bravely served our country, carried out missions throughout the world and imposed on their families all the sacrifices that a soldier's loved ones are forced to endure, it would be scandalous if we did not implement a much fairer trial system that is more respectful of our soldiers' status and of the sacrifices they make and the duty they perform.

I urge all my colleagues to think about this and, above all, to show respect for the duty that our soldiers perform. In that way, we can come up with a much more thorough reform than that proposed in Bill C-15.

That is why we are opposed to this bill.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a story to illustrate the kind of men and women we are talking about here today when we talk about military justice. Often in this place we forget that these are living, breathing men and women who give a lot to their country.

When I was 14 and trying to figure out what I was going to do with my life, the cadets were very active in my town and I had Canadian Forces brochures, and for a second I thought that serving in the military might suit me, giving me structure and discipline to my life, and I could serve my country in an honourable way at the same time.

Of course, I did not take that path. I took a different path, and I am now serving my country in a different way, as many members of this House are, including the parliamentary secretary across the way, who has offered many years of service to this country in the Canadian foreign service.

I would like to underline that the men and women who give their lives to us by serving in our military are good, upstanding men and women. I have known many of them. Although I did not take that path, a lot of people I grew up with did take the military path. Sometimes they were from military families, having fathers and grandfathers who had served and whom they followed in that long lineage of service in the Canadian military.

There was another type of person who would serve in the military, the guys in the town who were maybe a bit more disadvantaged and who looked to the military to give them structure and discipline and a more honourable way to live than the path they were currently on. They saw the military as a way of improving their lives. They served Canada to improve their lot.

Basically these men and women give a lot to their country, and it is our duty as representatives in this country to take care of them and to treat them with respect and dignity. I think all of the decisions we make in this place should take that into account.

Some of these men and women have served in theatres of war. I know guys in my community who served in Bosnia and Afghanistan. We all know, and I think we should all know, that serving in the Canadian military, and certainly in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan, is a highly stressful job. It is very stressful to the men and women who serve.

I have spent time with the Royal Montreal Regiment. I visited the barracks on St. Catherine Street West in Montreal. I have spoken to these guys. I want members in this place to remember that these men and women have made a great sacrifice, and they give quite a lot.

I can think of a couple of guys in my community, Colin Robinson, who served in Bosnia, or Megal Johnson, who served in Afghanistan. They have told me about their experiences, which has allowed me to understand what it is like to serve in Canada's military.

As for Bill C-15, we are glad that the government has finally acted on this. It has been nine years since Justice Lamer's report came out, so it has been quite a while. We know that when the report came out in 2003, the Liberals sat on it for two years. I do not know exactly why they did not act more swiftly to implement some of the recommendations in the Lamer report. That is for them to answer. However, I am glad to see that the Liberal members have come around to seeing the New Democrats' position and seem to be supporting the amendments we are putting forward. We are very happy to see that.

I do not just want to negative here, as there are good things in Bill C-15. It does provide a greater flexibility in the sentencing process, which is important. We believe that is a step in the right direction, bringing military justice more in line with the civilian justice system, but the bill falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the military complaints commission.

For the people watching who might not understand a summary trial, I would point out that in the civilian system it tends to be a trial that is set up and the process is gone through. The whole point of a summary trial is to look at where a judgment would go and to make the parties come to an agreement after the summary trial has been completed, so they can settle the trial without going through the whole process of an actual trial with sentencing.

The way the system currently works is that people come out of the summary trial system with a criminal record. In the civilian system, that is not the purpose of the summary trial system, but to try to get the parties to settle things without burdening them with a criminal record. Members who are more versed in the law that I am could maybe add to this during questioning. I would certainly welcome that. However, that is my understanding of the purpose of a summary trial.

The background to Bill C-15 is the recommendations developed by Justice Lamer to change the military justice system to bring it in line with the civilian justice system. My understanding is that Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations. There were 88 recommendations made, but only 28 of them have been implemented, so we see some 60 recommendations left that have not yet been addressed in legislation. That is part of the reason we feel that Bill C-15 does not go far enough.

On a positive note, Bill C-15 would make an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, defined in the act as “a fine of $500 or less”, so that they no longer result in a criminal record. This would be a positive thing.

As I said before, these people sacrifice a lot in serving in our military. In particular, we should enable the disadvantaged people I mentioned to transition back to civilian life when they leave the military, especially after they have taken on this role and the stress of serving in Canada's military and given their years of service. A criminal record makes it very difficult for them to reintegrate into society. Given that these people are serving in theatres such as Bosnia or Afghanistan, if they return and are marginalized in society, a whole range of things can happen to these poor men and women. This ends up costing us money in terms of services that we then have to provide. Therefore, it is in our best interest to transition them in a way that they can re-adapt to Canadian society. All members would agree that a criminal record complicates that process, especially if the person gets a criminal record for things that would be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record for civilians. I want all members of the House to consider that.

The fact that this bill does not go far enough is why we are opposing it strongly at second reading. We want to deliver a message to the government that changes have to be made, that this bill has to go further, that we would like to see the Conservatives reformulate the bill to include more of Justice Lamer's recommendations and to note that we should be promoting the re-transitioning of service members back into Canadian society. People who have committed small offences such as insubordination or drunkenness, things that would usually be forgiven of civilians, should not carry a criminal record. We should not burden our men and women in the military with a criminal record for small offences like that.

The New Democrats believe that members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and that they in turn deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. They should not be treated poorly through a sham process where they end up being saddled with a criminal record. As I said, a criminal record after military life makes those people's lives more difficult. It marginalizes them. Criminal records can make it very difficult to get a job and an apartment and to travel. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts. The New Democrats will fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in the service of Canada.

People make different decisions in their lives. Some people choose the military to serve their country; some choose the foreign service, as the parliamentary secretary has; and some choose to represent the people of Canada, as everyone in the House has.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are obviously happy that the government has finally tabled Justice LeSage's report. This report supports a number of the NDP's concerns about Bill C-15.

I will answer the member's question more directly by saying that we have faith in Canada's military system. However, we also believe that soldiers must have ways of defending themselves other than what is available to them in the military justice system, which is a blunt instrument.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues for having so brilliantly stated their stance on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. This bill has appeared in several forms.

First of all, bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper because of the 2007 prorogation of Parliament and the 2008 election. In July 2008, Bill C-60 charged back, simplifying the court martial structure and establishing a method for determining which type of court martial would be most consistent with the civilian justice system. In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations to amend the National Defence Act.

Before moving on, it is very interesting to note that there is nothing new about how the Conservatives go about their business when they want to push through more complex bills. Bill C-60, which was the version studied in the Senate report, was introduced in Parliament by the Hon. Minister of National Defence on June 6, 2008, towards the end of the second session of the 39th Parliament, and passed on June 18, 2008.

Bill C-60 was intended among other things to make the National Defence Act consistent with the decision of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada in R. v. Trépanier. In this decision, the court acknowledged that some provisions of the National Defence Act and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders contravened section 7 and paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These provisions were declared unconstitutional. They enabled the director military prosecutions to decide, when charges were being laid, on the kind of court martial that would try the accused, and for the court martial administrator to convene the court martial in accordance with the decision of the director of military prosecutions. This court decision became effective immediately, and led to some uncertainty about the possibility of being able to continue to convene courts martial under the National Defence Act unless Bill C-60 could be passed quickly.

However, this view was dismissed at hearings of the Senate committee on the evidence of Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel, who maintained that this view was inaccurate. He said that the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, in R. v. Trépanier, had come up with a straightforward and useful approach to getting rid of the clause that was violating the accused’s rights.

Nevertheless, there is also a practical interim solution that could easily be implemented. For charges laid under section 130, the accused could be given the option to choose his or her trier of facts. There is no legal obstacle to this approach because section 165.14, which gives this right to the prosecution, does not apply to these offences.

We would like to clarify that there is no danger of creating a legal void during the interim period that would result in failure to apply the law for want of prosecution. Offences under section 130 of the National Defence Act can also be prosecuted in civilian courts even if they were committed outside of Canada. That is covered in section 273 of the National Defence Act.

Why did the government rush passage of this bill? Even members of the Senate committee could not help but point this out:

Given the speed with which Bill C-60 was studied in both the House of Commons and the Senate, concern was expressed that it was difficult to thoroughly assess the potential impact of this legislation. Consequently, the bill was amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence to add a review clause.

Under false pretences, the government succeeded in pressuring opposition parliamentarians to pass this bill even though, according to the court ruling, it had many years to amend the act but did nothing. In his ruling in Trépanier, Justice Létourneau said:

The unanimous concern of this Court in Nystrom about the fairness of section 165.14 was expressed more than two years ago, i.e. on December 20, 2005. Since then, there have been five new constitutional challenges to that provision and appeals before this Court are pending. Retired Chief Justice Lamer made a recommendation as early as September 3, 2003 that section 165.14 be amended to give the accused the option to choose his or her trier of facts. As previously mentioned, he also made a recommendation that a working group reviewed the reorganization of the courts martial with a view to improving the fairness of the trial, at the center of which, as an important element of that reorganization, is the right for an accused to choose the trier of facts. Yet, Bill C-45 has been tabled before Parliament and it contains no remedial provision. The authorities have been given more than four and a half (4½) years to address the problem.

This bill contains many important reforms. The NDP has supported the much-needed overhaul of the military justice system for a long time. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to extremely high standards of discipline and deserve a judicial system with comparable standards.

However, the NDP will oppose Bill C-15 at second reading stage. This bill has a number of flaws that we hope will be discussed in committee, if passed at second reading. The NDP does not oppose the substance of the bill. However, in its current form, the bill does not take into account all the recommendations of the Lamer report. Moreover, the Conservatives have ignored the amendments the NDP proposed to a virtually identical bill that was introduced in the previous Parliament. Those amendments were originally adopted because we had a minority government at the time. However, the amendments have again been removed from the bill.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservatives admitted that the recommendations had merit. This is no longer the case, now that they have a majority, and it makes us wonder if they are merely engaging in the lowest form of petty politics rather than putting the interests of our soldiers in civil society first.

The bottom line is that the NDP opposes the bill in its current form at this stage of the legislative process. We hope that these amendments will be made in committee.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech, which clarified the NDP's position and explained the difference between the Canadian justice system and the military justice system.

Military personnel, like police officers, are authority figures in our society, as the parliamentary secretary said. Since we are talking about defending our country and our laws, these individuals need to have that authority in Canadians' eyes. That is why the NDP wants to make sure the bill is balanced.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on what is expected of this bill. I would also like her to try to explain why the amendments proposed during the previous Parliament were not included in Bill C-15. Lastly, I would like to know why the government seems to be ignoring the recommendations of the Lamer report.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker I am very pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-15.

I will echo the question the hon. member just asked my colleague: what is the difference between when a civilian does not show up for work and when a member of the military does not show up for work?

The difference does not lie in the person or the action, but in the job. That is exactly why there is one justice system for civilians and another for the military. No one in the House is denying the fact that the military justice system exists because military life must have different rules than civilian life. And yet, the discipline, ethics and morals military personnel are expected to live up to should not have consequences outside the military framework. Consequently, the fact that a member of the military might have a criminal record in civilian life does not recognize the difference between civilians and the military.

It is entirely legitimate that the military wants a separate justice system that respects potentially different values. Still the fact that these consequences, that is, a criminal record, can be extended to a soldier's civilian life is not justifiable. For example, during a summary trial—a serious flaw in this bill—no lawyer is present. It is proper for any justice system to develop its own procedures. We do not contest the existence of summary trials. It is fine that military justice is different from civilian justice. But the consequences should also be different.

During a summary trial, the accused is not entitled to a lawyer and cannot consult counsel. There is no transcript of the trial. These procedures exist in a civilian trial, but not in a summary trial.

Even more important, this is not an independent trial. The person who acts as judge in the trial is usually a commanding officer who knows the accused, perhaps personally, who certainly knows the situation that led to the trial, and who knows all the circumstances. We understand that the definition of an independent tribunal is also different. During a civilian trial, the judge does not know the accused personally, and if the judge does know the accused, he or she must withdraw from the case to avoid a conflict of interest.

It is understandable that military justice will be different. Still, once again, the Conservatives ought to have respected the amendments we proposed to this bill, because that would have made it possible to respect the difference.

We do not wish to be unfair. There must be one justice system for civilians, with its own consequences and procedures, and another for the military, with its own consequences and procedures, and they will not be the same. That is clear and logical.

All members of the House should find it acceptable that a soldier, judged through different procedures, would not suffer consequences that have effects outside the military sphere. For example, a former member of the military with a criminal record will find it very hard to find work after he or she retires.

Everyone here knows that employers always ask potential employees to fill in a form that asks, "Do you have a criminal record?" Clearly, this can harm a person's chances of finding a job. For a government that wants to create jobs and help Canadians find work, this measure is rather hypocritical, since it pushes the military aside. That is just a little remark that occurred to me.

In a summary trial, the procedures are different. That is, the procedures are not like those in the House of Commons. They are rather invisible. Here in the House we often see that the procedures are strict and we must follow them. In a summary trial, on the other hand, regulations or procedures of that kind do not exist. Thus, a member of the military should not be considered a criminal after such a trial.

I will give an example. A member of the military can be found guilty of insubordination, quarrels and disturbances, misconduct, absence without leave and disobeying a lawful command. That is proper because, as I already said, military justice has its own morals and ethics. That is as it should be. However, these procedures should not create a criminal record, since they are minor convictions and not serious crimes. Moreover, only certain offences are included. I do not see why we should tell military personnel that in civilian life they will be considered criminals and have a criminal record, when that should not happen.

In my civilian life I cannot be accused of quarrelling or insubordination, except perhaps if I were in school and showed disrespect for my teacher. In such cases I would be sent to the principal's office, but I would not be found guilty of insubordination and wind up with a criminal record. We must see and understand the wall that exists and the difference between the civilian and military worlds. They must not be mixed together.

The NDP had proposed amendments that would make it possible to expand the list of offences that are exempt and could be considered minor offences. Under those amendments, a person who was found guilty would not have a criminal record. Once again, that amendment was rejected by the Conservatives.

We also proposed an amendment to expand the list of punishments that could be imposed by a tribunal without leading to a criminal record, for example, a severe reprimand. That amendment was not accepted either.

We have to admit that the criminal, military and civilian justice systems are different. No one here disputes that. We understand that the military has different ethics, morals and operating rules. But the consequences of such rules should not reach beyond the military sphere and should not have repercussions on the civilian life of a military member. We are simply asking the government to amend Bill C-15 to respect that difference.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today to rise to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I, along with my NDP colleagues, hold the utmost respect for the women and men serving our country under the Canadian flag in the Canadian uniform. It is this respect that drives the NDP to fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women who serve in uniform and put their lives on the line for the service of our country. The NDP believes Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system.

The Liberals were in power in 2003 when the Lamer report came out. They responded positively to the report, but then simply sat on it and failed to act upon the recommendations in Justice Lamer's report at that time.

Even though it is a step in the right direction, Bill C-15 falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial and grievance systems and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. For this reason, I stand today to raise my opposition to the bill and highlight some important shortcomings, which, should the bill pass second reading, I hope will be addressed in committee.

I will give a bit of background on the bill. The bill comes as a response to the report of former chief justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court presented on the independent review of the National Defence Act in 2003. The report included 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal. Thus far, however, only 28 of those recommendations have been implemented.

We have seen Bill C-15 before in various forms, first Bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper due to prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008. Then, in 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the provost marshal unlimited provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints process.

Bill C-15 is quite similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. However, sadly, regrettably, disappointingly, whatever adverb we want to use, what is important is that the amendments that were passed at committee stage at the end of the last Parliament are not included in the current version, Bill C-15. Important and necessary amendments that would alleviate some women and men of our armed forces of undue hardship in their lives after the military are excluded in this version.

These include the following NDP amendments concerning: the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, amended clause 6 in Bill C-41, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership, amended clause 11 in Bill C-41; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record, amended clause 75 in Bill C-41. The NDP's position is that it supports the long overdue update to the military justice system.

While there are important reforms in this bill, it, however, does not go far enough and falls short on key issues. Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and they, in return, deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. Should Bill C-15 pass second reading, I would hope to see the shortfalls fixed.

First, the amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. I, for one, think that a lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who have bravely served our country can actually get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process we see in civilian criminal courts. Currently, conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. While matters including subordination, disturbances and absences without leave may be extremely important to military discipline, they are certainly not worthy of a criminal offence.

Moreover, summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is actually the accused person's commanding officer. This causes an undue hardship on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for very minor service offences.

Bill C-15 does make an exemption for a select number of offences, if they carry a minor punishment, so they no longer result in a criminal record. While once again, a positive step, in our opinion it does not go far enough.

At committee stage last March, the NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to address this issue by expanding the list of offences from 5 to 27 that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also extended the list of punishments that might be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record. This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, this amendment was not retained by the Conservative government in Bill C-15. We believe it needs to be included.

A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records can make getting a job, renting an apartment and travelling very difficult. Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have all seen fit to change the summary trial process. Why is Canada lagging behind?

It is curious why the minister is not accepting the fact that the summary trial system is tainted with undue harshness, sentences that result in criminal records for minor offences, and ignoring the need for greater reform.

Another shortcoming in the bill is that the grievance committee would not provide a means of external review as it is staffed entirely by retired CF officers. If the CF Grievance Board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then some members of the board should actually be drawn from civil society.

The NDP amendment provided that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41, but it also was not been retained in this version of Bill C-15. We believe it is important to see this amendment re-included in the bill.

Another major flaw in Bill C-15 is the military grievance system. The Chief of the Defence Staff lacks the authority to resolve financial aspects arising from a grievance, contrary to a recommendation in the Lamer report. Despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence at the time agreed to this recommendation, there has been no concrete steps over the past eight years to implement this recommendation.

The NDP proposed an amendment to this effect at the committee stage on Bill C-41. Although it had passed in March 2011, this amendment, once again, was not retained by the government in Bill C-15. We will fight to have it included yet once again.

Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although a step forward, the NDP believes more needs to be done to empower the commission.

The Military Police Complaints Commission needs the legislation to strengthen its ability to act as an oversight body. It must be empowered by a legislative provision that would allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament. These amendments would bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system.

Justice and fairness for the women and men in our uniform is essential. However, Bill C-15 just does not cut it. Our Canadian military justice system needs more fairness and the NDP will continue to stand and fight for it.

I would like to reaffirm my commitment and the New Democratic Party's commitment to work for justice and fairness.

Today, December 6, marks the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Today, we reflect on the loss of 14 young women who were killed on this day just because they were women. Sadly, the violence against women still continues. The end of violence against women is everybody's responsibility. Today, we remember and reflect and then speak out and pledge to turn this remembrance into action to end violence committed against women and girls in our communities, our country and around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-15.

In October 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced the bill, which amends the National Defence Act in order to strengthen military justice. This, of course, follows the 2003 report from former chief justice the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer and the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

As members will know, Bill C-15 had earlier incarnations. We have spoken briefly of Bill C-7, which died on the order paper due to prorogation. Members will remember the prorogation, when the government saw fit to escape the House because there were certain allegations in regard to the appropriate behaviour of the government. Again, we saw Bill C-45, another earlier incarnation, disappear during the election of 2008.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced, again in response to Justice Lamer's report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the provost marshal, and limited provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints process, which of course brings us to Bill C-15.

I believe it is important for me to speak to the bill, because justice is more than just a system of laws and regulations. It is also a fundamental value for me, for my NDP colleagues and certainly for the military and Canadians across this land.

The bill is a step in the right direction. We have heard that a number of times, but it does not address the key issues related to reforming the summary trial system, the grievance system and for strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. These are key objectives that cannot be ignored.

While the bill's primary objective is laudable, it does not satisfy our objectives. Much needs to be done to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We on this side of the House want a comprehensive bill that adequately addresses the problem. No justice system is perfect. We have seen that over the years. However, that should not stop us from trying to improve our system as much as possible. Key elements have been left out of Bill C-15: reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

In fact, the NDP included these three elements in amendments to the previous version of Bill C-15, which of course was Bill C-41. Oddly, and I do say oddly, these amendments are now absent. It is a strange coincidence.

As I said, the NDP is not opposed to the spirit of the bill. What we want is to work with the government to get it right, in order to ensure that the bill is relevant and that its scope is broad enough. I am at a loss to understand why the government did not include the three elements I referred to in Bill C-15. They are important for consistent military justice reform.

Let us look specifically at the grievance system. We will start with that one. We must understand it in order to appreciate the importance of the improvements proposed by the NDP. I would like to quote the directive on military grievances, which can be found on the Department of National Defence's website. It indicates that:

The DND and the [Canadian Forces] shall manage all grievances through the Canadian Forces Grievance System...and ensure that: all grievances are processed as efficiently and expeditiously as possible; a CF member is not penalized for submitting a grievance; and assistance is made available to a CF member in the preparation of a grievance.

The last point is very important. The Canadian Forces has the responsibility to help its members because they do not have a union-type association to defend them. This lack of counterbalance is another reason why it is important to ensure that we have an effective and impartial system.

The NDP proposed two improvements. First, we proposed that at least 60% of grievance board members be civilians who have never been officers or members of the Canadian Forces; and second, that the Chief of Defence Staff be given more authority to resolve the financial aspect of grievances.

The first improvement, namely that the grievance board strike a balance between military and civilian membership, is important to ensure that this process be perceived as external and independent. When it comes to the military, it is critical that everyone in the country is able to see that the system as independent and fair. Members of the military have a great deal of experience in managing such situations, so it is rather important that they be truly involved in the process. However, the presence of civilians is also essential to dispel any idea that members of the military are subject to a different kind of justice than ordinary Canadians.

It is also essential that Canadian Forces Grievance Board be effective and absolutely beyond reproach. The NDP believes that a significant civilian presence on the board would help maintain this perception. When we look at how to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission, the merit of this idea and our position is quite obvious. Police officers, as an example, are agents of social control and play a key role in our society based on the rule of law. They are effective not only because they have the equipment, the manpower and the authority, but also because they are perceived as legitimate by the public.

The military police is no exception. For a police force to operate properly, whether it be military or civilian, it must have the approval of those under its authority. A police force gains legitimacy through its perceived integrity. This perception is built on the actions of the police force and the perception of fairness and justice in its operations.

There is no better way to prove the integrity of a police force than by having a strong monitoring body. A Military Police Complaints Commission that is legitimate and reports to Parliament is the best way to ensure fairness in the actions of military police and, just as importantly, the perception of fairness and justice by Canadians.

We on this side of the House also recommended that the Chief of Defence Staff have more authority to resolve financial aspects related to grievances. This is a simple requirement to ensure that the grievance system is consistent. If the Chief of Defence Staff does not have the ability to resolve financial aspects, it calls into question the relevance of the grievance process.

I would point out that Canada is not the only country reviewing its military justice system. Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland have recently done the same. We are in an excellent position to pass comprehensive and effective legislation while taking into account what has been done in other countries. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the bill as it stands. As I have already said, the NDP proposed amendments to the bill in its previous form, but those amendments are no longer part of the current bill. We would like to see these important and constructive changes incorporated.

We think that our Canadian Forces personnel deserve that. They put themselves on the line each and every day. They have been a source of great pride to this country in their behaviour and conduct in arenas around the world. We owe them a sense of security regarding the justice that is meted out within the military.

I would sincerely ask the government to reconsider the recommendations the NDP has made because we want to strengthen the bill. We want it to be fair and balanced. We want it to work.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering for pronouncing the name of my riding correctly, which rarely happens in the House.

Regarding the member's first intervention, I hope he does not want to take away the right of duly elected members on both sides of the House to speak, as is their right at second reading and as we are doing right now. Since the government has a majority, the member knows very well that the bill will go to committee and will be examined in committee.

Our point here is simply that we need to focus on the fact that the committee adopted some of the amendments proposed by the NDP—three, to be specific—yet those amendments did not survive Bill C-45. They were not included in the bill currently before us, Bill C-15. We really want to emphasize that point. We want the government to understand the importance of those issues.

With regard to summary trials, I would remind the hon. member that we heard testimony from retired Colonel Drapeau. We found his testimony to be very powerful. I would remind the House that in 2008-09, some 1,865 cases were dealt with by summary trial, and only 67 cases were tried through court martial. We think this is an extremely important issue. I hope the government will eventually take the NDP's arguments into account and consider our amendments.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we are eventually going to vote at second reading. The bill is very important to the members of the official opposition, the NDP, here in the House. Many of them have expressed their desire to talk about their disappointment with regard to the fact that the amendments adopted by the committee were not included in the bill. That is why we will oppose the bill when we vote on it at second reading.

I would like to point out that, if this bill were important to the government, then it would have been discussed in the House a long time ago. I would like to remind hon. members that right now we are talking about Bill C-15, and we just voted on Bill C-45. It therefore seems that certain issues are more important to the government than others. Unfortunately, this bill does not seem to be one of the government's priorities, since the government waited so long to bring it forward for us to discuss.

Eventually, we will vote on this bill, but I would not want to see the official opposition deprived of their opportunity to speak about it at second reading, because that is their right.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. I was posted to Lancaster Park, just north of Edmonton. The military jail was out there. Periodically we would get into discussions about military justice. There are different needs for one who is in the service that sometimes go a bit beyond the needs of a civilian, if I may put it that way.

I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 previously. From the Liberal Party of Canada's perspective there is always room for improvement. We see the merit in trying to improve the legislation. We would also like to see the bill ultimately get through the system.

Could my colleague tell me if the NDP is going to accommodate the passage of the legislation this year, so that it could go to committee where we could hear from some of the stakeholders? Maybe he could shed a bit of light on that point.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you could let me know when I have one minute left.

I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-15. We have to make sure, first and foremost, that the men and women who work to defend us are able to represent us in the armed forces and have the tools to avoid putting their lives at risk unnecessarily. We also have a responsibility to provide them with an operational framework that is appropriate and fair.

And that is what Bill C-15 on the military justice system, which is now before us, claims to do. This bill originates in the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence to arrange for an independent review of the amendments to the National Defence Act every five years. That requirement is set out in clause 96 of Bill C-25 which was assented to in 1998.

In 2003, Justice Antonio Lamer was instructed to examine the provisions and application of Bill C-25. He concluded that “Canada's military justice system generally works very well, subject to a few changes”. Justice Lamer proposed those few changes in the form of 88 recommendations, some of which were addressed in Bill C-7, which became Bill C-45, and then C-60.

After Bill C-60 was passed and assented to, it too was the subject of a review, this time by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the House of Commons. That report was released in 2009 and is entitled “Equal Justice: Reforming Canada’s System of Courts Martial”. Bill C-41, which is now Bill C-15, was to act upon the nine recommendations in that report, which addressed both the Lamer report and Bill C-60.

The justification for having a separate justice system for the armed forces has been repeatedly demonstrated, and in 1992 the Supreme Court of Canada did so very eloquently in R. v. Généreux. One piece of tangible evidence of the importance of having a system that is specific to the military, as Justice Lamer himself admitted, is the fact that certain offences in the Code of Service Discipline do not have the same importance in the civilian justice system, and sometimes there is no equivalent for those offences: for example, disobeying an order of a superior officer.

The Minister of National Defence referred in committee to the old adage that our justice system is a living tree, meaning that the military justice system has to evolve. The Senate committee summarized that very well when it said that “the military, as an organization, benefits when the rules that govern it largely reflect those that apply to Canadian society in general”.

However, we must be careful not to fall into the other extreme, and make sure that, notwithstanding this overriding disciplinary aspect, people who work in the armed forces do not lose their rights that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Senate committee also stated that “with the exception of section 11(f) of the Charter, the rights enumerated in the Charter do not distinguish between proceedings under the military and civilian justice systems”.

As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that this separate justice system does not violate the individual’s rights since it is still able to guarantee the individual “the right to equality before the law and to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal”. It is therefore essential to ensure that the actors in the military system are effective, independent and impartial.

Let us now come back to the crux of this bill, which, I must say, has become weaker with every version. Although, according to a Supreme Court justice, Bill C-45 did not resolve the problem it was created to address, Bill C-15, which we are currently discussing, does not take into account all the work done in committee during the examination of the previous version of the bill, Bill C-41.

In fact, some amendments that were adopted in the past were not included in this new version of the bill. Yet, these amendments changed practices that did not fit with the desired evolution of the military justice framework.

I hope I have enough time left to talk about the three main amendments proposed by the NDP, which were adopted in the past but excluded from Bill C-15.

The first is the reform of the summary trial system, so that a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces no longer automatically results in a criminal record. During hearings before the Senate committee, many witnesses expressed their disagreement with this practice. There is even more cause for concern given that most offences are dealt with in this manner.

Michel Drapeau, one of the witnesses, said:

There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year....

From where I stand, I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial.

In committee last March, the amendments to Bill C-41 proposed by the NDP called for the list of offences that could be considered to be minor, and not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed for the offence in question, to be increased from five to 27. The amendment also adds to the list of penalties a tribunal may impose without them being entered on the record, for example, a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal to one month's salary and other minor sentences. That was significant progress in terms of summary trials, but since that amendment was not included in Bill C-15, we want it to be included now.

The second amendment concerns the military grievances external review committee. Currently, the grievance board does not allow reviews by people outside of the military system. It is made up of retired members of the Canadian Forces. We would like the committee to be perceived as an independent, external civilian body. There is a problem with the makeup of the committee and the appointment process if the armed forces want to maintain that reputation. Committee membership should therefore include individuals from civilian society.

The NDP's amendment suggested that at least 60% of the members of the grievance committee should never have been a Canadian Forces member or officer. This amendment was agreed to in March 2011 for Bill C-41, but it was not included in Bill C-15. It must be put back in the bill.

One major flaw in the current military grievance system is the fact that the Chief of Defence Staff can resolve certain financial matters arising from grievances. That goes against a recommendation in the Lamer report. Despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence supported the recommendation, the government has failed to act on it for the past eight years. The NDP proposed an amendment to do with this at committee stage of Bill C-41. Even though it was agreed to in March 2011, it was not included in Bill C-15, and the NDP will fight to put it back in the bill.

The third amendment that I would like to talk about would strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish the time required for the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to resolve complaints and protect complainants from being penalized for having filed a complaint in good faith.

Giving the Military Police Complaints Commission more power, effectively turning it into a watchdog, was virtually ignored. There should be a legislative provision to give the commission more power so that it can be authorized to investigate and report to Parliament.

In conclusion, the fact that the Conservatives deliberately botched the bill and removed some of the key elements that resulted from the hard work done by the members of the House of Commons committee and all parliamentarians in this House is further proof of this government's lack of respect and consideration for the parliamentary process.

Why did the Conservatives not keep the amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted at committee stage last spring, when Bill C-41 was studied, after long hours of debate that seemed to have moved the bill in the right direction?

By not including these amendments in Bill C-15, the Conservatives are undermining the important work done by all members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and also the recommendations made by Canadian Forces representatives during the last session of Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence rose in the House to give the first speech at second reading. He said:

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

This government also recognizes, as did Chief Justice Lamer in his 2003 report, that there is room for improvement.

If the parliamentary secretary really meant what he said, why did he ignore all the improvements made by this Parliament in committee? Although truly unfortunate, that is the Conservative government's approach. Not only has it dropped the amendments agreed to in committee, but it has ignored a number of recommendations, picked the ones it wants and rejected the rest.

The official opposition will oppose the bill at second reading, knowing that the bill will be referred to committee. And we truly hope that the amendments agreed to when the committee studied the issue will be included in order to make this a more balanced bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech on this bill, the hon. member linked it to a number of initiatives this government has been taking and that all Canadians want us to take to improve the justice system in many areas. These include improving protection for victims, preventing them from becoming victims in the first place, which is at the core of our justice agenda, and above all dealing with the very urgent problem of violence against women, which we are thinking deeply about this week because of today's anniversary and the scale of the challenge it presents, which we know is still too great in this country.

However, Bill C-15 is about improving the justice system for military members of the Canadian Forces to ensure that the punishments handed down at summary trials and courts martial are appropriate to the gravity and type of offence, and to make the sentences broadly comparable to those existing in the civil system.

Does the member opposite agree that these are important measures that should be implemented? Does she also agree that it is time to move this bill to committee where witnesses can be called and these measures and others can be debated at length, so that we can implement these modernizing proposals for the military justice system, which have, to be very frank, been before this House in successive Parliaments for far too long?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

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

I do want to take just a moment to acknowledge that today, being December 6, is our National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It is a day etched in Canadian history because of the shooting deaths of 14 women in 1989 in Montreal. They were shot by a man who deliberately targeted them on that day, on a busy Montreal campus.

It is a day when we remember those women, but we also recommit to taking action to end violence against women and girls in Canada. It is a very important day for us today.

I also want to deal with the bill at hand. As my colleague, the previous speaker, just reported, we acknowledge that this bill does take some steps forward, but it falls far short of where it needs to go. It is a bill that amends the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice. It is something that has been a long time coming. We remember the 2003 report of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and his recommendations.

Basically what we are dealing with is the right to basic fairness, for those who serve in our military, when it comes to their rights in a judicial system within the military. Certainly on this side of the House, in the NDP, we believe in bringing more fairness to the Canadian military justice system, for men and women who put on a uniform and therefore put their lives at risk for the people of Canada. We believe they need to be treated fairly.

I trust a lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a justice system that lacks the basic due process that is required in Canadian civilian criminal courts. That is what we are dealing with here today.

We believe that the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline. That is as it should be, but they in turn deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard.

I will talk for a moment about the ease with which military personnel can get a criminal record, which makes life very difficult for them after their military service. It can affect everything from getting a job to renting an apartment to making travel very difficult. We recognize the serious challenges this can provide.

While we recognize that Bill C-15 does provide greater flexibility in sentencing, greater sentencing options, and this is a positive step in the right direction, this bill falls far short in reforming the summary trial system, in reforming the grievance system and in strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I want to say that an earlier version of this bill, in the last Parliament, had similar problems, but the government at the time was willing to accept a number of amendments from the NDP. The government adopted those amendments and the committee recommended the amended bill. It strengthened the bill and made it acceptable.

Yet, when the government brought in this bill in this new Parliament, it is back to the old provisions. The government has abandoned addressing many of the recommendations pertaining to military justice that the Lamer report proposed, and it has not included in this bill many of the substantive amendments that New Democrats had proposed.

I want to just go over these briefly for those who are not familiar with this system.

First, I will address the summary trial system, where the vast majority of charges that come forward are dealt with. It is meant to deal less formally with problems, and it deals usually with minor offences. That includes such offences as insubordination, absence without leave, quarrels, frictions that happen in daily life. These are matters that can be important to military discipline, so we understand that it is important they be dealt with, but through the current system they can result in a criminal record. Through this complaints procedure, military personnel are held without the ability to consult with counsel, there are no appeals or transcripts and often the person who is the “judge” is the person's commanding officer. So personnel can be found guilty of some very minor offence and that can result in a criminal record, which can follow them in post-military life. The government was willing to accept an amendment on this in March 2011, and now it has seemingly abandoned that openness.

Next, I will talk about the grievance system. At present, the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. It is usually staffed by retired Canadian Forces officers. It is our belief that members of this board should be drawn from civil society and not exclusively be military personnel. Our proposal is that 60% of the members of this grievance system be people who are not and have never been non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. Again, the government did accept this in the former Bill C-41 and now is refusing to do that. In terms of resolutions of complaints, another problem we have with the grievance process is that the Chief of the Defence Staff lacks the ability and authority to resolve any financial settlements or aspects arising and resulting from a grievance. We believe this is also a problem. It was a recommendation of the Lamer report to include this. We did have an amendment accepted earlier and we would like to see that back in here. We will fight to have this included again.

The last point is on strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. This would be a step forward, but we think more needs to be done to empower the commission. This commission is not provided with the necessary powers to act as an oversight body. The Military Police Complaints Commission must be empowered by a legislative provision that would allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament.

The concerns we are raising have been raised by civil liberties organizations and by members and retired members of the armed forces, and I could cite at length from their statements about this bill. However, we believe there are serious concerns that should be addressed, and we will work to defend the rights of our armed forces to a fair judicial system.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

Justice and Human Rights

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

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

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

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alain Gauthier]

That would be totally outside of my realm. One of the things we don't do is necessarily look at the discipline piece of the military. Most of the issues the office looks at are the administrative pieces—finance, posting, harassment pieces, all this stuff. As soon as it becomes disciplinary and in court, it's outside of our mandate and outside of our box. We deal with very few, if any, of those cases. I have no visibility on that specific clause and Bill C-15 for that effect.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

I'm talking about clause 50 and the amendment that it includes of Bill C-15. It's amending the military court to better align or be more in line with the civil courts. I'm just asking you how this is being integrated or changed within the system as you know it.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you so much for coming in and for providing us with so much more detail on the differences.

One of the things I wanted to ask you about was Bill C-15. It appears that we're trying to better align the criminal court with the civil court. Therefore, can you explain that to us a bit more? What are the objectives and how are they being implemented through your system?

[Alain Gauthier]

Without a doubt, the fear is there. The fear is there when we receive the call. I'd say at least one-third of the people want to remain anonymous. They just want the information. They want to understand their ability to move forward, but we know that because of fear, they're not doing it.

You talk about Bill C-15. I'm not sure if there's a way to make the case that people have the right to complain without fear of reprisal. I think that would be a huge step.

Business of the House

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

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

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

The hon. member for Papineau might want to be aware of the House leader bump. My first NDP counterpart after the election now resides in Stornoway. Meanwhile, I want to welcome and congratulate the new Liberal House leader, the hon. member for Beauséjour. I look forward to continuing the very positive relationship that I enjoyed working together with his predecessor. I genuinely and sincerely wish his predecessor the best of luck.

I am sure that the new House leader will be keen to hear that we will resume the report stage debate on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012, this afternoon.

After almost 4,600 votes in the House and committee on our 2012 economic action plan, I am pleased to say that we are in the home stretch of implementing our budget for this year.

Canadians will soon see important measures such the hiring credit for small business extended, greater tax relief for investing in clean energy, and strengthened registered disability savings plan rules.

To the great chagrin of the New Democrats no doubt, Canadians will still not see within that budget a $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax or the $6 billion GST tax grab that I know they wish to see implemented. It does not matter how many hundreds of amendments they put forward, we simply will not accede to their tax and spend initiatives.

The House will consider Bill C-45 on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.

We will resume second reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, tomorrow. We will get back to second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, if we have time.

On Thursday and Friday next week, we will work through a number of bills before the House, including: Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, which was reported back from committee this morning; Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act; Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, should it be reported back from committee; and the other bills I have mentioned, if we have not had a chance to wrap up those debates.

Finally, for the benefit of the House and particularly committees meeting on the supplementary estimates, I am planning for the last supply day of this fall to be on Monday, December 10. I expect that I will get back to the House next week at some point to designate that date formally.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

It sounds like all of the policies and everything are put in place; it's just that this is human behaviour, and we always have to accept that we are humans. You can put down all the rules—we've been hearing about all kinds of great policies and rules and regulations—but it is human behaviour that is there, without question.

I think a change in the culture, which is what I think we're talking about in the RCMP, is about leadership in so many different areas of establishing what is acceptable and what isn't. I'm pleased to know that you're working on trying to ensure that happens, always recognizing that we are human and that none of us is perfect, any more than any of your men and women who work in your service are.

I had some questions for the ombudsman last week, but we left him, and now he isn't here this week. If I could, I'll ask you. My understanding is he had some recommendations that he felt would strengthen Bill C-15. Is anyone aware of what some of those recommendations might be that would strengthen Bill C-15?

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite happy a while ago to see a Conservative member finally get up and ask a question on the bill. The Conservative member wants to get the bill to committee.

My question for my colleague from Ottawa Centre is: Considering the fact that the House has passed dozens of bills, maybe hundreds, since the government became a majority and we have been able to make amendments to one bill, maybe two, can the hon. member tell me what the chances are of our making good amendments to Bill C-15, or are we not going to be able to do that?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to welcome the Minister of National Defence to the debate today. It is good to see him in the House.

If he is familiar with the history of the bill, then he will know that its previous versions did not go forward because of prorogation. Now who was responsible for that?

We acted in good faith on this bill in terms of amendments that were put forward at committee under Bill C-41, so I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. We have been trying to find out all day why the government dropped the key amendments that were agreed to in committee. Why are they now not in Bill C-15?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in principle, Bill C-15 attempts to narrow the gap, as I referred to earlier, between civil court and military court. The principle of what it attempts to do is something which we in the Liberal Party do support and ultimately would like to see passed to committee.

We have a number of concerns. We, too, would like to see amendments. I am somewhat surprised that the New Democrats have decided not to allow it to go to committee. If the choice were theirs, they would defeat the bill.

To what degree does the member support the principle of what the bill tries to accomplish? Even if it does not receive amendments, would the New Democrats support it in a third reading, for example? At the very least, would the member not acknowledge that it is best to see the bill go to committee where she might get her amendments through? Could the member just focus in on the principle of the bill itself?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise on the bill after asking so many questions.

First, as I am following the member for Scarborough Southwest, I would like to congratulate him on his engagement. I met his lovely fiancé and it is wonderful to know that they will be married soon.

I would like to begin my remarks by saying that over quite a few years in this House I have debated many bills. However, it is very unusual and rare to hold a debate in which there is basically one party participating. There is something going on here that we will have to get to the bottom of.

I appreciate that so many members of the NDP caucus, the official opposition, have taken the time today to get up in their place and debate this very important bill. They have given some substance and historical background on where this bill came from and what the problems are with the bill today.

In fact, I remember you, Mr. Speaker, debating the bill in the last Parliament. It was Bill C-41 then, a forerunner of this bill and very similar in its provisions. I have to say that we certainly miss you in the House debating bills, but we are very happy to see you in the chair as Deputy Speaker.

Bill C-15 has a long history and it is about a very important matter that is long overdue for reform, that being our system of military justice. As the member for Scarborough Southwest just pointed out, there are other countries that have dealt with this issue in a proper and adequate way, yet we are lagging far behind.

The original report by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was presented in 2003. That is quite a few years ago and it worries me that it has taken this length of time to bring forward a bill, which will presumably go to committee. We hope that it will come back from committee in a form that includes the amendments the NDP proposed so long ago.

Military justice is a very important issue, particularly the principle that members of the Canadian Forces have access to a system that is fair, balanced and that protects their rights. In fact, after reading through the bill to see what it would and would not do, there are a lot of fundamental questions about why the members of the Canadian Forces have been living under a system where their rights have basically been disregarded for so long.

Even though we support many elements of the bill and think it is a step in the right direction, there are three key issues that we have been hammering away at today because they are not in the bill. The bill does not go far enough on the need to reform the summary trial system and the grievance system and to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. I would like to focus on these three elements.

Regarding the summary trial system, what immediately jumps out at one when reading the bill is that it does not adequately address the unfairness of it. As noted by my colleagues, members of the armed forces can be drawn into some of these summary trials, as we are told, on issues that are meant to be of a minor nature. However, the fact is that they can end up with a criminal record.

They have no right to consult counsel, there are no appeals or transcripts of the so-called trial, and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This has to be the most fundamental injustice. It is very disturbing that it has continued for so long.

Dealing with the issue of the summary trial system and bringing in reforms is something that I think is imperative for members of the armed forces and for anyone in this country who has a notion of the justice, balance and fairness that need to be afforded to people.

We are very concerned that the bill does not address this fundamental question. Some of the so-called minor service offences could include things like insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absent without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. In a civil system, people could be charged with those things and if they actually went to court, they would have a lawyer, a hearing, a judge and may even have a jury. However, in this system, the summary trial system, none of those things would happen, but people could end up with a criminal offence. This is a serious problem that we face in the bill. We want to see it corrected.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, when the bill came forward in its last form, Bill C-41, the NDP worked very hard to get the bill changed. In fact, when it was at committee last March, we wanted to expand the list of offences that could be considered as not worthy of a criminal record from 5 to 22.

We worked very hard at the committee. I was not on the committee, but I am sure there were witnesses who were heard. We know there were a number of major witnesses and organizations that sent in information, like the BC Civil Liberties Association, which put forward the concerns and fundamental flaws with the bill.

Therefore, we brought forward those amendments and they were approved at the committee. That is an example of committee work that was doing something. It was constructive. Amendments were proposed that would improve the bill, which is what is meant to be done at the committee level.

Lo and behold, we come back to the House, a new bill comes forward, Bill C-15, and those amendments are not present in the bill. That is a serious problem.

As a matter of principle, we are opposing this bill at second reading. I guess it is a form of protest to say that the process here has been seriously undermined and that the government should have acted in a responsible way, looked at the constructive work that was done on earlier versions of the bill and ensured that it came back in a way that reflected the will of the House.

It is very unfortunate that none of the members on the government side have been willing to answer that question today. We have raised it repeatedly in the House. It is a very straightforward question. We have asked each other those questions, because the government members will not answer. We have asked why the Conservative members and the Conservative government did not include those amendments.

We do not know for sure. We can only suppose that it is some level of unilateralism, some level of arrogance that the government thinks it can ditch that and does not need to pay attention to it. If that is not the case, we sure wish the government members would get up and explain why these amendments are not in Bill C-15.

The second key item that we wish to raise is the reform of the grievance review committee. Again, this is a very fundamental process system that has to do with military justice. In this instance, we had amendments and things we had worked on to strengthen the bill. It is really a very straightforward principle.

It is the idea that there needs to be some sort of external, independent component. In fact, the NDP amendment that had been put forward in committee previously had specified that at least 60% of the grievance committee could not be an officer or non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. Again, this amendment was passed under Bill C-41, but is not been retained in Bill C-15. Having some independence, some broader scope on a grievance review committee seems, to us, to be a pretty important thing. It begs the question why it is not there.

Finally, our third concern is about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. We believe, and again there was an amendment to this effect, that it should be seen as an oversight body. There has to be somebody who looks at the system overall and has some independence and must be empowered to actually investigate and report back to Parliament. On that too, it is silent. It is absent.

For those three reasons, we are not supporting this bill at this time.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I, too, would like to congratulate the member for Scarborough Southwest for his commitment. I listened intently to his speech, as I did the speeches of all my NDP colleagues, which stand in stark contrast to the hollow speeches emanating from the other side.

Let me reassure my colleague: I think it is a relatively new practice in the House to speak without saying a single word. That is not why we were elected, however, and the NDP intends to do its job.

I see that we have dealt with many different iterations of Bill C-15, namely Bill C-7, Bill C-45, Bill C-60 and Bill C-41.

I know that in the last session of Parliament, the NDP brought forward several amendments, including amendments to increase the Chief of the Defence Staff's authority in the grievance process, to change the grievance board's membership so that 60% of its members are civilians and to ensure that anyone summarily convicted of an offence not be unfairly burdened with a criminal record.

I would like my colleague to tell us how people, especially Canadians, will react when they find out that their military men and women, who have so bravely served our country, could end up with a criminal record because of flaws in our military justice system.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to get an answer why it is not in Bill C-15, a member of the government would actually have to rise in the House and defend this bill.

I would like to tell the member that flattery will get him absolutely everywhere, and I thank him for his congratulations on my upcoming nuptials, which will be taking place next year.

That is one of the main confusions with this bill, as with many others. The government strips away well thought out, reasoned amendments from bills and then no one on that side will get up to defend why the government did so. That is absolutely transparent on the part of government; it is as if the government were not even there.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such a good speech, even though he is getting comments from the other side, and congratulate the people of his riding for electing a brilliant young man. I also congratulate him because I heard that he recently got engaged.

I have a question for the hon. member about an amendment to Bill C-41, about which it was said:

[A] key New Democrat amendment to Bill C-41 was the provision ensuring military personnel convicted of offences during a summary trial would not be subject to a criminal record. We believed then, and we still believe, that those who bravely serve our country should not be deprived of the rights and protections that other Canadians enjoy.

Can the hon. member tell me why this amendment is not in Bill C-15?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to be rising in the House today. I would have been much happier rising if this were Bill C-41, from the last Parliament, and to be speaking to and supporting that very important piece of legislation. However, what the government has done with Bill C-15 is turn it into what I would have to call a prequel, which is what is there before one gets to a final bill. This should be what we had before we got to something like Bill C-41, in the last Parliament, when all of the parties participated, had a debate, and agreed to bring the bill forward in a way the parties would all have been able to support. However, that is really not what the government is interested in.

There are many important reforms in the bill, and the NDP supports the long overdue update of the military justice system.

Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline. They, in turn, deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. While this is not an issue at the forefront of most people's minds, a lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts. The way the system of justice in the military is set up right now, a soldier can receive a criminal record for very minor offences, such as insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave and even drunkenness. These matters could be extremely important to military discipline, and we would probably all agree on that, but they are not worthy of a criminal record.

A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Getting a job, renting an apartment and travelling abroad are all made far more difficult when someone has a criminal record. Our brave men and women have enough challenges re-entering civil society without a criminal record on their backs.

The NDP will fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line in the service of Canada.

The issues addressed in the bill are not new and date back, as we have heard many times today, at least to the independent review of the National Defence Act, released in 2003, by the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court.

The issues contained in Bill C-15 have indeed appeared in earlier forms. There was Bill C-7, which died on the order paper due to prorogation in 2007. We all remember that wonderful time. Then there was Bill C-45, which died on the order paper after the current government was found in contempt of Parliament.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force, simplifying the structure of the courts marshal and establishing a method for choosing a type of court marshal more closely aligned with the civilian system.

In 2009, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs considered Bill C-60 and provided nine recommendations for amendments to the National Defence Act.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 report and to the Senate committee's report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges in committees, summary trials, court marshal panels, the provost marshal and limited provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints process. In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament, minus all of those amendments.

The amendments carried over include courts marshal composition and military judges' security of tenure. However, other important amendments passed at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15. These include the following NDP amendments: the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership; and a provision ensuring that a person convicted of an offence during summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

If one member of the government would get up at this point, I would ask what in those amendments was so scary and offensive that the government would pull them out of the bill before reintroducing it. However, I doubt that I will have that chance.

I am opposing Bill C-15, as it contains shortcomings that need to be re-addressed because the amendments I mentioned were pulled from the previous version of the bill. Far too often the government takes bills that were fixed and then breaks them again before bringing them to Parliament. It is a trend that we are seeing again and again. In the next two and a half years before the next election, I wonder how many other things Conservatives are going to break anew before bringing them before Parliament.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately the unfairness of summary trials and the conviction of service offences from those trials in the Canadian Forces, which result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the accused being able to consult counsel; there are no appeals or transcripts of the trial; and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. I wonder how many of us in civilian life would ever want to be tried by our boss.

These trials are unduly harsh for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of very minor service offences. Bill C-15 does make an exception for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment defined in the act, or a fine of less than $500, so they will no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill, but it does not go far enough.

At committee during the last Parliament, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand the list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record from 5 such offences to 27. If the offences in question received a minor punishment, one the NDP amendments also extended the list of punishments that might be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a reprimand or a fine equal to one month's basic pay, or another minor punishment. This was a major step for summary trials. However, this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15. We want to see it included.

Another matter that needs to be amended relates to the external military grievances review committee. At present the grievance committee does not provide a means for external review. Currently it is staffed entirely by retired Canadian Forces officers, some only recently retired. If the Canadian Forces grievance board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it is designed to be, then the appointments process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society.

The NDP would like to see a provision that at least 60% of the grievance committee members never have been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. This amendment to Bill C-41 was passed in March 2011, but again it was not retained in Bill C-15. There seems to be no good amendment that the Conservatives do not want to see gone. It is important that this amendment also be put back in the bill.

Another major flaw in the military grievance system is that the Chief of the Defence Staff presently lacks the authority to resolve any and all financial aspects arising from a grievance, contrary to a recommendation in the Lamer report. Despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence at the time agreed to this recommendation, there have been no concrete steps taken over the past eight years to implement this recommendation. The NDP proposed an amendment to this effect to Bill C-41 at committee. Although the amendment passed in March 2011, once again this amendment is nowhere to be found in Bill C-15. It should be included.

Another aspect of the bill that needs to be addressed is the need to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends it to establish a timeline in which the Canadian Forces provost marshal will be required to resolve and conduct complaints as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although a step forward, the NDP believes that more needs to be done to empower the commission. Care has not been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions that would empower it to act as an oversight body.

I will be happy to answer some questions. I hear disappointment from the other side of the room, but I will be more than happy to include you in the conversation.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-15, an Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-15 is intended to strengthen military justice and as a response to the reports of former chief justice Antonio Lamer and of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Bill C-15 in fact includes only 28 of the Lamer report's 88 recommendations. It is essentially the latest attempt to strengthen military justice. One need only think of Bill C-41, introduced in 2010, which was also an attempt to respond to the Lamer report. However, the various parties and the government managed to reach a degree of consensus on that bill.

We made a series of amendments to that bill through negotiations in committee. Bill C-15 is far from being a perfect copy of Bill C-41. Bill C-15 does not include the important amendments that committee adopted in the last Parliament.

Those amendments included some of the NDP's proposals respecting the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, consistent with one of the recommendations of the Lamer report. Changes were also recommended to the composition of the grievance committee so that 60% of its members would be civilians. Lastly, there was the provision guaranteeing that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial would not unfairly be given a criminal record.

Obviously, this bill contains a number of important reforms. The NDP's support for an update of the military justice system is not a recent development. We have observed for some time that there is a genuine need in this area. That is simply logical, given that Canadian Forces members are subject to regulations that are harsh, to say the least. In the circumstances, this situation must be offset by establishing a legal system that is subject to at least comparable standards. However, a number of necessary differences between military and civilian justice must be taken into consideration if we want that justice system to be truly fair.

Bill C-15 has a number of flaws that the government needs to consider. The bill's flaws can be divided up into three specific areas: the reform of the summary trial system, the reform of the grievance system, and the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Regarding the reform of the summary trial system, the amendments in this bill were not adequately examined. Certain members of the Canadian forces convicted for minor offences face tough procedures that will inevitably lead to a criminal record. Moreover, under this judicial process, accused persons cannot consult counsel, and the judge is none other than the accused’s commander. Such a simple and quick process is appropriate in a purely disciplinary context within the Canadian Forces, but what is being proposed here is quite another matter.

It needs to be made clear that having a criminal record has a real impact. It is not a simple matter of discipline, as is the case in the armed forces, and for good reason. Such a change will have damaging consequences for members of the armed forces in their civilian lives, which is why it is important to make the distinction between the notions of civilian and military in summary trials.

It is important to be mindful of the types of minor military offences, and contrast these with what the bill sets out in terms of criminal offences. An important legal distinction must be made in a context like this where the rights of the accused are at stake.

All that to say that the process involved in the reform of the summary trial system will not lead to fair trials and could significantly hurt members of the armed forces in their civilian lives for no good reason.

The sentences resulting from summary trials are not only intended to have this effect. They are intended to provide an example, strengthen discipline and discourage future offences. With this in mind, the process could be considered normal for the armed forces, given the minor violations and offences that are dealt with there, but those hardly merit a criminal record.

Summary trials are designed to expediently dispose of minor military offences. This fundamental difference between court martials and summary trials must be stressed. It is clear, based on the figures concerning the treatment of offences committed by Canadian military officers, that the majority of cases are subject to a summary trial. Only a minority of offences are subject to court martial.

Let us discuss some of the infamous criminal offences in question. They include, for example, insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave and disobeying an order. These are not criminal offences, they are breaches of military discipline. A criminal record, however, will, for obvious reasons, make rejoining civilian life difficult. Getting a job, renting an apartment and, for those who like to travel, travelling abroad, will become difficult.

It is important to note that, on average, Canadian Forces members tend to retire at a much younger age than other Canadians. Thus we see just how many problems this can cause for our military personnel. Is there not a more appropriate way to ensure that justice is served than to impose a criminal record, the effects of which are hard to determine, on people who are being tried for a minor offence without a professional judge and without a formal defence?

Furthermore, the amendments that we proposed to Bill C-41 to expand the list of offences and sentences that are not worthy of a criminal record were not included in this bill. These were sentences that were deemed to be minor and not worthy of a criminal record but that warrant disciplinary measures not exceeding a fine equal to one month's basic pay. This is an important nuance, and we must ensure that these amendments are included in Bill C-15.

Another amendment that was not included in this bill pertains to the reform of the grievance system. We wanted at least 60% of grievance board members to be civilians who have never been an officer or a member of the Canadian Forces. This is a critical requirement if we want to ensure that the grievance board is perceived as an independent, external civilian body, as it should be.

We also proposed an amendment to give the Chief of Defence Staff more authority in the grievance process. Nothing was done in this regard. We must ensure that grievances are quickly resolved in a fair and transparent manner.

Another one of the shortcomings of this bill pertains to the Military Police Complaints Commission. We must increase the commission's authority so that it is able to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament. We must further strengthen the commission by giving it more power to act as an oversight body. This is one of the shortcomings of this bill since this issue was barely touched on.

Today we are talking about reforming the military justice system, in order to bring it more in line with the civilian justice system, while ensuring that the justice process is fair and just for members of the Canadian Forces. That is not the case with a number of the proposed amendments in this bill. Overall, the bill tends to create problems instead of solving existing ones. The government must review this bill and include our amendments that were adopted in committee as part of the study of Bill C-41 and that have disappeared in this bill.

We owe it to the members of the Canadian Forces to give them a justice system that is fair and just. That is the least we can do.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speeches on this bill.

In the last Parliament, the NDP proposed several amendments to Bill C-41, which were accepted by the Conservatives. Now, the Conservatives are rejecting amendments to the same bill, which bears a different number, C-15.

Can my colleague tell us why the Conservatives are rejecting the amendments to Bill C-41 that they accepted in the previous Parliament?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the military justice system that governs the members of the Canadian Forces is completely outdated. My colleague was just talking about that. We have been talking about it, looking into it and studying it since 2003. At the moment, it deprives the men and women in uniform—who have risked their lives to serve Canada—of access to the same legal safeguards that other Canadians across the country enjoy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The NDP has long advocated modernizing the military justice system. We believe that the military justice system must be subject to the same kind of rigour as the rigorous discipline faced by members of the Canadian Forces. For that reason, we are proud that the military justice system is being reviewed as we study Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. We are also proud that this bill incorporates some of the recommendations made by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, in his 2003 report on the independent review of the National Defence Act.

This bill is a step in the right direction, toward making the military justice and civilian justice systems more uniform. But it does not go far enough—as we have said since the debate began today—in reforming certain aspects of the act that I think are essential. Moreover, the bill only includes only 28 of Justice Lamer’s 88 recommendations. The fact that this bill does not go deep enough is disappointing, particularly because many significant amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted by the committee studying Bill C-41—which covered the same subject but was shunted into oblivion by an election call—have unfortunately not been included in Bill C-15. All opposition MPs have said this during the debate. Certainly, we are repeating ourselves, but it is important to say that the work was done in committee, that experts gave their opinions, that the Canadian Forces also made recommendations, and that there was a report. It is as if we were back at square one, since the government has ignored all the recommendations.

Can the government tell us why it has not included the amendments made by the official opposition in Bill C-15? We think adopting these amendments for Bill C-41 was a positive and constructive step. Can the government tell us why these amendments are no longer acceptable?

Committees take their work seriously. This was the result of significant collaboration among members of all parties. This kind of work does not deserve being reduced to nothing. By not including all our amendments in Bill C-15, the Conservatives are devaluing the important work done in committee and that of the defence department, as well as the recommendations made by representatives of the Canadian Forces during the last Parliament.

Bill C-15 still has many shortcomings. We call upon the Conservative government to amend the bill more thoroughly so that the National Defence Act and other related acts can be properly reformed.

The summary trial system, which is probably one of the most outrageous aspects of the current military justice system, requires some major changes. The current amendments to Bill C-15 do not go far enough in addressing the injustice created by summary trials. Do members know what a summary trial is? Most Canadians have no idea what a summary trial is, and they would be shocked to learn that some Canadian citizens are subjected to this type of procedure. A summary trial means that a Canadian Forces member is judged by his commanding officer, in other words his boss, without the right to a lawyer, to an appeal, and without any transcript of the trial.

Currently, a summary trial conviction in the Canadian Forces also results in a criminal record. The summary trial is the most frequently used disciplinary method to deal with offences committed by Canada's military personnel. For example, in 2008-09, 96% of the cases were decided by summary trial. I want to condemn the excessive harshness of summary trials in the case of minor offences.

Minor offences include insubordination, quarrels and misconduct. It seems disproportionate that a conviction for this type of offences should lead to a criminal record. While I recognize the importance of military discipline in the Canadian armed forces, Michel Drapeau, who is an expert in military law and a retired colonel, said this:

Discipline is integral not only to the maintaining of an efficient armed forces but also to ensuring that the rule of law predominates within the military, particularly when engaged in great peril and danger in combat.

However, I am very concerned about the potential consequences of a criminal record for Canadian Forces members after their military career. For example, a criminal record means that the individual will have a very hard time finding a job, renting an apartment, and even travelling.

Do we think all these consequences resulting from a minor offence are excessive and even unfair? I do. It makes no sense. It is totally unfair and it is not in line with what we are asking from members of our armed forces.

This matter had already been covered by an amendment when Bill C-41 was being studied. In fact, the NDP suggested lengthening the list of offences that could be considered minor and that did not merit a criminal record if the offence in question led to a minor punishment. The NDP asked that the list be increased from 5 to 27 offences. It also asked that the list of punishments that could be handed down by the court without leading to a criminal record be lengthened. That changes everything.

Why is this amendment, which was agreed to last spring, not included in Bill C-15? Does the bill ensure that some offences will no longer result in a criminal record? It is inadequate. The bill must go farther. The amendments proposed by the NDP need to be included, as they were in Bill C-41. The military justice system must absolutely adapt to the realities of the 21st century. The current rules and provisions are truly obsolete. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have already deemed it appropriate to change the summary trial process.

At what point will Canada follow suit? Why is the Conservative government dragging its feet on such vital issues as human rights and the rights of Canadian soldiers who, I would like to remind everyone, are Canadian citizens?

After all, would we not be utterly outraged if this sort of thing happened in a civilian context? I am certain that no one would accept it. Canadians would be absolutely shocked to find that soldiers who have so bravely served our country can end up with a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system.

Bill C-15 must also include a reform of the grievance system. At the moment, the grievance board, which is supposed to be independent, does not allow for an external review of the grievances at issue. Even more ironically, Bill C-15 is changing the name of the board to the “Military Grievance External Review Committee”. I cannot see how changing the name makes the committee any more independent. The employees working for this committee are armed forces retirees, which does not make the body truly external and independent.

Meaningful amendments have to be made to the appointment process. In March 2011, the NDP suggested that 60% of members of the grievance board be people who had never been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was kept in Bill C-41. At the risk of repeating myself, can the government explain to us yet again why this amendment is no longer in Bill C-15? I believe that keeping it in the bill is essential.

Still on the topic of the grievance process, the NDP also condemned the Chief of Defence Staff’s lack of authority to resolve financial considerations stemming from grievances.

What is more, there is the matter of the complaints commission. We are asking that the powers of the commission be increased so that it can investigate and report to Parliament.

For all these reasons, because the government has transformed Bill C-41 into the completely unjust, inadequate and incomplete Bill C-15, the NDP will oppose it. There are still many amendments missing and far too many inequities within the bill.

I am now ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15.

There are three Royal Canadian Legions in my riding. I am proud that these legions help our veterans and active military service people. I have met with many Canadian veterans who tell me about the issues that are important to them. Bill C-15 is about military justice, which is an important issue.

I am happy to raise my concerns today with the House over a misguided policy that would ultimately hurt members of the Canadian Forces. Bill C-15 proposes some solutions to ongoing problems with military justice, but this is also not the first attempt to deal with such problems.

I will start by noting that our country's military service men and women are held to a very high standard when defending Canadian values abroad, values of democracy, justice and peace. The Canadian Forces deserve a military justice system that respects these values in all instances, including the grievance system and complaints commissions. The Conservative government chose not to do that.

The government has decided to go against an amendment already passed at committee, which would allow changes to the composition of the grievance board to include a 60-person civilian membership, amended clause 11 in Bill C-41. The parliamentary committee's recommendation was simple, and that was that some members of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board should be drawn from civil society.

Why did the Conservatives not retain the amendments proposed by the NDP that passed during the study of Bill C-41 last spring? By failing to include these amendments in Bill C-15, the Conservatives undermine the recommendations of the Canadian Forces representatives during the last session of Parliament.

When defining the grievance process and highlighting its importance, the Lamer report in 2003 stated:

—unlike in other organizations, grievors do not have unions or employee associations through which to pursue their grievances...It is essential to the morale of CF members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent, and prompt manner.

That is one of the primary reasons we cannot understand why the NDP's proposed amendments to Bill C-41 have been dropped. I will continue to speak about the reasons why we will unfortunately not be able to vote in favour of this bill.

This bill was introduced after a series of bills that were passed in the House of Commons over the past 10 years. First there were bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007 and the election was held in 2008. In July 2008, the government introduced Bill C-60, which came back stronger and simplified the structure, but it too died on the order paper. In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied this bill and recommended nine amendments, but it went no further.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced, and it reached committee stage, where amendments were proposed. Unfortunately, it too died on the order paper. That brings us to Bill C-15. As my colleagues have mentioned, amendments had been proposed in committee and accepted, but they are now being dropped.

I would like to comment on what my colleague just said about the arrogance of the government. It repeatedly tells us that we do not want to work with it, that we vote against its bills and that we are opposed to all kinds of things. Then it comes and tells us that we are opposing a better bill on military justice for veterans.

This bill contains many things that we cannot accept. Furthermore, we had proposed some amendments that I believe were very appropriate. We had recommended changes to the composition of the grievance board to have it consist of 60% civilians. We had recommended that authority be given to the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, in direct response to a recommendation made in the Lamer report.

We had proposed that a person convicted of an offence in a summary trial ought not to be unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

I would like to return to the criminal record. At the moment, the Canadian Forces system is very strict and discipline is very important. These people represent our country. They have to be upright, fair and, as it were, highly disciplined.

At the moment, five of the offences considered minor do not lead to a criminal record. This means that out of 27 such offences, 22 can lead to a criminal record.

I have not looked at my list, but my colleague from Trois-Rivières just mentioned that one of the offences was being absent without leave. I find it ridiculous that that being absent without leave can result in a criminal record.

I am going to tell you about a personal experience. Before coming to this place, I taught adults at two schools, in Sherbrooke and Quebec City. Unfortunately, a lot of young adults in my courses had criminal records. They told me how much that restricted their lives and complicated their efforts to look for work, for example. They always had to answer the question about whether they had a criminal record. They obviously had to tell the truth. Those people told the truth. They said they had a criminal record. Naturally, that can scare an employer. If you are more knowledgeable and you know what sort of behaviour resulted in a criminal record, that can change things.

Having a criminal record can also prevent you from travelling. It is harder to go to the United States, for example. Someone who has completed his military career and saved up money to go to the United States and spend a weekend with his children at Disneyland could be denied entry to the United States because he has a criminal record. This can take on grotesque proportions.

I feel we have an opportunity to change that. Some things are abnormal and disproportionate. You can have a criminal record for being absent without leave. These are things that we can change, and we should seize the opportunity to do so since we are studying the bill.

The government tells us that the wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly and that moving things forward takes a long time. I agree: sometimes it does take a long time and that is why we have been studying the bill for 10 years.

We do not want this bill to die on the order paper. We want it to be passed, but passed logically and responsibly so as to move things forward.

We can decide that some offences that are considered minor will not result in a criminal record. This is the opportunity to do so now, and we must not miss it.

I wanted to add to what the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association says, that military officers who impose sentences at summary trials want to maintain unit discipline and discourage future offences—everything is fine to that point—not to inflict on the accused consequences consistent with having a criminal record in the civilian world.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association thus emphasizes the fact that a criminal record has consequences in the civilian world. We would not want to go too far.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, it is very important for the military world to be highly disciplined, but this goes a little too far.

We are definitely in favour of reforming the legislation concerning the military system.

The bill does not go far enough. Only 28 of Justice Lamer's 88 recommendations were adopted, not even half. None of the amendments put forward by the NDP was adopted either. In our view, this bill does not go far enough, and we will vote against it in the next vote for that reason.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, if not all of them, I am always curious to see what happens to reports that successive governments ask from very honourable people, from experts who are often non-partisan and credible in their field of expertise. Some of these reports are shelved, others are partially followed, while others spur the government into moving forward. The intelligent use of these reports is often a good indication of a government's will to act.

In the case before us, the results are rather disappointing. When the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, a former Supreme Court justice and an expert on today's issues, tabled his report in the fall of 2003, we had before us 88 recommendations concerning military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

After many attempts, Bill C-15 was expected to be an answer to the many recommendations of the Lamer report. However, once again, we are disappointed with the Conservatives' reluctance to solve the issue completely. The Conservatives are not, as their name indicates, progressive but, rather, conservative. Therefore, in order to move forward, it is better to rely on our side of the House.

So we are disappointed, because only 28 recommendations have been incorporated into the bill. What is most unfortunate is that important previous amendments that were adopted at the end of the last parliamentary session have not been included in Bill C-15. Allow me to point out here that for a government that so often proclaims itself to be the champion red tape reduction, this seems to be a contradiction. The work had been done. There was an agreement. But oops, into the recycling bin with it; well, at least I hope it is the recycling bin, for all this work. They are starting the process over again, but they are putting even less on the table this time. This is a strange way of advocating efficiency and optimization of the work within our own institution.

This brings us to the heart of this bill, and since time is short, I will focus on the issues relating to summary trials, because in my opinion, these are probably the issues that most affect the clients I served for 25 years. I am talking about young students who, for all sorts of reasons in their lives, choose a military career, whether because it is suited to their innate personal tastes, or they wish to pursue their education or to acquire some specialized skills. But the one thing that all of these young people have in common is that they are young. I am by no means persuaded that at the time of their enlistment, they are familiar with all the ins and outs of the commitment they are making.

The NDP has long been in favour of a much-needed overhaul of the military justice system. The military justice system in our country today is still a draconian system. It is a legacy from a military tradition that is no longer suited to our times. Changes are long overdue.

The bill that is before us, however, has to enable us to tackle the problems head-on. In spite of everything, this is a unique opportunity to examine our military justice system. So let us not shy away from the debate, and let us try, if possible, to improve this system again.

The members of the Canadian Forces have to meet high disciplinary standards, and it is easy to understand why. However, we are asking in return that the justice system that is applied to them be just as precise and exacting. That is the least we should offer our soldiers. This is a matter of the relationship of trust between the armed forces and the justice system they are subject to. That is why the NDP is disappointed with the result we see in this bill.

Bill C-15 does not adequately address the injustice created by summary trials. I will cite a few of the incongruities found in this bill. Do we think it reasonable that, in the military of a country that recognizes the rule of law and a democracy as advanced as ours, summary trials are held where the accused cannot consult counsel? Do we think it is acceptable for accused persons to be unable to read transcripts of their trials, for the simple reason that there is no trial?

I am well aware that the government is battling red tape, but even so, in matters as sensitive as justice, whether military or civilian, I think a trial transcript is a guarantee against errors and abuses.

I would like to quote retired Canadian Forces Colonel Michel W. Drapeau, who is an expert on military law. He was outraged about the legal consequences of a conviction in summary trial. He said:

...it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge [by a convicted soldier], since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted.

That is another incongruity in our system.

Colonel Drapeau went on to say:

As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

That is another incongruity if ever there was one.

Again, is it acceptable for the judge to be the accused person's commanding officer? If that is not a conflict of interest, it sure looks like one.

In my opinion, all these provisions are much too severe in many cases. Yes, there is misconduct within our armed forces and this must be sanctioned. We understand that, but often these are minor offences that do not merit a criminal record.

I took a quick look at what could be considered minor offences. These include things such as quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness or disobedience. I taught teenagers and witnessed, identified, confronted, and dealt with all of these characteristics time and time again. It is often between the ages of 16 to 18 that a person thinks about enrolling in the army. These are very common—and temporary—characteristics among teenagers who are trying to adjust to the adult world. Every one of these behaviours taken independently in civilian life would likely not have serious consequences. But in military life it is a whole other story.

Let us remember that our armed forces must be disciplined and exemplary at all times, of course. Therefore, any improper behaviour or flouting of the rules, discipline or code of conduct that govern the armed forces must be fairly punished. But we also have to remember that our soldiers must not lose confidence in their own justice system.

Within the military justice system, the summary trial is the most common kind of tribunal, with 96% of all cases being determined by summary trial. Many soldiers experience this particular kind of military justice at some time in their career. It is a disciplinary method for dealing with infractions committed by Canada’s military personnel. The other 4% of cases are the exception, the court martial. It is a good thing that this is the proportion. It proves that lack of discipline in our armed forces is a rather rare phenomenon. Summary trials are available to deal rapidly with small infractions of the military sort. It can be done rapidly, within the unit, to maintain discipline.

The issue I want to raise concerns the legal consequences of these summary trials. Are all Canadians aware that a minor conviction in a summary trial leads to a criminal record? That is a fundamental problem.

I will repeat the example given by a Liberal colleague about someone who dropped a cigarette butt in a garbage can rather than an ashtray, where it belonged according to regulations. I can easily understand that in the military world, especially if one is near a munitions depot, it could be considered a serious risk. Still, there is an enormous difference between the treatment this offence would get in the military system and in the civilian one.

I will get straight to my conclusion. It is sad to see that the broad agreement on Bill C-41 has disappeared from discussions of C-15.

Thus, we may ask the government why it is content to do so little when we already had an agreement to do more.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the genesis of the act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, or the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, which is before us, actually commenced over nine years ago, when Justice Lamer, in September 2003, as a result of a required review of the act, wrote 88 recommendations that needed to be acted on immediately to strengthen the National Defence Act. What has happened so far? Nothing has taken place.

First, we had a Liberal government that chose to ignore it and not do anything during the time it was in power.

Then we had a Conservative government, which, to its credit, actually brought forward a bill. However, not to its credit, the Conservative government decided to prorogue Parliament, so the bill died on the order paper. That was Bill C-7, and that was back in 2007. At that point, we were now four years from these recommendations having been made.

In 2008, we had Bill C-45. Again, the Conservatives brought forward a bill, but they then called a snap election, in violation of their own election law. That ended up killing that bill on the order paper again.

Finally, in 2010, Bill C-41 came forward. At the committee stage, the government and all parties agreed on amendments to Bill C-41. Why we are standing and talking about this so vociferously is that those amendments have been removed by the government.

It is audacious. It is arrogant. It is not in keeping with the good practices of Parliament that when we reach agreement on issues we can agree upon, they are removed. The Conservatives have done this over and over again. They have done it with the refugee system. They have done it with this act. It seems as though the government does not want to pay attention to what all Canadians are saying but only to what those sitting opposite are saying.

We have specific issues with this bill. One is the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process. We recommended in Bill C-41 that more authority be provided, which was a direct response to Justice Lamer's recommendation. That was agreeable to the government two years ago. It is not agreeable to it now. What is going on?

There were changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership. Again, in Bill C-41, clause 11 was amended. The government agreed to it, and we thought we could go forward with it. Again, it has been removed. What does the government have against that kind of agreement?

I was a union representative for many years, way too many years. A grievance process is something that has to be seen to have a just end. To have a just end, there has to be a final and binding resolution given independently of the two parties that are at odds. In the normal employment relationship, it is the employer and the employee. In this kind of employment relationship, it is the military and the soldier.

When soldiers have a grievance, they take it to the military. We believe that they need to see that this grievance process will be done in a timely fashion and that it will have a final and binding end, which will be a non-partisan decision. That decision, as in a labour arbitration by an arbitrator, will be made by someone who is independent of the two parties. As long as the government and the military can keep appointing members and ex-members of the military to be part of that final process, it will not be seen to be justice.

Maybe in the long run we can come up with these changes. We might have a better chance of making these changes in 2015. For now, we are astounded that the government would agree, and then only two years later choose not to agree.

Finally, we requested changes to clause 75 in Bill C-41 to ensure that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

For those who are non-military, a summary trial is much like what goes on between the boss and an employee. An employee screws up and he or she is hauled into the boss's office and the boss has a whole range of disciplinary measures that can be meted out. That person can be sent home without pay or demoted. Ultimately if it is severe enough and has happened often enough, the employee can be fired or can be sent for help. There is a whole range of options as to what can be done.

That is very similar to what goes on with a summary trial. The individual is not usually entitled to legal representation when hauled into the boss's office. There are no notes kept or record of this trial. The only record might be of the decision to cause a penalty. In large measure, a summary trial is very much like what goes on in a workplace. The trouble is that in the military a summary trial can cause a person to have a permanent criminal record.

That could never happen in anybody else's employment anywhere in Canada. There is nowhere that a person could gain a criminal record without having been through a criminal trial with the right to representation, the right to not incriminate oneself, the right to be heard in front of a judge and the right to a jury if necessary. Those kinds of things go on in criminal trials. They are the kinds of things that our democracy stands for, and for which these soldiers go into battle to try to create in other countries. Here we are telling them they are not entitled to them themselves, that they are not entitled to the same protections that other Canadians are entitled to.

A criminal record carries with it some very severe consequences. It is very difficult for people to find a job when they come out of the military if they have a criminal record. It is very difficult to travel. As we know, recently at the border Canada has stopped people who have criminal records from coming into Canada. These people will have difficulty getting into other countries if they have criminal records.

It is not just and it is not right that from what is basically a meeting in the boss's office, people are labelled for the rest of their life as having a criminal record. That is the kind of thing that we need to remove from the bill. We understand that the government has moved some way toward that, but it has not gone the whole hog. It has not gone to the same level of decisions that we suggest do not deserve a criminal record in a summary trial.

I want to give an example of how the current military grievance process is not effective. I am trying to assist a person in my riding who had a grievance against the military, who had left the military because he was told that the best way to get what he needed done was to leave and come back. When he tried to go back, he was refused and he grieved it.

He wrote to the commanding officer who said, “I can't do anything until you grieve it”, so he filed a grievance. The response to his grievance was that he was out of time and should have filed it months ago. However, now he had an answer so he wrote to the boss and the boss said, “You're right. That rule that says you should be able to come back was what was in place at the time so we should have let you back. I'm now changing that rule retroactively so you can't come back”.

That is the kind of military justice, the kind of end to a grievance process that happens in the armed forces right now, and it makes a mockery of the system. Why call it a grievance process if that is what can happen? We might as well not have one.

There is a grievance process for good reason. It is because there are times when people need to sit down and talk out what happened. People need to sit down and actually work out that a promise was made and not kept or that a decision was taken that was not just, and find a way around that. However, at the end of that process, there needs to be an impartial decision-making body.

Justice Lamer recommended it and we agreed. We proposed an amendment in the last Parliament and the government agreed to our amendment, but it is not here. The only excuse I have heard from the Conservatives so far has been that it would be disenfranchising 700,000 people who were former members of the military from being on this tribunal. That leaves 34 million other people to be on that tribunal. There are lots of people to choose from.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in essence, the provisions in the bill stem from several recommendations made in 2003 by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the National Defence Act. I should point out that the military justice system is an integral part of Canada's legal system, and its existence is recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is separate from but parallel to the civilian justice system. The distinct military justice system within the Canadian Forces has an important role to play because it meets the specific needs of the military community in terms of discipline, efficiency and troop morale.

To begin with, it is important to note that several legislative attempts have been made to implement recommendations in the 2003 Lamer report. Prior to the last election, members worked studiously to amend the precursor to Bill C-15, Bill C-41. The NDP was successful in getting several amendments passed to better protect the interests of the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces. For example, the NDP made changes concerning the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process. We were also successful in changing the composition of the grievances committee so that 60% of members would be civilians, and we were successful in ensuring that a person convicted of certain minor offences in a summary trial would not receive a criminal record.

The Conservative government took advantage of the fact that the bill died on the order paper and of its new parliamentary majority to scrap the compromise reached in the previous Parliament. That is wasteful and undemocratic.

We support several measures contained in Bill C-15. For some time, we have supported the modernization of the military justice system. After all, members of the Canadian Forces are subject to very strict disciplinary standards and deserve a justice system that is subject to comparable standards. However, we believe that the bill could go a lot further. We must take advantage of Bill C–15 to reform the summary trial and grievances systems, and to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Let us start with summary trials. It is important to know that most disciplinary matters are judged at a summary trial level. Usually, they deal with less serious offences, such as insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, unauthorized absences, drunkenness and disobedience. There are two problems with this system, in our opinion. To begin with, several minor offences can result in a criminal record. These offences are undoubtedly very important in terms of military discipline, but they do not warrant a criminal record.

A lot of Quebeckers and Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who served our country so bravely could end up with a criminal record for a simple offence such as insubordination. It is an even greater pity that this type of offence significantly complicates the lives of these individuals after they leave the military. Criminal records make it difficult to get a new job, limit opportunities to travel abroad and make getting an apartment more difficult.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association noted in February 2011 that the primary concern of the military officers imposing sentences in a summary trial is likely to be unit discipline and deterring future violations, not the effect that a criminal record will have on an accused in the civilian world.

Allow me to digress for a moment while I am talking about the transition of military personnel to civilian life. Just today, the Auditor General of Canada published a report that came down very hard on the Conservative government in terms of the transition of ill and injured military personnel to civilian life. The report revealed a web of red tape that complicates this transition. Here is an excerpt from that report:

Canadian Forces members and veterans, as well as...staff...find the transition process complex, lengthy, and challenging to navigate....[I]t remains difficult to access services and benefits in a timely manner. Reasons include the complexity of eligibility criteria, lack of clear information on support available, the amount of paperwork involved, and case management services that require further improvement.

In short, the Conservative government still has a long way to go to help our military personnel transition smoothly to civilian life, whether they are injured or not. We believe that the federal government should take advantage of Bill C-15 to make this transition easier by significantly reducing the military offences that carry a criminal record.

The Conservatives will say that Bill C-15 already reduces the number of offences that carry a criminal record. That is one of the good things about it; however, in our opinion, the bill should go much further. In the last Parliament, we proposed that the list of offences that could be considered minor and thus not worthy of a criminal record be expanded, if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also expanded the list of sentences that could be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a reprimand, a fine equal to up to one month's basic pay or other minor punishments. Clearly, we will once again propose these amendments in committee.

Moreover, with the summary trial process, neither the procedures nor the rights of the accused are the same as in civilian courts. For example, it is not possible to appeal the verdict or sentence from a summary trial in a court of law. Any form of legal appeal is virtually impossible, because there is no transcript of the trial and the accused cannot be represented by counsel.

We in the NDP believe that if a person risks serious consequences such as acquiring a criminal record or serving a prison term, that person should be entitled to the best protection the law can provide, in terms of procedure. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wigglesworth in 1987.

I have talked a lot about the issue of summary trials, but I also want to raise two other problems with Bill C-15.

For years, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board has been the subject of many complaints. We believe that part of the problem is that it is not an independent, external, civilian body. Some current members of the board are retired Canadian Forces members. To highlight the independent nature of the grievance board, clause 11 of the bill amends subsection 29.16(1) of the National Defence Act to change the name of this board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

We think that the government should follow through and require that at least 60% of the members of the grievance committee must never have been officers or enlisted personnel in the Canadian Forces. This proposal was adopted in March 2011, in relation to Bill C-41. However, it was not retained in Bill C-15. It saddens us that the Conservative government is thus undermining the serious work accomplished by all the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and disregarding the earlier recommendations made by representatives of the Canadian Forces. It is important for this amendment to be considered again.

We also believe that the military grievance system could be substantially improved by granting more power to the Chief of Defence Staff to settle the financial aspects arising from grievances. We will have more amendments on this issue.

Finally, I would emphasize again the importance of protecting from unfair punishment the people who file grievances in good faith. We believe that the powers of the Military Police Complaints Commission should be strengthened so that it can act as a watchdog. The commission should have the power to investigate and to report to Parliament.

In conclusion, I hope the government will take the time to consider our amendments, in order to better protect the men and women who serve in our armed forces.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15 today. This bill would modernize the military justice system to make it more consistent with the civilian justice system. In essence, the provisions in the bill stem from several recommendations made in 2003 by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the National Defence Act. I should point out—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

They are the Cardinals to our San Francisco Giants, I guess, Mr. Speaker. That is the way I look at it.

Among other things, the bill provides greater flexibility in the sentencing process. It provides additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences, and restitution. It modifies the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person. It modifies the limitation period applicable for summary trials. It allows an accused person to waive the limitation periods and clarifies the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. It makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff's powers as a final authority in the grievance process.

I do not want people watching at home to think that there are not some good things in the bill as it moves forward. The bill is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the right direction toward bringing the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, Bill C-15 falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system, and strengthening the military complaints commission.

In 2003, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who is the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, presented his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. It contained 88 recommendations. Bill C-15 is the legislative response to those recommendations, but to only 28 of those recommendations. Sixty are missing. Only 28 of those recommendations have been implemented by this legislation through regulations or by way of a change in practice.

This legislation has also appeared here in earlier forms, first as Bill C-7and then as Bill C-45, which died on the order paper due to prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008. In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force, and some changes were made at that time.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the Lamer report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as the things we are talking about today: sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the provost marshal, and limited provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints process.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version that came out of committee in a previous Parliament. The amendments carried over include court martial composition and military judges' security of tenure, meaning appointments and age.

However, other important amendments passed at the committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15. These included, not surprisingly, NDP amendments that we felt were and are important. One was the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, which responds directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation. Another was a change to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership. Third was a provision ensuring that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subject to a criminal record, and that is no small thing.

Let me say again, because I know that my friend across the way will be asking me a question, that there are many important reforms in the bill. We support the long overdue update of the military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline, and they, in turn, deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard.

However, there are some shortcomings in the bill, and we hope that they will be addressed at committee stage if the bill passes second reading.

The first is the reform of the summary trial system. The amendments in the bill do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction for a service offence in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals and no transcripts of the trial, and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes undue harshness for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of very minor offences.

Some of these minor service offences could include, for example, insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave, and disobeying a lawful command. These are matters that could be extremely important to military discipline but that I do not feel are worthy of a criminal record.

Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine of less than $500 so that they no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill, but it does not, in my opinion and in the opinion of the NDP, go far enough.

At committee stage last March, NDP amendments to the previous bill, Bill C-41, were carried. They expanded this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment.

A criminal record could make life in the military very difficult and could make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records could make getting a job, renting an apartment, and travelling difficult. Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

The second amendment we talked about was a reform of the grievance system. I know that my friend across the way will probably have a question about that. At present, the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. I think that is important. Our amendment provides that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. The amendment was passed but was not retained in the bill as it stands today.

The third amendment concerns strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. I do not think care has been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions that empower it to act as an oversight body.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this particular subject, particularly so close to Remembrance Day. It is particularly fitting, apropos, if I may say, that we have this debate today.

I would like to give a bit of background for those who are perhaps not familiar with the bill and are watching at home. I am continually amazed at how many people in my riding watch CPAC and watch it carefully.

In October of last year, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15. The bill is called an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Its short title is the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

The bill would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice, following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

It is important for my friends across the way to listen carefully, because they need to know that the NDP believes that this legislation is a step in the right direction. The bill is not entirely out in left field. I am sure that some members will agree with me that the Conservatives have had bills that have been out in left field—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly disappointing that we have to resort to Conservative talking points instead of having a truthful debate in the House about how we could make the National Defence Act and military justice a true reality.

I know the member across the way is newly elected—I guess it has been some months now—but I would ask him to look at the records of the defence committee that, in March 2011, passed NDP amendments and others to strengthen Bill C-15 that simply are not in the bill we are talking about today. Why did the government not include changes with respect to strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission or the kinds of changes the committee asked for with regard to summary trials? That is the question I would like answered by the government, and why are Conservatives so keen on reinventing the wheel instead of going back to amendments they themselves allowed to be passed?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here with my colleagues sharing our position as the official opposition in opposing Bill C-15 at second reading. My colleague from St. John's East and others have been involved with the content of the bill for some time. What I find disconcerting is that here we are rehashing the debate when so much good work took place at committee, where recommendations and changes were made to the legislation.

Yes, there was an election, so all of that work fell off the table. But when the government had the chance to put forward a bill that truly reflected the discussion that took place at committee, the kinds of testimony heard from top witnesses, it chose to discount the critical amendments to truly make the legislation what it could be, a piece of legislation that seeks to make military justice in Canada fair and truly just to the utmost extent.

The NDP has been clear in recognizing that, while Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system, it falls short on key issues: reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Complaints Commission. It is really about two fundamental values that we hold dear as Canadians: the concepts of fairness and justice.

The reality is that we in the NDP believe that members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline. It is something we all hold as such in our society. However, the members who put their lives on the line for our country deserve a judicial system that is held to that comparable high standard as well, something that is currently not the case and certainly will not be achieved by Bill C-15.

Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts. For us, it is critical to fight for more fairness in the Canadian military justice system for the women and men in uniform who put their lives on the line for service to our country.

I know a number of my colleagues have referenced the summary trial system and the importance of making sure we are moving forward in that respect. I would note that countries we often look to, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, have seen fit to change their own summary trial processes. The question is: Why is Canada lagging behind? We have the opportunity to follow in the steps of these countries, but also to set a leadership standard on our own and to clearly state as a priority that the military justice system stand for fairness and justice for people working in the military, something we civilians know to be the case when it comes to our system.

In terms of the summary trial system, the amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel, there are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes an undue harshness on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of very minor service offences.

For example, some of the minor service offences include insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline, as we know, but they are not worthy of a criminal record. As we know, it remains a struggle for military personnel, once they leave the military, to get on and get settled with their life outside the military. Obviously a criminal record would be debilitating and further exacerbate the challenges many former military personnel face as they go on to pursue employment opportunities outside the military.

What better role could the Government of Canada play than to ensure that military personnel both have the justice they deserve while they are providing military service and also are not unduly penalized because of that unfair system once they leave the service?

We noted that there needs to be reform of the grievance system. At present, the grievance system does not provide a means of external review. Currently it is staffed entirely by retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces grievance board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society. The NDP amendments have provided that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. This is one of the amendments that was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41 but was not retained in Bill C-15, before us in the House today.

The third point is about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces provost marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although this is a step forward, we in the NDP believe that more needs to be done to empower the commission. For example, care has not been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions empowering it to act as an oversight body. The commission must be empowered by a legislative provision that would allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament.

On that note, on the need to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission to ensure that those in the military have access to the kind of justice all Canadians would expect, the concept of ensuring the independence of complaints commissions and the ability to review and investigate what is currently taking place is something to which we need to see a greater commitment from the government side in a whole host of areas. One of the areas that has also been discussed is the RCMP.

Despite the rhetoric we have heard from the government in favour of greater fairness for those working in the RCMP, the complaints commission there requires greater support. Canadians require greater assurance that the complaints commission of the RCMP will be independent. The reason I raise this is that we have heard about some serious allegations, some tragic stories around sexual harassment in the RCMP. That is something I am very concerned about, as the status of women critic for the NDP. There needs to be a policy when it comes to sexual harassment in the RCMP, but there also needs to be an assurance and clear legislative commitment to strengthen the independence and the role of the complaints commission. It is very much the same scenario in the case of the military. When we are talking about ensuring that members of the forces have access to justice and a fair system for recourse, we need to be looking at strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Finally, what we are asking of the government, and certainly what we would have hoped for, is that it would have taken the deliberations of the committee and the final amendments made by the committee in hand and, rather than reinvent the wheel, recognize that the work has already been done and the template is already there to ensure that whatever we do with regard to strengthening military justice in Canada be done with access to justice and fairness for military personnel as a foremost priority. It is a priority for us in the NDP. We hope to see that same kind of reciprocation from the government at some point soon.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The short title is always the jazzier version, which is “strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada” bill.

I will pause before diving into the details of Bill C-15 that concern me. I find the character of this debate at second reading, and I am sure anybody observing this on the parliamentary channel will also find it, unusual in that, so far, until I rose to speak on behalf of the Green Party, we have only been hearing from members of the official opposition.

I do not know why this is. I think it is symptomatic of the unnecessarily partisan nature of debates in the House on legislation. There was a time, and I worked in Ottawa in that time, when working on legislation was not a partisan matter, but a largely co-operative and consensual matter to come to the best possible conclusions about how to improve legislative efforts before us.

Amendments were not considered a threat to the government of the day. The amendment and the debate processes were seen as part of the role and proper function of Parliament. In that sense, it would be totally in keeping with parliamentary democracy to always see members on all sides of the House put their oar in at second reading and suggest where they think the committee, which will be the specialist members of Parliament on all sides of the House, will dig in and what the committee should focus on when it looks a bill, such as a bill of this nature, which is largely a good work but has areas that need fixing.

We should approach debates in the House with much less partisanship. Every question I have heard from the hon. parliamentary secretary toward members of the official opposition has been to accuse them of somehow being hostile to the purposes of the bill or to try to stop it from being passed. I hear this far too often in this place.

When parliamentarians from any side of the House speak to legislation, that is our role and our job and it is not a political game or waste of time. The very purpose and essence of parliamentary democracy is to ensure that legislation, which Canadians will have to live with for a very long time, is derived through the most exultant of intellectual processes invoking rigour, thought and research so we come up with the very best possible legislation, not the very nastiest of debates.

With that set aside, I want to speak to the bill.

I want to associate myself with the purposes of Canadian military justice as set out by someone who has been quoted quite a lot in debate today, a former colonel and now professor in the faculty of law at Ottawa University, Colonel Michel Drapeau.

In this article, which originally appeared in the Hill Times, he set out very clearly where we were as we approached this debate today. He said:

At the end of the day, Canadian military law, which incorporates both the criminal law of Canada as well as civil offences committed outside Canada, is a vital and necessary law in order to maintain discipline and order among the troops, and is believed to be one of the many reasons why the Canadian Forces are considered one of the world’s best, despite its small size. Considering the power that military law has over its audience, our citizen-soldiers deserve a world-class military justice system. A military justice system which is, first and foremost, just and fair to the accused while being responsive to the military need for discipline.

Obviously, the National Defence Act is still deficient in some major areas and it requires more than tweaks and tinkering to bring it into the 21st century.

That sets the context. This is not a wholesale assault on military justice coming from opposition benches. It is an attempt to ensure that this time that when we take a crack at military justice, considering that the comments and the work goes back to the work of Judge Lamer back in 2003, that we get it right in the 21st century.

As a general comment, we have missed out because we are still reaching back to 2003, nine years ago, for our recommendations. They are good recommendations but the world has moved on in a number of areas.

Again, as a general comment, I hope the committee will look at the reforms that have been taking place among many of our allied nations and friends, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Germany and France, that have been looking at their military justice systems. I do not like using nouns as verbs, but since Professor Drapeau did it, I will repeat it, “civilianizing”, taking a military justice system and seeing if we cannot combine resources. His recommendation is that the military justice system be folded into the Federal Court. There would then be within the Federal Court a specific area of expertise around military justice. This would achieve quite a lot of efficiencies and cost savings, something the Conservative government usually likes.

Another comment from Professor Drapeau, which is overarching to this whole process, was why we were looking at the bill now when just last March, Justice Patrick LeSage was appointed to conduct a review of the military justice provisions of the National Defence Act. Would we not be wiser in the House to see what he recommended in light of all the things that have transpired over the last nine years since the report of Justice Lamer?

In any case, in moving to some specific areas of concern about the legislation, I am sure the committee will look at this, but I hope it will be open to amendments.

To the question of efficiencies and costs, it is quite surprising to find new judicial positions being created. Particularly, on the creation of a reserve force military judge panel, Mr. Drapeau noted that the current military judiciary had one of the lightest case loads of any branch in Canada. We know the Supreme Court of Canada has a heavy case load as does the Federal Court and most provinces. Under the weight of their case loads, justice grinds slowly. However, here we have a light case load with the creation of an additional reserve force military judge panel, which Professor Drapeau terms, “a costly extravagance”. We should look at that and see if we really need those provisions and additional judges.

I want to direct most of my attention to the changes in grievance procedures. I will start the discussion by going back to Mr. Justice Lamer's report. Members can find this on page 86 of the report tabled to the Minister of National Defence in September 2003.

Mr. Justice Lamer puts it quite clearly. He wrote:

Soldiers are not second class citizens. They are entitled to be treated with respect, and in the case of the grievance process, in a procedurally fair manner....It is essential to the morale of CF members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent, and prompt manner.

It is here to which quite a number of Mr. Justice Lamer's comments were directed in his recommendations. It is important to set the grievance process in the context to which Mr. Justice Lamer set it. The rest of what we are dealing with in the act is important, but I am concentrating on this because I heard relatively less of it in debate at second reading.

Unlike the rest of the military justice process, the grievance process is inherently non-adversarial. Nobody is being charged and it is not a question of whether members of our military force have access to a lawyer. It is a fundamental question of whether receipts have been honoured properly or that their working conditions are appropriate. It is in the standard management-labour context a grievance, but their grievances are treated differently.

Mr. Justice Lamer said that we should use a process that is, in essence, co-operative. Certainly this is a place where I can see efforts to take Justice Lamer's comments onboard. His recommendation 75 is virtually verbatim in clause 6, which in the act would be section 29.11, to move matters along as informally and expeditiously as circumstance and fairness permit. However, there are many other recommendations of Mr. Justice Lamer that have not been dealt with in this act.

One of the changes in the act for grievance procedures was not recommended by anyone. I query why we have to continually change the names of things but, for some reason, Bill C-15 would change the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievance External Review Committee. Any time the name of a board is changed, although it may be a small matter, all the stationary needs to be redone. Why this change in Bill C-15 instead of some of the more pertinent things that Mr. Justice Lamer wanted done with the grievance procedure?

Right now grievance procedures still go all the way to the Chief of Defence Staff. The Chief of Defence Staff can delegate, but recommendation 78 would give the commanding officer a maximum of 20 days to try to explore alternatives to the grievance process before it would start to go up the hierarchy to the Chief of Defence Staff.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This morning, I had the opportunity to hear speeches by a number of my NDP colleagues. Some points they raised were very interesting. I also noticed that a number of members on the other side of the House were interested in the debate, including the parliamentary secretary with his questions. After this morning's discussions, I have a better understanding of the bill.

I would like to take a moment to mention that all of the parties agree that the Canadian Forces are important and that they deserve our respect. These men and women put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. They go all over the world to protect us and to promote freedom for everyone. It is with a tremendous amount of respect that I rise today to very humbly speak to Bill C-15.

It is often very hard for these people to be away from their families. That is something that many of us do not understand. I have friends in the Canadian Forces. Some of my friends' parents were also members of the Canadian Forces for decades. I have heard all kinds of stories, each more incredible than the next. They are always very proud to talk about their experience in the Canadian Forces. Sometimes it can be difficult. That is something to think about, because it is a whole other world.

It is worth taking a moment to talk about this. I talk about it often with people at the Canadian Legion in Laval, which is in my riding. For example, I have coffee with Jocelyn and Marcel, who served in the Canadian Forces. Some people have never been members of the Canadian Forces, but have a great deal of respect for our military personnel and want to give of their time to them. When they return to their communities, our military men and women try to help out civilians.

For example, at the beginning of the year, Marcel from my riding went over the 500 mark for blood donations. This is very important to him, and he continues to donate blood every two weeks. These people always go above and beyond, and we owe them a great deal of respect. We have to do things the right way for them, especially when it comes to a bill about very important issues such as summary trials, which most of my colleagues have spoken about in the House.

The first thing that struck me was the fact that not all the recommendations in the Lamer report were included, as my colleague just mentioned. The report contained 88 recommendations. From what I understand, the number of recommendations accepted by the government will increase from 27 to 43. Thus, 29 recommendations are already in place and a total of 43 recommendations will be accepted.

After all the work that was put into this report, why not accept all 88 recommendations? I am not an expert, but I did look over the recommendations. I really wonder why the government did not accept more. I would like to have the opportunity to ask some of the members opposite, if they speak to the bill, if there is a particular reason why more recommendations were not accepted.

We are pleased that several recommendations were included, but we feel that they do not go far enough.

I feel that Bill C-15 lacks balance because the reforms it proposes are a travesty of justice.

By that, I am referring to summary trials, which I mentioned earlier and my colleagues discussed at length. I expressed my concern about how people could easily end up with a criminal record, which is both troubling and hard to believe because these men and women give their time and, in some cases, many years of service.

It is appalling to see that a criminal record could be so easy to get. Moreover, summary trials are not transcribed. That worries me because the accused cannot appeal. I am concerned that this violates the rights of the men and women who go through a summary trial, because the proceedings are not transcribed and the individual has no recourse.

In the civilian world, accused persons can appeal. I do not understand why people who are members of the Canadian Forces cannot. Somebody on the other side should clarify this matter for me and tell me why things should be this way. I do not see why people in the armed forces should not have the same rights. These people sacrifice everything in service to their country, so why should they not have the right to appeal?

I think that this is a serious flaw. Perhaps the bill was drafted too quickly or the government did not give it enough thought. Are the Conservatives really serious about putting this bill before the House? Honestly, I have my doubts.

This morning, many members talked about studying this bill in committee.

I have a great deal of respect for our parliamentary institutions, and I believe that every parliamentarian tries to do good work in committee. However, it can be extremely difficult to suggest amendments in committee and discuss them properly because there is rarely enough time to talk about all of the bills.

I am currently a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, but I used to be a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I served as a substitute member for several committees. We often hear the same line over and over and see the same kind of thing in how committees operate. I do not wish to minimize the importance of Bill C-15, but I do have some doubts about how the bill will be examined in committee.

I have faith in my colleagues, regardless of their party affiliation. I know they will ensure a job well done. However, if this bill makes it to committee—which is likely, since the government has a majority—I want to be sure that all of my colleagues will take the examination of this bill very seriously.

After hearing from witnesses, committee members will propose amendments in order to ensure that Bill C-15 is as fair as possible when this government passes it. I simply want to be sure that this will be taken seriously. It is our duty as parliamentarians to introduce the best legislation possible. Unfortunately, this bill contains a number of flaws, as pointed out by many people who are not members of the official opposition.

For instance, Colonel Drapeau, a retired Canadian Forces colonel, said that the issue of summary trials needs to be reviewed. Personally, I think we need to listen to those who are asking us to review our procedures, such as the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Mr. Drapeau. These people have experience that others probably do not have. I will trust our parliamentary system.

However, because of the flaws that appear in Bill C-15, I have no choice but to vote against it and explore in greater detail why more recommendations from the Lamer report were not included in the bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I will simply say that when it examined Bill C-41, the committee accepted a number of very important amendments to improve the bill and bring it in line with the recommendations made by Justice Lamer. Unfortunately, Bill C-15 does not contain all of the amendments that were passed when the committee examined Bill C-41. That is a major flaw.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, proposes a series of measures to enhance the military justice system. This bill is a legislative response to some of the recommendations made by Justice Lamer in 2003 following his review of the National Defence Act and to recommendations made by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs six years later. Of Justice Lamer's 88 recommendations, Bill C-15 takes just 28 into account. Sixty recommendations were not included in the bill that the Conservatives introduced in response to the key concerns raised by the Lamer report on national defence.

In its current incarnation, the bill resembles previous national defence and military justice reform bills introduced in the House, such as Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007 and when the election was called in 2008.

The following year, in July 2008, Bill C-60 proposed a simplified courts martial structure and set out a precise method for choosing a type of court martial that would harmonize well with Canada's civilian justice system. It was introduced and debated in the House before being referred to the Senate committee that studies legal and constitutional affairs. After a painstaking review of the bill, the Senate committee made nine recommendations for changes to the National Defence Act.

Later, in 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced in the House of Commons. The main purpose of the bill was to address the key recommendations that Justice Lamer made in 2003 and that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made in 2009.

Bill C-41 included provisions to reform the military justice system in the areas of sentencing, judges and military committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces provost marshal. Further provisions proposed changes to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The bill before us today, Bill C-15, is similar to Bill C-41, which was introduced by the Senate committee in the previous Parliament. It provides, among other things, greater latitude regarding the sentencing process and additional sentencing options, such as absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It modifies the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person, and the limitation period applicable to summary trials. It also allows an accused person to waive the limitation periods. In addition, the bill sets out the Canadian Forces provost marshal's responsibilities.

As the NDP members who spoke before me pointed out, our party believes that the bill is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. Unfortunately, it fails to address the fundamental issues that a serious military justice reform must tackle, including summary trials, grievances and measures that should be contemplated to strengthen the Complaints Commission.

Because it is silent on these substantive issues, Bill C-15 seems from the outset to be unfinished business that has not been given proper consideration.

During the debates on previous bills dealing with National Defence reform, relevant amendments were proposed and adopted at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session. We are sorry to see that these amendments were not even taken into consideration in Bill C-15 as it now stands.

The amendments proposed by the NDP included changes to the powers of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, which stems directly from a recommendation made in the Lamer report, changes to the composition of the grievance committee so that 60% of its members would be civilians, and a provision to ensure that a person found guilty of an offence during a summary trial would not unfairly be given a criminal record. The Conservatives rejected all of these amendments.

The NDP has long supported a necessary update of the military justice system, but not at any cost. We, New Democrats, think that members of the Canadian Forces are subject to extremely high disciplinary standards. Therefore, they deserve a justice system governed by similar standards.

Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who have served our country with such valour can have a criminal record under a system that does not have the procedural regularity that is ordinarily required in the civilian criminal courts.

The NDP will firmly oppose Bill C-15 at second reading as long as measures have not been adopted to improve it throughout. New Democrats will continue to fight to make the Canadian military justice system fair for the men and women in uniform who have risked their lives in the service of Canada.

That said, the weaknesses and flaws in this bill mean that we cannot support it. The following are some of the weaknesses in the bill that make it impossible for New Democrats to agree to it.

Let us talk about the reform of the summary trial system. The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. At present, a conviction in a summary trial in the Canadian Forces means that a criminal record is created. When summary trials are held, accused persons are unable to consult counsel. There is no appeal and there is no transcript of the trial. In addition, the judge is the accused’s commanding officer. This is too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences. Those minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct and absence without leave. This is undoubtedly very important for military discipline, but it does not call for a criminal record.

Bill C-15 provides an exemption so that certain offences, if there is a minor sentence determined by the act or a fine of less than $500, will no longer lead to a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of this bill. We think this bill does not go far enough.

Last March, at committee stage, the amendments to Bill C-41 proposed by the NDP called for the list of offences that could be considered to be minor, and not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed for the offence in question, to be increased to 27 from five.

This was an important step forward for summary trials. However, that amendment was not retained in Bill C-15 and we want it to be included again.

A criminal record can make life after a person’s military career very difficult. With a criminal record, getting a job can be a thing of the past, and renting an apartment and travelling can be very difficult. Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that members of the military who have served our country so courageously can have a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system.

Let us talk about reforming the grievance system. At this time, the grievance committee does not allow for external review. Retired employees of the Canadian Forces, some of them very recent retirees, sit on the committee. If the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be seen as an external, independent civilian body, as it should be, the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that. This committee should therefore be composed, in part, of civilian members.

The NDP amendment suggests that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been officers or members of the Canadian Forces. The amendment was adopted in March 2011, for Bill C-41, but it was not incorporated into Bill C-15. It is important that this amendment be included again.

Let us talk about the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process. One of the major weaknesses of the military grievance system is that, contrary to a recommendation in the Lamer report, the Chief of Defence Staff lacks the authority to resolve the financial aspects of grievances. Although the defence minister approved the recommendation, no concrete action has been taken in the past eight years to implement it. The NDP proposed an amendment to this effect when Bill C-41 was at the committee stage. Although this amendment passed in March 2011, it was not retained in Bill C-15. The NDP will fight to have it put back in.

Let us talk about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline in which the Canadian Forces provost marshal will be required to resolve complaints and protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. The NDP believes that more needs to be done to strengthen the commission.

Retired Colonel Michel W. Drapeau is an expert in military law. Here is what he had to say before the Standing Committee on National Defence on February 28, 2011.

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and until you, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted. As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

It is up to the Conservatives to explain to the House why the relevant recommendations that were agreed to during the debate on Bill C-41 have not been incorporated into this bill.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-15.

In essence, the purpose of this bill is to enhance and reform the military justice system. Previous parliaments have attempted to come up with similar bills. Despite all of the work done in committee, where all parties agreed to amendments, here we have a bill that, unfortunately, does not go far enough and does not include all of the recommendations that were made. We must oppose it. The government is refusing to work with the opposition parties to come up with a bill that will really be good for the military justice system and, more importantly, military personnel.

As the representative for the riding of Brossard—La Prairie, I have had the honour of meeting many former members of the armed forces and current members who are making sacrifices for their country. I truly admire these people. Often, they are deployed to places where many of us would never dare to go. They do incredible work and make enormous sacrifices. We are asking the government to help them. But the government does not really seem interested in supporting veterans.

In the case of the government forcing veterans to live on less when it decided to claw back veterans' benefits, the veterans actually had to go to court and expend a lot in terms of money and stress when the government on its part could have acted.

We had to wait for the Federal Court to render a decision in favour of veterans saying that what the government did was unfair.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says that it supports soldiers. It sends them on missions that Canadians do not always agree with, as we can clearly see in the case of Afghanistan. I am very proud to be a member of a party that is opposed to military intervention in that country.

Let us come back to Bill C-15. My colleagues have already mentioned that the way this bill is written poses a problem for the reform of the summary trial system. The members opposite have had a lot to say about it.

I would like to briefly explain what a summary trial is. When a soldier commits an offence, there is a summary trial. There is no legal counsel present and no transcript of the proceedings. The soldier may also end up with a criminal record. I will come back to that a little later.

Summary trials have no appeal mechanism. The judge is the accused's commanding officer, which is a significant conflict of interest. From a purely legal perspective, this type of trial is not valid. When soldiers undergo a summary trial, they do not have the right to receive legal counsel to defend themselves. They are therefore at a clear disadvantage, which is unacceptable.

A criminal record has fairly serious consequences. Soldiers can end up with criminal records as a result of reprimands. We understand that, in the military system, it is important that there be discipline and that soldiers follow certain rules. However, when soldiers become veterans and return to civil society with a criminal record, there are consequences for them. I think that is a problem. What are these reprimands for? Soldiers can be reprimanded for insubordination, misconduct, absence without leave and drunkenness.

We are also talking about disobeying an order. We can see that this goes too far in some of these cases. Think about this: an individual who has served Canada and who has sacrificed himself or herself would be given a criminal record. The Conservatives keep saying that we must trust and value our military members. However, if they truly believe that, then why give military members a criminal record when they return to civilian society? What does it mean to have a criminal record? It can prevent you from working, from travelling outside Canada, and it can cause you problems every day, when you try to sign a lease, for example. Some problems are really more serious. That is why we asked the government to pay attention to that.

The NDP made a number of specific proposals when this was studied by the Standing Committee on National Defence during the last Parliament. We suggested 27 “cases” in which a criminal record was unnecessary. A penalty might be necessary, no doubt a stiff penalty, but not a criminal record.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence will say that amendments were proposed by the government, but we do not understand why the government has not done its job. This was discussed during a previous Parliament. Does this mean that the government does not respect what was previously done, the discussions, the debates and the recommendations made by the Canadian Forces? Does that mean nothing because they suddenly won a majority? Does nothing that is in the best interests of Canadians and veterans count any more because they have a majority? What counts now is their take on things.

We in the NDP understand that the system must be reformed, but it is a problem when they do not listen to what has been proposed and debated. The former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, made recommendations in his report. Of his 88 recommendations, only 28 were retained. Why does this Conservative government always refuse to listen to what people have to say when solutions are proposed?

I have previously discussed the government's truly unacceptable attitude toward what veterans and the Canadian Forces request. This government does what it wants and does not listen to what people have to say. And we in the official opposition have a duty to promote these discussions. That is why we are debating this bill, which is imperfect. We understand the government's intention: it wants to reform the system. We agree with the government, but we believe this does not go far enough.

Let us look at the conflicts of interest in the grievance system. This is the situation if you have a grievance. The grievance review committee consists of retired members of the Canadian Forces. However, there may be some doubt about the impartiality and objectivity of certain committee members. Members may include commanders, for example. What we are seeking, and what the NDP proposed, in the way of specific solutions that could improve the system and that were proposed during a previous Parliament, is a slightly more civilian system, one in which 60% of committee members are civilians.

In that way we ensure that, when a grievance arises, the individual who says he or she has a problem is not punished, the process is a little more transparent, and there is less of a conflict of interest, which makes it possible to consider the matter.

Once again, our aim is really to help military members, those people who, in certain cases, must forge ahead. We respect that, but the government must respect what the opposition requests, but especially what veterans, the Canadian forces and the public request.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-15.

By way of introduction, it is worth noting that, as members of the House of Commons, we not only have the great honour of representing Canadians, we also have the opportunity to learn a little more about matters under federal jurisdiction that were perhaps addressed in previous parliaments, but that, for one reason or another, we are not familiar with.

For me, military justice is one such matter. I am no expert when it comes to this issue. However, since I now have the opportunity to discuss it, I did my research. I tried to look at what other Parliaments have done. It became clear to me, when reading the 2003 Lamer report, that reform is necessary. Anyone who has studied the recommendations therein can see that a lot of work was done and that much progress was made in the context of the previous Bill C-41. It is apparent now, however, when considering Bill C-15, that a lot of work was unfortunately done for nought. There is no other way of putting it.

I will speak about this work and the reason why a lot of it has gone by the wayside. To begin with, one of the best opportunities for a member of Parliament to speak about a bill or an issue is to take part in the work of committees. It gives us an opportunity to discuss issues with witnesses, who are often experts in their respective subject areas. At the end of the day, we cannot be experts in everything. Asking witnesses questions and listening to their testimony is an extremely important exercise in our legislative and democratic process. We also have the opportunity to carry out clause-by-clause consideration of different bills and to propose amendments.

Clearly, the party in power enjoys a majority in the House. When there was a minority government, however, the work of committees held more sway. That is certainly what we are increasingly witnessing today as we see the government attempt to take away committees’ power. But that is another debate for another day.

Having said that, several amendments were proposed at the time—in February 2011, unless I am mistaken—at the Standing Committee on National Defence. These amendments were passed by all parties. It must be understood that committees represent all elected representatives and parties. The committee, therefore, made amendments that were in line with the most important recommendations in the Lamer report. This was done in an effort to reform the military justice system.

Some of the amendments to Bill C-15, which is before us today, have been scrapped and others retained. I am asking myself the same question that I just asked of my colleague, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. Unfortunately, given the dearth of speakers on the government side, I will not have an opportunity to ask the government this question. I nevertheless wonder why—after being proposed democratically in committee, where the bulk of the work in our parliament was done on this—certain amendments to the bill were retained and others scrapped.

After a bill legally dies on the order paper, there is no obligation to keep the previously adopted amendments when the same bill is presented in another form. Nevertheless, as a democratic and moral principle, and as matter of principle in general, one wonders why the government did not decide to keep these amendments in place, especially since they were not of a partisan nature, and were in line with the ideas put forward in the recommendations of the 2003 Lamer report.

Allow me to speak to a number of these recommendations. After all, the amendments that were not included in the bill in its current form are, unfortunately, reason enough for the NDP to oppose this bill. One of the most important questions concerns summary trials. All citizens of law-based societies such as ours want a balanced system of justice that affords citizens protection.

That said, it is important to understand that the system that exists within the military is not exactly the same. That is precisely why the necessary reforms are meant to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We want to bring these systems more in line with one another to ensure that the members of our armed forces enjoy adequate legal protection, since they deserve our utmost respect, for reasons that I do not need to repeat here. We know the importance of the sacrifices they make. They do incredible work for our society. It is important that they have adequate legal protection.

When we look at summary trials, one particular aspect is extremely problematic. A number of my colleagues have talked about this aspect, the fact that people can be saddled with a criminal record for violating military regulations. In normal proceedings, such behaviour, while certainly unacceptable, would not be sufficient reason to burden someone with a criminal record.

It is important to maintain discipline within the armed forces. We understand that it is important for commanders who make the decisions in these cases to maintain discipline. We are not saying that any of the regulations themselves should change. The penalties must be strict enough to ensure that offenders understand the seriousness of their mistakes. At the same time, however, we must not saddle them with judicial baggage that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

All of the members of this House understand how careful we need to be about burdening people with a criminal record, because it will stay with them forever. It will follow them everywhere—when looking for a job, when signing a lease, basically, it affects all aspects of everyday life. Such measures could force someone into a precarious situation.

I am being very careful. I really want to be clear that we are talking about minor transgressions. We know that people who commit serious crimes deserve a criminal record. We realize this and we obey the laws of our society. We respect the fact that the punishment should fit the crime. However, we really are talking about transgressions that do not warrant a criminal record. When we take a look at this process, what is really problematic is that summary trials are often overseen by a commanding officer who, for understandable reasons that I mentioned earlier, wants to instil discipline in the armed forces. This sense of discipline is so very important in our traditions and also in the work of the men and women of our Canadian Forces.

When we realize that the commanding officer, understandably, may not really be interested in the concerns pertaining to criminal records, we have to bring clarity to the regulations. I believe that this must be one of the reforms we have to make. One of the amendments that we proposed was establishing a more complete list of the circumstances where a criminal record is, or is not, warranted.

In closing, I would like to make one last very important point. One thing dropped from this bill is the composition of the grievance committee.

I would like to make a comparison. In the United States, the founding fathers ensured that the commander in chief, or the U.S. president, is a civilian, not a member of the army. The objective was to balance the importance of a hierarchy within the armed forces and also within civilian society. Another recommendation we hoped would be adopted was that civilians make up 60% of the committee membership. That is another important measure that is unfortunately not in this bill.

Unfortunately, my time has expired and I will not be able to go through the list. However, I am certain that I will have the opportunity to do so during questions and comments.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really have trouble with happy mediums and balanced approaches. One place where this is obvious is in the area of foreign policy, but we also see it in legislation. Just this week, we have again been presented with a mammoth bill that covers pretty much everything but the kitchen sink. And yet on a subject as important as military justice and the rights of the men and women who defend our country, the Conservatives have brought forth a mouse. I think there is room, somewhere between the mammoth and the mouse, for legislation that is a little more worthwhile.

In 2003, as we know, Justice Lamer submitted his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. He made 88 recommendations relating to military justice, the Complaints Commission, the grievance procedure and the Canadian Forces provost marshal. We are talking about 88 recommendations. And here we are with a bill that covers only 28 of those recommendations. Once again, this is the approach the Conservatives always take: to pick and choose only the things and the testimony that suit them.

A lot of things are missing in this bill and I will not address them all, since that would take too long. However, I am going to focus on one aspect in particular where the bill does not go far enough: summary trials and the mark they leave on the lives of soldiers, in the form of a criminal record, even after they return to civilian life.

We know that a summary trial can be debatable. It is a judgment dealing with matters that can be as trivial as a quarrel or absence without leave. It may relate to misconduct, insubordination, and so on. But the point is this: someone can be convicted of a relatively minor offence and end up with a criminal record for the rest of their life. This is particularly troubling when the accused in a summary trial cannot be represented by counsel and cannot appeal. There is no transcript and the judge is too often, and very often, the accused’s commanding officer. In other words, the people who defend our rights and freedoms are not entitled to the protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at summary trials. If this were merely a question of internal military discipline, we could always debate it, but the problem is that summary trials leave indelible marks on people’s lives in the form of criminal records.

We recognize that the bill makes a vague attempt to remedy the situation. However, it really does not go far enough. It proposes that five offences be considered minor and not result in a criminal record. That is all well and good for the offences in question—and I will not continue to harp on it—but much more could be done. In fact, Bill C-41, Bill C-15's predecessor in the last Parliament, was debated in committee and amended to expand the list of offences and the types of sentences that would not result in a criminal record. I do not know why the Conservatives did not keep this amendment.

What we want is to expand the list of offences from 5 to 27, and the committee already agreed to this. It is so important. As retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, an expert on military justice, said:

There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year.

Why? Because unless and until we, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted.

We must stand up for and respect our soldiers. As Colonel Drapeau went on to say, “From where I stand, I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial.”

Why should the consequences of relatively minor offences related to military discipline extend into the civilian lives of our men and women in uniform? Once again, we are not the ones saying this. I would like to quote the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

“Presiding officers in summary trials...are military officers...and their primary concern is likely to be unit discipline and deterring future violations, not the effect the sentence they impose will have on an accused in the civilian world.”

In short, we have a system that is not working and that needs to be reformed. This bill clearly does not go far enough to do that. Furthermore, in terms of reforming the system, our greatest allies—Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand—have changed their systems.

Our soldiers often participate in joint missions with the soldiers from those countries and are able to see first-hand the injustice that is being done to them, an injustice that this Parliament must agree to remedy today.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her remarks. She mentioned that the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and other countries have decided to change their summary trial process.

That begs the question. We are debating Bill C-15. Why did the government wait so long before coming back to these issues?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague aware of the changes that Bill C-15 would bring about with respect to time limits of the laying of charges that are dealt with at the summary trial? The National Defence Act currently provides that an accused person cannot be tried by summary trial unless the summary trial commences within one year after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed.

Bill C-15 would also require that “the charge is laid within six months after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed”, ensuring timeliness for the summary trial process.

Does the member not agree that ensuring a speedy trial for relatively minor offences ensures that less serious matters are dealt with quickly and fairly?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The NDP believes that this bill is a step in the right direction in order to make the military justice system and the civilian justice system more uniform. Still, it does not address the key issues needed to reform the summary trial system and the grievance system. Today I will speak to the grievance system.

Significant amendments were made at the committee stage at the end of the last session of Parliament, but have not been included in Bill C-15. These include the NDP’s amendments concerning the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes in the composition of the grievance board, and the provision that a person found guilty of an offence through a summary trial would not be unjustly burdened with a criminal record.

I want to say something about the last point. This bill proposes many important reforms. The NDP has long advocated the updating of the military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to very high standards of discipline and, as Canadian citizens, they deserve a justice system that is subject to the same standards as those that apply to other Canadian citizens.

With regard to reforming the summary trial system, the amendments in Bill C-15 do not properly address the unfairness of summary trials. At present, a conviction at a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. The accused is not able to consult counsel. There is no appeal and no trial transcript. In addition, the judge is the accused's commanding officer. That is unduly harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for minor offences.

Among those minor offences are insubordination, quarrels and disturbances, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. They are very important for military discipline, but not worth a criminal record.

Bill C-15 provides an exemption so that some offences—with minor punishments or fines under $500—would not be put on a criminal record. This is one of the bill’s positive aspects. But we do not think it goes far enough.

In committee, in March 2012, the NDP proposed amendments to Bill C-41 that would have expanded the list of offences that could be considered minor and thus would not attract a criminal record if the offence in question received a minor punishment. The amendment also would have expanded the list of penalties that could be set by a tribunal without being noted in the criminal record.

That was progress in terms of summary trials, but since that amendment was not included in Bill C-15, we want it to be included now.

I want to mention Colonel Drapeau, a retired Canadian Forces colonel and an expert in military law. He testified before the Standing Committee on National Defence in February 2011. This is what he said about summary trials:

...I'll get right to the point. The answer is yes...Decriminalize the summary trial system. End of discussion. Remove today the custodial power of the commanding officer to send somebody to detention. If that needs to be done, then that person ought to be tried by court martial where all the rights are provided. So you remove that in the same way as Ireland has done it, as Australia has done it; you decriminalize it. There's no record.

The individual would not have that stigma attached to him just because he didn't shave that morning or he showed up late. Whether he gets a fine or a suspension of leave or he has to stay on the ship when alongside, I can live with that, and that would apply in Canada and abroad. And if there really is a requirement to prosecute someone because of the severity of the offence, then a court martial, and a court martial can be held any place in the world.

That results in a criminal record.

A criminal record can make life after a military career very difficult. Having a criminal record can make it difficult to find a job, lease an apartment, travel or obtain insurance.

I researched the effects of a criminal record on persons who do not go to court and found that it can affect a number of aspects of the person's daily life: employment, entering another country and insurance.

That is right. We can be refused insurance coverage if a member of our family, perhaps a child who was a soldier, has a criminal record because he did not shave his beard one morning.

People with criminal records have difficulty finding work, especially in security. Who better than a former soldier to work for a security company? But he would not get the job.

In general, two out of three employers require a criminal record check.

Under the Criminal Code, civilians can have a criminal record for such offences as assault, extortion, harassment, kidnapping, identity theft, murder, homicide, abuse and theft. That is not the case for our soldiers.

We are severely punishing certain Canadians. Our soldiers, members of our armed forces, receive harsher penalties.

The list of crimes against justice is a long one and includes corruption, failure to report a crime, obstruction and perjury. These are all good reasons to be in such a situation, but a young soldier arriving late for his shift is not a good reason.

Another witness at committee, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, said that military officers who impose penalties during a summary trial are often trying to set a disciplinary example within the unit in order to discourage future infractions, rather than burden the accused with the consequences that come with having a criminal record in civilian life.

The goal is to achieve discipline within our armed forces. I do not believe that the officer imposing the sentence necessarily wants to punish a young man who makes a mistake for his entire life. Soldiers simply want discipline within the military, and that is a good thing.

We therefore have a problem of basic fairness dominating a system that imposes harsh sentences on people who need increased procedural protection.

Colonel Drapeau went on to say:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and until you, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted. As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

The summary trial is by far the most commonly used form of service tribunal in the military justice system. The summary trial is designed to deal with minor service offences.

The NDP believes that Canadian Forces personnel must comply with extremely high standards of discipline and that, in return, they deserve a justice system that also meets standards similar to those applied to other Canadians.

Having a criminal record can make post-military life very difficult. It complicates everything from finding a job, to renting an apartment and so on.

We really want to see this bill improved and to ensure that the committee members' amendments will be included in the bill. That is why we plan to oppose it in the upcoming vote.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this House on the subject of Bill C-15. We have before us a bill that is a recognition of a serious problem in the administration of military justice. In this regard, we are unfortunately lagging behind many other countries that have identified the same problems as we have, but have made faster and more effective efforts to fix them.

What is strange is that while our Conservative friends acknowledge the problem, they have deliberately chosen to fix only half of it. And that is why we have a problem; that is why we oppose this bill.

My colleague has talked about the first problem: summary trials that are held in circumstances that do not allow for the accused to make a fair defence. Summary trials are really the nub of the problem. The vast majority of offences committed by members of the military are dealt with by summary trial. One of the statistics we have here seems frightening to me: in 2008-09, a total of 1,865 cases—96% of all cases—were disposed of by summary trial. Obviously it is a euphemism to say “seems”, because 96% says it all.

What this system means is that the accused does not enjoy rights that are otherwise considered to be fundamental in an ordinary justice system: the right to be represented by counsel; the right to appeal; a transcript of the trial so the person can appeal based on the trial; and the right to an impartial judge. As it stands, the person’s commanding officer is the judge. That situation is clearly unfavourable.

What if there was judicial error? What if the decision was tainted by personal tensions between the accused and the judge, for example, who happens to be the person’s immediate superior? Anyone who works in an ordinary situation will agree that these are certainly not ideal circumstances for making an objective decision. There is no organization in which such a structure exists without the opportunity to have the decision reviewed.

The expression “criminal record” is probably the one that most clearly expresses something that can harm and weight down a person’s life. The circumstances in which that record is created are therefore a matter of concern for us. It is in fact a very good thing that we are trying to address this issue. Once again, we are expressing this kind of confidence in our parliamentary system so that we can find concrete solutions for people having to deal with this problem.

When we consider the consequences of having a criminal record, we can say that the decisions of these tribunals in fact have very serious consequences. These are decisions that harm a person’s entire life. In the first place, having a criminal record will certainly harm the person’s entire existence, jeopardizing all his opportunities to gain access to certain positions, certain jobs, certain countries and so on.

Imagine you are enrolled in the army and are told to go and fight for your country, for noble values and so that young girls can go fly kites. You are given a weapon, sent into mine fields and left to live in misery, sadness, loss and anger. After all those tribulations and the incredible stresses to which you are exposed, you are given a criminal record for a breach, a breach of discipline, a breach of some barracks code of conduct, for example. That is not even a serious crime, an abuse of power or a violent act, but rather an act of disobedience or insubordination, or merely the result of one pint too many. And you are unable to defend yourself adequately at your summary trial. Imagine that later on, years later, you travel to the United States for a one-week vacation and are turned back. You are in the car with your daughter, and the customs officer says you cannot enter the country because you have a criminal record. One can see the heresy in that situation, when someone who has served his country clearly suffers an injustice.

In the spring of 2011, the NDP proposed many amendments in committee, one of which in particular comes to mind. We proposed that there be 27 minor penalties, that is to say penalties not resulting in a criminal record. There are currently only five. That is definitely a step forward that should be looked at more closely, since this is clearly a form of injustice. This seems obvious to a novice, since I do not claim to be a legal expert.

These exceptions must absolutely be brought back to the table in order to put a stop to the injustice of giving military members criminal records for inconsequential offences.

Now I would like to talk about respect for the standing committee and its work. It is surprising that the majority in this House did not want to adopt the amendments we introduced last spring. These are not partisan proposals. Instead they are an appeal to common sense and show respect for our military members. This is even a matter of respect for the standing committee’s work. The committee worked long and hard, as many of my colleagues can attest. We can also attest to the enormous amount of work that is done in the committees and that generally appears to remain a dead letter.

This committee heard evidence and thoughts, recorded appearances and heard many speeches. What about the result of its work? Is it merely good for the shredder? One would think so.

Ultimately, the committee thought it was good and wise, when Bill C-41 was introduced in spring 2011, to adopt the proposal made by the members of my party, who felt that special attention should be given to cases in which an offence does not deserve a criminal record. Why not respect the committee's work and restore that proposal, which was made in good faith and in a non-partisan manner?

I would also like to note the importance of the Military Police Complaints Commission and of enhancing its work capacity, which is absolutely necessary. Limited by the fact that it cannot examine cases that arose before 1999, the commission is designed to handle those in which doubts are raised about the military police's work. I have seen cases in which the commission appeared to be powerless in difficult situations where lives were at stake; I hope to have the time to discuss them. For the good of military personnel and the credibility of the military police, it is essential that the commission be able to operate efficiently in a manner respectful of the players who constitute it.

Lastly, we believe that, to be relevant, the grievance committee that examines the rights of military personnel respecting their benefits, their release, internal issues, harassment and medical matters must be independent and stand outside the Canadian Forces. We have previously suggested, for what I believe are obvious reasons, that 60% of the committee members should be individuals who have never served in the Canadian Forces. This is a reasonable proposal that, like everything we are discussing here, is a matter of natural justice and of aligning military justice with civilian justice.

The members of the Canadian Forces obviously have no association or union to which they can turn. That is why we want the committee to receive and hear the grievances of Canadian Forces members in the rigorous, impartial manner characteristic of an independent outside agency.

This is a matter of natural justice. No one can dispense justice on his or her own behalf. I am going to act like an intellectual and translate that sentence into Latin: Nemo iudex in causa sua. I have quite a Latin accent; I am trying to entertain my colleagues.

Everyone has a right to be heard, and that includes the opportunity to appeal a disputed decision or apply for a review of a decision that appears to be incorrect. As that first rule was very popular, I am going to add a second: Audi alteram partem. This is a reference to our basic system and to the Latin language. These are rules of natural justice commonly in effect in civilian law courts in Canada. They are also in effect in military courts in many countries such as Great Britain—which, it must be acknowledged, the government likes so much—New Zealand, Australia and Ireland.

Why do these rules and rights not apply in our own military courts? Are we saying, “Join the army, sign here, and lose all your rights”? That is a good question.

What I find most disturbing is the extent to which these people devote their lives to defending their country. It seems almost old-fashioned to say it, but they have to be effective, not drag their feet and solve a problem. They are doing it for us. Honestly, as a parliamentarian, I am embarrassed that it has taken so long to move forward on this issue; we are dragging our feet. I hope we can show some collegiality and resolve these matters as soon as possible so that our men and women in uniform feel they are being heard by civilian society.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. Indeed, summary trials are problematic. I hope that everyone in the House recognizes how important it is that our troops be able to have another life after serving in the military. We need to help them transition to civilian life. Serving Canadians and protecting their rights and freedoms is not an easy job. Military personnel have to make major sacrifices and submit to a very strict discipline. Therefore, it is only natural for us to make their lives easier, as a way to thank them for their services. A person should not have a criminal record because of something that is not a crime. That is why Bill C-15 is inadequate and needs improvement, as I pointed out during my speech.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question. If he is willing to propose amendments, then I encourage him to do so. We are still debating Bill C-15 because it remains flawed, as I have pointed out in my speech. I spoke of the flaws relating to summary trials, but there are several more. I do not believe the Conservatives fixed all those flaws. In fact, here is what Colonel Michel W. Drapeau said about summary trials:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year.

If my honourable friend says he has resolved the issue, good, but Bill C-15 remains flawed. That is why it is important to discuss it today.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be speaking about Bill C-15. I will begin with a brief history of this bill.

In 2003, the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, tabled his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act.

The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations concerning military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces provost marshal. Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations.

We must mention, however, that only 28 of the 88 recommendations have been included in this legislation. Thus, the response is incomplete. Bill C-15 is not a full response to the Lamer report.

Bill C-15 has appeared in a number of previous forms. First there was Bill C-7, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007—an act that, by the way, was undemocratic—and then Bill C-45, which met the same fate when the 2008 election was called.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came along, simplifying the court martial structure and establishing a system for choosing the court martial format that would harmonize best with civilian justice.

In 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs examined Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations for amendments to the National Defence Act.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced as a response to the 2003 Lamer report and the 2009 report from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

It included provisions related to military justice, such as reforms to sentencing, military judges and committees, summary trials, the court martial panel and the Canadian Forces provost marshal, as well as provisions pertaining to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Essentially, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 tabled by the Senate committee in the last Parliament. The accepted amendments included the composition of the court martial panel and the appointment of military judges during good behaviour until their retirement.

Some important amendments were adopted at the committee stage, at the end of the last parliamentary session. Unfortunately, they were not included in Bill C-15. It is really strange, because many of these amendments were suggested and supported by the NDP and by others. For example, one amendment dealt with the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff relative to the grievance process. That was a direct response to a recommendation in the Lamer report, and it is missing. There was also an amendment regarding changes in the composition of the grievance board, so that 60% of its members would be civilians. Once again, it is not in this bill. Finally, there was a provision to ensure that a person found guilty of an offence at a summary trial would not be unjustly burdened with a criminal record. That, too, is missing.

What the NDP wants are simple and important things that affect military justice and show respect for the people who serve the country by defending our rights and freedoms.

This bill does propose a number of important reforms. The NDP has long been in favour of the necessary updating of the military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are subject to very severe discipline and, thus, deserve a judicial system that is governed by rules comparable to those in the civilian system.

This bill has many shortcomings that we hope will be discussed in committee if the bill is passed at second reading.

The first thing that must be reviewed is the reform of the summary trial system. It is a serious problem. The amendments in Bill C-15 do not deal adequately with the injustice of summary trials. There is a true injustice in these trials. At present, a guilty verdict from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. Summary trials can cover many things, some of them insignificant.

They may apply not only to such serious charges as insubordination, but also to less serious offences such as drunkenness or the like, which have nothing to do with the criminal offences that would be found on a criminal record. This is a serious problem that must be reformed, and it must be done immediately.

For example, summary trials are held without the accused being able to consult counsel. There is no recourse and no transcript. We can imagine how a trial is conducted when there is no transcript of what was said. The name says it all: “summary trial”. It is summary, with no real justice and no recourse to a real, fair justice system. Summary trials are held for minor and major reasons, and there is no logic to them.

Moreover, the accused person’s commanding officer acts as the judge. That is much too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor infractions. The fact that the commanding officer is also the judge raises questions about the impartiality of the process. Therefore, changes are needed.

These minor offences include insubordination, as I said, but also quarrels. “Quarrel” is a pretty big word to describe someone raising their voice to someone else. We have to look at the definition of “quarrel”. We are not talking about striking and injuring someone here. Accordingly, we do not see why this should result in a criminal record. Misconduct, again, is very broad. As I said, it is the commanding officer who decides all of this.

Absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a command are all undoubtedly very important for military discipline, I agree, but they do not deserve a criminal record, particularly since these soldiers have lives after their military service. Someone who quarrelled with one of his colleagues and who returns to civilian life could find himself with a criminal record because of this.

It then becomes difficult to find a job, to travel outside Canada and to find housing. This creates a whole host of problems for people who, let us not forget, serve the Canadian public and defend our rights and freedoms. Because of some of these measures, their own rights and freedoms are being trampled on somewhat by this military justice system. This process needs to be revised.

I could touch on many other aspects that need to be revised, but I will not have time. A lot of competent people have looked into this. Bill C-15 does not properly reform the military justice system.

To conclude, we in the NDP believe the Canadian Forces already have to meet extremely high standards when it comes to discipline. We know the strict discipline this job calls for. Members of the military are entitled, in return, to a judicial system that is required to meet comparable standards. A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult. Criminal records complicate the process of finding a job, renting an apartment or travelling.

Accordingly, the NDP will fight to make the Canadian military justice system fairer for the men and women in uniform who have risked their lives in the service of Canada. For that reason, it is very important that this act be revised, to respect and honour our soldiers.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague, who made a heartfelt speech on Bill C-15.

He spoke of strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. That is a step in the right direction for the government.

It goes without saying the Canadian Forces provost marshal will resolve complaints and protect complainants from being penalized for having made a complaint in good faith, but what more could we do to increase the Military Police Complaints Commission's authority?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to strengthen and alter military justice following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the right hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Among other things, the bill would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process and additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It would modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person and modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials. It would also allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods. The bill would clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and, finally, it would make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

New Democrats believe that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming a number of required aspects of the military justice system, including the summary trial system, the grievance system and the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I will provide some background. In 2003, the right hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, presented his report to the independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal. Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations, but thus far only 28 of those recommendations have been implemented in legislation, regulations or via changes in practice.

This bill has appeared in earlier forms. First, Bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper due to prorogation by the Conservative government in 2007 and an election in 2008. In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force simplifying the structure of the court martial system and establishing a method, which was more closely aligned with the civilian system, for choosing the type of court martial. In 2009, the Senate committee consider Bill C-60 and provided nine recommendations for amendments to the National Defence Act. In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and the Senate committee report. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the provost marshal and limited provisions related to the grievance process and the Military Police Complaints Commission.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. There are a number of amendments that carry over, which include the court martial composition, military judges' security of tenure and provisions relating to the appointment process and the age of judges. However, other important amendments that passed at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session are not included in Bill C-15. These include the following, which were also presented by the New Democrats as amendments to that piece of legislation.

What is missing from this bill is the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, which responds directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership; and finally, a provision to ensure that a person who is convicted of an offence during the summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. It is this last point that causes particular concern to all Canadians who care about the justice system in this country.

There are many important reforms in this bill and the NDP supports the long overdue update to the military justice system. Members of the Canadian Forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and they, in turn, deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. The NDP will be opposing this bill at second reading. However, there are shortcomings in this bill that we hope can be addressed at the committee stage if, in fact, it gets that far. Here are some of the amendments that we hope to see passed.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials, though, are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the so-called trial, and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes undue harshness on certain members of the Canadian Forces who can be, and are, convicted of very minor service offences, offences that would not otherwise be criminal offences.

For example, some of these minor service offences include insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline, but they are not necessarily worthy of a criminal record. Certainly drunkenness is not a criminal offence, and many members of the House would probably attest to that.

Bill C-15 also makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine less than $500 to no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill but it does not, in our opinion, go far enough.

At committee stage last March, the NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not necessarily worthy of a criminal record. We would increase that number from five specified offences to 27, if the offence in question received a minor punishment.

The amendment also extended the list of punishments that may be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a reprimand on its own, a fine equal up to one month's basic pay or another minor punishment.

This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15, and we want to see it included here.

We also believe it is important to reform the grievance system because at present the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. Currently it is staffed entirely of retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society.

The NDP amendment provides that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. Again, this amendment was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41 but was not retained in the bill before the House. We think it is important to see that amendment retained in the bill.

Finally, the NDP believes we must strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission. The bill amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces provost marshal would be required to resolve conduct complaints as well as to protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith. Although a step forward, the NDP believes that more needs to be done to empower this commission.

Care has not been taken to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the required legislative provisions empowering it to act as an oversight body. This commission must be empowered by a legislative provision that will allow it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament.

Let us talk about what some independent people have said about the bill. I want to quote Colonel Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel from the Canadian Forces and a military law expert. Here is what he said in February 2011:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed.... There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year. Why? Because unless and until you, the legislators, address this issue, it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge, since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted. As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

Colonel Drapeau also said:

—I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of those charter rights when facing a summary trial. If Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland have seen fit to change the summary trial system, it begs the question: why is Canada lagging behind?

I believe all members of the House want to see members of the Canadian Forces guaranteed the very charter rights that we send them into harm's way to fight for on our behalf. One part of those rights is that when people face potential criminal sanctions, they have a right to counsel. They have a right to a judge that is independent. They have a right to transcripts and a meaningful right to appeal. Bill C-15 does not allow this and I urge all members of the House to work on this bill to address those serious problems.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, a bill that would change the nature of the National Defence Act and, in some ways, improve the military's system of criminal justice.

This legislation has been a part of ongoing debate in Parliament over a number of years. We have some serious concerns with this legislation and will be opposing it at second reading. Committee stage has not been all that fruitful over the last year and a half of the majority Conservative government, but I suppose that if we did get some amendments that brought the legislation back to the state it was in the previous parliament, then we could get onside with that. Here we are debating this legislation in the House of Commons, recognizing that committees have not been doing their due diligence on many of the bills that have gone forward. The government has been using its majority in committees to block many useful amendments. That problem, we all recognize, has been changing our ability to provide good legislation for Canadians.

I want to talk about the summary trial system and the fact that a conviction of a service offence in a summary trial of a Canadian Forces member may result in a criminal record. I am concerned about the vast number of Canadians who may end up with a criminal record for offences that are relatively minor and the fact that we do this at a higher rate than many other civilized countries in the world.

We have a system that puts a criminal record on the backs of Canadians for a variety of offences, including in some cases for very minor and victimless offences that really do not warrant the kind of long-term impediment to a convicted person's lifestyle that a criminal conviction entails. That impediment includes getting a job, getting a place to live or travelling to other countries. Having a criminal record in Canada seriously impedes the progress of someone's life, and we here in Parliament should take it seriously. A conviction becomes part of a citizen's history and affects his or her life going forward.

Now we have summary trials in the military tradition. The NDP worked hard on the previous bill to get an amendment that would strike off a great number of the offences under the National Defence Act that can result in criminal records. In the previous bill the government was going to remove five of those offences but we managed to get that number up to 27. I am not familiar with precisely which five offences still remain in this legislation.

When I look at the offences under the National Defence Act, such as disobedience of a lawful command, for instance, should that carry forward in every instance in a summary trial? Remember that we are talking about a summary trial where there is no obligation on the part of those conducting the trial to provide legal counsel to the people standing in front of them. We are dealing with a hierarchical system where the complainant in the military tradition has the upper hand over the defendant.

Providing prompt but fair justice in respect to minor service offences contributes to the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency. However, given that our military personnel are under great stress and have to deal with being away from home for long periods of time under a very strict command and control structure, they are likely to offend in some way if, under the command system, they are identified as a problem. That is the nature of military service.

We have to think about what we are doing with or creating for these people when they come out of the military into the general population. That is very important. It is a very serious situation for them if, from a summary trial, they have a criminal record for some minor service infraction. I think this goes on quite often In Canada. We give people a criminal record for a variety of small offences in the military, which I do not think is appropriate to do there or in the general justice system. We need to reform all of our justice systems so that we not too easily burden people with a criminal record designation.

Under the National Defence Act we have offences such as abuse of subordinates, connivance at desertion, absence without leave, cruel or disgraceful conduct, insubordinate behaviour, quarrels and disturbances. These are all part of life. They are things that happen to one degree or another. How is something like a quarrel or disturbance designated? I hate to think that by quarrelling with the government here over the bill that I could be up on a summary offence by some trial in the House of Commons. However, that is what happens in the military.

We must maintain military discipline and there are reasons to have summary trials, but the sentencing that goes along with that is what we are talking about here. That is at question. Should minor offences have a long-lasting impact on a person's life? This is why the NDP is taking a strong position here, because we do not want to see this happen. We did have good results in the last Parliament in getting 27 of these offences removed, and I think that would make the bill more palatable.

It is not every day that we discuss the nature of military justice. This is our last shot at it. Once the bill has gone through the process, it may not come before Parliament for another decade. There may be many instances where people end up with criminal records for relatively minor offences over the next decade, if the bill passes during the course of this session.

We have important work to do here and want to see this done right. We want to ensure that the kinds of penalties given for offences in this regard are well thought out and are not punishing Canadians unduly for things that may occur under the conditions of military service.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite really needs to recall what this government has committed to at every stage of this debate on Bill C-15 to update our military justice system.

We have accepted 83 out of 88 of the recommendations. Several of the member's colleagues have tried to argue that we have accepted only 29. We have actually implemented 29 and have accepted 83 out of 88. We want to move faster on implementation, but we need the bill passed to do that.

Could the member explain to this House why, instead of talking about the bill and what could possibly be preventing the opposition members from wanting to move it into committee, he is talking about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is not talked about in this bill and is not governed in any way by the military justice system?

He mentioned Mr. Leduc. If he wants to talk about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, would he care to comment on the very good appointments to that board made by this government over the past week? They are people who represent a combination of civilians and former senior serving military officers.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House and represent the people of the region of Timmins—James Bay, who have put their trust in me to represent their concerns.

The discussion we have before us this morning on Bill C-15 is really what this Parliament should be doing, which is to ensure that the people who put themselves on the front line of defence for the Canadian people have their rights protected when they return from overseas or from whatever work they are doing, whether they are in the army, with the RCMP, or in the various federal police forces across our country.

That is an obligation we have to those men and women and their families, regardless of political stripe. Unfortunately, there are times when the government and Parliament have failed those front-line workers.

I am looking at Bill C-15, and I understand the government's intention to address the serious shortfalls in terms of military justice. However, I am quite concerned that the government has decided to ignore numerous recommendations that came from the Lamer report. This whole process is supposed to be a result of the 80 recommendations brought forward by the Lamer report. The government cherry-picked them down to 28.

This bill is also a follow-up to Bill C-41, from the previous Parliament. Numerous amendments were actually passed by a parliamentary committee to ensure that we were improving the system of military justice and representation for our armed forces personnel. Yet the government, in the present Parliament, has taken those amendments passed by a parliamentary committee and thrown them out the window.

That is highly problematic. If we look at some of the amendments the government walked away from, they had to do with the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance process, which was amended under clause 6 in Bill C-41, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation.

There is also the issue of changes in the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership, which was amended in clause 11 in Bill C-41. There was also the provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence at a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. That was amended in clause 75 of Bill C-41.

What we are talking about is basic justice and basic fairness for those who put themselves in harm's way.

The 80 recommendations from the Lamer report remind me of the 80 recommendations that came down after the Kashechewan prison fire, where Ricardo Wesley and Jamie Goodwin burned to death in a makeshift police cell in 2006, in a federal facility, under Nishnawbe-Aski police.

I was at the funeral for those young men. There was trauma within the community and within the police force among the men and women who were hired to represent Canada and protect communities in the far north. The Nishnawbe-Aski police, like the military, sometimes face extreme circumstances. All they ask for is fairness.

Unfortunately, what I see in the far north in our policing services, which are funded 52% by the federal government and 48% by the provincial government, is that they are often facing combat conditions and third-world conditions.

In Kashechewan, one of our police officers had to live in a tent. The jail cells did not have a basic water sprinkler system. On any given day we have maybe 30 officers out of 150 off on stress leave. We have suicides. We have an incidence of post-traumatic stress among our front-line officers at the level of combat casualties.

These are officers who dedicate themselves to ensuring the health and safety of communities.

The government ignored almost all of the recommendations in that report, in the same way that they are ignoring the Lamer report.

I think that is unfortunate, because once again, it is about our obligation as legislators. The most serious job we do in this House is make a decision on whether to put someone's life on the line, whether we send them into combat or on peacekeeping missions or whether we send them to represent justice and the protection of civilian life in the far north.

When those officers, those men and women, find themselves in trouble, they should have a system in place that ensures a level of fairness. I was thinking about the various opinions we have heard on this bill . Once again, people want to see the military justice system improve, but they are concerned that the government is clearly walking away from key provisions that will ensure fairness and the right to due process.

Colonel Michel Drapeau, military law expert, said that the issue of summary trials must be addressed, because “[t]here is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a broken system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year”. He continued that “I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of those charter rights when facing a summary trial. If Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have seen fit to change the summary trial system, it begs the question: why is Canada lagging behind?”

Why indeed? As I was preparing for the discussion this morning, I was thinking about the situation of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and Harold Leduc, who was drummed out of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board for making waves. The waves he was making were in defence of the needs of soldiers who are coming before the appeals board. He was ruffling feathers within the bureaucracy and the government. The story of his being drummed out as a representative of the armed forces is very disturbing, because we are talking about allegations of harassment and corruption at the board. Mr. Leduc was targeted. His privacy was violated. The issue of post-traumatic stress was used against him, which he took to the Human Rights Commission. He won. It found that he was facing harassment for speaking up for the men and women who put their lives on the line and are only asking for fairness.

When the government decided to remove Mr. Leduc from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, he said that he was not surprised. He said, “To me, it speaks to the overall corruption I've witnessed”.

That is a pretty disturbing allegation against the board whose job is protecting the needs of those who serve. Just as we see in the far north with the Nishnawbe-Aski police, who have a right to ensure that if they put themselves at risk or they get injured or have post-traumatic stress there will be services for them, so too should the soldiers who come back from Afghanistan or from other duties have a right to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Yet we see the government shutting down the veterans' spokesmen, the people who are defending those in need.

We see the same system in the criminal justice system the soldiers face, where they do not have proper counsel or civilian intervention. They have to go sometimes before what essentially could be seen as an old boys' club. This is not fair. The need to reform this has been spoken about. Yet the government has once again decided, for whatever purpose or whatever reason, to ignore the key recommendations on transformation, key recommendations that would actually ensure some fairness. It will go with this bill that is quite simply insufficient for the purposes at hand.

We want to work on reforming military justice in this country. We will not be supporting a bill that so clearly ignores the key recommendations.

The issue of summary trials is key.

There is the issue of having civilian involvement in the review process. The Lamer report talked of the need for 60%. There is a need for the grievance committee to have an external review process. It is presently staffed by retired officers, some only recently retired. If the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was destined to be, then the appointments process needs to reflect that reality. Once again, we are saying that it cannot be just internal. It has to have outside voices so that we do not see the same kind of harassment of veterans as at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, with the shutting down of the people who are actually there to stand up and speak for veterans. We need to have some sort of system of external fairness.

Sometimes when soldiers are charged, they could face having a criminal record for something that in civilian court would be considered minor. If they leave the army with a criminal record, it would affect them for the rest of their lives.

Once again, those who are serving our country should be entitled to due process. That is a fundamental principle. We have seen reform happen in England and Ireland. The question is why the government is ignoring key recommendations of the Lamer report. Why is it not working with us to ensure that we have a system that ensures fairness for those men and women who put themselves at risk for our country?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I want to be quite clear. The NDP believes that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction but it does not address all the issues. The problem is that the Conservatives have undermined the important work that all members did together in the previous Parliament in the defence committee and have ignored the recommendations made by Canadian Forces representatives during the last session of Parliament. That is my concern.

Why are they doing that? What is the point of taking something that was well-worked, well-rounded and thoroughly examined, and now go back to step one? I do not understand the point of that. It is going to make the process more complicated for us as members and it will take longer to go through. In fact, we could have done this much faster if they had introduced the bill as it was amended.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

In fact, the Lamer report contained 88 recommendations, and this bill addresses only 28 of them.

On top of that, the NDP amendments on the previous version of the bill in a previous Parliament had done nothing but strengthen the bill. It was the subject of hard work and consideration by all parties and those amendments have not been included in this version of the bill.

Those amendments were with regard to the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, which was a direct response to the Lamer recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilians; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. These were important things worked on in the previous Parliament. My question for the member is why those things are not included in this version of Bill C-15 in this Parliament.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to rise in this House and speak to Bill C-15 because justice is more than just a system of laws and regulations; it is also a fundamental value for me and for my NDP colleagues, as it should also be for the military system.

This bill is step in the right direction, but it does not address the key issues related to reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

That is why, although the bill's primary objective is laudable, it does not satisfy our objectives. Much more needs to be done to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We on this side of the House want a comprehensive bill that adequately addresses the problem. No justice system is perfect, but that should not stop us from trying to improve our system as much as possible.

Many elements have been left out of Bill C-15: reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The fact that the NDP included these three elements in amendments of the previous version of the bill and that those amendments are now absent cannot be a coincidence. As I said, the NDP is not opposed to the spirit of this bill. We want to work with the Conservatives to get it right in order to ensure that the bill is relevant and that it has a broad enough scope.

I do not understand why the government did not include these elements in the bill. They are important in a consistent military justice reform.

Let us look specifically at the grievance system. We must understand it in order to appreciate the importance of the improvements proposed by the NDP.

I would like to quote the directive on military grievances, which is found on the Department of National Defence website. It indicates:

The DND and the CF shall manage all grievances through the Canadian Forces Grievance System...and ensure that:

all grievances are processed as efficiently and expeditiously as possible;

a CF member is not penalized for submitting a grievance; and

assistance is made available to a CF member in the preparation of a grievance.

The last point is important: the Canadian Forces has the responsibility to help its members because they do not have a union-type association to defend them. This lack of counter-balance is another reason why it is important to ensure that we have an effective and impartial system.

The NDP proposed two improvements. First, we proposed that at least 60% of grievance board members must be civilians who have never been an officer or a member of the Canadian Forces and, second, that the Chief of Defence Staff be given more authority to resolve the financial aspects of grievances.

The first improvement, namely, that the grievance board strike a balance between military and civilian membership, is important to ensure that this process is perceived as being external and independent. When it comes to the military, perception is very important for Canadians. Everyone in the country should be able to see that the system is independent and fair. Members of the military have a great deal of experience in managing such situations, so it is rather important that they are truly involved in the process. However, the presence of civilians is also important to dispel the idea that members of the military are subject to a different kind of justice than ordinary Canadians.

I would like to once again quote a Canadian Forces document. This time, I will be quoting an excerpt from chapter 34 of the “Military Administrative Law Manual” to demonstrate how this process, which may generally seem strange to Canadians, works. Point no. 24 of the section on the CF grievance board states:

The CF Grievance Board...is an external body independent from DND and the CF that has been established by section 29.16 of the NDA. The role of the CFGB is to provide findings and recommendations on grievances referred to it by the CDS. It oes not have the authority to grant or deny redress regarding any grievance.

Article 25 states:

There are certain grievances for which the CDS is required to request CFGB findings and recommendations. These grievances relate to:

a. administrative action resulting in the forfeiture of, or deductions from, pay and allowances, reversion to a lower rank or release from the CF;

b. the application or interpretation of CF policies relating to expression of personal opinions, political activities and candidature for office, civil employment, conflict of interest and post compliance measures, harassment or racist conduct;

c. pay, allowances and other financial benefits; and

d. the entitlement to medical care or dental treatment.

Article 26 states:

The CDS is also responsible for ensuring that any grievance that concerns a decision or action of the CDS is forwarded to the CFGB for its findings and recommendations.

As the policy states, such an important board must be effective and beyond reproach. The NDP believes that a significant civilian presence on this board would help maintain this perception. When we look at how to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission, the merits of this idea and our position are quite obvious.

Police officers, as agents of social control, have a key role to play in our society, which is based on the rule of law. They are effective not only because they have the manpower and equipment, of course, but also because of their perceived legitimacy by the public. The military police is no exception. For a police force to operate properly, whether it is military or civilian, it must have the approval of those under its authority. A police force gains legitimacy through its perceived integrity. This perception is built on the actions of the police force and the perception of fairness and justice in its operations.

There is no better way to prove the integrity of a police force than by having a strong monitoring body. A Military Police Complaints Commission that is legitimate and reports to Parliament is the best way to ensure fairness in the actions of military police and, just as importantly, the perception of fairness and justice by Canadians.

The second improvement is that the Chief of Defence Staff should have more authority to resolve financial aspects related to grievances. This is a simple requirement to ensure that the grievance system is consistent. If the Chief of Defence Staff does not have the ability to resolve financial aspects, it calls into question the relevance of the grievance process.

I should point out that Canada is not the only country to be reviewing its military justice system. Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland have recently done the same. We are in an excellent position to pass a comprehensive and effective bill while taking into account what has been done in other countries. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the bill as it stands. As I already said, the NDP proposed amendments to the bill in its previous form. But those amendments are no longer part of the current bill. We would like to see something constructive if and when the bill goes to committee.

In conclusion, although I focused mainly on the grievance system, it is important to note that this is just one thing missing from this bill. The NDP will continue to work to include the essential measures that it had passed in the former version of this bill. There is no reason for the Conservatives not to admit the relevance of these measures. Their hiding of this fact reeks of partisanship.

The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on any day Bill C-15 is under consideration at second reading, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for almost a year and a half, I have had the opportunity to debate in the House a number of issues that are dear to me. At times, we must also debate issues with which we are not as familiar. You will agree that we cannot be interested in everything all the time. However, that does not mean that the issues are not very interesting, and I do not doubt their importance. For many Canadians, everything to do with the military is somewhat of a mystery. The public definitely knows that Canada has an army and many people are very proud of it. However, the internal workings of the armed forces are a mystery to mere mortals.

A year and a half ago, that was the case for me. Since arriving here, I have had the opportunity to meet many members of the armed forces and I have become aware of the issues that are important to them. I have also asked the veterans in my riding many questions, and they have kindly and patiently answered them.

Bill C-15 is about military justice and it is a truly interesting subject. I will summarize the bill in order to provide some context. Bill C-15 is the Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. True to form, the Conservative government gave it an optimistic short title—Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Coming up with such upbeat titles is a new trend. I would not put it past the Conservatives to introduce a bill to diminish the rights of aboriginal peoples and name it “encouraging the legal and economic autonomy of first nations”. The cheerful words are a bit much.

Bill C-15 addresses some very clear problems and, in a way, proposes some clear solutions. This bill originated in 1998 when the Liberals were in power. During the 1990s, it was determined that the National Defence Act absolutely had to be modernized and achieve a better balance. It was significantly amended in 1998, after the release of three different reports that questioned its effectiveness. The Liberals introduced Bill C-25, which contained clause 96 stating that, every five years after the bill is assented to, there would be an independent review of the amendments made to the National Defence Act to see whether they were effective and whether any adjustments were needed.

This brings us to 2003, when the Lamer report came out with its 88 recommendations. Everyone agreed that the Lamer report was an effective tool and that it clearly indicated the steps to follow to improve and modernize our National Defence Act.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they inherited the Lamer report and its recommendations. The Conservative government was aware that it had to continue reforming the National Defence Act. Under the Conservatives there were all kinds of disappointing twists and turns. In the first two minority, and rather unstable, Conservative governments, the two attempts to pass legislation to comply with the Lamer report recommendations died on the order paper.

In 2008, there was a turn of events. On April 24, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, in R. v. Trépanier, declared unconstitutional the provisions in the National Defence Act enabling the director of military prosecutions to choose the type of court martial for a given accused. This essentially meant that, from then on, in certain cases, accused persons had the right to choose the type of court martial to be convened.

The Conservatives had to react to this event as quickly as possible. Their legislative attempt failed in the wrangling of minority governments, and suddenly there was a court case that they needed to respond to. Their response was Bill C-60, which made minor changes to the military justice system. The Lamer report definitely remained the foundation for future legislation, but it also led to a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled, “Equal Justice”. That report, commissioned by the Minister of National Defence, was agreed to in principle by the government when it tabled the report.

At this time, we have an abundance of studies and information to guide the whole legislative process of amending the National Defence Act. However, the tone has already been set. It will never be applied as a whole, but rather in bits and pieces. That is not necessarily a bad thing. We cannot change everything at once, unless the government decides to throw an omnibus bill at us concerning the National Defence Act, but I think the staff at the Prime Minister's Office, based on the two huge tomes that we have seen in recent months, are burned out. You see, the first victims of these paving stone expeditions are the legislative and political staff in the Prime Minister's Office.

Significant progress was made in 2010. Bill C-41, which was the direct forerunner of Bill C-15, was introduced in the House on June 16, 2010. It made it through the entire legislative process, was debated and discussed, and several of the NDP's proposed amendments were included. Unfortunately, Bill C-41 died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved during the last federal election.

Not long after a new Parliament was formed, in June 2011, there was yet another twist. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, in R. v. Leblanc, declared unconstitutional the provisions regarding the appointment of judges and the length of their terms.

The Conservatives wanted to fix the problem as quickly as possible, so in came Bill C-16, which was introduced and assented to in the fall of 2011. At the same time, at the very beginning of the 41st Parliament, the Minister of National Defence appointed the hon. Patrick LeSage, retired Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, to conduct the second independent review of Bill C-25, passed in 1998. His report was recently tabled on June 8, 2012. And that is where we are now.

This topic has been debated in Parliament for 13 years. We have the Lamer report and we have the report from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, all of whose recommendations the Conservative government accepted. Now we have Bill C-15. So what is the problem?

As I said, Bill C-15 in itself is relatively well done and addresses specific urgent problems. Except there was a bit of a sleight of hand. All of the recommendations that the NDP had managed to get accepted for Bill C-41 magically disappeared.

We were not kidding around when we proposed amendments during the previous Parliament. We were being serious. They were discussed in detail and they were accepted. The NDP wants to see these amendments in Bill C-15 as well.

If I may, I would like to quickly describe the purpose of those amendments.

First, there is one very important thing: we believe that Bill C-15 fails to properly address the problem of reforming the summary trial system.

A summary trial takes place when a member of the Canadian Forces is guilty of a lack of discipline in a strictly military setting. That person will be judged by his or her commanding officer on site, without a transcript, in order to maintain military discipline. That is fine in and of itself. Members of the military are subject to rigorous discipline in the course of their duties, but since they are only human, they may make mistakes and commit minor offences. Unfortunately, right now, these minor offences lead to a civilian criminal record.

The NDP does not believe that this type of purely military insubordination should result in a criminal record. I am somewhat disturbed that soldiers who bravely put themselves in harm's way for my safety and who are under an unusual amount of pressure must, when they return to civilian life, carry a criminal record that could prevent them from travelling or getting a bank loan all because of a simple matter of insubordination.

In February 2011, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association said that military officers who impose sentences during a summary trial often want to make a show of discipline for the unit and discourage future offences, not impose on the accused the consequences that go along with having a criminal record in the civilian world.

We are talking here about really minor offences, and in the last Parliament, the NDP sold the committee on expanding the list of so-called minor offences from 5 to 27. We want this amendment to be put back into Bill C-15. If it is not, we will not support the bill.

This is not a conspiracy. The countries with which we have everything in common have already done so. It is a fairly powerful list: Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.

If they have done this, I do not understand why Canada would not.

The second point pertains to the reform of the military grievances system. Right now, the grievance board does not allow external reviews. However, the grievance board should be an independent, external civilian body. Right now, only retired members of the Canadian Forces are on the board. I am not saying that they are not doing the job properly, but the system is not working. A change must be made.

Do we have to wait for another Court Martial Appeal Court ruling for things to be done right?

We suggest that at least 60% of the members of the grievance board be civilians. This amendment was agreed to in the last Parliament, but is not included in Bill C-15. We are right about this, and we want this amendment to be included.

Once again, for these reasons we will not be supporting this bill.

The third amendment that is missing from Bill C-15 concerns the Military Police Complaints Commission. It is a minor point, but the NDP believes that much more should be done to strengthen this commission.

It should be granted more powers by means of a legislative provision and it should be able to legitimately conduct investigations and report to Parliament. It is for the good of the military. We want this amendment included as well.

In the end, it is quite gratifying to be part of this long process that began in the late 1990s under the Chrétien government.

I am quite aware that such important statutes as the National Defence Act cannot be amended by only three or four pieces of legislation. Change will inevitably take many years. The work is well under way. The Conservative government has dealt with this matter rather appropriately, which is quite rare. However, as always, the NDP must be vigilant in order to put the finishing touches to the bill. The Conservatives want to act too quickly, and they have not got all the details right.

If the valuable and important amendments that we won acceptance for in the last Parliament are not restored, the NDP will unfortunately vote against the bill.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot to learn from other countries. Canada used to serve as an example to other countries. It was always on the forefront in terms of criminal penalties, but it no longer is today. We have a lot of catching up to do.

We must first determine the targeted objective, which we have lost sight of. The objective is not to put people in prison or impoverish our military personnel by saddling them with a criminal record. I repeat: having a criminal record can hinder access to employment. Some people live in poverty their whole lives because they have a criminal record. If that is really what the government is proposing, I do not think it is giving our military personnel the respect they deserve.

The government should rethink Bill C-15 and withdraw it. It should introduce a new bill that will benefit Canadian society, instead of harming our military personnel by saddling them with a criminal record.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-15. It appears that there are many shortcomings and problems with this bill. I believe the issue of criminal records is one of the main problems.

There are many others. I will begin with the others, but I will come back to criminal records shortly. We find the system of grievances and the Military Police Complaints Commission very worrisome.

This bill has been before the House many times in various forms. It was introduced in 2006 and died on the order paper in 2007-2008 because of the election.

We must not forget that this is a new version of the same bill that was passed by the previous Parliament in March 2011. The new version—the one before us today—implies that the will of the House, expressed only a few months ago, is being totally ignored.

In the opinion of the official opposition, one of the criteria is very troubling. We want 60% of the members of the Military Grievances External Review Committee to be neither officers nor enlisted personnel. We want civilians to have oversight over military procedures in Canada. We have often heard this opinion expressed by our constituents. The military must be subject to the will of the people and not the opposite; it is just common sense.

The NDP is adamant that 60% of the members of the Military Grievances External Review Committee should be civilians. Passing Bill C-15 without this element is unacceptable.

The part of this bill that worries me the most is the one dealing with criminal records. The people who defend our country deserve better than to have a criminal record based on ordinary behaviour.

Clause 75 of the bill, recently mentioned by a government member, lists the cases in which a person might acquire a criminal record. A new section will be created in the law, section 249.27. In it we see that a person who commits an offence under sections 85, 86, 90, 97,129 and 130 of the Contraventions Act may have a criminal record. This aspect that might give a person a criminal record must be carefully studied.

Clause 85 deals with an act of insubordination, such as a threat or verbal insult to a superior. This means that someone could have a criminal record for nothing more than a verbal insult. Having a criminal record is a big deal. It can hinder a person's access to employment. That person could be forced to live in poverty their entire life because they threatened or verbally insulted a superior. Frankly, it is a little much.

The legislation talks about quarrels and disturbances. Anyone who quarrels or fights with another member of the military—unfortunately it can happen—or uses provoking speeches or gestures toward a person so subject that tend to cause a quarrel or disturbance is guilty of an offence.

This includes not only quarrels or fights that do happen, but also the risk of quarrels or disturbances. This could all lead to a criminal record. Once again, this goes too far.

Absence without leave could lead to a criminal record. The same is true for drunkenness and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

Working in the military field is a very risky and very stressful job. It would therefore not be surprising if military personnel shouted insults at one another, especially if they were drunk.

In my opinion, those are not reasons to potentially subject someone to a criminal record. It is important to remember that only summary trials carry that risk. We agree that, if a real trial were held before a judge, at least people would have a chance to defend themselves. They would be judged by someone who knows the law and who is trained to be fair and equitable.

“The Code of Service Discipline and Me: A guide to the military justice system for Canadian Forces members” is posted on the Department of National Defence's website. It explains what a summary trial is. I would like to quote from it briefly.

Summary trials are designed to deal with relatively minor service offences that are important for the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency at the unit level. Summary trials allow a unit CO, delegated officer, or superior commander to effectively administer discipline and return the member to duty as soon as possible.

The important thing to remember from this is that the purpose of a summary trial is not to punish people by giving them a criminal record. The guide says so. According to the Canadian Forces, it is very clear that the reason for a summary trial is to have a fast and effective justice process designed to reintegrate the person into his military unit. A criminal record has nothing to do with that purpose. If the summary trial were to be used for that purpose from now on, then such use would contradict the information on the Canadian Forces website.

The website also indicates the following:

Courts martial are formal military courts established under the National Defence Act that are presided over by military judges. A military prosecutor is assigned to prosecute each case and the accused is represented by defence counsel, either military or civilian.

In the case of a court martial, there is a person who is defending himself, a prosecutor, a judge, lawyers and a full defence. The problem with the summary trial is that it is the commanding officer himself or herself who will decide what punishment to impose on the person who broke the rules. And let us not forget that a verbal insult is one of the offences.

Clause 75 of Bill C-15 goes much too far. It is not just a matter of possibly amending it. This goes beyond the very purpose of summary trials. It completely disregards their purpose. We might as well abolish summary trials and go directly to court martial if we are going to give such serious penalties.

I want to say that in the past, the NDP requested that the list of offences that could be considered minor be expanded, so that in summary trial cases without a criminal record, offenders would have a better chance of being reintegrated, as the directives state on the website.

When people enlist in the forces, they will see what to expect. They will see what the Department of National Defence itself says and what new recruits can expect. Now the government is misleading them about what could happen to them once they join the forces. They are the ones who defend our country and who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. That is not a respectful way to treat our armed forces.

I urge the government to withdraw this bill and to rewrite it so that it better reflects Canadian values.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to ask my colleague a question.

The summary trial is the most frequently used disciplinary method to deal with offences committed by Canada’s military personnel. In 2008-09, some 1,865 cases, or 96%, were decided by summary trial, and only 67 cases were tried through court martial. I am not sure who said that, but it has been mentioned.

What is my colleague’s opinion of summary trials and the other bills? The amendments passed during study of Bill C-41 have not been retained by the government in Bill C-15. The defense minister talked a little about them today. We wonder why the government would now agree to the amendments that were not included in the current bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken in some of the debate today. I know this is a bill that has been in front of Parliament, this Parliament and previous Parliaments. I think we are actually on our third or fourth iteration of this particular bill.

The latter comment from my friend opposite seemed to indicate that the NDP's position is that they will let the good get in the way of perfect. We are in a situation where there is an opportunity to send the bill to committee. We have in fact, and I want to be very clear, accepted some of the recommendations of previous attempts to bring the bill to fruition. In fact, some of them are found in this very bill, Bill C-15. Some of the opposition amendments were incorporated.

I want to debunk any myth that suggests there has not been compromise and a willingness to bring some of these elements of the bill forward. I would like to make just a few comments, if I might, with respect to confusion on this issue of criminal records.

To be clear, this important matter of criminal records flowing from convictions for service members, as found in clause 75 of Bill C-15, appears to be causing a great deal of consternation with members opposite. The members should be aware that what we have here is a bill that actually provides for specific service offences in minor circumstances, so that these would not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Code.

Further, former Chief Justice LeSage in his review of the National Defence Act indicated in his recommendation that there ought be a full review of the issue of criminal records. We have had three justices who have looked at this particular issue and found the summary trials process to be perfectly acceptable, workable, with some of these amendments.

In conclusion, in light of that recommendation, I would say, and I make this comment very openly here to the official critic for the NDP, their defence critic, the member for St. John's East, that the government is willing to bring in an amendment to clause 75 to match the committee stage amendments made to Bill C-41. That is on the record.

As far as this being harmful to our military or that there are different expectations of Canadians who served in Afghanistan alongside our NATO allies, our military justice system is the envy of our allies. We have, in fact, I would suggest, one of the best military justice systems—

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-15, which is an act to amend the National Defence Act, or as the government calls it, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

While there are many important reforms in the bill and the NDP supports the long overdue update to the military justice system, as the official opposition we believe that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system, and strengthening the military complaints commission.

Members of the Canadian armed forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and in turn they deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can end up with a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

A criminal record can make life a lot harder for military members after service. It can make getting a job, renting an apartment or travelling very difficult. The NDP will fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in service of Canada.

Bill C-15 basically amends the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

In 2003, Lamer presented his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contains 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal.

Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations. Thus far, only 28 recommendations have been implemented in legislation, regulations or via a change in practice.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the versions of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. However, other important amendments that were passed at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15.

These include the following amendments that were introduced by the NDP regarding the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding to Justice Lamer's recommendations; changes to the composition of a grievance committee to include at least 60% civilian membership, which was amended clause 11 in Bill C-41; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted for an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

Those are some of the amendments that were introduced by the NDP in the previous bill but are not part of Bill C-15.

The summary trial is by far the most commonly used form of service tribunal in the military justice system. It is designed to deal with minor offences in a forum where the possible punishments are limited. The objective is to deal with the alleged offences in a fast manner within the unit and return the member to service as soon as possible, thereby promoting and maintaining unit discipline.

Courts martial deal with more serious charges prosecuted within the system and are also available to deal with less serious charges at the option of the accused person.

In the last Parliament, the committee heard from Michel Drapeau, who said that summary trials continued to be the dominant disciplinary method used to try offences by the Canadian military, and that in 2008-2009, a total of 1,865 cases were determined by a summary trial. That is 96% of the total. He also said that only 67 were heard by court martial. In other words, only 4%.

The current grievance process is also flawed. Unlike in other organizations, grievers do not have unions or employee associations to which to pursue their grievances. It is essential to the morale of the Canadian Forces members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent and prompt manner.

There are some shortcomings in the bill that we hope we can address at the committee stage if it passes second reading. More specifically, these are reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. I will briefly talk to those three points.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes an undue harshness on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for minor service offences.

For example, some of these minor service offences include: insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline but they are not worthy of a criminal record. Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine of less than $500, to no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill but it does not, in our opinion, go far enough.

At committee stage last March, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record from five to 27. The amendments also extended the list of punishments that may be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal to one month's basic pay or another minor punishment.

This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, the amendment was not retained in Bill C-15 and we want to see it included. A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult.

The military grievance external review committee at present does not provide a means of external reviews. Currently, it is staffed entirely with retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces grievance board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society. The NDP amendment provided that at least 60% of the members of the grievance committee must never have been an officer or non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces.

In regard to strengthening the military complaints commission, Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces would be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith.

This is a good step in the right direction. However, the bill does not go far enough in addressing summary convictions or the complaints commission.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all who have risen to speak to the bill, particularly my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who are making a valiant attempt trying to persuade the government that we should be respecting the hard work at committee and the consensus that was reached.

I have to say at the outset that I appreciate the optimism of the speaker before me, but frankly, my experience since the Conservative government gained majority control has been that the hard work done in committee seems to be for naught. I hope the government will take heed. However, I would think it is an indication that, since the government chose not to include the consensus amendments, it is going to be an uphill battle to get them back in. However, we look forward to being surprised.

Canadians would be shocked to discover that under the current law, and even with the passage of Bill C-15, many who have bravely served our country, supporting the democratic processes, due process and rule of law for this nation and others, may obtain a criminal record through a system that lacks the due process that is available in civilian criminal courts to other Canadians.

Bill C-15 is the most recent of more than half a dozen tabled iterations, which the government let die. From that standpoint, what is the rush? We should spend time in committee, and if the amendments were previously valid, then let us discuss if they are still valid.

The changes that were previously brought forward and that we continue to call for were put forward not just by opposition members but by Justice LeSage; a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada; Professor Michel Drapeau, from the University of Ottawa; a noted author and military lawyer; members of the armed forces; and many legal experts and defence counsel for military members.

While some of the needed reforms are included in Bill C-15—and we have been clear about that—regrettably, many of the most important ones are not.

In 2003, retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Lamer provided a report outlining 88 recommendations to reform the system of military justice and bring it into the 21st century. He was retained to undertake a review of the court martial procedures under the National Defence Act and he did issue a report, again, with 88 recommendations relating to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance procedures and the provost marshal.

As one of my colleagues has stated, Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction, yet no rationale has been provided by the government as to why, at this point in time with this iteration, it has now thrown out the majority of the agreed amendments.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, noted legal expert and author on military justice, has commented that the National Defence Act “requires more than tweaks and tinkering to bring it into the 21st century”.

However, this is what we have before us today. Yes, there are some amendments and, yes, they are worthwhile, but it is still tweaking and tinkering rather than bringing forward a bill that is appropriate for this century.

In this century, is it not time that the military courts and grievance procedures were amended to instill independence of the decision makers, judicial independence, trial by peers and penalties on par with those in the civilian courts for other Canadians?

I wish to echo the sentiments of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who clearly presented his rationale for opposing Bill C-15. As he stated in the House: “...I am never going to vote for a bill that would treat our military personnel unfairly”.

That is the stance of all my colleagues in the official opposition.

The member stated that the second reason he was voting against the bill was that, despite the efforts of the committee members in the last Parliament to agree on amendments, the experience under this majority government has been continually, where we seek all-party consensus, that the PMO overrides and rejects that consensus.

Many in the House have noted the many iterations prior to this bill. We had the Lamer report in 2003, outlining significant, thoughtful changes to bring military tribunals into this century. In 2006, we had Bill C-7, which died on the order paper. In March 2008, we had Bill C-45, which died on the order paper. In 2008, we had Bill C-16 on court martials. That was given royal assent. We had a little tinkering and it was good that one change was made, but it did not do overall reforms as had been recommended by Justice Lamer. There was a Senate report on equal justice for court martials in May 2009. Again in 2010, we had Bill C-41. The government tabled one amendment, but it died on the order paper. Then we had Bill C-16 in 2011. It passed narrow provisions to improve the appointment and tenure of military judges, but again it was just a tinkering at the edges. In March 2011, the Minister of National Defence commissioned yet another review by Justice LeSage.

It is time for a full, all-encompassing reform of the military justice regime. It is not merely the opposition saying this; it has been senior judges, military law experts and representatives of the military. It has been said over and over again. It has been agreed to by all party members of the committee.

Despite the six iterations since 2003, including this one, little concrete action has been taken to expedite a more just and equitable trial process for military accused. As my colleagues have reiterated to questions from the other side of the House, we do agree that Bill C-15 does provide a number of measures, including greater flexibility in sentencing, more sentencing options including absolute discharge, restitution and intermittent sentences. These are good measures. It modifies the composition of court martial panels and changes the power of delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff for grievance procedures. Good on the Conservatives for agreeing to make some of those changes.

Unfortunately, the bill falls short in key issues: in reforming summary trials, in reforming the grievance system and in strengthening the Military Complaints Commission. Only 28 of Mr. Justice Lamer's 88 recommendations to improve military justice, the Military Complaints Commission, the grievance procedures and the provost marshal have been addressed.

Many amendments tabled by the New Democrats and put forward by the armed forces and passed at committee have been excluded from Bill C-15—for example, the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in grievance processes; changes to the composition of grievance committees and, as my colleague previously mentioned, to include 60% civilians on panel reviews; or to ensure that the persons convicted at summary trial are not unfairly subjected to a criminal record, particularly when we are dealing with minor offences.

Some of the critical reforms we brought forward previously and that have not been included provide the reasons that we cannot support the bill, including the reforms to the summary trial system; reforms to the grievance system; and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Again, these are matters that were tabled at committee and agreed to, but they are not found in Bill C-15.

Reforms to the summary trial system would include removing the criminal record for an expanded list of minor offences. In other words, there are a good number of offences where a young member of the military could be given a criminal record, where it is deemed inappropriate and would not happen in the civil system. Again, there is no right of appeal, no transcript, no access to counsel and often the judge is the accused's commanding officer.

As I mentioned, major reforms to the grievance system include reconstituting the panels with civilian members and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission to provide oversight.

In closing, it is a question of justice and equity for our dedicated military.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech.

He mentioned at one point that he was optimistic and believed that the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on National Defence were going to agree to the recommendations made by the opposition. At least, that is what he thinks.

I would like to know what prompts that optimism, given that at the committee in the previous Parliament, when Bill C-41 was examined, the main amendment that meant that 60% of members of the grievance committee would be civilians, and that was accepted by all of the opposition parties, was rejected by the Conservatives. They were the only ones who rejected it. And we can see exactly that, with that amendment having been deleted in the new Bill C-15.

What prompts my colleague to be so optimistic?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-15.

I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces for a few years. When I joined the forces, the last thing I thought about was military justice. There is no real explanation for the difference between military justice and civilian justice. The difference was never pointed out or anything of that nature.

After being in the forces for a relatively short period of time, I grew to believe that there was a need for a military justice system. Members of the forces face unique situations and, under those types of situations, there are dispositions that they would not get in a civil court system. The whole concept of respect, support and listening to our superior officers is a good example of that.

I was posted to two bases in Edmonton, Griesbach and Lancaster Park. I was living in Lancaster Park but Griesbach is where the military jail was located. Quite often I would be commuting between the two military sites and I would pass through the Griesbach jail. It was interesting, even though it was highlighted within the military, I think we need to put it into perspective.

At that time, the Canadian Forces consisted of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60,000 personnel and many more participated in our reserves. However, the numbers fluctuate. We do not have a huge force today nor is it really necessary. We do not need to have 100,000 members. I think there is a growing dependency on our reserves and I do not know whether that is good or bad. A lot depends on our obligations and how that structure is put in place at a time when there is a greater demand. Right now, the numbers are relatively reasonable. Many would argue that we should be looking at expanding our regular force. There are some concerns related to that.

We have been talking all afternoon about some of the technicalities of what is within the law. What we are really talking about is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 to 60 individuals in the forces who might require some sort of judicial intervention known as a military court martial of some form. The types of offences vary significantly, just like in a civil court. At the end of the day it is a fairly small percentage of military personnel who are on the other side of the bench where they must defend themselves or get someone to defend them. I would suggest, and many would argue, it is a relatively small network but it is a growing network.

Colonel Drapeau authored a book on military justice, which was about 2,000 pages. We could probably all learn a great deal by reading what he was talking about. I must be honest and say that I have not had the opportunity to read it. It is a fairly extensive read. However, for those who are interested in getting a better understanding of some of the intricacies of military justice, I would suggest that they give some serious consideration to reading this book.

It is important to note that the government has not been successful in making the necessary changes. Many individuals for a number of years have been arguing and suggesting that the government be more proactive at making some of the changes that are being proposed today. We could go back to 2006 and Bill C-7, to which one member made reference. I was not here at that time but I understand it was a bill of a similar nature, which the government was unable to get passed. Afterward, it came up with Bill C-41, which again the government was unable to get passed. Then it brought forward Bill C-45 and it failed to get that legislation passed.

We have a different and new dynamic with the majority government and we now have before us Bill C-15. The Liberal Party has been very clear on the issue. We plan to support the bill because we see the merit of having a system that is more effective, fair and more transparent. We think that at the end of the day Bill C-15 would do all three of those things. As such, even though we have other concerns related to the legislation and we will have to wait to see after it goes to committee what ultimately happens, there is strong merit for this bill to go to the committee stage.

As has been pointed out, a series of amendments have been proposed over the last number of years. It was implied that some of those amendments would ultimately be incorporated into the bill. I should acknowledge at the very least that the government took into consideration a couple of the amendments but there was a sense that the government could have done more in terms of acknowledging other amendments. Now that there is a majority government, we anticipate that the bill will pass.

However, it can be very frustrating being in opposition when we have thoughts and ideas that make sense, we bring them forward in the form of amendments at committee stage and the government shies away from them. It is, indeed, unfortunate. We have seen a negative consequence of the government shying away from Liberal Party amendments in particular. I am thinking of bills like Bill C-10, where the Senate had to reintroduce Liberal Party amendments because at the committee stage the government did not see the merit in passing them. I suspect that, unfortunately, very few amendments will be received well enough to pass. However, we are hopeful that the government will recognize that we are trying to support and enhance this legislation. That is one of the reasons we felt it was important to support this bill going to committee.

It is also important to recognize some of the sentences being proposed in the bill: the concept of absolute discharge, intermediate sentences and the whole issue of restitution. If we can narrow the gap between military law and civilian law, we would see that as a positive thing. We want to ensure as much as possible that we are dealing with a system that is fair and, in part, this bill moves us in that general direction. It is fair to say that military law is quite often harsher and has less flexibility. In certain situations, one can understand that and see how it could be justified.

I just want to highlight two very important points as we continue to debate this, whether it is inside the House or in the committee. First is the importance of trying to narrow the gap between the military law and civilian law, thereby ensuring more rights, transparency and a sense fairness within the military structure. Second is to realize that a vast majority of members of the Canadian Forces are outstanding and there is never a need. As I indicated, we talking about 40 to 60 cases a year.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-15 on military justice.

As a former member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the work done by the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. I believe that these exemplary citizens deserve nothing but the best.

Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice. The military justice system is a separate yet parallel system of justice within the Canadian legal framework. It is distinct from, but similar in many ways to, the civilian criminal justice system.

I would like to say a few words about the importance of military justice in the proper functioning of the Canadian Forces. The Supreme Court of Canada has, on more than one occasion, recognized and confirmed the requirement for a separate system of military justice to maintain and enforce discipline. A clear articulation of the court's view on this point was expressed by Chief Justice Lamer in 1992:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the armed forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the armed forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently.

This excerpt addresses several basic themes of military justice. Discipline is the cornerstone of a professional military. It is critical to the success of Canadian Forces operations. However, when we talk about military justice, there has to be an emphasis on the justice side as well. We want to be able to count on excellent morale among our troops and we demand loyalty.

However, it is a two-way street. The system must also be seen as fair for the members of our armed forces. In the two areas of our military justice system that I want to focus on today, that fairness is somewhat lacking. I will therefore focus on summary trials and the issue of grievances.

In our military system, grievances are written into the National Defence Act. Our armed forces are subject to military discipline and are in a rigid, chain-of-command, top-down structure. Their only recourse when it comes to dealing with issues affecting their pay and benefits, their release, medical issues, getting adequate medical treatment and issues of that nature is through a grievance system. This grievance system is in disarray, and the proposed changes in the legislation do not really deal with that.

I would like to quote retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who is very familiar with the military and the armed forces. Here is what he had to say about the grievance system:

Given the mounting number of grievances by CF members and the current state of disrepair of the CF grievance system, the last thing the CF leadership ought to do is attempt to mitigate problems related to grievances. In the Armed Forces, the submission of a grievance is normally seen as a measure of last resort imbued with significant career risks.

I think that when a member of the Canadian armed forces decides to submit a written grievance to his or her commander, it is because he or she sincerely believes that the issues in question justify filing a grievance and that they will be dealt with non-judgmentally. But as it stands, the grievance committee does not allow external reviews. If the Canadian Forces grievance committee is to be seen as an independent, external civilian body, as it should be, then the appointment process must be amended to reflect that reality. The committee should be made up of some civilian members. The NDP suggests that at least 60% of grievance committee members must never have been an officer or non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was adopted in March 2011 for Bill C-41; however, it was not retained for Bill C-15, and that is unacceptable.

Another major flaw in the military grievance system is that the Chief of Defence Staff has little power to resolve financial aspects related to the grievances.

The NDP proposed an amendment in order to resolve this problem at committee stage for Bill C-41. Unfortunately, once again, this amendment was not retained in Bill C-15.

The second aspect I would like to talk about is summary trials. Summary trials are a suitable and fair means of dealing with minor service offences. A commanding officer or someone delegated by him or her may preside over a summary trial. These officers attend a training seminar, but often they do not have the necessary skills to preside over trials similar in nature to civilian criminal trials. Conversely, the court martial is in some ways a civilian court with military jurisdiction. A set of rules, including the rules of law, apply in courts martial.

The following quote is from the annual report of the Canadian Forces' Judge Advocate General:

A total of 1,998 service tribunals were held during the reporting period, representing 1,942 summary trials and 56 courts martial.... [The number of summary trials represents] approximately 97% of all service tribunals held in a given year.

Summary trials are therefore the norm rather than the exception. They can result in fines, imprisonment or a period of detention for up to 30 days, if the trial is presided over by a commanding officer. In addition, a number of military personnel dealt with by summary trial and found guilty could end up with criminal records similar to ones they would receive had they gone to trial before a civilian court, with all the applicable rules and procedures.

We do not oppose having a summary trial system in order to maintain order, discipline and morale, but we must nevertheless ensure that members of the Canadian Forces do not end up with criminal records that they must attempt to have expunged through the parole board after leaving the military. Imagine that. Our concern is that, in the military justice system, we need to have speedy trials, as former Chief Justice Lamer said. However, the trade-off should be that members of the military do not get a criminal record unless they are tried by a court that has the required support.

What is worrisome, at the end of the day, is that people could find themselves with a criminal record at the conclusion of an inequitable proceeding, without a lawyer, before a tribunal that is not independent. We still fear that the summary trial structure and process are a far cry from their civilian counterparts.

As I was saying earlier, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, whose military justice systems resemble Canada’s, deemed it appropriate to change their summary trial system to provide a more equitable judicial process.

Why then deprive our Canadian Forces of the constructive amendments that could be made to summary trials? That is the question.

To conclude, Canadian military law is essential for the maintenance of discipline and order among the troops. However, our soldiers deserve a military justice system that is above all fair and equitable for the accused, while remaining sensitive to the need for military discipline. Although Bill C-15 includes a number of legislative provisions, some of which are welcome because they strengthen military justice, I, like my colleague the member for Sherbrooke, believe that it is a leaky old boat and that soldiers deserve much better. Frankly, we could do better.

The government's bill also includes too many provisions that do not go far enough or that are simply useless for dealing with the pressing problems within our military justice system. As I said previously, and having been a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, soldiers deserve better than to find themselves with a criminal record after having served their country with pride and dedication. The government says that it is thinking of our veterans’ transition to civilian life, but what kind of shadow or cloud hangs over them when they are told that they may end up with a criminal record? Frankly, it makes no sense. These are not the kind of conditions that would allow us to say that we love our veterans and will take care of them. It is not true and it is wrong.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the likelihood is close to zero. Since the amendments proposed in 2010 to the earlier version of Bill C-15 were rejected at the Standing Committee on National Defence, we wonder what chance there would be to get them adopted in committee when the 2012 version of Bill C-15, when it was the Conservatives that introduced it. It would be astonishing to see the government members change their minds. As we have seen in many files, the Conservatives rarely accept the opposition’s recommendations. I cannot see why they would change their minds today.

Of course, we are using our time today to suggest these amendments to them. Moreover, we hope to light a little candle that may show them it is a good idea.

Today, we are showing them that recommendations coming from outside their party can sometimes be very good and worthy of deeper consideration.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for sharing his time with me. I am very grateful.

It is a great pleasure to speak about this issue, as the city of Sherbrooke is proud to be home to two Canadian Forces reserve units, two institutions, the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke and the Sherbrooke Hussars. I have had the pleasure and privilege to meet with them many times over the last year or so. I have great respect for them and am eternally grateful for the work they do day after day. My respect for their work is why I feel a duty to rise today to speak to Bill C-15. Our men and women in uniform protect our lives, so I have a duty to protect their interests in the House of Commons.

I would like to give some background about the legislation we currently call Bill C-15, which has had many past iterations. On October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-15 will strengthen military justice. It is a direct response to the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and subsequent to that, in May 2009, work done by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The NDP believes the bill is a step in the right direction to harmonize military justice and civilian justice. It has gone off course, however, just like a defective submarine. There will be a few colourful expressions in my speech. I sometimes enjoy expressing myself that way. Our summary trial and grievance systems are in urgent need of an overhaul, and the Military Police Complaints Commission needs to be strengthened.

I would like to delve into the background a little to better illustrate the need for reform. In 2003, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, submitted his report on the National Defence Act. It contained 88 recommendations aimed at demining various areas, including military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission and the grievance process. Only some of the mines were cleared, however, as only 28 recommendations have been implemented. I think we would all agree that a partly demined field remains quite hazardous.

Bill C-15 has donned many types of camouflage. First off, Bills C-7 and C-45 both died honourably in combat because of prorogation in 2007 and the elections in 2008. It is our contention that we would not be here debating this bill right now if the government did not have a nasty habit of hitting the panic button and proroguing Parliament.

Later, Bill C-60 was sent to the front lines wearing slightly different camo. It simplified the court martial structure, bringing it more in line with the civilian justice system. In its report, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made nine recommendations regarding potential amendments to the National Defence Act.

In 2010, Bill C-41—we have amassed a number of bills, making things somewhat complicated, and I hope everyone is able to keep track of the numbers—was sent out to the front lines in response to the Lamer report and the Senate committee. Bill C-41 proposed reforms to sentencing, military judges and commissions, and summary trials, among other things. We could say that Bill C-15 is the brother-in-arms of C-41. The amendments brought forward cover the composition of the court martial panel and the appointment of military judges with security of tenure to a fixed retirement age.

However, some basic amendments made at committee at the end of the last session of Parliament were not included in Bill C-15, and that poses a problem for us. Is it by chance that three amendments that were very important to the NDP are not included in today's version, Bill C-15?

The three amendments relate to: the chief of Defence Staff's authority in the grievance process, which was a direct response to one of the Lamer report recommendations; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include a 60% civilian membership, as discussed earlier today; and the provision ensuring that a person convicted for an offence during a summary trial is not subjected to a criminal record, which we also discussed earlier. I will talk about these three amendments, which—we do not know why—are not included in Bill C-15, the bill we are debating today.

Bill C-15 does not deal effectively with the unfairness of summary trials.

Right now, a conviction during a summary trial in the Canadian Forces results in a criminal record. What is sad for our troops is that those who are accused are not able to consult with counsel. There is no right of appeal and no transcript of the trial. Everything is off the record. What is more, the judge is the accused's commanding officer. So much for an impartial hearing.

An expert in military law, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, said the following in February 2011:

I strongly believe that the summary trial issue must be addressed by this committee. There is currently nothing more important for Parliament to focus on than fixing a system that affects the legal rights of a significant number of Canadian citizens every year....As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.

A soldier slips up because of ongoing stress. We are not talking here about major offences but about misconduct, absence without leave or disobedience of a lawful command. We recognize that a soldier's code of ethics and code of conduct are the fundamental pillars that have become the pride of the Canadian army, but first and foremost, soldiers are human beings. They go through things that few people in our society experience. They live in a state of perpetual stress. We are not asking for military immunity but simply to put into perspective these acts of misconduct, which do not in any way warrant a criminal record and everything that goes along with that.

In committee in March, we proposed to expand the list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record from 5 to 27 in order to give soldiers more latitude. This amendment was abandoned and we want it to be restored. We do not want this amendment to become the unknown soldier of the bill. We want it to be acknowledged. When soldiers who have a criminal record as a result of a minor misconduct finish their military service, they will find it difficult to find a new job or even to rent an apartment.

While our soldiers ought to be held to the very highest standard of behaviour, the reality is that soldiers are human and thus imperfect. Soldiers are also entitled to a fair and equitable justice system, just like all other Canadians. It is a constitutional right to be represented and to have access to a fair trial.

The second amendment concerns the reform of the grievance system. The current grievance board does not allow for external review. Are we still living in the fearful cold war era when everything must be hidden? Retired Canadian Forces personnel serve on that board. In fact, almost everyone on that board is from some kind of military background. We think that is not at all reasonable. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board should be seen as a civilian, external, independent body. That is why we proposed that 60% of the board or committee’s members should be neither officers nor enlisted personnel in the Canadian Forces. That amendment was approved for Bill C-41, but it is not included in Bill C-15 before us today. We wonder why not.

The third amendment that had been included in the previous bill, C-41, and that we would have liked to see in this bill is the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission. The idea of giving this commission more powers so that it could act as a watchdog has been almost ignored. Its scope of action must be broadened so that it can legitimately investigate and report to Parliament.

The question must be asked: why have the Conservatives not kept the amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted by the committee in 2010 when Bill C-41 was studied? These amendments were good soldiers that could have protected the interests of our military personnel. The Conservatives are continuing to undermine the progress made by all members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and the recommendations made by the representatives of the Canadian Forces.

Such good soldiers as those amendments must not be abandoned. Even our allies—the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland—have decided to modernize the summary trial process. Why has Canada—having dithered so long on the issue—not got down to the task of finding the necessary tools to ensure that our military personnel are properly represented and judged?

As we have said many times, we are opposed to Bill C-15, because we see it as a tank without any firepower and without armour, one that makes it impossible for our soldiers to get a fair and impartial trial.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain you have once again made the right choice.

I would first like to thank my distinguished colleague for his very interesting speech. He was able to highlight our concerns regarding Bill C-15, on military justice.

One of our greatest concerns, in fact, is the chance of someone ending up with a criminal record following a process that is not entirely fair and equitable, without the benefit of legal assistance, before a tribunal that is not totally independent. This structure worries us.

My colleague surely knows that the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, whose military justice systems resemble Canada's, have seen fit to change their summary trial system in the interests of procedural fairness.

Why are we depriving the Canadian Forces of such positive changes to the summary trial system? That is my question.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate. I thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau, for a very interesting presentation that I enjoyed very much.

I will be sharing my time with the capable and hon. member for Sherbrooke, who will likewise participate in this debate and enlighten all members as to just how this affects him and his constituents and what we think needs to be done to this bill as it relates to the Canadian Forces.

There is a large population of Canadian Forces members in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which I hear from on a fairly regular basis on a number of different matters relating, for instance, to community volunteer activities; to what is going on at the market; to our support, as the official opposition, for a proper procurement process to make sure that our Canadian Forces women and men who are asked to serve on behalf of this country are provided with the best equipment to do their job in a safe and effective manner.

We also are standing with our Canadian Forces women, men and their families as it relates to the government's support for the members when they return from active duty from various spots around the world. It is certainly my commitment and that of my party that if we ask our women and men, our brothers and sisters, our fathers and mothers, our uncles and cousins and community colleagues to risk their life and limb, the least we can do is to ensure, whether or not they return to this country, that they or their families are properly cared for. That is certainly my commitment to the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I know that feeling is shared by my colleagues in the official opposition.

It would be fair to say that most Canadians only have a glimpse of the nature of justice in the Canadian Forces. Frankly, I think that Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can get a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts. We know there is an incredible need and requirement within the armed forces for a strong disciplinary system. However, we also need to recognize that the women and men who work for and serve this country should, at the very least, be subject to the same rights and benefits under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as civilians. That is simply not the case as it relates to issues like summary convictions and the grievance procedure. I will talk a bit about the concerns we have with respect to those systems.

As has been described, Bill C-15 is the latest iteration of the bill as a result of a recommendation from an internal review of the National Defence Act in 2003 by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer. Contained within the report were 88 recommendations relating to military justice and the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal.

It is important to recognize that Bill C-15 is the latest response to these recommendations and that only 28 recommendations thus far have been implemented in legislation, regulations, or via a change in practice. As the NDP critic and deputy critic have said so well, it needs to be underlined that it is important that we do this better and that we do more. Even in previous Parliaments more was done.

All parties on the defence committee worked very hard on the recommendations by the Lamer inquiry and a number of changes were passed in previous parliaments. Unfortunately, those amendments to the National Defence Act did not find their way into Bill C-15. Frankly, not moving forward with those amendments is almost a sign of disrespect to the hard work of the members of the defence committee.

If immediate passage of this bill were as important as some government members have suggested, why did they not bring this bill in forthwith when the new Parliament began? Why did they not bring in the bill that was accepted by all members of the House but that died on the order paper when the government decided to hold an election last year? If it were so important, and we believe it is, why did they not bring forward the bill that we had all agreed on? Undoubtedly, that bill would have found its way through committee and been passed into law by now. That is an indication of how big a hurry the government is in. It tabled Bill C-15 in October of last year. It does not seem to be a priority because the bill has not received the attention it deserves.

Other important amendments passed at committee include the following. One dealt with the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding specifically to Justice Lamer's recommendation. It related to the ability of the Chief of Defence Staff to levy a financial award in one shape or another. That does not exist now but it was recommended that it be done.

A second dealt with changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership. Right now the grievance committee generally consists of Canadian Forces members, often at the officer level or, at the very least, recently retired Canadian Forces members. That needs to be changed to bring in some greater external oversight.

Third, there was a provision ensuring that a person who was convicted for an offence during a summary trial would not be unfairly subject to receiving a criminal record as a result. That is a serious problem. The summary trial system needs to include some of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it will not as onerous and potentially damaging a system as it is now to the future of many of these women and men in the Canadian Forces.

This is a important issue for New Democrats and the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We want to make sure that the right thing is done and the proper changes are made.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware if my esteemed colleague was present throughout my speech, but I never once referred to “all our amendments”, but to very essential and important amendments. The member is correct that there were some amendments incorporated.

However, the point is not the fact that no amendments were accepted or reproduced in the bill, but that some very fundamental points have been tossed away by the Conservative government. It does not seem to like anything that asks for transparency and fairness for the people who are at the top of the line and who will be affected by the end result of the work toward Bill C-15.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, there have been repeated assertions by the hon. members opposite that none of the amendments made at committee to the predecessor Bill C-41 were retained in Bill C-15.

Is the hon. member aware that in fact two of the amendments made at committee are present in Bill C-15? They are found in clauses 101 and 135 of the bill. Could the member please clarify?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so urgent that we have been waiting to see major changes to the National Defence Act since 2003.

It has become urgent because the government in power has allowed the situation to continue. As my colleague from Davenport said, the problem is that the government prorogued Parliament when the time came to pass the bill with proper amendments. In one stroke, prorogation erased all the work that had been done in committee, everything that had been adopted, and everything that had been agreed upon between the parties in a minority government context, in which political parties should work together, something the government does not do.

In his report, Chief Justice Patrick LeSage does not give the government a blank check. He agrees with many of our positions, that a lot of things should be changed to make Bill C-15 palatable.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The problem lies in trying to answer it for the Conservative government. That is impossible for me. I absolutely fail to understand the logic behind three-quarters, if not all, of its decisions.

On the one hand, the Conservatives tell us they are tough on crime, and they make bad decisions that are overturned by the courts. On the other hand, they tell us they stand behind the members of our forces. We constantly hear that from the Minister of National Defence. Listening to him, you would think he is the only person concerned about the members of the Canadian Forces. However, when it comes to protecting them by means of a major amendment in a major bill such as Bill C-15, the minister abandons the members of the Canadian Forces, sacrificing them on the altar of false promises.

And yet he should be protecting them. After all the service these people have rendered to their country, it seems to me the least we can do is to be fair with them.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-15.

First, I would like to congratulate our national defence critic, the hon. member for St. John's East, who is doing an amazing and remarkable job on a file that can be difficult, given that we are dealing with a government that would rather act like G.I. Joe than seriously examine the country's national defence needs, analyze the cost to Canadian taxpayers and have a comprehensive view of Canada's defence role as it relates to the deployment of military personnel in our country and abroad.

I have tremendous respect for the Canadians who work for our Canadian Forces. I have met many of them, since there are obviously a number in my riding, it being in the national capital region. In my riding, it is not unusual for people to frequently come across Canadian Forces members. I really admire the work that they do, here, inside our borders, and around the world, especially in light of what has been going on. It takes a special person to put his or her life in danger to protect our values, rights and what we stand for every day.

That is why we cannot afford to let the government take so many years to introduce this bill. I said “so many years”, because in 2003, retired Chief Justice Lamer was asked to produce a report on the situation and to make recommendations regarding the bill.

The summary of Bill C-15, which was produced and which I will give a little background on shortly, states the following:

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system. The amendments, among other things,

(a) provide for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement;

(b) permit the appointment of part-time military judges;

(c) specify the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process;

(d) provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution;

(e) modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person; and

(f) modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods.

The enactment also sets out the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s duties and functions and clarifies his or her responsibilities. It also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

Finally, it makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

As I said a moment ago, I believe this quite lengthy bill has been long due since 2003. However, “long due” does not mean we should hand out blank cheques, even though the bill concerns national defence and our men and women working for the Canadian Forces. The NDP is not in the habit of handing out blank cheques.

This bill has previously appeared in a number of forms, as bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in 2007 and when the election was called in 2008. In July 2008, Bill C-60 was introduced and it came back with a vengeance. Bill C-60 simplified the structure of courts martial and established the method for selecting the type of court martial that would harmonize best with the civilian justice system. In 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs examined the bill and recommended nine amendments to the National Defence Act.

This happened after 2003, when the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer tabled a report on his review of the National Defence Act, a report that contained 88 recommendations concerning military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces provost marshal.

Looking at Bill C-15 as it currently stands—because that is the one we have to consider—we realize that it is supposed to be a legislative response to those recommendations. However, only 28 recommendations have been included in the bill.

I will say it right away—and the critic said this—we will not support this bill at second reading because, in any case, the government will be referring it to committee. However, there are so many flaws, serious flaws, in this bill, and it is not because it should have been introduced so long ago that we should adopt any such poorly constructed legislation. That is our position on the matter.

In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced in response to the 2003 Lamer report and to the Senate committee's 2009 report. It contained the military justice-related provisions respecting, for example, sentencing reform, judges, military panels, summary trials, the court martial panel, the Canadian Forces provost marshal and certain provisions respecting the Military Police Complaints Commission.

It can nevertheless be said, for those who were here at that time—I was not—that bills C-41 and C-15 resemble each other and are similar to what was introduced by the Senate committee during the last Parliament.

The amendments stood included those concerning the composition of a court martial panel, and security of tenure for military judges until retirement.

However, other important amendments—and I want to emphasize this—adopted at the committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15. That includes the NDP's amendments respecting the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process—a direct response to a Lamer report recommendation—changes in the composition of the grievance committee so that 60 % of members would be civilians and the provision to ensure that a person guilty of an offence on summary conviction would not unfairly be given a criminal record. That is the amendment under clause 75 of Bill C-41.

We have been in favour of bringing the military justice system up to date for a long time now. There is no doubt about that and I do not want to hear anybody say otherwise in this House. Members of the Canadian Forces are known to be subject to extremely strict rules of discipline and they deserve a justice system that is subject to comparable rules.

I remember when I first started out as a lawyer, doing criminal law, that there was a judge in the Outaouais district—he is still there–near Gatineau, where I am a member of Parliament, who used to tell us, because he had a military background, that nothing could be as secret and closed as military justice. This is understandable, because it operates in accordance with a very closed system of discipline. It is understandable. I think that members of the Canadian forces voluntarily submit to these extremely strict rules of discipline.

They often have absolutely critical work to do, and the chain of command is not very tolerant of exceptions. All of that is understandable and yet, sometimes there are certain types of behaviour problems—I repeat, “behaviour problems”. And those who are not accustomed to this environment can be completely flabbergasted at what can lead to a criminal record for a member of the Canadian Forces. Anyone practising criminal law in civil society, or dealing with labour rights or grievances, will find provisions in these bills that are rather surprising.

To begin with, they mention reform. For us, the problem is that the reform under discussion is of the summary trials system. The amendments in bill C-15 do not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. At the moment, a summary trial conviction in the Canadian Forces means a criminal record. Some might say, “good for them”. However, summary trials are held without the accused being allowed to seek legal or other counsel. They have no recourse and there are no transcripts of the trial. Moreover, the judge is the accused's commanding officer. This is too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for minor offences. Once again, some may say that there is no room for exceptions, but there are times when it is completely ridiculous.

I have had people come and consult me, but the problem was that everything had already been taken care of.

Let us put ourselves in the place of a member of the Canadian Forces who has committed an offence, for example, absence without leave or a quarrel with another member. The member’s own commanding officer tells him he will have a summary trial. We cannot seriously think that a member of the Canadian Forces is going to go against what his own commanding officer suggests. We cannot really call this transparency. That may be too harsh for some members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences. I will say it again, because it is important to know what we are talking about. These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness, disobeying a command, and so on. This is certainly very important for military discipline, and I am not saying otherwise, but does it call for giving someone a criminal record? It is important that we ask ourselves that question.

Having a record will have an effect when the member leaves the Canadian Forces. He may have trouble finding a job once he rejoins the civilian world. Bill C-15 does provide an exemption so that if there is a minor sentence handed down under the act or a fine of less than $500, certain offences are not entered on the person’s record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill, but we think it does not go far enough. We hope the committee will do its job. I do not know whether the Standing Committee on National Defence is as extraordinary as the justice committee. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, even when self-evident amendments are moved, they are not adopted.

Last March, at committee stage, the amendments to Bill C-41 proposed by the NDP called for the list of offences that could be considered to be minor, and so would not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed for the offence in question, to be increased to 27 from five. The amendment also adds to the list of sentences that a tribunal may impose without them being entered on the record: for example, a severe reprimand, a fine equivalent to a month’s salary and other minor sentences.

This was an important step forward for summary trials. However, the amendment to Bill C-15 was not accepted. It is therefore entirely to be expected that we would want to include it again. A criminal record can make life after a person’s military career very difficult. It can mean losing a job, being refused housing, having trouble travelling, and so on. If Canadians knew that members of the military who served our country so courageously are being treated this way for the kinds of misconduct I have referred to, I think some of them would be in shock, as I was when I read the bill and what had gone on over the last 10 years in this regard.

There is also the question of reforming the grievance system. As a labour lawyer, I have always advocated the greatest possible transparency and independent arbitrators, because it affects the labour relations between the parties. The same is true when we talk about a Military Grievances External Review Committee. At this time, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board does not allow for external review. The people who sit on the Military Grievances External Review Committee are retired Canadian Forces employees and some very recent retirees. So if the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be seen as an external, independent civilian body, as it should, the appointment process definitely needs to be amended to reflect that. The committee should therefore be composed, in part, of civilian members.

The amendment that the NDP suggested, and that it will certainly suggest again when the bill is examined in committee, is that at least 60% of the grievance committee members never have been officers or members of the Canadian Forces. I repeat: it is the Military Grievances External Review Committee. The amendment was adopted in March 2011, for Bill C-41, but it was not incorporated into Bill C-15.

It is extremely important that people from the outside be part of the external review committee, and I am persuaded that my colleagues will agree with me. It is therefore important that the amendment be included again.

There is the whole question of the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in the grievance resolution process. There is a major weakness in the military grievance system. The Lamer report contained a recommendation concerning the fact that the Chief of the Defence Staff does not have the power to settle financial claims in grievances. In spite of the fact that the Minister of National Defence approved the recommendation, no concrete action has been taken in the last eight years to implement it.

The ministers responsible for certain portfolios who come before our committees need to agree to the amendments we recommend. When it comes time to amend legislation, those ministers need to remember what they have said.

During committee examination, the NDP proposed an amendment, which was adopted in March 2011. Nonetheless, the amendment was not incorporated into Bill C-15. If this bill is referred to committee, the NDP, under the leadership of the official opposition’s national defence critic, the member for St. John's East, will continue to fight for this.

There is also the question of strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Very little has been said about granting that commission greater powers so that it acts as an oversight body. The commission’s powers must be expanded by legislation so that it is able to investigate legitimately and report to Parliament.

The NDP is not alone in making the case for the need to amend Bill C-15. A number of organizations support our positions, including the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which has said that fundamental fairness requires that systems that impose serious penalties on individuals provide better procedural protection.

In R. v. Wigglesworth, the Supreme Court of Canada, an arm of our democracy, confirmed that, if an individual is to be subject to penal consequences such as imprisonment, he or she should be entitled to the highest procedural protection known to our law. I believe that will come as a shock to no one.

That is often where the problem lies. Military justice is often opaque or not very transparent. No one knows exactly what goes on, except those curious individuals who want to know more. It is important that justice indeed be done. That is even more important for the members of our Canadian Forces who dedicate themselves body and soul to each and every one of us, to all the Canadians we represent. They go to other countries to promote fundamental values and rights, democracy, the right to a fair trial and so on. And yet, once back in Canada, those members, for all kinds of reasons, are sentenced without receiving the advice of counsel or being able to obtain a transcript. When a former Canadian Forces member consults a civilian lawyer, that lawyer has trouble representing the member because the member’s file contains absolutely nothing other than what he or she has said.

I would not go as far as my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, who spoke before me, but I believe that is a small step. Many years have elapsed since the Lamer report, and I believe the members of the Canadian Forces deserve a lot better than Bill C-15.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide comment in regard to Bill C-15 and what he perceives as one of the shortcomings of the bill, maybe something the government could have done, either in a more timely fashion or in general with regard to the bill. Does he have any thoughts in regard to that?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is far from a blank cheque. I think I have articulated at least three areas where there are legitimate questions to be raised. I do not think that is an exclusive list by any means.

I agree with the hon. member that the bill has seen a number of reiterations.

Mr. Justice Lamer's report was a good report. It was quite useful. I think a lot of the justice's recommendations see their way into Bill C-15. Without having my arm twisted behind my back, I would commend the government for actually recognizing that. I do wish, though, that it were not quite the last item on the government's agenda in each and every Parliament. However, we are here and let us hope we can get it into committee.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood's answer. I would like to ask him if that amounts to the Liberal Party giving the Conservative government a blank cheque for the passage of Bill C-15.

Fairly recently, when a similar bill reached committee stage, the Liberal Party agreed that it needed a lot of amendments. There was also a Liberal government in place when the Honourable Justice Lamer presented some 95 recommendations, of which only a few dozen are being implemented in Bill C-15. I hope the Liberal Party is not giving the Conservative government a blank cheque.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 provides a statutory articulation of the objectives, purpose and principles of sentencing in the military justice system. This would provide military judges presiding over courts martial, presiding officers at summary trials and appellant judges in the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada with parliamentary guidance similar to that which is provided to their civilian counterparts, while recognizing the unique characteristics and requirements of the military justice system.

Does the hon. member agree that providing statutory articulation of the objectives, purpose and principles of sentencing to these important actors in the military justice system is something that should be supported by all members of the House?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 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.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make it clear that I do not believe that a summary trial violates the fundamental rights of a soldier. However, I believe there is a problem because being tried for a minor offence as a civilian would not result in a criminal record. However, this summary trial for a minor offence does result in a criminal record for the soldier, who may not be very aware of the potential consequences. We must try to improve Bill C-15 to prevent such situations from occurring.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act. This bill would amend the structure of the Canadian Forces military justice system.

I would like to explain that members of the military are subject to two justice systems: the civilian system and the military system. Although most of the time they are subject to the military system, on some occasions and for some offences, they are subject to the civilian system. However, I will not address these issues in my speech on this bill.

Because of the nature of the soldier's job and the role members of our military play, the Canadian Forces, of course, sometimes need rules that are specific to that job. However, even though the military justice system has specific rules, we must not forget that it is part of the Canadian justice system as a whole. The two systems must therefore be compatible, and we must ensure that our soldiers are obviously treated fairly and equitably.

We must therefore ensure that even though the military justice system differs from the civilian system, it is consistent with our overall system of justice, which reflects what Canadians want. This means that the rule of law must always be respected. The military justice system exists not only for members of the military who have committed offences that have to be dealt with, but also as a command element to ensure that the rule of law is respected in all circumstances.

In addition, the Canadian Forces rely a great deal on discipline, which is certainly one of the pillars of a soldier’s job. The military justice system therefore reflects the need for discipline, and that is why we need it. Military justice is not perfect, however, and it needs to be updated when problems are identified. We must also not forget that members of the military are citizens, and that while their role in the military calls for a distinct justice system, that system should be as close as possible to the civilian justice system.

Obviously, military justice must reflect the protections guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as closely as possible. Although we recognize the need to have distinct provisions within the military system, that need must not outweigh the fundamental principles of justice.

Proceedings in the military justice system have to be efficient, so that discipline problems or issues can be resolved speedily when the situation calls for it, so the member can return to work as quickly as possible, for example. Speed does not, however, mean overstepping the fundamental principles of justice and the law.

I think we owe it to the members of our military, who put themselves in harm’s way for our country, for Canada, and for their fellow Canadians, to provide them with a justice system that is fair and just. We cannot expect the discipline and dedication that we need from our military without a military justice system that is completely fair to them.

Bill C-15 is in fact a step in the right direction for reforming the military justice system and making it a system that, for one thing, is more in line with the civilian system. This bill has its limitations, however, and it does not solve certain important problems, such as reforming summary conviction trial proceedings, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

During the last Parliament, reasonable and fair amendments to the equivalent bill, Bill C-41, were negotiated in committee, including by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. Unfortunately, those amendments have disappeared from this new version of the bill. They were approved by the committee, by parliamentarians. What is more, some had been proposed by the judge advocate general as compromises to correct the system in an acceptable manner. Now, because of the government, we have to redo the work that was done during the previous Parliament.

One purpose of those amendments was to remove certain offences from the list of those that result in a criminal record. That is mainly what I will be talking about.

Military justice includes a number of proceedings. Everyone has seen clips of trials by court martial on television. Those shows are fictional, but they give a good idea of what a trial by court martial is like. However, there are other types of trials, namely summary trials where the military's chain of command is authorized to judge soldiers under its responsibility directly. These trials are held without lawyers, without a jury, without a system of evidence, and without solid witnesses as in a formal court.

This proceeding is useful in a number of cases. It is used for minor offences regarding discipline in the army and does not require any intervention by a court.

Nonetheless, with a summary trial, soldiers can end up with a criminal record that they will continue to have once they return to civilian life.

I will elaborate on these minor offences, which include absence without leave and drunkenness.

Here is a simple example. One of your colleagues on the base is celebrating his birthday, and, like all his colleagues, you offer him a drink to celebrate. You are young. This also happens in civilian life. It is not unusual to be offered a birthday drink. Unfortunately, the next day, your colleague, who might have accepted a few too many drinks, is absent because he is sick. Or maybe he was caught drunk by one of his superiors when he returned to the dormitory.

On a military base, this is a breach of discipline. It is natural to expect exemplary discipline from our men and women in uniform, in light of the job they do.

I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I understand very well that discipline is part and parcel of our everyday lives. We adapt and it is fine. However, from time to time, for example, on a birthday when we party too much, there can be breaches.

In civilian life, this person would likely call his boss in the morning to say that he could not go to work. He would take a taxi home that night and go to sleep in his own bed.

Such conduct on a military base is dealt with by summary trial. I am not suggesting that a guy who calls in sick because he partied too hard the night before is behaving responsibly. People can be reprimanded, suspended or even fired if this kind of thing happens too often in the civilian world. That makes sense because the behaviour is not acceptable. Still, I am sure we can all agree that a guy who misses work because he drank too much on his birthday probably does not deserve to have a criminal record. But that is what happens to soldiers.

This soldier, who might have been 19 or 20, did not really understand what was going on. He did not understand the military justice system. He got his summary trial. Fifteen years later, as a civilian retired from the armed forces, he had a criminal record. His case was treated the same way as other much more serious offences that do deserve that kind of treatment.

A soldier should not end up with a criminal record for an offence that is nothing more than lack of discipline and certainly not a criminal matter.

He will end up with a criminal record without ever getting a real trial as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His basic rights will not be respected. This kind of trial happens very quickly.

Bill C-15 does not take into account this kind of problem that, in practice, can have consequences.

I think that such cases are not rare. I do not have the latest numbers, but I reviewed the numbers in the annual reports of the judge advocate general to the Department of National Defence on the administration of military justice in the armed forces and the statistical reports on summary trials.

In 2009-10, 20,054 trials took place. Nearly 95% of them—the vast majority—were summary trials. During that same period, 98% of summary trials resulted in a guilty verdict. Charges of absence without leave accounted for 28% of the summary trials and drunkenness for 7%.

These are things that, in civilian life, do not deserve a criminal record. Although it warrants a slap on the wrist, it does not warrant a criminal record.

In the previous version of this bill, which was the subject of a compromise reached in committee during the last Parliament, the section on exemptions for a criminal record listed 27 sections of the National Defence Act. The current version contains only five exemptions.

In short, for Bill C-41:

(1) A person who is convicted of any of the following offences, or who has been convicted of any of them before the coming into force of this section, has not been convicted of a criminal offence:

(a) an offence described in section 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 101.1, 102, 103, 108, 109, 112, 116, 117, 118, 118.1, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126 or 129 for which the offender is sentenced to

(i) a severe reprimand,

(ii) a reprimand,

(iii) a fine not exceeding basic pay for one month, or

(iv) a minor punishment;

In Bill C-15, however, we see that many of these sections are suddenly missing. It reads:

(a) an offence described in section 85, 86, 90, 97 or 129 for which the offender is sentenced to a minor punishment or a fine of $500 or less, or both;

It quickly becomes clear that a lot of things have unfortunately disappeared from the bill that should have remained.

Members will recall that there was consensus on Bill C-41 and that both the opposition parties and the government had reached an agreement.

I want to remind members that the offences and excluded penalties for inclusion in a criminal record would be far more broad under C-41, and the fine included did not exceed one month of basic pay and minor penalties.

Currently, the exemptions include only fines of less than $500 and minor sentences. In most cases, it exceeds a minor penalty or a $500 fine. The restrictions are too limited and will mean that that too many military members will end up with a criminal record.

For example, in one of the cases mentioned in the 2010 JAG report, one case of absence without leave was penalized by five days behind bars and a $1,500 fine. In others the sentence was 30 days in prison. These cases would not qualify as exemptions to inclusion in a criminal record, and yet they constitute cases of absence without leave.

Other cases concerning drunkenness—still from the same report–were punished with a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine. Once again, this does not fall into the category of permitted exemptions. These exemptions are no longer as broad. The previous version, negotiated in committee by my colleague from St. John's East, must be consulted.

I should clarify that I am not questioning the appropriateness of the commanders' penalties. I have had the experience of discipline in the Army. I understand that discipline is important. However, there is a big difference between a disciplinary case on a military base and having a criminal record, which normally signifies a criminal offence. In this particular case, ending up with a criminal record for something that is more akin to foolish behaviour, is not a path that I want us to go down.

According to a Department of National Defence publication, the guide for the accused and officers designated to help them, “Summary trials are designed to provide prompt and fair justice in dealing with service offences that are relatively minor in nature but which have an important impact on the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency...”

This is not referring to criminal offences or major offences. It refers to minor offences that have an impact on military discipline.

Military discipline is something quite unlike what is found in civilian life. It is a mistake to put breaches of military discipline and civilian criminal offences on the same footing.

If a civilian did something equivalent to the vast majority of cases of breaches of military discipline, he would not be subject to any legal ramifications. It is not fair to impose consequences on the military that will have repercussions in their civilian lives, when most of the facts involve solely military issues.

Furthermore, the summary trial can cause notes to be made in a criminal record, even though the process has no judge who is adequately or professionally trained, nor a sound process for evidence and witnesses, nor defence counsel. It is not right that a summary trial for a minor offence should lead to a criminal record.

It should also be mentioned that a procedure that guarantees none of a person's fundamental rights, as is clearly the case with summary trials, should not have consequences that are as serious as a criminal record for the person who committed the offence. The procedure followed in a summary trial is simplified for the obvious reason that, in a conflict situation, military justice must be swift and efficient. Discipline must be administered smoothly so that things get back to normal very quickly.

In the case of minor offences, a breach of rules or a breach of discipline, a soldier’s chain of command— his superior—has the authority to judge. This is a swift and efficient procedure. However, the superior knows the accused and is therefore not entirely neutral. He may feel favourably toward him, or he may have an unfavourable bias against him. Even though he has some training, it does not change the fact that the superior knows the accused. There is no system for verifying the evidence and hearing witnesses. In the case of minor offences, the commander also knows the witnesses very well, and is therefore able to give more or less credibility to the witnesses according to his judgment and the esteem that he has for the people involved. There is no counsel to ensure that the rights of the accused are respected.

However, these courts, these summary trials may lead to fines as high as several thousand dollars, and especially to up to 30 days imprisonment or even a demotion. I think that one month’s imprisonment, without an impartial court or an adequately trained judge, is important enough that we should pay some attention to what the bill will do.

These procedures, which are found in a civil trial, are there for another purpose: to ensure that an individual's fundamental rights are respected. I can already hear members opposite claim that the NDP wants to protect criminals. I was a member of the military and I know that there is nothing criminal with most breaches of military discipline or rules. As a soldier, one has to abide by military discipline. However, as a civilian, one should not be exposed to consequences such as those that currently exist.

I also want to point out that an individual should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We have to respect the impartiality and the independence of the judiciary. We should not be guided by impressions and biases and we should not rush to judgment. We must let the facts speak. An impartial and independent justice system is essential to people's confidence.

In the military, knowing that one cannot be judged impartially is not conducive to putting our trust in the military system. We accept that system and we trust that our superiors will be fair and just. Most of the time, they are to the extent that it is possible. However, we must set strict and strong limits to these summary trials and to the impact they will have later on in civilian life. Bill C-15 obviously does not do that, or does not do it any longer, because the sections added by Bill C-41 are not included in it.

I would like to conclude by reminding hon. members that having a criminal record makes things very difficult in civilian life. Once they go back to civilian life, soldiers will have to appear before the Parole Board of Canada, request a pardon, wait for five years after the summary trial and incur costs to erase their criminal record.

I think that is unacceptable, and I sincerely believe that the current bill should include amendments and other measures to avoid the situation described in my speech.

The House resumed from April 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to start my one-day-late Thursday statement with the Conservatives' deep gratitude to all of the staff and pages of the House of Commons, who were forced to endure a rather long Wednesday sitting. I thank them for that and I apologize that they were subjected to it.

On to the remaining business of the House, this afternoon will we complete third reading debate of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. On Monday we will have the third reading debate of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, now that we are past the opposition's theatrical and ideologically driven delay tactics at report stage, which caused you, Madam Speaker, to have to spend an undue length of time here, in particular during the unfortunate act of slow votes, which really achieved nothing but inconvenience to the staff and pages of the House of Commons.

If we have extra time on Monday, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. For the remainder of the week, I want to see the House dispose of the many bills that are still awaiting our work and attention. To accommodate the House, we have voted to sit into the evenings next week.

I would welcome any co-operation from my counterparts on moving these bills forward efficiently. I would like to start with securing second reading and referral to committee before the fall sitting of the following bills: Bill C-24, the Canada—Panama economic growth and prosperity act; Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act; Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act; Bill C-15, the military justice bill that I mentioned moments ago; Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act; and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Of course, this is only the start of my list, but it would be a good message for us to send to Canadians to show that we are actually willing to do our jobs, the jobs they sent us here to do, and actually vote and make decisions on the bills before us. A productive last week of the spring sitting of our hard-working Parliament would reassure Canadians that their parliamentarians are here to work.

To get on in that direction, since today is World Elder Abuse Day, I want to draw attention to our Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act. I believe this bill to combat elder abuse has the support of all parties. I have heard the suggestion of the opposition whip, but I would like to suggest we go one step further. I know the opposition has shown it likes to talk about things; we actually like to make decisions and get things done on this side of the House. With that in mind, and in recognition of this day, it is appropriate to advance this important bill right now and send it to committee for study. Therefore, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite as enthusiastic as the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, but I will try.

This morning, my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton—Leduc and chair of the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance reported to this House that Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, has passed the committee and been recommended for adoption by the House.

I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Finance followed the lead of the House with respect to the longest debate on a budget bill in the past two decades. The committee gave this bill the longest consideration for a budget bill in at least two decades. That is in addition to the subcommittee spending additional time to consider the responsible resource development clauses.

This very important legislation, our budget implementation legislation, economic action plan 2012, will help to secure vital economic growth for Canada in the short, medium and long term. Given the fragile world economy that is around us, this bill is clearly needed, so we must move forward. Therefore, I plan to start report stage on the bill Monday at noon.

In the interim, we will consider second reading of Bill C-24 this afternoon. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with Panama, which I signed when I was international trade minister, some 755 days ago. It is now time to get that bill passed.

Tomorrow, we will consider third reading of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, so the Senate will have an opportunity to review the bill before it must become law, within a few weeks' time.

Next week I plan to give priority to bills which have been reported back from committee. It goes without saying that we will debate Bill C-38, our budget implementation bill. I am given to understand that there is a lot of interest this time around in the process of report stage motion tabling, selection and grouping.

Additionally, we will finish third reading of Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, and Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.

The House will also finish third reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. The bill is a vital tool to unlock the potential of our creative and digital economy. It is time that elected parliamentarians should have their say on its passage once and for all. I would like to see that vote happen no later than Monday, June 18.

If we have time remaining, the House will also debate second reading of Bill C-24, the Panama free trade act, if more time is necessary, as well as for Bill C-7, the Senate reform act, and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority is, of course, the economy. We are committed to job creation and economic growth.

As a result, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. This bill implements the budget, Canada's economic action plan 2012, to ensure certainty for the economy.

For the benefit of Canadians and parliamentarians, when we introduced the bill, we said we would vote on it on May 14. The second reading vote on the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act will be on May 14.

After tomorrow, which will be the final day of debate on this bill, we will have had the longest second reading debate on a budget bill in at least the last two decades.

On Monday and Tuesday we will continue with another bill that will support the Canadian economy and job creation, especially in the digital and creative sectors.

We will have report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act.

This bill puts forth a balanced, common sense plan to modernize our copyright laws. Committees have met for over 60 hours and heard from almost 200 witnesses. All of this is in addition to the second reading debate on Bill C-11 of 10 sitting days.

After all that debate and study, it is time for the measures to be fully implemented so Canadians can take advantage of the updated rules and create new high-quality digital jobs.

Should the opposition agree that we have already had ample debate on Bill C-11, we will debate Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act; Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan free trade act; and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act in the remaining time on Monday and Tuesday.

Wednesday, May 16, will be the next allotted day.

On Thursday morning, May 17, we will debate the pooled registered pension plans act. This bill will help Canadians who are self-employed or who work for a small business to secure a stable retirement.

In the last election, we committed to Canadians that we would implement these plans as soon as possible. This is what Canadians voted for and this is what we will do.

If it has been reported back from committee, we will call Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, for report stage debate on Thursday afternoon.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by welcoming the new House leader for the official opposition. I look forward to working with him. I anticipate a positive and constructive approach.

In terms of his question relating to the issue of the motion of the House dealing with the Chief Electoral Officer and concerns about whether the statute in place was appropriate for him to do his job, I believe that motion had an expectation of about half a year before the government was to respond. I anticipate we will fulfill that.

On his question about the budget, the government introduced Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. The bill implements key measures from economic action plan 2012. Our plan is working, as we have already created nearly 700,000 net new jobs since the recession. Most of these are full-time jobs.

Canadians want to see a productive, hard-working and orderly Parliament, focusing on their priority, the economy. Thus we hope to have the bill come to a vote on May 14. That target will allow members to study the bill, which implements important measures from the budget that Parliament has already approved.

As hon. members are aware, May 2 will mark the one-year anniversary of Canadians electing a strong, stable, national, Conservative majority government. And it is only fitting that, on this one-year anniversary, after members and caucuses have had close to a week to study the bill, we will debate our government's plan to continue creating jobs and economic growth in Canada. We will continue debate on Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, on Thursday, May 3, and Friday, May 4.

During the budget bill study week, before that debate starts, we will cover other business.

This afternoon we will complete debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will start debate on Bill C-36, protecting Canada's seniors act, which addresses the great concern of elder abuse. This bill is part of our government's efforts to stand up for victims. This is the end of what has been an important national victims of crime awareness week, where we saw the Prime Minister make an announcement of increased support for families of missing children. We also saw the introduction of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which follows through on our campaign commitment to double the victim surcharge that convicted criminals pay.

Monday, April 30, will be the second allotted day. In this case, I understand we will debate a Liberal motion. I would invite the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie to share with all members—and, indeed, with Canadians—what we will be debating that day, so that hon. members can prepare.

On Tuesday, we will finish third reading debate on Bill C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act. Based on my discussions with the new opposition House leader, I am confident that we will complete that debate early in the morning.

Then we will move on to Bill S-4, the safer railways act, which was reported back from committee yesterday. Given the importance of improving the safety of our railways, I hope this bill is able to pass swiftly.

Since I anticipate a productive day on Tuesday, I will then call Bill C-36, but only in the event that we do not finish earlier, that is tomorrow, followed by Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, a piece of legislation that has now been around for three Parliaments and should get to committee where it can again be studied.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, which is currently at second reading.

The bill addresses a variety of issues contained within the National Defence Act and aims to reinforce the military justice system. It has been discussed at length in the House, the Senate and at committee. It gives careful consideration to Senate committee recommendations stemming from the study of Bill C-60, as well as to the recommendations and proposed amendments put forward by the members of House when the bill's predecessor, C-41, was studied in committee. It would bring the National Defence Act up to date by addressing the recommendations made in Chief Justice Lamer's 2003 report, which itself was a result of an extensive review of the issues at hand.

In this regard, Bill C-15 would ensure our military justice system remains in keeping with Canadian values and in harmony with the Constitution and it would continue the maintenance of order and good discipline within the Canadian Forces.

The government recognizes that the proposed amendments in this bill are broad and, in some cases, complex. However, it should be noted the need for these changes has been recognized in most cases for years and that most of the proposed amendments have already been discussed and analyzed in committee.

This is the third time that this proposal has been put before the House of Commons since 2006. I move:

That this question be now put.

The House resumed from March 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I understand that members' minds do not seem to be on this bill at the moment. The budget will be tabled in 10 minutes, and I understand where people are coming from.

My colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, has outlined in previous debate in quite a comprehensive way the Liberal Party's thoughts on this bill. There are three key messages that I would leave with members.

The Liberal Party understands the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. We believe that Canadian citizens who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose part of their rights before the courts. In part this bill is about ensuring there is some balance between the military courts and the criminal justice courts.

As well, the Liberal Party believes that the addition of new sentences, including absolute discharge, intermittent sentence, and restitution, are important if we are to have that fair system I talked about a moment ago.

There are a number of disparities between the military and civilian justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. Bill C-15 has been introduced as a way of addressing these differences.

As it currently stands, sentencing in military law is much harsher than in the civil justice system, and it is very much less flexible. Provisions in Bill C-15 that would amend the National Defence Act are critical to ensuring that our military justice system is fair, efficient, transparent and consistent with Canadian values and legal standards.

My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, spoke a moment ago about how important it is that it should be under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We certainly agree with his point.

However, there are a few minor provisions within this legislation that we have substantial concerns with. One would be proposed subsection 18.5(3). We are very concerned about this subsection. It really concerns the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation. There have been a number of witnesses and a number of submissions before the committee on this particular issue. I will refer to a couple of them.

This clause is very problematic because it goes above and beyond the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to provide general supervision, instructions or guidelines to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and potentially challenges to the validity and integrity of investigations by giving a very high-ranking member of the military explicit statutory powers to interfere with a police investigation.

As members well know, personalities become involved. If there is interference in a police investigation, it becomes a very serious matter. For that reason, the Liberal Party would like to see that proposed subsection removed.

I want to emphasize what others have to say about that proposed subsection. Mr. Glenn Stannard, the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, MPCC, had this to say on this proposed subsection:

In summary, in the view of the MPCC, the proposed authority in s. 18.5(3) for directions by the VCDS, in particular MP [military police] law enforcement investigations should be deleted from Bill C-41 for the following reasons.

It was Bill C-41 then; it is Bill C-15 now.

It is contrary to Canadian law and traditions on the independence of police investigations from the executive, which is an underpinning of the rule of law.

It is without precedent in Canadian policing legislation.

It is based on an erroneous analogy by the drafters between the relationship of the VCDS and CFPM with that of the JAG and the Director of Military Prosecutions.

It represents a significant step back from efforts since the 1990s to enhance and safeguard the independence of military police investigations....

It does not respond to any recommendation of the Lamer Report or to any other public study on military justice or military policing.

Those are the complaints outlined by the chairperson of the Military Police Complaints Commission. We would certainly hope when this bill gets to committee that that subsection would be removed.

To add further evidence, Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto prepared a report on police independence relating to the military police, in which it is stated:

The author concludes that s. 18.5(1) and (2)...recognizing the Vice Chief of Defence Staff's (VCDS's) general supervision of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) and allowing the former to issue general and public instructions or guidelines to the latter which is consistent with the balance that must be struck between military police independence and accountability, policy guidance and the management responsibilities of the general command. At the same time, however, the author concludes that s. 18.5(3) violates core concepts of police independence as recognized in Campbell and Shirose by allowing the VCDS to issue instructions and guidelines in specific cases that can interfere with military police investigations. He also notes that this section would be inconsistent with the 1998 accountability framework between the VCDS and the CFPM and if enacted might result in various legal challenges.

To sum up, the bill has a lot of good points. It needs to be moved forward. It needs to go to committee. However, there is a major problem backed by fairly substantive evidence that subsection 18.5(3) violates the principles of police investigations, and as a member said previously, could be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We support the bill moving forward to committee. We recommend that the proposed subsection be removed.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend, the member for St. John's East for his very learned speech on this important issue.

The member asked for a signal from our side. I am not sure, but I think Signal Hill is in his riding. I am not absolutely sure of that. It is close to it, so I am not surprised by the request. The signal is given that we on this side are looking forward to consideration of this bill in committee, consideration of his arguments, and we hope to see him there as we have seen him in previous Parliaments on these important issues.

My question for the hon. member is the following. Given the urgency of this bill, given the fact that some of these changes have been pending since the Lamer report in 2003, given the fact that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have considered this bill in different forms three times, Bill C-7 in the 39th Parliament, Bill C-45 in the 38th Parliament, Bill C-41 in the 40th Parliament, and now Bill C-15, would the member not agree with us, and this is really an appeal to his common sense and his sense of duty to do right by our men and women in uniform, that the best place to discuss the details he has proposed, the very technical aspects of this bill that deserve discussion, is in committee and that we as members of Parliament have a duty to get it to committee as soon as possible?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 at second reading. This is a law that has to do with military justice. It is an act to amend the National Defence Act in order to strengthen military justice.

First, I need to make some general remarks about the whole notion of military justice in our law. As some members know, I served as defence critic in Parliament prior to October of last year. We had Bill C-41 before us in the last Parliament, which was intended to bring some changes into the military justice regime in Canada.

It is important that we have a good look at our whole military justice structure because there are a number of problems that need to be resolved. Military justice needs to fit in with our entire justice system. We need to ensure there is conformity between the kinds of laws we have in relation to military justice, as well as our general justice system, certainly in terms of the fundamental principles of law.

We need to understand that there are differences between military law and our general legal system, and there are good reasons for that. We have a military justice system that recognizes the relationship between the justice system and discipline within the military.

There is a significant importance to discipline in the military. I will quote an expert in military law, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who is a lawyer in private practice and has considerable experience in the military. In fact, he is the author of the only significant military legal text in Canada used in law schools and has an annotated book on the military aspects of the Department of National Defence Act. It is quite a useful source of knowledge. This is what he says in relation to the importance of discipline in military law:

Few professions are as dependent on discipline as is the military. Discipline is fundamental to military efficiency, cohesion, esprit-de-corps permitting commanders to control the use of violence so that the right amount and type of force can be applied in exactly the right circumstances, the right time and the right place. At the personal level, discipline ensures that at all times of great danger and risk, the soldier can and will carry out orders even if his natural instinct for self-preservation and fear tells him otherwise. Likewise, group and individual discipline ensures adherence to laws, standards, customs and values of civilian society, even during combat operations.

He went on to say, “Therefore, discipline is integral not only to the maintaining of an efficient armed forces, but also ensuring that the rule of law predominates within the military, particularly when engaged in great peril and danger in combat”.

We see that it as important for two reasons, not only for maintaining discipline so that when someone violates the law there is quick action and a speedy response to breaches of discipline but also that there may well need to be procedural differences available in the military context. However, it is also extremely important that when engaged in combat there always be an adherence to the rule of law.

Our country certainly wants a military force and troops who are capable of carrying out their use of force in a lawful manner, regardless of the circumstances of great peril that others take. Therefore, we say that not only the military justice system exists to punish wrongdoers, it is also a central part of command discipline and morale.

We have a voluntary military and the military justice system must be seen as equitable and fair. Otherwise, we will not only have a justice problem but could also have an operational and recruitment problem. We must recognize that people who volunteer for military service must know that they have to be treated fairly. Therefore, we must also emphasize the justice side as well as the military side. We want, expect and need a high level of morale in our system among our troops and we demand loyalty, but that is a two-way street and the system must be seen as fair.

When Bill C-41 was before the House, we brought it to the defence committee where our party sought to do two things. First, we sought to ensure that the procedures in the military justice system were effective, insofar as it was possible and consistent with the need for speedy resolution of disciplinary matters in some cases. Moreover, we also sought the protections, as far as possible, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, we did not want the fact that we needed efficient military justice to take the place of fundamental principles of justice for people just because they happened to be in the military.

Therefore, we focused on making changes to the proposed legislation that would see the summary trials provision conform as much as possible to the existing law for civilians. Where that could not be done, we recognized that we would use this procedure, which could involve people going to detention for up to 30 days or having substantial fines levied against them and, under our current system, result in a criminal offence, even without the protections of the charter, without the right to counsel, to make full answer in defence or having an impartial tribunal. These ought not to be regarded as criminal offences, which after service would require a person to go through the parole board and seek what was then available, a pardon. It is not available any more, because the members opposite have decided that pardons are no longer available through the parole board. That is all the more reason we have to make sure this is done right.

We did take some measures. We introduced a series of amendments in committee. Some of them were accepted. In fact, some those accepted were even proposed by the Judge Advocate General and his advisers. Bill C-41 did not pass but died on the order paper when the election was called last year. We had gone through first and second reading, committee and third reading, but it did not get passed in the dying days of the last Parliament.

Therefore, we are back at it again with a new bill, Bill C-15. However, a number of amendments that were accepted by the committee and would have ameliorated some of these problems do not appear. They are gone, out the door. So we are back to square one now with respect to a number of provisions that were in Bill C-41 that were fixed and improved, and some that were even proposed by the Judge Advocate General as a compromise to fix the system in an acceptable way, taking some of the offences and adding some more offences, in fact, back to the list of those that would not result in a criminal record. However, these offences are back in again.

I do not know why we are doing this. Is there any respect for this Parliament by the government? Are the Conservatives saying that now they have a majority they can do what they want? Never mind what they did last time or what they agreed to last time, never mind the compromises and the proposals that came from the Judge Advocate General's office, they are going to go back to square one and not do it.

These are important matters because we are not talking about simple changes to legislation. We are talking about people's fundamental rights, and when I am talking about rights I am talking about the Charter of Rights. When section 11 of the Charter of Rights states that a person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with law, in a fair and public hearing, by an independent and impartial tribunal, it means just that. However, if their commanding officer who knows them, knows all of the witnesses and everyone else, has the file and is not even telling the accused what is in the file, that is not a fair and impartial tribunal.

I am not saying we cannot accept that if we are dealing with an administrative disciplinary system, but we should not add the extra piece of saying that it would result in a criminal record, which he or she would have to deal with that later on and pay $600 to the parole board, hope for the best and maybe get what is called a record suspension. These are serious matters.

Some would say that the Charter of Rights should not apply to the military. When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being drafted and adopted as a fundamental part of our Constitution in 1983, the drafters contemplated whether or not the military justice system should or should not apply. It was thought about because there is one section, for example, were the right to a trial by jury is being discussed in the Charter of Rights. For anyone who is interested, it is paragraph 11(f) of the Charter, which talks about when one can have a trial by jury, and states:

except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.

It is equating a military tribunal in a court martial to a jury. Therefore, they thought about military law when they were crafting the Constitution. There is no exception for a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. There is an exception for a jury trial because a trial by a military tribunal is considered to be equivalent in the charter to a jury.

Why are we doing this? It is beyond me to understand why a government that takes such great pride, we hear, in our troops and looking after our service men and women and military personnel who volunteer for service and risk their lives and, in some cases, sadly, give their lives in defence of their country and in doing their country's work, does not treat them and give them the same rights that the Charter of Rights provides for citizens of this country.

We tried to fix that. It is a fundamental problem in military justice. It does not just affect a few people. I do not have the latest statistics but I cited the statistics for 2007-08 and 2008-09. There were over 2,600 offences in 2007-08, and 2,600 in 2008-09, the vast majority of which were dealt with by what is called a summary procedure, a procedure that does not have those protections. Someone would be tried by his or her commanding officer and, in most cases, would end up with a criminal record if found guilty.

These are essentially a lot of discipline offences having to do with going AWOL, et cetera. I will not bore members with a list of the number of offences for each one, but we have things like conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. These are there to try to keep everyone in line and to keep morale up. There are offences such as being AWOL, which could be as much as being 10 minutes late after a night out on leave. In fact, 29% of the offences are absences without leave. However, these are offences against the National Defence Act. Drunkenness is another one, accounting for 6% of the offences. For soldiers, it is amazing that only 6% of the 2,600 offences we are talking about here from five years ago relate to drinking. Soldiers are supposed to be famous for going to bars and drinking, but obviously we have very disciplined soldiers in our Canadian Forces, of which we are very proud.

Nonetheless, we are talking here about fundamental justice and the need to ensure that our military justice has the same respect for fundamental justice as does our regular legal system.

I am hoping that we are not going to hear from the other side that, “This is the NDP going on again. It loves criminals. It even loves criminals when they're in the military”. Instead, I am hoping that we will hear from the other side that they have enough respect for our military that they want to ensure that even when military personnel act in a manner that gets them into trouble with their commanding officer, they will respect the rights of these personnel, they will recognize that they need to maintain morale, that they need to maintain discipline but that they also need to ensure that they are not saddling someone with a criminal record when that person does not have the protection of the fundamental rights, the fundamental justice, contained in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that very constitution that we are asking our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, to go and fight for and defend. They are being denied the protection of that in a fundamental way.

What we are trying to do and what we have tried to do in the committee in the past is as I said.

Here I see the parliamentary secretary who, unfortunately, was not part of that committee the last time. He was not even in this Parliament. When this comes before the committee again, maybe I will join him to talk about the motions we passed the last time and the sections we changed. I have a list, which I can give him, of the ones that were actually passed, amending the bill and ensuring there was better protection for our soldiers, sailors and air men and women, and are now missing from the bill. The member was not there when they were passed.

If this is just an error, a mistake, or they just went to back to the drawing board and produced the same bill we had before, I hope he will willing accept those changes. I am looking for some signal to that effect from the member when he speaks to this legislation.

We do have an important task at hand, and that is to ensure that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are treated with respect and dignity and given the protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is another aspect of this bill, which I will touch briefly on. It is the issue of grievances. There is a significant problem with the grievance procedure within the military. This legislation deals with it, but not well enough. We did amend clause 6 of the National Defence Act in that regard. There was a series of amendments that were important, giving the Chief of the Defence Staff the power to settle a grievance. It passed the committee, but I do not know if the Chief of the Defence Staff wants it. The government does not seem to want to give it to him.

He is the person who makes the final decision, but he cannot say to people who were denied overtime or a certain special pay, which cost them $1,500, that they would get the $1,500. He cannot decide that. It has to go to some legal people in the Department of Justice. It does not go to the Judge Advocate General.

The CDS cannot say “Give that man the $1,500 that he was denied”, whether it be for work or moving expenses or whatever. That has to go to somebody in the Department of Justice part of DND who can say “Well, we do not think it is really appropriate to give money in this case”. Then that person cannot get his grievance resolved.

We made changes that ensured the CDS could resolve that problem, being the final voice and being able to settle a grievance. That is something that is necessary and desirable. I hope we are able to get that change made once again.

We also wanted to ensure that are some timelines on grievances that need to take place. There was also a series of amendments with respect to oversight by civilians, a whole series, including the amendments we made to clause 11, which would enforce and allow the grievance committee to deal with grievances in a proper manner, with civilians rather than just military people.

There are a number of changes that have to be made. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not accept in their new bill the changes that were already made.

The House resumed from November 4, 2011 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in a little more than 40 minutes, the Minister of Finance will table this year's budget and I am sure all members are looking forward to that event.

Economic action plan 2012 will be a very strong, low tax, low debt plan that will include measures to create and secure jobs, economic growth and, most important, long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

In recognition of how important this budget will be, we have decided that we will schedule debate to follow immediately on the four following days: Friday and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.

There may not be the same level of suspense around this vote as in previous years, but on Wednesday, all members will have the opportunity to vote for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and support our budget. Once the opposition has seen the budget, I am confident that their constituents will expect them to do just that.

On Thursday, we will continue debate on Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act. If we have time, we will resume debate on Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

The opposition House leader had a long list of bills on which he inquired about their status. Insofar as our legislation to improve Canada's immigration and refugee system, that has been debated now some five days in this House and we look forward to it being debated further. It is a very important bill, not just for the strength of our immigration system but also for our economy. We will continue to take steps to ensure our immigration system meets the security, safety and economic needs of Canada.

In terms of Bill C-30, I think he is well familiar that it is our intention to have that debated and sent to committee before second reading and, in so doing, being able to allow a broad ambit for the committee to consider amendments of all types. I think that responds to the particular concerns that he raised on that.

In the case of Bill C-30, Bill C-4 and the immigration bill, we can see from the program I have read that there will not be an opportunity, barring some dramatic progress on other legislation on the final day, to deal with those bills before the Easter break, so we will have to wait until after that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. It has been suggested in the past when we have had budgets on Thursdays that we were doing that so we could go out and talk to Canadians about it for several days. Clearly, our interest is to tell Canadians about our economic action plan 2012 which is focused on keeping taxes down and creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians. We hope we will be able to speak about it a lot to Canadians. We are confident that they will see that we share their priorities strongly. I thank the opposition House leader for giving me the opportunity to explain that.

We will conclude this hard-working, productive and orderly week in Parliament by continuing debate on Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act this afternoon and tomorrow. We will also debate that bill on Monday, March 26.

Next week is a constituency week where we will all be hard at work in our ridings.

The highlight of the week we return to Ottawa will be when the Minister of Finance rises in the House to present Canada's economic action plan 2012. That will be on Thursday, March 29 at 4 p.m. Canadians can look forward to our economic action plan which will include, as I indicated earlier, important measures focused on jobs and economic growth.

I understand that the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to a responsible work plan for its study of the financial system review act, Bill S-5 so that this House can pass the bill before Canada's banking laws expire in mid-April. Canada has the world's soundest banking system. It is important that we keep it this way. That is why I trust we will see a responsible approach to this bill in the House, similar to what we saw at committee. In anticipation of the bill being reported back to the House tomorrow afternoon, I will be giving priority to report stage and third reading of Bill S-5 on Tuesday, March 27 and Wednesday, March 28.

If we have additional time on those days, I hope we can finish second reading debate of Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act, and then deal with Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday, March 29, we will resume debating Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, before question period. After question period, the House will turn to Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Friday, March 30, shall be the first full day of debate on the budget.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with the encouragement and support of the opposition House leader, I will continue to try to engage all the House leaders and other parties in an effort to work on consensus approaches as to scheduling matters. I will make the observation that for a dance to work everyone has to be dancing. Therefore, I will continue to make my best efforts.

This afternoon, we will continue debating the opposition day motion from the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

Tomorrow we will conclude debate on the amendments coming from the other place, on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. We will have our final vote on this important legislation on Monday night. Bill C-10 will pass a number of important proposals that our government has put forward over the last five years that stand up for victims and for making our communities safer. I might add that Monday will be the 94th sitting day of the House, which means our government will have easily met our election commitment to make this bill law.

Also on Monday, the House will resume debate on Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. We will return to this debate on Thursday and Friday.

Tuesday will begin with Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act. This is an important bill that was nearly passed before the opposition forced an election last year. I hope we will see the debate conclude sometime Tuesday.

If we have extra time on Tuesday, the House will take up a second piece of legislation, Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Wednesday shall be the seventh and final allotted day of the supply cycle. I might correct my friend that I do not think this has ever been designated in the House. We will debate a motion from the New Democratic Party and end the afternoon with two appropriations bills from the President of the Treasury Board.

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills.

I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. There is no doubt that this bill is a source of contention, which is pretty obvious, but not everyone is opposed to this bill. Many witnesses who appeared before the committee supported it. For instance, the bill's proposal to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was supported by the law enforcement representatives who testified, as well as some academics and some victims groups.

Before speaking to the bill, I would like to quote from a witness who appeared before the committee in 2009 and testified on Bill C-15. Mr. Chuck Doucette, vice-president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, had this to say about the drug situation:

Things have changed from when I first started in drug enforcement in 1977. Over those 30 years, I saw the sentences for drug offences getting progressively weaker. At the same time, I saw the problems related to drug abuse getting progressively larger. I also saw the drug scene in downtown Vancouver increase as the enforcement efforts in that area decreased. From my perspective, I do not see how anyone could possibly examine the past 30 years and make a case that weaker sentences lead to less damaging social consequences. My experience is that the more lenient we got, the more problems we got.

The provisions of Bill C-10 amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the provisions contained in Bill C-15, which died on the order paper, and Mr. Doucette's words are still as accurate today as they then were.

I would like to take a few moments to explain the nature of the problem that the drug-related provisions of Bill C-10 seek to address. The bill is aimed at tackling the problem of drug crimes, particularly drug trafficking and drug production, both of which occur in all regions of Canada. Over the last decade, domestic production and distribution of marijuana and synthetic drugs has dramatically increased, resulting in serious problems in some regions of Canada and often overwhelming the capacity of law enforcement agencies.

These operations pose serious health and public safety hazards to those in or around them. They produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems and endanger the health and lives of communities. They are lucrative businesses and attract a variety of organized crime organizations. Huge profits are available with little risk to operators, and these profits are used to finance other criminal activities.

Penalties in sentences are considered by many to be too lenient and not commensurate with the level of harm imposed on communities by such criminal activities. According to Statistics Canada, marijuana cultivation offences more than doubled from 1994 to 2004, rising from approximately 3,400 offences in 1994 to 8,000 in 2004.

According to a study on marijuana grow operations in British Columbia in 2003, approximately 39% of all reported marijuana cultivation cases, 5,414, were located in B.C. Between 1997 and 2000, the total number of these cases increased by over 220%. Although the number of individual operations in B.C. levelled off between 2000 and 2003, the estimated quantity of marijuana produced increased from 19,729 kilograms in 1997 to a seven-year high of 79,817 kilograms in 2003, this because of the size and sophistication of individual operations.

These few observations were made so that there can be an appreciation of the seriousness of the drug crime situation in our nation. The Government of Canada has recognized this. It has recognized that serious drug crimes, such as large-scale grow operations, pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities, and the drug-related provisions of Bill C-10 are part of the government's strategy to address this problem.

This bill proposes amendments to strengthen provisions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding penalties for serious drug offences by ensuring that these types of offences are punished by the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty. With this bill, the government is demonstrating its commitment to improving the safety and security of Canadians and communities across Canada.

As has been stated before, the government recognizes and acknowledges that not all drug offenders and drug offences pose the same risk of danger and violence. Bill C-10 recognizes this reality, and that is why the bill proposes a focused and targeted approach to dealing with serious drug crimes.

Accordingly, new penalties will not apply to the offence of possession, nor will they apply to offences involving all types of drugs. What the bill does is focus on more serious drug offences involving more serious drugs.

Overall, the proposal represents a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, such as trafficking, importation, exportation and production involving such drugs as cocaine, heroine, methamphetamine and cannabis. In my view, this bill contains a seamless approach to dealing with serious drug offences.

I should note that the drug-related provisions of the bill were amended in committee. Indeed, the government moved an amendment to clause 41, which deals with the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of at least nine months for the offence of producing one to 200 plants inclusively where the production is for the purpose of trafficking and where there are certain aggravating factors. The adoption of this motion narrowed the offence such that the minimum penalty would now apply to instances in which more than 5 plants but fewer than 201 are produced, the production is for the purpose of trafficking and certain aggravating factors are present. Accordingly, the minimum penalty would no longer apply for the production of five plants or fewer.

The government's position on drug use is clear: offenders involved in serious drug crimes need to realize that there are serious consequences for their actions. I believe that reasonable Canadians agree that this approach should be applied to drug offenders whenever these offenders are involved in trafficking dangerous drugs, growing drugs like marijuana, or producing synthetic chemical drugs.

I am satisfied that Bill C-10 has been thoroughly examined by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law. This bill is part of the government's continued commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and make our streets and communities safer. Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter serious crimes, including serious drug crimes. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes. This bill accomplishes that objective.

Motions in Amendment

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-15. I would call the title of the bill “the bill with no real plan to create jobs”. Why do I say that? It has been extremely disappointing to see the tremendous disconnect between the Conservative government's policies and the tough realities that people face in urban and rural communities alike.

Given the global economic uncertainty and the fact that 1.4 million Canadians are out of work, one would have thought that when the government introduced its budget implementation bill, it would have had one priority focus economically, and that being to create jobs. This is not the case. Unfortunately, there is no plan to create jobs in the bill.

Today we have over 500,000 fewer net full-time jobs than we had before the recession. The government's continual crowing about having created jobs is false. It measured from the trough of the recession to today. However, we have to look at where we were in August 2008. Today we have 525,000 fewer net full-time jobs than we had before. That is a crisis. It is a real human crisis for the constituencies of many of my colleagues across the aisle. For example, Nanaimo has an unemployment rate of 16%. For youth, unemployment is far too high.

On top of this net loss of jobs, we have a million new Canadians in our country since that time. Therefore, there are a far greater number of people looking for work with no plan to recover those jobs.

Instead of helping to create jobs, the government's budget is helping to kill jobs. I am referring to the increased EI payroll taxes that have increased by $600 million in 2011 and will increase by another $600 million in 2012. Everyone knows these taxes placed on both the employees and the employers kill job creation. Yet that is what the government is doing, despite repeated requests from the Liberal caucus to hold off on that EI payroll tax increase.

The Conservatives know payroll tax increases kill jobs. In January 2009 the Minister of Finance said, “For many businesses, an increase in payroll taxes would make it harder to sustain existing jobs”.

In May 2009 the current Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “That is what Canadians do not want, a job-killing payroll tax increase. Those of us on this side of the House will not...raise taxes”.

The last quote is from the Conservative government's 2008 election policy declaration, which states, “unnecessarily high payroll taxes are a tax on job creation. Lower payroll taxes encourage hiring and business expansion“.

Why is the Conservative government and its members ignoring their own wisdom? Let us think about it.

The Liberals and the economists have both said that this is not the time to raise EI payroll taxes. The government has claimed that it has no control over the EI tax increases. Therefore, one would assume it recognizes that is a negative factor for which it has claimed to have no control.

Recently the government actually appeared to have control over this and it reduced the proposed increase by 50% for 2012. That is a good thing. However, if it can reduce it by 50%, why not by 100% and just hold off on EI payroll tax increases? Why does it claim it has no control over something that it does have control over? It speaks to the heart of citizens' trust in what their government has to say. This is a government that has been repeatedly undermining that trust.

The members opposite have been crowing about the hiring credit for small businesses worth $165 million, which in fact is small change when the increases are costing $1.2 billion. That is an insult, not a policy.

Canada has about one million small businesses, but over 600,000 would not qualify for this credit. Therefore, I hope the government would continue to make the reductions in the EI payroll tax increase that we have asked for and bring it down to a zero increase.

Also, there is nothing in the budget that reflects the concerns of female business owners. Here is some information from the Taskforce for Women's Business Growth.

In 2007 women retained ownership in almost half of Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises. In 16% of our SMEs, women were majority owners. That is a major force in the small business landscape. However, 37% of the majority female-owned businesses are considered high growth, while 63% of majority male-owned small businesses are considered high growth. Why that discrepancy?

There are some historical and structural factors that make it tougher for women to grow their businesses. Therefore, the task force and its members have asked for some very reasonable support from the government to facilitate the job growth in small and medium-sized businesses owned by women. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking for some assistance in coordinating, consolidating and communicating.

The task force wants the government to: consolidate existing small business program information and target it to women; improve financial and technology literacy for women business owners; increase access to growth capital, grants and other resources, which women historically have found more difficult to access; and, report on the economic contributions of women to the Canadian economy.

These are very reasonable requests, but I do not see them anywhere in the government's budget. These individuals are struggling where they could be contributing $2 billion a year to the Canadian economy simply through a 20% increase in total revenues in majority female-owned enterprises. That is doable. The government should provide some framework for assistance.

Speaking of individuals, a huge concern that Liberals have is the deliberate exclusion of low-income Canadians in the budget. By that I am referring to the non-refundable tax credits, and there are several of them such as the family caregiver, volunteer firefighter and children's art tax credit. Since these are non-refundable tax credits, it means they would only apply to taxes owing. Therefore, those families and children who are in households without a taxable income, the very people who need assistance the most, are cut out. These programs would not increase the number of people engaged in these good and worthwhile activities because it is targeted at families that already have the means to do that.

In fact, this kind of program increases inequality in our country. We know that income inequality leads to many decreases in social well-being. A lot of evidence has proven that. Increased income inequality leads to higher crime rates, worse health and mental health outcomes, greater child mortality and a whole host of social ills.

We need to work toward income equality. However, this is not the direction Canada is going in and the gap in income is increasing. These non-refundable tax credits are simply unbelievable and will increase income inequality.

I had a meeting with small businesses in Vancouver Quadra. A number of measures were requested, but they are nowhere to be seen in the government's budget. I consider it a failure and I will vote against Bill C-13. The government has no real plan to create jobs.

[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.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

moved that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with my own injunction to try to be brief, I will offer a few brief remarks with respect to this bill. It is, after all, a two-page bill. It is not earth-shattering.

First, since I will not be on my feet here at any other time before November 11, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the brave men and women who serve us so well. We are very fortunate in this country that we have people who are prepared to put their lives, bodies and minds on the line for us.

I want to make the point that some parties in particular take every opportunity to enthusiastically embrace the military; however, there seems to be a somewhat less enthusiastic embrace for our veterans. On November 11, I hope that our embrace is far more enthusiastic and that they get a level of support similar to what our military gets.

I offer my condolences to the Greff family and to the Gilbert family. This must be a particularly poignant time for them. Both families are hurting and are classic examples of people who give their lives so that we can operate in this chamber as we do.

Bill C-16 has had a tortured path getting here. It went through a number of reiterations, prorogations and dissolutions and was derailed in various other ways as well. We saw another example this morning, when some members of House, rightly upset that they could not offer their observations with respect to Remembrance Day, denied unanimous consent to proceed in an expedited fashion. As a consequence, we have taken far longer than we ever should have in order to deal with the bill.

The bill has three components and revolves around a core concept: the tension between the independence of the judiciary and the hierarchy of the military command structure. Indeed, pretty well all of the justice issues in the military, the conflicts over those two points of principle, are the subject matter of both Bill C-16 and Bill C-15. Sometimes it is with respect to the independence of the police, but in the case of Bill C-16, it is with respect to the independence of the judiciary.

We are here because the courts have told us that the system has to be repaired. We cannot have a system in which the independence of the judiciary is subject to the whims of the CDS or anyone else in the chain of command. The bill does respond to the Regina v. Leblanc case and it requires a retirement age of 60.

I appreciate that in order to be a military judge, one also has to be a military officer, but it is an interesting conflict. Frankly, for lawyers and judges the age of 60 is frequently prime time in their careers. Ironically, by requiring that age of retirement and by requiring that the judge be an officer, in effect we are limiting the pool of people who would, in all other circumstances, be excellently qualified for the judiciary.

As a classic example, last week we had a hearing with respect to two judges for the Supreme Court of Canada. One was 63 and the other was 56 years old. Ironically, one would not be qualified to be a military judge and the other would only be entitled to one appointment.

There is an interesting debate as to whether one has to be an officer in order to be a military judge. I am not sure that we should not actually be debating that a little more extensively; possibly a retired officer could be a military judge beyond age 60. There is another argument as to why one has to achieve the fitness levels required of officers up to age 60 in order to sit as a judicial officer.

Those issues aside, this bill does warrant our support. I think the regime that the government has put forward in the bill is an appropriate regime. A military officer who is a military judge will be automatically required to retire at age 60, as opposed to the requirement in the civilian system for retirement at age 75. The person can be removed for cause, and there is an inquiry process, again independent of the chain of command. That is an appropriate form of removal, given our requirements for the independence of the judiciary. Of course, there is also resignation.

There is this ongoing tension between chain of command and the independence of the judiciary. Bill C-16 does achieve some balance between those two tensions, and I and my party will support this bill; indeed, we would have supported it at all stages had the government handled the desires of other people in this chamber a little more sensitively. In fact, possibly by this time we would have gone to committee of the whole and had this bill passed and on the way to the Senate. There is a time deadline of December 2, and I am rather hoping that we still achieve that time deadline; otherwise, a decision will be imposed upon us.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this legislation because it provides an opportunity to talk about how important the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in our country. It is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that gives the reason for this piece of legislation to correct something which, in the current context, is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is something that was introduced into our law in 1983 and the effects of it, as we are seeing today, are still reverberating. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is for all Canadian citizens, regardless of who they are, whether the person is a soldier, as in this case, or a criminal with a record as long as his arm, as they say in the vernacular, or an ordinary Canadian who happens to find himself or herself in front of the courts.

The charter has many provisions. This one is about section 11(d). Section 11(d) of the charter provides that any person who is charged with an offence has the right “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”. Each and every word of that provision is important. Each and every word of that provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been tested and given judicial interpretation over the last 28 years since the charter came into effect. It is an important fundamental underpinning of our system of justice.

How did this case come about and why are we here? We are talking about whether judges in the military courts should have security of tenure. This is not for the judges. Some people say that judges want to have longer tenure, they want to have longer careers and do not want to be subject to being removed, laid off or not reappointed. It is not about that at all. According to the existing legislation, the military judges are appointed for a term of five years. They hear courts martial. Of course, under military justice life imprisonment could be given as a sentence, so under military tribunals, courts martial, these judges have a tremendous amount of authority and power under the law. The military justice system is a parallel one and in many ways is very different.

We will be getting into an argument about what that means in regard to a lot of other provisions in military justice under Bill C-15 when we get to that. This one has been taken out, and probably for good reason, because it is less controversial. We think this legislation should be passed swiftly.

It was part of Bill C-41 in the last Parliament, which we thought was going to pass. It went through committee and got right to the end. We even reached a compromise on a number of things and made some good amendments, but lo and behold, instead of bringing it into the House for third reading and passage, the government forgot about it, laid it aside, or for some reason did not bring it through. This was after the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada had made this ruling on June 2. Everybody knew this was coming because this was the court of appeal, not the regular court martial where a similar decision had also been made.

The government was well aware of this then, and I think it has been wise to take it out separately and see if it could get co-operation to have it passed. We are prepared to co-operate. We are a very reasonable opposition. When we see something that needs to be done, it can be expedited. We even provided unanimous consent. Our part of unanimous consent was provided this morning to have this bill brought into law at least in the House of Commons today and be sent to the other place for speedy passage. We offered that consent because we are very reasonable and co-operative when it is appropriate to be.

Let me tell members what this case was about.

Mr. LeBlanc and other soldiers were tasked with guarding a CF-18 at a Canadian air force base. The aircraft was on standby for the Francophonie summit being held in Quebec City in October 2008. Corporal LeBlanc and his companion were one of two teams guarding the aircraft. He and his companion were on lookout, sitting in a truck parked by the hangar. His companion went off to use the washroom, and left Corporal LeBlanc sitting in the truck by himself. Lo and behold, when his pal left the truck to go to the washroom, he was inside the hangar and was away for about five minutes, a sergeant drove up next to Corporal LeBlanc's side of the truck. The trial judge found that Corporal LeBlanc had been reclining and had his eyes closed for at least 10 seconds. His eyes were closed for 10 seconds and as a result he was charged with negligence and not being vigilant in his duty under section 124 of the National Defence Act, negligently performing a military duty imposed on him.

That is what gave rise to this. He was brought before a court martial and he was convicted because the trial judge ruled that even though they did not have proper security of tenure, the trial judge thought they did and made his ruling anyway. It went to the court of appeal in the military tribunal. It said the issue was raised as to whether or not military judges were impartial. Military judges are very well trained. They are lawyers. They usually come from the judge advocate general's office. They are steeped in the rules of law and they are appointed as a judge, but they are appointed for five years. That five years may or may not be renewed.

If a judge is trying to decide a case, it is not about the judge, it is about the accused. Does the accused have an understanding that there is a standard of judicial independence so that the judge is not impartial as between him and the military? The judge, in the minds of the accused and everyone else, is dependent upon the military brass for his reappointment. The judges of the court martial appeal court are very well qualified. For example, Justice Létourneau, is one of the authors, along with retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, of perhaps the only significant text on military law in Canada. A new edition came out a week or two ago. He sat on that court. The court said that five-year renewable terms for military judges did not provide the necessary constitutional protection, especially considering the fact that it was considered necessary to give such protection to civilian judges exercising the same functions.

That is a simple explanation of how this case got to where it is. This legislation is designed to fix that. It was in Bill C-41 which passed second reading, went through committee and was reported back to the House but did not get passed. We agreed with that provision. In fact, it was this provision that was used as an excuse to fast-track the legislation. The government said that it was very important and it must get done not a month ago, but a year ago, even before the case on June 2, but it did not get passed.

We are here, reasonable as we are, and we are prepared to do it anyway because we know it needs to be done. It is important that this piece of legislation be passed in the context of understanding the importance of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, including those in the military.

There will be more debate about that because there are many provisions in the National Defence Act and the military justice system that do not give the same protections to soldiers in the military justice system as civilians would have in civilian court. We will, of course, have further debate about that, but with respect to this provision, we agree.

This is not new. As I said, this has been debated many times. In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, there was a provision for provincial court judges. They are the ones who hear 95% of 96% of the cases. It turns out that back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, the Newfoundland the minister of justice could transfer a provincial court judge. The minister could simply say that the judge would now be transferred to Maine, for example, or anywhere else. Maybe the judge lives in Maine, is transferred to St. John's, but does not want to live there.

The minister of justice, the attorney general, had the power to transfer judges to Cornerbrook or wherever. The mere fact that could be done was not considered to be impartial as between Her Majesty The Queen and the accused. Her Majesty The Queen's representative, the minister of justice or attorney general, could actually move judges if the minister, for whatever reason, did not like their judgments or was not satisfied they were doing the job the justice minister wanted them to do in that jurisdiction.

That power was deemed unconstitutional and it had to be changed for impartiality. It is a mundane example, but it is a reality of the importance of the Charter of Rights. At the end of the day, that provides for our protection.

This has a long and very interesting history, but it comes up again and again. It has come up here today. It came up yesterday with respect to Mr. Khadr who is in the United States. He is called a self-confessed terrorist. He is a Canadian citizen and his rights and freedoms are important, too. Yet the government took the position before the Supreme Court of Canada that we should not recognize those rights because our neighbour wanted to try him. It was the government's actions that infringed upon his rights and the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case.

These are rights for all citizens. They are not designed to protect criminals. They are designed to ensure, as the charter has, that an accused person before a court, whether it be a military court, a civilian court or any other, has the right to be tried in a fair and public way according to law. The individual is presumed innocent and tried in a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Each and every one of these words is extremely important and part of the fundamental underpinnings of our judicial system, the freedoms we enjoy, the freedoms we talk about when we say that we support our veterans because they have fought for our ability to build a society that has these freedoms.

Canada has a society that has developed over the many years, through trial and error in some cases, not always making progress. It seems as if we are going to take some backward steps in the next few months with Bill C-10. We will go backward and there will be another government to go forward again. It is not always the steady march of progress, as I am sure members are aware. It depends in which direction we want to go, but in this case the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has brought a great measure of protection to our citizens and a standard by which the justice system is measured.

As to Corporal Leblanc, he was dealt with because the appeal was allowed in part. However, the part which found him guilty of neglect of duty was upheld, but only on a technicality. In that case the court martial judge thought there was security of tenure until retirement or maybe that he was ready to retire and it did not matter to him. However, the principle was a factor in the case and was enough of a factor to get it to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada. That is a separate court of appeal. From that court of appeal, a case can go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, so it is a very high court.

We really did not need this case to prove it because representatives of the legal system, the military justice system and the Department of National Defence and anyone who was interested in the matter, as well as Michel Drapeau who appeared before our committee the last time, talked about this as a fundamental problem.

There are other issues we can talk about in terms of military justice. Is it necessary for those judges be officers? That is an interesting point. It has been argued before the defence committee that we should have a mix of civilian and military judges in the military justice system. It is important to understand how the military works, but it is also important to not get caught up in the culture of the military to the exclusion of the importance of having a standard justice that applies equally to citizens whether they are in the military or not. We can debate that at length.

However, in the context of this situation, we believe it is important that the military justice system not be hamstrung by a system which everyone clearly recognizes fails to meet the standard of appropriate impartiality and does not meet the constitutional test.

I have had some thoughts about the requirement of retirement at age 60. If we consider the notion that it is a military justice system, then from the day one joins the military, he or she knows there is a mandatory retirement at age 60. That is part of the system. It has nothing to do with whether one is a judge or a master corporal working on base or a general. The fact that one is appointed as a military judge, he or she still has to retire at age 60 as opposed to a Supreme Court judge who retires at age 75 or at age 70, depending on which jurisdiction. Those judges have been considered to have judicial independence. In the military, 60 is young for a judge. However, in the military context it is not considered to be a mandatory form of retirement.

There are some issues about supernumeraries, but that is a detail we do not need to get into now. If there is a mandatory retirement age of 60, at least in the context of the report on the court case itself, and I do not have the whole transcript in front of me and I do not know everything that was argued, there does not appear to be a lot of other discussion about other aspects of it. The focus was on the five-year renewable term being the issue, which is what we are dealing with now. Any possible nuances on that could perhaps be argued at another time and in another case. In this case, the provision of the five-year renewable term is clearly the one that needs to be changed.

We support that change. We support fast-tracking it. We support passing it today and sending it to the other place for consideration. However, without unanimous consent, we will have a second reading debate. It will then have to go to committee. The defence committee will have to look at it. Then it would be sent back for report stage in the House. There will be a potential debate at report stage, then at third reading. It would then go to the Senate to have it dealt with and then be passed into law. It may take some time, perhaps beyond December 2. I do not know what pace the other members in the House will take in dealing with this. We are satisfied to have it passed today and to go on to the other place. It is important that we deal with constitutional matters that are clearly agreed upon.

As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has said, she has no problem with the legislation, but it is a question of having other issues intertwined, which unfortunately the government has seen fit to do despite the fact that it is normal courtesy in the House to recognize an important national event like Remembrance Day. Courtesy should be extended to members to be allowed to say a few words.

Those are my remarks at second reading and I would be happy to respond to any questions or comments.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of the bill that addresses the urgent need to ensure the proper functioning of our military justice system.

The bill comes to us in the context of two facts that I think all hon. members will recognize. One, a legal circumstance that places additional pressure on all of us to ensure the smooth functioning of our military justice system, one that has served Canada well for decades. We just celebrated the centenary of the Office of the Judge Advocate General without a challenge to its constitutionality. I will come back to that issue and delve into the circumstances that have led to a danger of that happening.

This is a measure that has been considered in the House three times during three previous Parliament when bills were brought forward that provided for exactly the very limited measures that are provided for in this bill. They died on the order paper, despite two days of debate in the House in the last Parliament and five days of debate in committee in the last Parliament. These issues have been thoroughly ventilated among all of us.

They have received the benefit of the views of the members opposite in committee and in the House, and our consultations to date lead us to believe that, on this narrow but important issue of the independence of military judges, there is a consensus among the parties represented in the House to move forward with alacrity and to ensure that trial by court martial in this country's military justice institutions continues to take place in full conformity with the law and the continuing modernization of our civilian, civil and military justice practices.

Ensuring the safety of Canadians requires that members of the Canadian Forces remain in a constant state of operational readiness. In this regard, the military justice system is a critical tool in allowing the chain of command to deal with matters directly related to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. Many hon. members on all sides of the House will know first-hand from their experience, and we all know from our observation of the excellence of our Canadian armed forces the importance of morale, the fundamental importance of justice that is swift, justice that is fair, justice that brings together a team that reinforces the cohesion of that team to the smooth operational functioning of a military.

It is not just a question of the institution's effectiveness, it is also a question of our military's ability to reflect the values that we as Canadians hold dear. Any Canadian soldier, private, sergeant or officers, whether they are in Libya or on a peacekeeping mission on the Golan Heights or anywhere else, will tell us that they can only do their job to the extent that they are representing and projecting Canada's values. Those values are built upon a system of law, a system of justice and that system must be fully reflected in the system of military justice that serves our military.

In the absence of such a system, our military men and women would not be able to focus on their top priority—protecting the interests of Canada and its people.

For that reason, the government, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Constitution have recognized the importance of maintaining a robust military justice system. The military justice system must meet the unique needs of the Canadian Forces and must also be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter guarantees that a person who is charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

It is on the issue of independence that I speak to the House today. The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental right of all Canadians, and maintaining that independence is an important responsibility of government. This means ensuring that Canadian courts, including courts martial, are free from real and perceived undue influences and interference.

Judicial independence, or the freedom to deliver a ruling based solely on fact and law, requires that the judge presiding over a trial have a certain level of job security and that his appointment be permanent.

That is the system we have in our civil courts and it is the system we must now have in our military justice system.

On June 2 of this year, the Court Martial Appeal Court made an important decision regarding the security of tenure of military judges. I am referring to the case of Regina v. Leblanc. This ruling assessed that the process by which military judges are appointed, currently on a five year renewable basis, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for an independent judiciary. Therefore, the court has given Parliament six months, or until December 2, to pass remedial legislation to update the National Defence Act, otherwise, its provisions related to the appointment and tenure of military judges will be declared constitutionally invalid. This is not a new issue.

Since it took office, the government has been actively seeking to make amendments, similar to those I just mentioned, to the National Defence Act.

The enhancement of judicial independence is one issue that the government first attempted to address in 2006 with Bill C-7, which died on the order paper, as I mentioned at the outset. Since then, the government has attempted to amend the National Defence Act on two separate occasions: Bill C-45 in 2008 and Bill C-41 in 2010, both of which died on the order paper as a result of prorogation or the dissolution of Parliament.

Therefore, we cannot be taken to task for not having tried to resolve this issue earlier as circumstances literally did not permit us to bring these efforts, which we all have endorsed in one way or another, to fruition. Ideally, Parliament would have passed legislation that would have dealt with the issue of security of tenure in 2006, unfortunately, circumstances were such that this was not the case. Today, with a renewed sense of urgency on this issue, we come before this House with Bill C-16

In order to address the concerns identified in the Leblanc decision, the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act contained in Bill C-16 would provide military judges with security of tenure to the fixed age of 60, subject only to removal for cause based on the recommendations of an inquiry committee established under regulations. This is a procedure that reflects, in the military justice system, the type of removal proceedings that we see in our civilian justice system in extreme cases when it is applied to judges.

The government recognizes that 60 is an earlier age for retirement than most judges in the civilian justice system. However, we must remember that military judges are commissioned officers in the Canadian Forces, colonels and lieutenant colonels at the moment, and that the military must balance the need for an experienced judiciary with the need for physical fitness and deployability in all of its members. It is the principle of universality of service. For this reason, 60 is the maximum prescribed retirement age for all Canadian Forces members, and this must include military judges who are, of course, members of the Canadian Forces.

I would like to close by emphasizing that the government recognizes that the amendments proposed in this bill are technical in nature, but they constitute amendments that are necessary to ensure that the National Defence Act is consistent with the charter and that the military justice system operates in accordance with Canadian legal standards.

We are really talking about the modernization of our military justice system, the obligation we have to ensure that our system reflects developments in the civil justice system. I am not only speaking about our own observation as parliamentarians, as government, that this must take place, but observations that have been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada and by a recent decision by the military appeals court that this now take place specifically with regard to the issue of the independence of military judges.

Should Bill C-16 not move forward quickly the ability of military judges to hear cases will be put into question, causing uncertainty within the military justice system. By ensuring security of tenure to the fixed age of 60, Bill C-16 would make a significant contribution toward ensuring the continued independence of military judges within the military justice system.

Let us keep in mind that our military justice system has a long-standing and proud tradition in Canada. The Court Martial Appeal Court was created in 1959 by Parliament. It is a military justice system that is subject to civilian control, civilian supervision and civilian oversight. It is also subject to that oversight in that the Court Martial Appeal Court is a superior court of record with a chief justice of its own. It is composed only of superior court judges appointed by governor in council. Appeals from this court go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, so our military justice system fits under the charter, under our Constitution, into a system of justice that is overseen ultimately under appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let us also put the bill into perspective. The full-time military judges of whom we speak and to which this new measure would apply number four in this country at the moment, three of whom are lieutenant colonels and one a colonel. They do handle a large amount of work. The bill really would apply to a relatively restricted field of the military justice system and our military as a whole.

This government recognizes that while urgent, the issue of judicial independence is but one of many aspects of our military justice system that requires updating. Performing a regular review of any legal system is necessary to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness, which is why the government has also introduced Bill C-15, which proposes implementing many of the recommendations found in the 2003 report by the late chief justice Antonio Lamer.

Together, Bill C-15 and Bill C-16 represent a comprehensive response to the recommendations found in the Lamer report and in Regina v. Leblanc to ensure that our military justice system remains consistent with Canadian values.

I therefore call upon the House to support both of these important bills as they move forward. I also call upon those independent members of the House, some of whom were active in committee in reviewing the provisions now contained both in Bill C-15 and Bill C-16, to join us in moving the bills forward expeditiously in recognizing that the values we all share, the military we all support, deserves to see these technical but important updated measures move forward as quickly as possible.

It is one of our duties to our military. It is our duty to Canadians to move quickly forward on this. We need to ensure that our Canadian Forces are served by the best, the most modern, the most effective military justice system that we can have in this country at this time.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, nobody would be more delighted than I if we could actually not have to use time allocation, but so far we have not seen an indication from the opposition parties that they are prepared to deal with bills on an expeditious basis. We feel the need to actually get things done here and deliver on our commitments.

In fact, in each of these cases since we started in September, each one of those bills continues to be debated in the process in the House of Commons. At committee, they have not even returned here for report stage yet, let alone third reading. Extensive debate is taking place.

The fact is that the parliamentary process is a lengthy one with many stages. We want to ensure that bills have an opportunity to get through those stages so they can become law, so we can keep the commitments that we made to Canadians.

We are making good progress this week, democratic reform week.

We introduced the Political Loans Accountability Act, which will prevent future leadership contestants from bypassing the law’s contribution limits by running up huge interest-free loans from supporters. We saw this in the 2006 Liberal leadership race. Many of those loans do not get paid off and are really donations over the legal limit.

We have also begun debate on Bill C-20, the fair representation act. I am pleased that this bill will be voted on tonight before being referred to committee for study. The bill restores respect for the founding principle of our country at the heart of Confederation, that Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, forged, that of representation by population. The bill moves every single province closer to the principle of representation by population, that each vote should have, to the extent possible, the same weight.

I know that some members may be disappointed that we have not yet had an opportunity this week to debate Bill C-7, which is the Senate reform act, but they can rest assured I will be calling that bill for debate as our first item of business on the Monday following constituency week. It is part of what one opposition member properly calls our comprehensive democratic reform plan.

Tomorrow, I hope we can deal with Bill C-16, the Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act, and Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. I hope both bills, which make important revisions to the military justice system, will garner all party support.

Of course, next week is a constituency week where members will be in their ridings speaking to Canadians about the issues that are important to them.

I know that most Canadians, whom I have spoken with at least, think that the jobs and economic growth issues are the top priority and they expect their government to focus on that right here in the House. With this in mind, the next week that we are back will be a jobs and economic growth week.

Jobs and economic growth week will kick off on Monday afternoon when we will again debate the copyright modernization act. The opposition introduced a motion to keep this bill from ever being debated at committee. This is disappointing. The bill would modernize our copyright laws and encourage job creation in one of Canada's most dynamic and important sectors of the economy.

I understand that the finance committee is meeting later today to conduct its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, that implements the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. I will give priority to this job creation bill when the committee has completed its study. I anticipate scheduling report stage for Tuesday and Wednesday, which will undoubtedly be the highlight of jobs and economic growth week. This bill would implement important measures from our low tax plan for jobs and growth, including tax relief for small businesses that create jobs and a new tax credit for children who go to dance classes or take arts, music, or language lessons. I hope that it will pass swiftly through the House so that the measures can be implemented for the benefit of our economy and indeed all Canadians.

Finally, Thursday, November 17, will be an allotted day.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Could the parliamentary secretary advise us where Bill C-15 and Bill C-16 are as far as when you expect to bring those forward goes?

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)