Bill C-16 (Historical)

Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act

An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges)

This enactment amends the provisions of the National Defence Act that deal with the tenure of military judges.

National Defence Act

[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.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise in my place today and speak to this legislation. I would like to thank my colleague the member of Parliament for Barrie for sharing his time with me, for his excellent speech and for his support of the bill.

I rise to speak in favour of Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco). This enactment proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to create new offences for trafficking in contraband tobacco and to provide minimum penalties of imprisonment for persons who are convicted of a second or a subsequent time for this offence.

This legislation would prohibit possession for the purpose of sale or offer to sale, the transportation of or the delivery or distribution of a tobacco product or raw leaf tobacco that is not packaged, unless it is officially stamped. The terms “tobacco product”, “raw leaf tobacco”, “packaged” and “stamped” have the same meanings as in section 2 of the Excise Act, 2001.

The maximum penalty for a first offence would be up to six months' imprisonment on summary conviction and up to five years' imprisonment if prosecuted by way of indictment. Repeat offenders convicted of this new offence in cases involving 10,000 cigarettes or more, 10 kilograms or more of any other tobacco product, or 10 kilograms or more of raw leaf tobacco would be sentenced to a minimum of 90 days on second conviction, a minimum of 180 days on a third conviction and a minimum of two years less a day on all subsequent convictions.

Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious contraband tobacco activities. The bill proposes mandatory minimum penalties only in cases where there are certain aggravating factors present.

Trafficking in contraband tobacco is a serious problem that requires serious remedies. As some members will recall, a contraband tobacco market became a significant issue in Canada in the late 1980s. During that period, more and more legally manufactured Canadian cigarettes destined for the duty-free market began making their way back into the Canadian underground economy. The high retail price of legitimate cigarettes made the smuggling of cigarettes across the border a striving and lucrative illicit business.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian customs seized large quantities of contraband tobacco. The RCMP was also engaged in investigating this illegal activity at its source. These investigations eventually led to several tobacco companies having to pay more than $1.5 billion in criminal fines and civil restitution.

While this type of smuggling activity largely has subsided, the illicit tobacco market in Canada has rebounded in recent years, involving contraband tobacco that is primarily connected not to the diversion of legally manufactured products but to the illegal manufacture, distribution and selling of contraband tobacco products. It also includes to a lesser degree the illegal importation of counterfeit cigarettes and other forms of illicit tobacco from abroad.

Organized crime groups play a central role in the contraband tobacco trade in Canada, and this means that this illegal activity is linked with other kinds of crime. Most of the organized crime gangs that are involved in the illicit tobacco market are also active in other forms of criminal behaviour.

The problem is further complicated and exacerbated by the fact that some of the illegal manufacturers that supply the Canadian market are on the U.S. side of the Akwesasne Mohawk territory, which spans the border between Quebec, Ontario and New York state.

Members should know that transnational crime of the type found in contraband tobacco smuggling is considered a threat to public safety and national security and has a direct impact on individual Canadian businesses and our economy. It also has implications for relationships with our international partners, especially the United States. In this regard, however, Canada and the U.S. share a long history of law enforcement co-operation across our shared border.

Contraband tobacco is driven largely by illegal operations on both sides of the border. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have the highest concentration of contraband tobacco manufacturing operations, the majority of high volume smuggling points and the largest number of consumers of contraband tobacco.

Criminal organizations are motivated by the lure of significant profits and relatively low risks in this sphere of illegal activity. Enforcement actions are, therefore, directed at increasing the risks associated with contraband tobacco activities: dismantling illegal manufacturing facilities, disrupting distribution supply lines, apprehending key figures and individuals, confiscating conveyances such as trucks and boats, and seizing the proceeds of crime. These actions have the dual goals of disrupting the illicit flow of tobacco and weakening the organized crime groups involved in the production, distribution, smuggling and trafficking of contraband tobacco.

To achieve these goals, the RCMP has engaged in joint targeted initiatives with law enforcement partners and other stakeholders across Canada and even, as mentioned earlier, internationally. These initiatives, varying in their degree of complexity, include short- and long-term joint investigations, outreach and awareness campaigns and active participation in inter-agency contraband tobacco task forces and groups. Unfortunately, contraband tobacco remains a serious threat to our communities, and if left unchecked, organized crime will continue to profit at the expense of the health and safety of Canadians.

Recent intelligence indicates a rise in counterfeit tobacco products entering the Canadian market. These illegal products are then transported through nationwide networks for sale to consumers as a cheaper alternative to legitimate tobacco products, thereby making them more accessible to Canadian youth.

Protecting society from criminals is a responsibility our government takes very seriously. Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious contraband tobacco activities. This bill proposes minimum penalties only in cases where there are certain aggravating factors present.

This bill is part of the government's continued commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and to make our streets and communities safer. Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter serious crimes, including illicit activities involving contraband tobacco. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes, and this bill would achieve that.

I encourage all of my colleagues and members on each side of the House to fully support Bill C-16. It is high time we made this the law of the land.

Motions in Amendment

[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, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

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

I might remind my colleague that, led by Mr. Harris, the legislation with respect to military judges went through all three stages of legislation in the House of Commons, with respect to Bill C-16, in a matter of three weeks. It was introduced on maybe October 10 or 11 and was passed into law before the end of that month, because it was regarded as a necessity, given the circumstances that presented themselves.

I don't think we need to play politics with this. We can have legitimate arguments here. A similar thing happened with the passage of Bill C-60 in about a month. That was before I was here, in 2006 or 2007.

We are here as politicians for the good of the country. We may have differences about what we're doing now, but in a time of emergency or special circumstance, as we saw with the concerns about the legitimacy of the military justice system because of the rulings under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, actions are taken. My view is that is exactly what would happen in the circumstance we're talking about, if this country were at war.

[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—

[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.

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

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being with us today.

I'll get right to the point because I only have a short period of time. We support many things in the bill, but we have some concerns. You mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a number of times during your presentation, and the necessity for public confidence in the administration of military justice and indeed legislation. We've had a number of occasions, of course, where changes had to be made to the military justice system because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, we agreed on swift passage of one of those, a companion bill to this, Bill C-16, in a matter of three weeks back in the fall of 2011 for that very reason.

But public confidence was somewhat shaken recently when it was revealed by a senior justice department lawyer that the vetting of bills by the justice department, which is required by law for charter compliance, is in fact being done with a degree of confidence of I think 5%. In other words, the statement made by the senior Justice lawyer was that if there was a 5% chance that it could comply with the charter or if there was any argument that could be made, it didn't matter, the justice department would not flag this to Parliament for consideration.

Can you tell me, Mr. Minister, in regard to this particular iteration of the bill and the confidence level that you have, as you've expressed here today, is it the 5% confidence level that the justice department seems to be using as a standard, or is there some other level?

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.

[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.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall Ottawa

November 29, 2011

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 29th day of November, 2011, at 4:15 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to on Tuesday, November 29, 2011, were Bill C-22, An Act to give effect to the Agreement between the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada concerning the Eeyou Marine Region, Chapter 20; Bill S-3, A third Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law, Chapter 21; and Bill C-16, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges), Chapter 22.