Evidence of meeting #62 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was review.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Good afternoon, everyone.

Sorry for the delay because of the bells and the vote. We know there is another vote coming at us, so we are going to have a limited amount of time with the witnesses today.

We are starting off with our study of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which is pursuant to the order of reference to this committee on Wednesday, December 12, 2012.

We're going to welcome as our key witness today the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, the Minister of National Defence. He's no stranger to this committee.

In the interest of time, Minister, I'm going to ask if you can bring your opening comments. My hope is that before bells start ringing, we'll get around to each party for their one round of questioning.

With that, Minister, you have the floor.

4:05 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, I'm pleased to be with you again. I note that this is my 32nd appearance before the committee as a government member. I recognize that we're here for the important examination of Bill C-15.

I should also note that I'm joined by Major-General Blaise Cathcart, who is our Judge Advocate General, as well as by Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, who is the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff.

The proposed amendments to the National Defence Act found in this bill will ensure that Canada's military justice system remains one that the Canadian armed forces, and I suggest Canadians at large, can trust. These amendments will also clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian provost marshal and will enhance the military police complaints process and the military grievance system, among other amendments.

The need for a military justice system to maintain the discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Forces, one that is separate from the civilian system, has been endorsed by Parliament, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1992 Généreux decision. The existence of a separate military justice system is also expressly referred to in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, this system, the existence of a separate military justice system, in addition to being endorsed by both Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada, is also expressly referred to in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As members here will know, the strength of Canada's military justice system was confirmed as well in two independent reviews, material that I know you have reviewed.

The first independent review, conducted by Chief Justice Lamer in 2003, for example, found that Canadians would continue, and could continue, to have confidence in Canada's military justice framework, a framework that meets the disciplinary needs of the military, whether in times of peace or conflict and whether in Canada or abroad. That said, Chief Justice Lamer also recognized that there were opportunities for improvement, and he made recommendations to strengthen our system.

His assessment was supported by the findings of the second independent review of the military justice system, conducted by Chief Justice LeSage and tabled in the House last June, following the introduction of this bill, Bill C-15.

The bill before you today is required to implement those recommendations from the Lamer report that are still outstanding, and it maintains the essence of the government's previous legislative efforts to address this report, mainly through Bills C-7, C-45, and C-41. It is a bill that clearly identifies the objectives, purposes, and principles of sentencing in the military justice system. It sets out a wider and more flexible range of sentencing options. It enhances the treatment of victims by introducing victim impact statements at courts martial.

I view this, Mr. Chair, as someone who spent a bit of time in the courts prior to my career in politics, as extremely important. This is a modernization of many of the basic principles we've had in our criminal justice system, going back almost 20 years, that we are trying now to bring forward for victims who would be affected within the military justice system.

All of this is in line with amendments set out in Bill C-41. The bill also clarifies the process and the timelines for future independent reviews of the military justice system.

Now, since this bill was introduced, the government has worked hard to respond to concerns and certain misconceptions regarding the state of Canada's military justice system. It might surprise some to know that a relatively small number of Canadians even realize that we have a separate military justice system. So I'd like to take this opportunity to briefly, Mr. Chair, speak to some of these issues and clarify any lingering misunderstandings that might exist.

I want to begin by first addressing the summary trial system. This system has been validated by both the first and second independent reviews of Bill C-25. The 2012 most recent independent review confirmed that the summary trial system is both vital to the maintenance of military discipline and essential to the life and death work the men and women of the Canadian Forces are asked to do each day. Moreover, this review concluded that the current system is constitutionally sound.

The 2012 LeSage review made several helpful recommendations for improving summary trials, and the government will certainly pursue them following the passage of this bill. That is to say that the LeSage report, and there may be questions on this, was actually tabled after this bill was presented to Parliament.

Speaking specifically to clause 75, there's also been confusion over the matter of criminal records flowing from convictions of service offences in this particular clause of the bill. To be clear, under clause 75, service members would no longer be required to apply for a criminal record suspension, formerly known as a pardon, for convictions that would be deemed to not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act.

Some members have expressed concern over the scope of these exemptions that will be created by this clause. I've listened carefully to these concerns. As I've indicated, and as I've previously indicated during second reading, the government will submit an amendment that will expand the list of exemptions to mirror those amendments made by the committee during its consideration of Bill C-41.

We hope this will help facilitate a quick progress through the committee of this important legislation, as it is now in its fourth iteration and has appeared before the House of Commons for debate now, by my estimation, in five different parliaments.

Some members have expressed concerns over the scope of the exemptions that will be created by this clause. I have listened carefully to those concerns. And as I indicated during second reading, the government will submit an amendment that will expand the list of exemptions to mirror the amendment made by the committee during its consideration of Bill C-41. We hope that this will help facilitate the quick progress of this legislation through committee.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, over the last 10 years a number of changes have already been made to the Canadian Forces Grievance Board. These changes have reinforced the responsibilities of the chain of command to address grievances quickly and directly, and they have simplified the review process to make the grievance system more responsive to the needs of military members. The amendments proposed in Bill C-15 will further enhance the effectiveness of the grievance system.

This bill allows the Chief of the Defence Staff to delegate his power as the final grievance authority when appropriate. This measure allows grievances to be resolved more swiftly and efficiently, while allowing the Chief of the Defence Staff to focus on those grievances with strategic consequences.

The bill will also formally change the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board—at its own request—to the Military Grievances External Review Committee. The new name will better reflect the board's independent status and increase the confidence of our military members in its impartiality.

Mr. Chair, let me conclude by saying a few quick words about the military police complaints and the provost marshal. For any complaint dealing with the conduct of military police, the bill requires the Canadian Forces provost marshal to resolve the issue within 12 months—this, I suggest, is a move to expedite cases in that system and to prevent long delays of justice—and protects those making complaints in good faith from being penalized for doing so. The provisions of the bill regarding the Military Police Complaints Commission are consistent with the recommendations of both the Lamer and the LeSage reports.

With regard to the position of the provost marshal itself, this bill specifies its roles and duties and clarifies the relationship with the provost marshal and the chain of command and increases transparency by requiring the officer to submit an annual report to the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree that a sound and fair justice system for our military is key to maintaining the discipline and effectiveness and the morale and justice for members of the Canadian armed forces and their families, and to protect the public and project public confidence. That is precisely what the government is working toward through the delivery of Bill C-15.

I'm also proud to be here, along with officers from the Canadian Forces, to respond to any questions the committee has on this important legislation, and I look forward to seeing the committee's support and work on this bill.

Thank you. Merci.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Minister MacKay.

We're going to move right into our first round of questioning.

In line with our routine motions, when the minister is before committee we have 10 minutes in the round.

With that, Mr. Harris, you have the floor.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

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?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for the question. I certainly don't purport to speak for the justice minister here. What I can tell you is that we have very able counsel within the Department of Justice and at the Judge Advocate General's office, including the Judge Advocate General himself. We have people like Colonel Mike Gibson and others who have been very diligent in their review of this bill and the amendments, and I think it's fair to say that this particular bill has received an inordinate amount of scrutiny, certainly by Parliament and certainly by my department.

So based on that, yes, I have a high degree of confidence in the legislation.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Would you be prepared to see a legal opinion to that effect tabled before this committee?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Whatever you'd like to do, that's something you'll have to take up with the committee chair, Mr. Harris. If you're in possession of a legal opinion, which I suspect you may be, then fill your boots.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

It's not my boots, sir; it's your legal opinion. If you have one, would you be prepared, you or the Judge Advocate General, to table it before this committee?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I don't have a legal opinion, Mr. Harris, from outside sources. I have depended on the very competent counsel who work for the Department of National Defence.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

So you don't have an opinion. You just accept a verbal opinion from the department. Is that what you're saying?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that I very often read Supreme Court opinions. I read Généreux, I read Trépanier, and I've read other Supreme Court decisions that pertain specifically to the military justice system and impact directly on some of the very amendments that we're here to discuss.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Yes, and Généreux was the one that said it was okay to have a separate military justice system, but it decided that the court martial system that existed at the time was unconstitutional. So there are—

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

That's your interpretation.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

That's not my interpretation.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Sure it is.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

That's what the court said, and changes were made as a result of it.

If I could move on to another matter, there has been a lot of discussion over the last number of years—from Lamer in 2003, by Justice LeSage, by witnesses at this committee, by the chair of the grievance board—of the concern about the CDS not having the power at the end of a grievance procedure to actually order a monetary award.

I understand, Mr. Minister, that in recent months the decision has been made by the cabinet to actually give the CDS power to make ex gratia payments to the amount of $250,000.... Actually, it doesn't even have an amount here, so for any amount. This is in PC number 2012-0861.

Is that something that was done in response to these complaints, and why has that not been given publicity?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Harris, what I can tell you is that we are proceeding on a number of issues that pertain to the justice system. This bill is but one of them.

To your earlier point, two Supreme Court justices—not one but two former Supreme Court justices—upheld the constitutionality of the legislation. In fact, Chief Justice Lamer made 88 recommendations in his 2003 report: 81 were accepted by the government; 29 have been implemented either through legislation...and 36 are contained here in this bill.

We're trying to modernize the military justice system. We're making progress in that regard, I would suggest, with your support. With respect to the CDS and monetary awards, there have been recent decisions taken that also reflect that goodwill to modernize and expedite some of these outstanding grievances, particularly when they have to do with financial awards and compensation.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

The payment of ex gratia payments as of June 19, 2012, was not announced publicly. I take it from you that it's being used to make monetary awards in grievances.

Why is it not made retroactive to cover the kinds of grievances that have come to light lately concerning the payment of home equity assistance that has been denied to people? They are expressing grievous losses of thousands of dollars and great damage to their families.

Are you prepared to find a way, or to allow us through amendments to find a way, to ensure that people get the monetary awards they would be entitled to if the CDS had that authority?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Harris, what I can tell you is that some of the reporting in the paper today and some of the comments from the military ombudsman reflect an ongoing study the ombudsman is doing, and is scheduled, as I understand it, to report on this summer. The department will certainly look at that advice.

The intent here is obviously not to create any financial hardship for members of the Canadian Forces, who very often have to move through no fault of their own. This is the nature of military service. Postings often take them from one jurisdiction to another. Those jurisdictions may have different standards of living with respect to the cost of housing. We're very aware of the fact that there have been situations where members have been required to take up their new posting and sell their property at a loss. There's already a system in place to compensate. In many cases, they can receive up to 100% compensation for those losses, depending on the area to which they've moved.

There are Treasury Board guidelines that have to apply as well. This is not an inconsequential decision for Canadian taxpayers. We are looking at ways in which we can lessen the negative effect of a move by members of the Canadian armed forces, we are looking at ways to streamline our decisions with those of Treasury Board, and we're working on that with the good offices of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff to see that members of the Canadian Forces are always treated fairly.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Minister, my information is that there are upwards of 150 families who have applied under this program as of 2010, and none of them were in fact approved for this higher level of support, the 100% you're talking about. People have lost up to—

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Those statistics—

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

If I may finish, they have lost up to $80,000, and the military families affected are selling assets, taking second jobs, declaring bankruptcy, and utilizing community financial assistance programs in an effort to compensate for the losses they've incurred because they've been moved by the military.

That's not good enough, Mr. Minister, and I think you would agree. I'm asking whether or not you're prepared to support changes that would allow the CDS, having found that these individuals were entitled or should have received the 100%...that they are actually going to get that.

The order in council is not retroactive, so many of these people, if not all of them, will be left out. Are you prepared to see that remedied?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

There are about 40 seconds left to answer that question, Minister.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Harris, you have referred to certain statistics. I've told you we do have a process currently in place that has met many of the concerns that were expressed by you. You are not the adjudicator of these particular cases, to assess what is fair and what isn't fair. I'd suggest there are people who have looked at all of these cases. There are also appeal processes to go back and examine them again.

We're looking at the process and taking recommendations from people like the military ombudsman. We have in fact instituted a new process where the Chief of the Defence Staff can now insert himself into some of these grievances with respect to financial compensation. We're continuing to make progress.

I'm hopeful that this committee will allow this bill to proceed and will also look at further recommendations from Mr. Justice LeSage in the hopes of making further improvements for members of the military and their families.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Minister.

Bells are ringing, but I believe I asked earlier to make sure each party gets a chance to ask a question....

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Strahl.

You have 10 minutes.