Debates of March 19th, 1998

National Defence Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Courts in Campbellton; the hon. member for Kamloops, Health Care; and the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Atomic Energy Control Board.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions stemming from the comments he made in his speech.

He said that the position of an independent inspector general, which was recommended by the Somalia inquiry, was not needed as a result of changes made by the legislation. I would like to ask him specifically how what was done in the legislation replaces the position of an independent inspector general laid out by the Somalia inquiry.

The minister proposed that there be an ombudsman. That was also recommended in the report of Somalia inquiry, as well as in other reports. The position recommended in the Somalia and other reports called for an independent ombudsman. The one being proposed by the minister is not independent. However it is notable that the position of ombudsman is nowhere in the legislation.

Has the minister gone as far as he is going to go in this area, or will he implement a position of ombudsman? Again, could he explain where the rather phantom independent inspector general is in the legislation?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me an opportunity to say that the functions he proposes in terms of an inspector general are covered in other positions, not just in terms of the legislation but also in other provisions that are being made by the government.

In the legislation, as I have mentioned already, there is the grievance board and the police complaints commission. There is an ombudsman who indeed will be independent. It will not be someone who reports to the chain of command or who is part of the chain of command. The person will be independent and will be from outside the Canadian forces. When a report is issued, the report can be examined by parliament, can be examined by the committee which is a part of the parliamentary process and does such things. It will be fully available and open to scrutiny and examination.

That I call accountability and transparency. It addresses the issue of the examination of what is going on in the military.

I am not afraid to have people looking over the shoulders of the military. I said that we did not need an additional person to do that when we already have the functions covered. They are covered by the ombudsman, by the grievance board and by the police complaints commission. There is also a chief of review services who does a lot of work in examining what the chain of command has authorized, what it is carrying out and whether it is being carried out within the mandate and is being done in a proper fashion.

A very substantial overview will happen not only as a result of these amendments but of decisions of the government to implement oversight mechanisms to make the Canadian forces all the more accountable to parliament.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on March 12 there was a press release from the minister's department announcing that Jerry Pitzul was the new judge advocate general. This appointment seems to exactly hit on what the minister is looking for. It has the element of a civilian and the element of a former military person.

I understand Mr. Pitzul has been out of the military since 1995 when he took on a position with the Nova Scotia government as director of the public prosecution service. It now appears he is being brought back into the military with a new rank, a raise in pay and new responsibilities.

He is praised in this release as being an extremely competent man. Was an appraisal done of his performance in the province of Nova Scotia? It speaks of his immense experience in Nova Scotia but the man never tried a case there.

I ask the minister if there is any beginning to the wisdom of this latest appointment.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given that the hon. member once worked for him—

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

He fired me.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

He fired him. Yes, that is true. I guess if you get fired you do not particularly like the person who fired you. Well, too bad. Perhaps he had good reason to do that; I am sure he did. I guess it does not hurt members who get fired because they get elected to the House of Commons.

Mr. Pitzul has considerable experience in the military. He spent most of his legal career in the military. He has been a judge. He has occupied other positions that have given him a great deal of information, knowledge and understanding of the military justice system. On top of that, he now has experience from outside having gone to Nova Scotia and having performed duties in a civilian role in that province. That adds to the depth and experience he brings to this position. It also shows that we are willing to bring in new blood, to bring in people from the outside and to make reforms in the military justice system.

I know that the new judge advocate general, Mr. Pitzul, will do that and do it well.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have one minute for a question and one minute for a response so that we can get them both in.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that 80% of the Somalia inquiry recommendations were being implemented in Bill C-25. The minister shut down the Somalia inquiry so 80% may not be an accurate figure.

The inquiry was not allowed to complete its work because the government shut it down. That 80% figure is probably a bit erroneous. Even so, the 20% the government chose not to implement includes some of the most important things that could be done for the Canadian Armed Forces including the implementation of an inspector general.

I will ask the minister directly one specific question about reducing the sentence for mutiny. In this country mutiny can be very serious. The minister has pointed out that we require a strong military system for good order and discipline. Where is the wisdom in the government that would see a sentence for mutiny reduced to 14 years where we are dealing with heavy expensive equipment like CF-18 aircraft and we—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The minister of defence.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me comment about the Somalia commission of inquiry. We are implementing over 80% of the recommendations.

The member talks about the other 20%. We are by and large implementing all the recommendations. We have different ways of implementing some. We do not agree with every letter of every recommendation. We have a different way, a preferable way of implementing but the spirit and intent of just about all recommendations are being implemented, not necessarily all by the legislation but certainly by government action in many different respects.

The inspector general is a good example because it will come into the 20%. I have said that all those functions are covered. We have covered them with other positions.

On the question of mutiny, all these changes are to bring about a legal system that is in accordance with modern day legal practices, akin to what is happening in civilian courts and takes into account the charter.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is very impressive that the minister is willing to overhaul the whole institution, in particular when it comes to justice.

As he said, we expect every soldier to be willing to give his or her life so why on earth should we hold them to another code of conduct and a whole other code of justice than what we would hold ourselves accountable to? I think this is important. What is wrong with our own courts? Why on earth can we not have our justice system deal with our military so that they can count on our justice system if they are going to give their lives for us?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I thank the hon. member for the question. By tradition there is a separate military justice system because of the nature of dealing with matters swiftly.

As I emphasized in my remarks, discipline and cohesion are very important because not only can what some of our soldiers do threaten their own lives, it can threaten the lives of other people who are part of the team they are working with. It is important to be able to deal with these matters for that reason very swiftly. In some cases they may be abroad at the time. They may be involved in war or peacekeeping in other parts of the world and so it is necessary to have a portable system, have a system that can operate in a very swift fashion in terms of the military justice system.

The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated there is justification and a need for a separate military justice system. What we are attempting to do is to bring it as close as possible to the civilian system so that indeed the charter and the questions of fairness and equity within the judicial system will be there for the soldiers as much as they are for the civilians.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act. The act represents the government's attempt to respond to the failings of the military justice system which became so evident to all Canadians during the Somalia inquiry.

Canada has an obligation to protect its interests both internationally and domestically. This frequently involves committing military resources which is a task that is becoming increasingly difficult for the underfunded, undertrained and under-equipped Canadian Armed Forces.

I would like to stress that this statement is in no way an attack on the good men and women who serve our country. I would like to put it in complete context by telling the House, and telling Canadians, that I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I served five years in the regular armed forces with the navy on three Canadian destroyers, the HMCS Gatineau , the HMCS Yukon and the HMCS Qu'Appelle . Later in life I also served in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve.

I come to this debate with a little knowledge regarding the forces. I see you also, Mr. Speaker, have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, and maybe other members have too. I think there is a strong feeling that the military is very important to Canadians. It certainly is to me and it is not lightly that I enter the debate on Bill C-25.

Many people in eastern Canada had to do little more than to look out their windows recently to see the dedicated men and women of the armed forces in action. Operation Recuperation had more than 12,000 military personnel deployed in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick to assist in humanitarian relief operations.

Floods in the Red River Valley also highlighted the important role of our military forces and how they help with domestic problems in Canada. Recently, internationally, we see unrest in the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo which has Canada and the United States considering the sending of more troops to that region. Currently, Canada has some 1,300 troops located in Bosnia. Recently we sent a small contingent to the Persian Gulf.

In my history as a member of Parliament and as a military person, most recently I have seen the good work of the Canadian Armed Forces internationally in Bosnia in 1994 where we had reserve members and regular force members. They do Canadians proud each and every day of the week.

Just last week, as a matter of fact, we saw Her Majesty's Canadian ship, the Okanagan , a submarine located in Halifax, rescue two men who had drifted out to sea in the Bahamas after the motor of their fishing boat gave out. I congratulate the entire crew of the HMCS Okanagan for a job well done.

The men and women of our armed forces do a wonderful job and they deserve the support of this government for their hard work and dedication. However, members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not have the commitment from this government that they need to do their jobs. Spending cuts have decimated the Department of National Defence since the Liberals took power in 1993. In the last five years, the department's budget has dropped from approximately $11 billion to just over $9 billion. This has dramatically reduced the readiness and capability of the forces.

As I said earlier, the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces do their best with whatever they have and they have been able to complete their tasks, no thanks to this government and this Liberal administration.

Cuts to the defence budget have lowered the standard of living of lower ranks to near poverty levels. They have cut the number of personnel to below minimum levels and have reduced training to below minimum requirements. In fact, I have introduced a private member's bill that will seek to address the substantial training deficits faced by our reserve forces in Canada. This bill will entitle reservists employed by the federal government and crown corporations a period not to exceed two months annually for the purpose of training or serving in the Canadian reserve force.

Presently, reservists have been forced to use their own hard-earned vacation time to attend training courses. This is just not right when they could be sent away to do the government's bidding and the government's will. We need to make some concessions in our system for those reservists, those citizen soldiers who work so hard for us. This is certainly a tremendous sacrifice for them and their families. Therefore, I encourage every member of the House to show their support for the fine work of our armed forces reserve and support this bill when it comes to this House on Monday.

The Somalia inquiry exposed very serious deficiencies within the military justice system. As I looked through one of the many volumes from the Somalia inquiry, volume 5, it just highlights some of the problems that the Somalia commissioners found when they were involved in that massive review of the military justice system: too few military police and military police with inappropriate skills; commanding officers slow to call in the military police; guidelines for calling investigations not followed; guidelines not followed when it comes to summary investigations; witnesses' statements not taken correctly; conflict of interest; problems in military investigations; lack of co-operation when people were interviewed by military police; difficulty investigating superior officers because of the chain of command in the military—military police had a lot of difficulty with that— and influence of commanding officers over investigations.

The volumes and volumes of books that we have and still not complete point out the true problems that we have in the military justice system. We have to try to get to the heart of those problems: problems surrounding the murder of a Somalia civilian; the cover-up of the murder; the failure of the general staff and the government to hold anyone accountable for their actions or omissions; the cultural secrecy within the Department of National Defence; and the double standards in the military justice system all became very evident during the Somalia inquiry.

If this Liberal government was really concerned about our troops and our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, it would have let the commissioners of inquiry complete their work and finish the recommendations instead of just coming up with 80% of the problem completely solved. I do not think that is fair to our men and women in the forces. They deserve much better.

The amendments in Bill C-25 give the appearance of an attempt to address problems with the military and the justice system, yet the amendments do not address all the concerns expressed by the commissioners in their incomplete report. In fact, they actually add a whole new set of problems to the military justice system.

The first problem is that the bill creates more bureaucracy. If there is one thing the Canadian Armed Forces does not need, it is more levels of bureaucracy. We have more military personnel located in Ottawa in a bureaucratic function than we have on the pointed edge of the army in actual military roles. There are more bureaucrats here for the Canadian Armed Forces and this bill will add more bureaucracy to that already top heavy system. That is not good enough.

The military police complaints commissioners is created. That sounds fine. The problem is it is going to create seven more order in council appointments. I think Canadians are pretty fed up with order in council appointments. We would like to see a system where they appoint more people who are fully qualified and have the background, not more patronage appointments that we saw this week in the Senate chamber. We do not want to see more of that here and this department creates seven more order in council appointments. It is unbelievable. What we need in this system of military justice is openness, accountability and independence, not a more complex system.

Another problem is with the office of the judge advocate general. Currently the judge advocate general wears three hats. He is responsible for investigative, prosecutorial and judicial functions of the system. One office is responsible for the military police who investigate the potential violations for the prosecutors who prosecute the cases and for the legal officers who may preside over courts martial that may result. It is not hard to understand that the JAG may find himself in a conflict of interest in these duties.

In the days leading up to the murder of Shidane Arone, the judge advocate general was actively involved in providing the executive staff of the Department of National Defence with daily legal advice. You have a person offering the chief of defence staff the military command, the military hierarchy, legal advice when he would only weeks later be expected to oversee the military justice system that was going to prosecute people. So you can see there is a conflict of interest.

Nowhere was this conflict more evident than in the Somalia affair where the JAG was providing from the start legal advice to the minister, the deputy minister and the military police. He did provide that judicial advice to his military trial judge division. Clearly judicial responsibility should be removed from the JAG branch. The judicial function must be seen as independent and clearly this cannot happen when the JAG is appointed directly by the chief of defence staff.

The other problem with the judge advocate general being of military background is that he is always beholden to the person who appoints him. There is only one person who can do that. That is the chief of defence staff. He is offering him legal advice. He is also very thankful that he received this appointment. It is a difficult position to put anyone in and they should change that system so there is more independence.

The third problem with this bill is the failure to create the inspector general which was recommended by the Somalia inquiry. The inspector general would receive information from all sources, investigate complaints of corruption, abuse and mismanagement. We could give you many examples of why this is important.

The other day during question period my colleague for Lakeland brought a case forward where the inspector general had actually sent a letter to a person intimidating that person regarding a committee that was being heard. That is why an inspector general is so important. What are people who are intimidated by the office of the judge advocate general to do? Where are they to go? The problem is that they have nowhere to go at all.

If they have an inspector general who works as an ombudsman for men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who find themselves in this particular situation where they are being attacked or being told to keep quiet about a certain situation that is happening on a base, we want to know about that in this House. That is why an independent inspector general is so very important to a military justice system that is going to carry us through the 20th century.

The inspector general would also advise the minister concerning ethical interests including conflict of interest. This office must be filled by a civilian. This would be the mechanism for ensuring civilian control of the military system. This is a fundamental principle of Canadian society.

Another problem with this bill is clause 28 and the reduction of the penalty for mutiny without violence. The reduction is from a maximum of life imprisonment to 14 years. Clearly this change could dramatically affect the relationship between the ranks which is vital to good military order. The minister acknowledged that himself. We need a strong military justice system for the good order and discipline of our troops. One of the key reasons for that is that there is no other department in Canada where we ask our troops to put their lives on the line, that they may actually have to die for their country.

We have frigates in the Canadian Armed Forces that are worth millions of dollars. We have CF-18s that are also worth millions of dollars. What would happen if internally within Canada there was a situation where a group of military personnel for one reason or another decided they were going to do away with a couple of those CF-18s and move them elsewhere?

A term of 14 years is not enough. This is not nearly enough to ensure that we have good order and discipline in the Canadian Armed Forces. It should be a life sentence and there is no question about it.

Canada is a nation that recognizes its obligations both internationally and domestically. The ice storm, the Manitoba flood, Bosnia and the recent mission of the submarine Okanagan all demonstrate to Canadians what a wonderful job the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces do.

Yet we find this Liberal government has shown it is no friend to the Canadian Armed Forces or people with military service. The government has demonstrated this quite clearly through spending cuts. In 1993 it dramatically reduced the readiness and capability of our forces.

We had a chief of defence staff, Boyle, who said to the international community in Brussels that our Canadian Armed Forces could not meet the readiness capability of going into battle. Exactly what we have a Canadian Armed Forces for is to make sure it can protect our interests and our sovereignty at home and abroad. Yet we do not have a military that is at that level, according to a former chief of defence staff.

The reductions this government has imposed have hurt the Canadian Armed Forces. This does not stop the Liberal government from sending our troops into potentially dangerous areas like Bosnia, the Persian gulf or Kosovo. As a matter of fact when the Prime Minister thinks it might help his political points by sending more troops to Rwanda or other places, even though we do not have the troops to fill that need, the Prime Minister makes a commitment anyway. We all know the result of that was just a bunch of hot air. Those in the military circles knew very well we could not have met the commitment the Prime Minister made.

The government has now introduced Bill C-25 to deal with the problems created by the Somalia inquiry. However the changes in this bill fail to address the fundamental root of the problem, that the government, not the men and women in the forces and not the forces itself, but the government has failed to provide openness and accountability in our Canadian Armed Forces.

Recommendations of the Somalia inquiry continue to be ignored by the government. The government has done our armed forces no favours whatsoever. It has allowed a cloud to hang over the military by shutting down the Somalia inquiry when it was just getting to the root of the problem. True things were coming out. But the government felt it was in danger itself of being tainted with some of the things that were going on during the investigative process.

I strongly support substantive changes to the military justice system. I believe that Canadians also support changes to the military justice system. However, any changes must address the issues of accountability, openness and independence within the Canadian forces. Changes must, for me to support them, include an inspector general.

The Canadian people will be watching this government and the decisions it makes on this very important issue. Canadians condemn the Liberal government for interfering with the inquiry and turning a blind eye to the destruction of evidence and the intimidation of witnesses.

The problems are at the top with politicians; let us make that very clear, they are right here on the front bench across the way. It is not with the lowest ranking members of the Canadian Armed Forces who serve with the willingness to put their lives on the line for those very people in the front row opposite. No, it is not with members of the forces. It is with them across the way.

The government now has the opportunity to address the problems. We will be watching very closely on behalf of the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. We will be watching on behalf of all Canadians to make sure that the changes to the justice system that are required for our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces are the proper ones.

We will be putting forward many amendments on this bill. The way it stands right now, we cannot support this bill.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I heard the minister tell us that the role of the independent inspector general that was so very vigorously proposed in the Somalia inquiry and by others was found in his legislation or in something yet to come. It was not completely clear from his answer. The member who has just spoken has indicated that the minister has created a new bureaucracy and several new patronage appointment opportunities for his Liberal friends. The minister has not in fact put in place someone or a group who would perform the function of that independent inspector general.

I ask the member which is it. Is it what the minister says, that the position is covered in these changes or is it not? Is what has been created a new bureaucracy?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. Unfortunately, under the test of independence that I would certainly apply, there does not seem to be the independence we would like to see that an independent inspector general would provide for the Canadian Armed Forces.

One of the reasons for the independence requirement as I mentioned during my remarks is that in one recent case a military person was actually intimidated by the judge advocate general's office.

We need the independence to make sure that the office will not interfere with the military structure whatsoever and that it will act as an ombudsman for people in the military structure, either family members in the military, the military personnel themselves or civilian members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are involved with the military.

That is what we mean by independence. There would be no connection whatsoever and they would have investigative power to investigate complaints. It would be similar to a provincial ombudsman role.

There is evidence around the world that an independent inspector general is very effective. The United States armed services has an inspector general. Millions of dollars in fraudulent expenditures, et cetera have been uncovered in the armed forces internally. People who have been intimidated by the chain of command or by other forces in the armed forces structure itself have been helped.

Independence is very important. The government's reaction to this does not meet the test of independence. Therefore I would suggest that we would be putting forward amendments that will see a true independent inspector general in the new military justice system.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to nail this down a little more, I want to get back to the case the member referred to. Last week I brought this to the attention of the House.

Miss Olafson from Cold Lake appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, having been encouraged by the minister, the chief of defence staff and others. She was somewhat critical of the department, like some people on the base at Cold Lake. After, she received a letter from the deputy judge advocate, Colonel Barber, who strongly criticized her for what she had said at the committee meeting. At the end of the letter he threatened her against continuing.

Under the current system, before this legislation which is being proposed passes, independence is an issue. It is a critical issue. Who indicated that the letter should be written? Was it Colonel Barber completely, the deputy judge advocate who decided to write that letter, or was it the base commander, or was it the minister of defence who said to the deputy judge advocate to write the letter? We do not know because the independence is not there.

Under the new proposals the minister has put forth, would there be the proper level of independence so that the judge advocate's office would not write the letter unless it felt it was proper, and not as a result of pressure from above?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would have the same independence as we are suggesting with an inspector general. The system the minister has proposed is about patronage appointments, order in council appointments. Appointments would be given to friends of the Liberal government across the way. Those people I suppose with a stretch we could say are independent, just as much as the Liberal senator from B.C. who was appointed has independence from the Liberal government. There is no independence.

The structure in the bureaucracy would involve military people and civilian people who are connected either through the chain of command or through the bureaucracy on the civilian side of the Canadian Armed Forces.

To answer the member's question, I fail to see how the government's solution offers the security of independence at all. I would strongly urge the government to reconsider this very fundamental point that there be independence in a justice system. I strongly urge the government when we put our amendment forward to wholeheartedly accept the amendment of installing an independent inspector general.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Bill C-25 is the most extensive package of amendments to the National Defence Act since enactment in the year 1950. The amendments deal with a wide variety of issues ranging from updating the boards of inquiry provisions to putting some of the Canadian forces domestic duties, such as duties during the recent ice storm, on a firm legislative footing.

But Bill C-25 is primarily about military justice. In that regard it sets out a comprehensive strategy to modernize the code of service discipline in a way that is consistent with the values and expectations of Canadians and meets the Canadian forces requirement for a military justice system that is swift, fair and portable.

As part of this comprehensive strategy, Bill C-25 puts in place a number of mechanisms designed to improve oversight and review of the administration of military justice. Both the report of the special advisory group chaired by the Right Hon. Brian Dickson and the Somalia commission of inquiry recognized the importance of strengthened oversight and review of military justice.

The Dickson advisory group made two important points in this regard. First, military justice by definition must include an effective, independent channel or mechanism through which service members can express their concerns about any aspect of the military establishment. Second, in their opinion, such a mechanism would ultimately strengthen the military chain of command.

The mechanisms in Bill C-25 are based on the principle put forward by the Somalia commission that oversight and review mechanisms should be strengthened. Bill C-25 contains a variety of mechanisms to strengthen oversight and review and to complement other specialized mechanisms. It is these mechanisms to strengthen oversight and review which I would like to address.

Bill C-25 will establish the Canadian forces grievance board and military police complaints commission, both of which will be external and independent oversight bodies. It will establish a military police code of conduct. It will create a new requirement for the judge advocate general to review and report on the administration of military justice.

Finally, it will require that the Minister of National Defence review the provisions and operation of the National Defence Act and report to Parliament within five years of the amendments coming into force. All of these amendments will substantially enhance both accountability and transparency in the administration of military justice.

My colleague is exactly right when he said transparency is our ultimate goal. The amendments will also ensure that there is a means through which day to day decisions in the administration of military justice can be monitored and assessed.

First, let me look at the current grievance system as authorized by section 29 of the act. Today the language of section 29 does not clearly define the circumstances in which a member may submit a grievance. In addition, while the grievance process has generally been seen to be achieving its objectives, it involves too many levels of review. This leaves the perception that the process is slow and unresponsive. Also, it is perceived as being too closely linked to the chain of command and lacking any external input.

The grievance process has been under active review within the Canadian forces. It has also been the subject of observations in three recent reports. The Somalia commission recommended that the Minister of National Defence have no adjudicative role in redress of grievance matters. The Dickson advisory group recommended that the minister not be involved in grievances related to summary trials and noted that the report of the Minister of National Defence to the Prime Minister in March 1997 indicated that it was inappropriate for the minister to act as the final arbiter in grievance processes.

Bill C-25 will act upon many of the recommendations of these reports. For example, it will make three important changes to the grievance system. First, it will clarify the circumstances in which a member may submit a grievance. Second, it will establish the Canadian forces grievance board which will be external to and independent of the department and the forces. Third, it will authorize the chief of defence staff to be the final decision maker in the grievance process.

The grievance board will review prescribed categories of grievances before they are sent to the chief of defence staff. The CDS will have the option of referring any other grievance to the board. The board will provide findings and recommendations and submit them to the CDS. The CDS will not be bound by the board's findings or recommendations, but will be required to provide reasons when any findings or recommendations are not acted upon.

The grievance board will establish its own internal process and, for the purpose of conducting its tasks, will have the authority to hold hearings and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents.

Bill C-25 will require the board to file an annual report with the Minister of National Defence, who will be required to table this report in Parliament.

Bill C-25 will also create a military police complaints commission. This commission will be independent and external to the department and the forces and will have the mandate to deal with complaints from the public about the conduct of military police in their policing duties.

It will also have the mandate to deal with complaints by military police concerning improper interference by members of the forces and senior officials of the department in the conduct of military police investigations.

This commission will have the power and resources to investigate complaints and the power to conduct public hearings. It will also have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and take testimony under oath.

As is the case with independent bodies which provide similar oversight to civilian police, the complaints commission will have the authority to make findings and recommendations to the minister.

Bill C-25 will require the commission to file an annual report which will be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of National Defence.

Bill C-25 will also make specific provision for a military police professional code of conduct to be established in regulations. The code of conduct will establish a clear standard of professional conduct for military police. The code of conduct, which is a feature of most Canadian civil police forces and which was recommended by the Dickson advisory group and the Somalia commission, will help to enhance both the professionalism and accountability of military police.

In addition to these important steps to improve oversight and review, Bill C-25 will also make the military justice system more open and transparent through two other new review and reporting requirements.

First, five years after Bill C-25 amendments come into effect the Minister of National Defence will be required to review the operation of the act. This review will be tabled in Parliament.

Second, the judge advocate general will be required to report annually to the minister on the administration of military justice in the Canadian forces.

These reports, in addition to those I mentioned earlier by the Canadian forces grievance board and the military police complaints commission, will enhance openness and accountability.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-25 are the most extensive in the history of the National Defence Act. They follow through on the recommendations of the Dickson advisory group and respond to those of the Somalia commission. They provide a more effective statutory framework for the operations of the department and the forces.

In terms of oversight, the amendments to the grievance process provide an open and responsive process through which members of the Canadian forces can seek review of decisions in the administration of the Canadian forces.

The amendments associated with the military police complaints commission establish a rigorous and transparent process to review military investigative activities. The new reporting requirements mandated by Bill C-25 will enhance the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight in a number of important areas.

A famous military man once said “There is no security on earth, only opportunity”. We have here an opportunity to propose and move these very specific amendments which will enhance our Canadian military. I urge all hon. members in this House to lend their unqualified support, which I am sure we will get, to these amendments.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a bushel of questions for this hon. member. I will start with a few.

At the close of his presentation, the hon. member talked about the opportunity presented through this legislation. I agree with the hon. member in a way that this is the time of opportunity in terms of reforming the military. We have had calls from many different places for major and positive reform to the military. We have had the Dickson report. We have also had the Somalia inquiry with a report that recommended substantive change, including the establishment of the office of an independent inspector general, which is not in this legislation.

The hon. member listed one after another after another new bureaucratic bodies that are being created by this legislation. I know the hon. member has a background in the military or certainly a background knowledge of the military. I will ask him a straight question. Does he believe the Department of National Defence needs more bureaucracy? Does the Department of National Defence need more bodies, more places to make patronage appointments, more complexity? Does the hon. member really believe that is what the Department of National Defence needs?

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly reply to the hon. member for Lakeland. He asked what the military needs. The military certainly needs the tools to do the job. With this government it will get the tools to do the job.

I believe the Reform Party fresh start campaign was a no start for the military—

[An hon. member]

Jump start.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Jump start is also a good term. Reform wanted to reduce funding to the military. Instead of trying to do the job with the tools we need, we would be doing the job with Tonka toys if it were up to Reformers.

We talked about the JAG, the judge advocate general. I would like to use that acronym for the hon. member for Lakeland and say that he is just another grumbler. We are doing everything we can possibly do to help the military. All they want to do is make vituperative and splenetic remarks about it and indulge in nothing more than crass political opportunism.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. My riding was one of the ridings affected by the ice storm. I will take every opportunity I can to put on the record that the minister spoke about what the military did and the reservists too. I am glad that point was made by the hon. member opposite. He was characteristically humble as were most of the military people I encountered through that.

The military saved lives in my riding. I will say that time and time again. I was very proud of the Canadian military which brings me to my question. What problem are we trying to solve here? I have listened quite intently to this debate. The members on the defence committee are guilty of engaging in acronyms that I do not understand which leads me to my concern.

Reform is very good at these rather simplistic solutions. Have an independent counsel. It will take care of itself. Let us think of what the Americans did during the Watergate crisis. Independent counsel. Now we have Kenneth Star and the executive branch of the U.S. government embroiled in some kind of three ring circus. If this is some way of cutting through red tape, if this is an elimination of bureaucracy, I do not know where that is headed.

If the Reform Party wants to do something constructive, let us bring some balance to the debate. This issue is not as simplistic as Reformers would have us believe. There are different ways of accomplishing the same goal.

The member has a base in his riding. Does the member think it brings anything to the picnic in terms of morale and recognizing the good works of the Canadian military to constantly dredge up and dwell on the small minority of negative comments?

I will end by quoting a commander who left eastern Ontario after the ice storm to cheering crowds. He said: “This is the 99% of the military you haven't heard about in —”

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member. The House will have to wait in suspense until the next time this bill comes up for consideration for the response of the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's order paper.