Debates of June 10th, 1998

Business Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

National Defence Act

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated in committee, we put in place a threefold strategy to improve oversight and review.

First, we are strengthening our co-operation with existing oversight bodies such as the Office of the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Second, we are establishing new and specialized oversight bodies such as an independent and external grievance board and the military police complaints commission.

As the minister recently announced, Mr. André Marin, a former assistant crown attorney and past head of Ontario's special investigations unit, has been appointed the first ombudsman of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces. The ombudsman will be an alternative to the chain of command and will be vital for providing advice to members and superiors as to the best way to go about resolving sources of conflict and grievances to the satisfaction of the members involved.

The appointment of an ombudsman is a clear demonstration of the government's continuing commitment to strengthen the effectiveness and transparency of oversight mechanisms as well as to improve openness and fairness in the Canadian forces. The ombudsman will complement the mechanisms already in place to oversee the DND and the Canadian forces, including the new grievance board and military police complaints commission that I have mentioned.

In our third step to improve oversight and review we will substantially increase annual and public reporting. There will be annual reports under Bill C-25 by the JAG, the grievance board and the military police complaints commission. In short, there would be nothing left for an inspector general. As I said in committee all bases are covered.

I would like to take the opportunity of this third reading debate to address the issue of the removal of the death penalty provisions from the National Defence Act. The removal of the death penalty from the military is long overdue. It was abolished some 22 years ago in the Criminal Code. Since the enactment of the National Defence Act in 1950 no member of the Canadian forces has been executed for a service offence under the act.

During World War II three soldiers were sentenced to death by courts martial but only one was executed for committing murder which was a civil offence and punishable at that time by death. The military advice of the chief of the defence staff is that the death penalty is not required under the code of service discipline for military purposes.

The removal of the death penalty from the National Defence Act will bring Canada's military law in step with its civilian counterpart and with the approach taken by most western nations. For more serious offences involving traitorous acts the punishment of imprisonment with ineligibility for parole for 25 years which is being submitted will provide a sufficient deterrent.

No witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the death penalty. In Chief Justice Dickson's testimony before SCONDVA he underlined the importance of bringing the punishment into line with the maximum punishment available under civil law.

The amendments to the National Defence Act are the most comprehensive in 50 years. The government has delivered on the reports of the Minister of National Defence, the special advisory group and the Somalia commission. Also under Bill C-25 the government has undertaken to review provisions of the act in five years time.

The amendments in Bill C-25 in conjunction with the reforms already undertaken will modernize the military justice system while continuing to meet the military requirements for portability, speed and involvement in the chain of command in time of peace or conflict wherever the Canadian forces operate.

These amendments will ensure that our military remains combat capable and ready to respond to the challenges and missions the Canadian people demand of it, consistent with the values of Canadian society and our constitution. Our country, with the dedication of the men and women of the Canadian forces, deserves no less.

Accordingly I urge all hon. members to support the bill.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for me to share my 40 minute time slot with three of my colleagues thus breaking it into four 10 minute slots.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca split his time into four 10 minute slots?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its generosity. I will be sharing my time with the hon. members for Lakeland, Edmonton East and Compton—Stanstead.

It is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-25. Men and women in military uniform have been for a long time serving our country with courage, distinction and in silence. They have worked hard. They are busier now than they have ever been and have engaged in some 17 military operations since the Korean war. Yet their morale is the lowest it has been in years.

Why is that so? There are many reasons for it. The government had an opportunity but it is disappointing that Bill C-25 did not get to the heart of that.

My colleague from Calgary East put forth numerous constructive suggestions to the government. It did not adopt any of them. The suggestions would have gone a long way to making Bill C-25 the bill that it should be, one that restores accountability, transparency and honour to the military justice system.

We wanted to make the inspector general independent which would have given the IG more power to represent our people in uniform. On reforming the office of the judge advocate general we asked that the JAG be separated from the chain of command. In other words it would enable the JAG to have more power to investigate problems within the military.

A situation is taking place in our military that is tearing out its guts. Criminal activity including rape is somehow being allowed in the military. It is turning a blind eye. Activities done by a very small number of bad apples are tarnishing the vast majority of people in the military who are doing an outstanding job.

Those things are hardly being touched upon. Yet petty rules and regulations are being enforced which are eliminating the esprit de corps that is necessary to be able to mould a fighting force that can be deployed around the world. The traditions of our military have been torn away. The ability to wear badges of merit are forbidden within our military.

How can we have a situation where promotions are basically flatlined and stalled, where people are in the same positions for 10 or more years? Salaries have been stalled and flattened out for a long time, and we understand that.

The government could have put forth constructive solutions that would not have cost any money. I presented them to then General Dallaire who was responsible for the military in that capacity two years ago when he appeared before the defence committee. We were promised that action would be taken on them and nothing has happened.

One constructive solution was the provision of a tax free accommodation assistance allowance for all military people. Local base commanders should have more power and more ability to manage their services. Public works should be taken out of the hands of base commanders so that they would be able to operate in a more constructive way.

It is important also to look at our equipment. It is true that the government has made some sensible purchases recently, but the military still labours with equipment that is hazardous, rickety and dangerous to the health of our service people. Military personnel move around the country. They move from a small base like the one in Cold Lake, Alberta, to the Esquimalt base in my riding, the Marine Pacific Command. They find their costs increase dramatically but there is no allowance for that.

When people enter the military they are willing to move around to various parts of the country. They know it is part of their job but they do not expect to be kicked in the teeth when they do it. The situation is so bad military service people are going to soup kitchens. They are moonlighting. Men with pregnant wives are forced to work abroad to make a bit of extra money to put food on the table back home. How can they serve our country and our international obligations properly when they are forced to do that?

We all understand the situation of the government with respect to the financial crunch we all labour under. However constructive solutions such as making a tax free accommodation allowance payable to everyone and reducing the rents of members quarters to what they were three years ago would be only fair.

PMQ rents were repeatedly jacked up and the salaries were frozen. That sends a very bad message to our military personnel. They are not looking to get rich. They know the situation they are in. They understand the situation of the government and the restrictions it is under. However they expect to be treated fairly.

That is not too much to ask for people who travel far away under extremely dangerous circumstances to wave the Canadian flag and do the bidding of our country to fulfil its obligations abroad and domestically.

We also have to consider the non-military people who work for the military, the civilian population. At the base depot in Esquimalt the people have done an admirable job of cutting. They have cut remarkably well, so much so that they have been used as a model for other bases around the country.

Many of those people have been working for the military at salaries less than what they would make if they had gone on welfare. Yet they have chosen to stay with the military and work for DND because of the pride they feel in supporting an institution that is an honourable part of the history of the country.

Those individuals have no assurance of what will happen in the future. They are not being communicated with at all on their future. They know the tender process that is taking place is occurring for efficiency reasons. All they ask is to be able to bid on the contracts fairly and on a level playing field. They are not being allowed to bid on jobs in which they have worked honourably for decades in some cases. That is no way to treat the people in our military. It is no way to treat the honourable people who work in the Department of National Defence.

We should listen to the solutions put forth by my colleague from Calgary East which would revamp our—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. government House leader on a point of order.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons may introduce and propose for first reading of a bill entitled an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act and Salaries Act during Routing Proceedings on Thursday, June 11, 1998 and the said bill shall be disposed of by the House as follows:

1. Commencing at 3.00 p.m. that day, the bill shall be debate at the second reading stage and after not more than one hour of debate all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate;

2. Immediately after receiving second reading the said bill shall be considered in a committee of a whole and after not more than thirty minutes of consideration in committee of the whole all questions necessary to dispose of the committee stage of bill shall be put without further debate;

3. Immediately after being reported from the committee of the whole, the said bill shall be concurred in at the report stage and shall be debated at the third reading stage and after not more than thirty minutes of debate all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate;

4. The motions for second reading, concurrence and report stage and for third reading of the said bill and the adoption of any clause or title of the bill or any procedural motion necessary for the adoption of the bill in committee of the whole shall be deemed to have been carried “on division”.

That business to considered under Government Orders on the morning of June 11, 1998 shall be the report stage of Bill C-38, followed by the third reading stage of Bill C-37, provided that no later than 11.00 a.m. on that day, all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-38 shall be deemed to have been put and divisions thereon requested and deferred to l.00 p.m. that day and at 1.00 p.m. all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-37 shall be deemed to have been put and divisions thereon requested and deferred until immediately after completion of Bill C-38; and

That, during consideration of Government Orders on that day, a member may propose a motion with respect to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-410.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passsed.

National Defence Act

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some constructive solutions we can adopt to make sure our military people have the ability to carry out their jobs.

To revamp their morale, make the accommodation assistance allowance non-taxable. Make it applicable to every person serving in our military. Roll back the rents to what they were in 1994 at the time their salaries were frozen.

Give the base commanders the ability to maximize the efficiencies on their base and get public works out of their hair.

Bring back the traditions within the military. Listen to the grassroots people in the military and allow them to wear their merit badges. Bring back the honourable traditions that have given them pride.

Stop penalizing the petty little infractions that enable them to have esprit de corps necessary for them to form a fused fighting force that will enable them to take care of the difficult activities they must engage in abroad.

Be hard on those who are engaging in criminal activities and be ruthless about eliminating them.

Take a look at the upper echelons of the military and make sure there are people there who are working for their soldiers and the grassroots and who are not people who are politicians in military garb.

Give our soldiers a clear direction as to what their activities are to be. They must not be ambiguous messages from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Through the minister of defence make sure that the direction of our military people is very clear and precise. Ask them to do a task and they will do it, but make sure the message is not ambiguous.

Make sure we remember we are not training cub scouts, we are training individuals to go abroad and potentially engage in war.

Make sure we do not forget those individuals who are in civilian garb who operate and serve our soldiers and military garb in the department of defence. Many have worked for many years. They have undergone great cuts. They have engaged in efficiencies willingly and they have done a superb job of doing that. They need to be looked at, examine what they have done and do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. In doing that we may be adopting systems that would be less efficient for our military.

Let us remember that our tradition in our military is longstanding. Men and women have fought and died to make sure that we have a country that is strong and free.

Let us enable our military personnel today to engage in the honourable traditions of the past to engage in and fulfill our obligations abroad and at home.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this legislation. I will talk a bit about the reforms in this legislation but unfortunately much more about what was not included in this legislation, in particular the position of ombudsman and independent inspector general. I will make some general comments about the men and women who serve in our forces.

What is in the legislation has been talked about to some extent but what we have in the legislation are some changes to the office of the judge advocate general. There are some positive changes in that but by and large the positive changes laid out in this area are nullified because the judge advocate general is left within the chain of command. There is not enough independence.

Some of the improvements that have been made have lost their value because the independence is limited. The military police is another area where there was reform in this legislation. There are some positive changes but again these positive changes are largely overridden because this office really is not made independent enough. That is still a concern regarding that position and really limits to a great extent the value that could have been presented in this legislation had it been done properly.

That is what is in this legislation. What is not in the legislation? The position of ombudsman is not mentioned in the legislation. The position of independent inspector general has been completely left out. There is no mentioned whatsoever and seems to be rejected by this legislation, and certainly was rejected by the minister's announcement of the ombudsman yesterday.

The parliamentary secretary in his opening comments said there is no need for an independent inspector general and his quote is that all the bases are covered by what is presented in this legislation and by the position of ombudsman. The ombudsman was announced yesterday. I am going to point out as clearly as I can that all the bases are not covered.

Because independence is not given to any of those involved in this military justice system the reality is if any gains have been made they are very small.

Let us look at the position of ombudsman. There is no mention of it in this legislation. The interesting thing is that in spite of the fact that the ombudsman was announced by the minister yesterday, there is no legislation to establish a position of ombudsman. What does that mean? We have an ombudsman appointed. There is no legislation. To me that means absolutely no power. That was something made very clear in the press conference yesterday. The ombudsman who was appointed has no power.

The only real power this ombudsman has is in presenting information to the public about what is going on inside the department. That is very limited because the ombudsman does not really present the information that he might have on a situation that is not being dealt with properly to the public. The ombudsman rather presents the information to the minister. It will be up to the minister to decide whether anything is done with the information presented to him. What really has been accomplished with that? I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain how all the bases have been covered.

I want to read some of the things that have been said by the minister and General Kinsman, former ADM of personnel. They were talking about the position of ombudsman and what it would and would not do. It is important to note here that this is an organizational ombudsman, not the ombudsman that people are used to when they hear about an ombudsman who is set out to deal with a particular problem by a provincial government or some other organization.

General Kinsman said: “Typical functions of an organizational ombudsman would include listening to members' complaints and providing an opportunity for ventilation; providing information to members on policies, how to take action, where to find information and so on; reframing issues and developing options for members; referring people to help themselves with advice or coaching; making informal, third party interventions”. As he goes down the line he makes it clear that this position does carry with it absolutely no power. That was reinforced yesterday with the minister's announcement.

General Kinsman goes on to say: “Because of objections in the operational commands to the proposal as tabled a compromise option was developed which would limit members' direct access to the ombudsman office, to administrative actions only, but would authorize secondary access on all other matters after first attempting resolution within the chain of command”.

People who have a complaint that is not being dealt with still have to go through the chain of command and only then can it be dealt with in some way by the ombudsman. The ombudsman, having no power because there has been no legislation introduced to give that power, has a very limited capability. The minister in yesterday's press conference really reinforced that.

I would like the parliamentary secretary and the minister to show how all the bases have been covered. It is clear that very little progress has been made.

The most disturbing thing of all was said by the parliamentary secretary today and the minister yesterday at the press conference. They said that because this ombudsman has been appointed there is no need for an independent inspector general. We had proposals again and again by the Somalia commission and by several other people who have done reviews of the military system that call for the appointment of an independent inspector general who would report to parliament completely outside the chain of command. That is what people have called for. That is what is needed and it is completely absent from this legislation. It is a glaring hole.

All bases covered, I suggest the government does not get to first base with this legislation. I am extremely concerned about that because of the impact on our men and women who serve so well in the Canadian forces and their need now for someone to go to when their concerns are not dealt with properly.

I want to make it clear that when I am talking about the position of ombudsman and the lack of authority and legislation to even establish the position, I am not criticizing the gentleman who was appointed, André Marin. He seems like a bright young man and has great qualifications when one looks at what he has done. He has been successful at what he has done. In terms of the person appointed I do not have a concern.

However, I think Mr. Marin is headed for frustration. He goes into this position for six months and he is then going to realize he has been given an impossible task. There are high expectations of what he would do but there is no authority granted to allow him to do it.

I will close by commenting on the impact of this legislation which is very weak, on the ombudsman position which is very weak, and on the impact of that on the men and women who serve so well in our forces.

As the House of Commons defence committee found out, it is clear that there are very good people serving in the Canadian forces. They are dedicated. They are certainly not there for the money. They are there because they want to serve this country. They are proud of what they do, but they do need someone to help them when they have a problem that is not dealt with by the chain of command. They need someone.

Presenting legislation like this and saying that all bases are covered is completely letting down the men and women who serve this country so well. It is sad that has happened. Something else has to happen to make up for the wrong that is being done in presenting this legislation and nothing more.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as the humble servant of the constituents of Edmonton East to contribute to this debate on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act. I also contribute to this debate in my capacity as official opposition critic for veterans affairs.

Some commentators have remarked that there does not appear to have been that much of significance on the legislative agenda during this parliamentary term. The debate on this bill demonstrates how commentators can easily be off the mark. Bill C-25 is a most important piece of legislation. Through this bill the most extensive set of amendments to the National Defence Act since its enactment in 1950 are proposed.

As discussed by the Minister of National Defence in the House last March, the government intends by this bill to implement approximately 80% of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry, an inquiry cut short by this government.

This bill appears to be in part a government response to conflicts of interest in the military justice system identified in inquiries into the conduct of our troops in Somalia and Bosnia. It also appears to be an attempt to address the perceived discriminatory treatment of wrongdoing in the military. The higher the rank of an accused, the less it is perceived that justice will be administered fairly or that punishment will be rendered equitably.

I enter into this debate as a parliamentarian with a military background. From 1962 to 1965 I served with the military police in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Some might argue that the justice system for the military should be no different than the justice system for Canadian civilians. Some might question why there is a separate justice system for the military; should the administration of the criminal justice system not be the same across provinces and across groups? Some might argue that the military is no different from any other self-governing profession where matters of professional misconduct are addressed internally but where criminal matters are addressed through a civilian court system.

My opinion is that a separate military justice system is important and should be preserved. One reason for this is that many of our most notorious cases in the military have related to events occurring while on service outside Canada. It is far more efficient for such wrongdoings to be addressed through the Canadian military justice system than it would be to seek justice in circumstances of international jurisdictional disputes.

As stated by the Minister of National Defence during the course of his remarks on this bill, “by tradition there is a separate military justice system because of the nature of dealing with matters swiftly—it is necessary to have a portable system. What we are attempting to do is to bring it as close as possible to the civilian system”.

My colleagues and I are very supportive of improvements to the system of justice in the military. At the same time we will be opposing this bill. A primary reason for our opposition is that we question whether this legislation is more akin to window dressing rather than involving substantive changes to the military justice system. We question whether the legislation will achieve the government's objective of approximately paralleling the civilian justice system particularly in terms of increased bureaucracy.

We are all mindful of serious problems in the military particularly relating to troop morale and generalized sentiments that the higher the rank, the easier it is to transgress.

The appointment of an ombudsman to address these concerns may do little to change matters. The appointee is after all André Marin, son of Judge René Marin, a Liberal judicial appointee. Throughout any process to improve our military there must be a lack of political bias, both in appearance and in fact. It has been reported that André Marin was appointed at the personal insistence of the defence minister and over the objection of others who believed there were more suitable candidates.

I am not in any way impugning the competency of Mr. Marin. I find it interesting and of course purely coincidental that his appointment was announced two days before the final debate on the bill.

Why is any issue of bias in appearance or in fact in the assessment of military procedure important? It is because the memories of the Liberal shutdown of the Somalia inquiry are quite recent. As may be recalled, that shutdown occurred as the inquiry was about to investigate the involvement of the Liberal government in the Somalia affair. To the extent that Bill C-25 may be viewed as an attempt by the government to counter criticisms of its shutdown of the Somalia inquiry, the bill may be viewed as a vain attempt to deflect concern.

In the absence of clearly unbiased processes throughout, unbiased in fact or in appearance, the government may still be viewed as permitting a culture of secrecy, cover-up and intimidation to continue unchecked in the military. The government may also be viewed as ratifying the behaviours and attitudes of senior military officials who are not held accountable for their roles in important mistakes and scandals. Invariably, subordinates are the ones who end up being blamed for the mistakes of their superiors.

I now wish to address certain particulars of the bill, particularly as they relate to the military police. If one accepts as I do that a separate system of military justice is necessary, then a separate military police force becomes equally necessary. If one accepts as I do that such a military system of justice should not significantly vary from the system of justice governing civilians, then a separate regulatory regime for the military police becomes necessary.

In furtherance of a recommendation from the Somalia inquiry, a military police code of conduct is authorized by Bill C-25. In addition, processes are established for complaints by or against the military police. These processes for complaints against military police parallel those in civilian life. There is to be an independent military police complaints commission to address what is referred to as conduct complaints. On the other hand, when military police have concerns that investigations have been interfered with, they too can complain to the complaints commission. This is called an interference complaint.

An interference complaint may be made by a member of the military police who conducted or supervised an investigation and who reasonably believes that a member of the Canadian forces or a senior official at the Department of National Defence had improperly interfered with that investigation.

This puts military police on a different footing from civilian police. There is a charge in criminal law called obstruction of justice. Police do not have to go before a police commission to have such a charge reviewed. The charge may simply be laid based on the facts.

Being charged with obstruction of justice should not depend on where one is positioned in the national defence hierarchy. I believe the military police should have similar powers to those available to civilian police. By placing a commission between the facts and any charges, the government perpetuates the image of bias in the assessment of obstruction of justice charges. This is particularly so since the commission has the power to discontinue an investigation. This is one of the very failings within the military that is identified in the Somalia inquiry and elsewhere.

There is a pervasive impression that justice can be obstructed within the military depending on the rank of the accused or in circumstances where the military perceives itself to be under attack by an organization. All legislative initiatives should be with a view to eliminating any impression that such obstructions of justice could occur or continue within the military. I do not believe this legislation accomplishes this.

On a more positive note, the possibility of a stay of proceedings by a commanding officer who may not be a lawyer is finally eliminated. There is a clear appearance of bias when criminal justice proceedings may be stayed by someone who has a vested interest in the outcome.

Within the constraints of my time, I wish the Hansard record to show that my main reservation with this bill is that bias in appearance or in fact in the military is not eliminated by it. While the bill is an ambitious first start toward reform of the military justice system, there is clearly much work to be done and in the case of this bill much more legislative drafting to be done. I urge my colleagues to vote against Bill C-25.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues from the Reform Party for sharing their time.

I am happy to speak to this bill today. The government has decided to address the issue of justice in the Canadian forces and it is about time. Like everything this government does, no matter how noble it appears to be, all we have to do is scratch the surface and we will always find an ulterior motive. Those motives generally are to look good rather than to do good. Today is one of those days.

Addressing the issue of justice in the military is both important and urgent. My party understands that if we are going to do something, it is worth doing it right. Unfortunately while there are some interesting points in this bill, it leaves far too much out and does not address the real problems the Canadian forces face today.

There are several questions we have to ask ourselves today. First, what events brought us to this point to have this bill reach Canada's House of Commons? Second, did this government act in the appropriate way and does this bill address the need for change? Third, if passed, will this bill work in a practical way when it is applied? While all of these questions are certainly connected, it would serve us well to take time to ensure that they are answered to Canadians' satisfaction.

The first question is perhaps the most important and the key to this. What events brought us to this point? All members of this House are aware of the events that transpired as a result of other events in Somalia. However they are worth repeating and repeating. The Somalia inquiry was shut down for political and personal reasons last year. That brings us here today.

Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public concern that needs to be addressed. As elected officials to this House, it is incumbent upon all of us to take such matters very seriously. It seems to me that if there is a good enough reason to begin an inquiry commission, then there is probably a real reason to complete that inquiry commission.

Because the Somalia inquiry was cut short, this has never been resolved. The result is that Canada's fine military has been dragged through the mud and still there is no resolution. The result is that Canadians do not know what the true story is and still there is no resolution. It is not because this government suddenly cares about military justice. The government shut down a public inquiry and there was no resolution.

Last month Maclean's magazine revealed that there was ongoing sexual abuse and sexual assault taking place in the military. Women do not feel comfortable doing their job. This is unacceptable.

Although my friends in the Reform Party seem to think that women should not be in the military at all, most members in this House and I believe the minister of defence agrees that this behaviour toward women is unacceptable. Saying it is unacceptable and doing something about it are two different things.

What we have now is an atmosphere of distrust with the Canadian forces members who have been wronged. They feel safer and feel as if more will be accomplished if they go to Maclean's magazine than if they report the crime to the appropriate personnel.

There is something wrong with that and this bill does not fix the problem.

The Minister of National Defence introduced a new ombudsman yesterday. In this House, I congratulated that new ombudsman and wished him well on his new job. When asked, this new ombudsman said that he has not been told what his budget will be, how much staff he will have and has not been given virtually any guidelines. That is certainly not acceptable.

That brings me to the second point I outlined earlier. Did this government act in the appropriate way? Does this bill address the need for change?

I just told this House that I disagree with the way this bill arrived here. However, there is much in this bill that my party agrees with. The problem, however, is that when one tries to cover something up, rather than address the real issues as this government so often does, the result is very often inadequate.

Similarly, because this government is introducing this bill for the wrong reasons, it does not go far enough in addressing the real problems.

Indeed the government missed an excellent opportunity to instil new confidence in our military. The government could have taken measures that would truly make a difference, measures the Canadian public could point to and say “my government listened, I now have faith in the way the military operates”.

But the government did not listen. Instead it shut down an inquiry and stifled debate. Now the Canadian public will feel cheated, and justly so.

There are ongoing investigations into sexual abuse. Does that make the Canadian public feel good about the people who wear Canada's uniform? I do not think so.

This government feels proud when it says it is fulfilling 80% of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. I want to make two points about this not so great accomplishment.

First, the Somalia commission was cut short and so we do not know what the full recommendations would have been. Second, while the government thinks 80% is something to brag about, my party's answer to that is quality is much more important than quantity.

The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended that the judge advocate general be a civilian. The government ignored that recommendation. The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended that an office of inspector general be created. The government ignored that recommendation.

My party proposed in our election platform last year and we maintain today that creating the office of inspector general would be the best way to make the military accountable and increase transparency to give the public more confidence in its armed forces.

The Minister of National Defence said that the Canadian forces do not need someone looking over their shoulder. Then he goes on to say that the role of inspector general is being fulfilled in other ways. He mentions the grievance board made up of eminent Canadians. He mentions the new ombudsman. Could it be that the grievance board and the ombudsman do not do what an inspector general could do?

The way this bill would have it these bodies have absolutely no teeth. They can make recommendations and the CDS can ignore them. The Canadian public has little reason to believe that the recommendations will not be ignored.

The witnesses who came forward to speak to us on this bill were very knowledgeable. Professor Doug Bland of Queen's University recommended that the committee look at chapter 44 of the Somalia report.

It might be most effective if I read his words directly: “With respect, I would direct your attention to the final section of the report of the inquiry, the Somalia inquiry, `The Need for a Vigilant Parliament', which comes back to my original point. I believe that the defence of Canada, the operation of the armed forces, the delegation of responsibility, every act, every aspect of national defence policy in this country is the responsibility of members of parliament”.

That was on May 12, 1998. I would like to read a motion I put forward on November 29, 1997 at SCONDVA: “That the committee invite the three Somalia commissioners to appear before this committee to speak on chapter 44 of the Somalia report `The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”'.

I presented this motion five months before Professor Bland and others appeared before the committee to discuss this very bill. I am sad to say the motion was turned down.

This government does not want a vigilant parliament because if parliament were too vigilant, this government might not get away with all its schemes.

As the events of the last few days have demonstrated, when there is not one government member in the Chamber, this Liberal government has absolutely no respect for parliament and no respect for democracy. This government's members do not listen. They do what the Prime Minister's office tells them to, no questions asked. After the hepatitis C compensation vote all Canadians know this, but it is true in other instances also.

I want to review some of the amendments that I know this government in its arrogance would not even consider. For example, if I had any faith that this government would actually listen and consider, I would have introduced a motion to establish an independent body of the office of inspector general including the powers to evaluate systematic problems in the military justice; conduct investigations into officer misconduct such as failure to take corrective action, personal misconduct, waste and abuse and possible injustice to individuals; protect those who report wrongdoing from reprisals; protect individuals from abuse of authority and improper personal actions including racial harassment and sexual harassment; and most important, report directly to parliament.

We know that the government would not even listen. The Minister of National Defence is not listening now. But the government did turn down the inspector general with solid reasons that my party could not accept.

Another recommendation we could have made is make the recommendations of the grievance board mandatory and binding and introduce a six month time limit within which the complaints must be examined.

But this government does not listen. It does not hear. It does not want an office with teeth and with real authority.

My party wholeheartedly agrees with the need to change the military justice system. This bill needs to go further to create real change. We want the public to know that the military serves it and not itself. This bill fails to do that and the government has failed to do its job.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Ever since he tabled this bill, the Minister of National Defence has been trying to make us believe that the proposed amendments to the military justice system will ensure greater transparency and improved accountability on the part of his department and the Canadian forces.

It is true that the bill includes some accountability mechanisms. The new grievance board, the new military police complaints commission and the judge advocate general will release annual reports that the Minister of National Defence will then have to table in Parliament. These reports are in addition to those of the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Provost Marshal of the Canadian Forces, and other reports issued by the new monitoring committee set up last fall by the Minister of National Defence.

Soon, we will literally be flooded with annual reports from DND. While the Department of National Defence has long been criticized for lacking transparency, its new will to account to the public is somewhat surprising.

However, in spite of this apparent openness, I have doubts about the objectivity of these various authorities in drafting their reports, considering how close they are to the institution itself. The judge advocate general, the chief of the defence staff and the provost marshal are all members of the military; the members of the monitoring committee are friends of the minister; finally, the chairman of the grievance board will work in close co-operation with the chief of the defence staff.

Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to think that we will not have access to very objective reports. When it comes to transparency, more is required than these reports to make Quebeckers and Canadians stop feeling that the Canadian forces are a state within the state.

Since parliamentarians will not have free access to a critical and impartial analysis of defence issues, they will not be able to properly monitor military affairs.

Admittedly, my comments may seem harsh, but the issue here is not to launch a personal attack on those who will have to submit annual reports, but to be aware of the difficulty of objectively criticizing an institution of which one is a member. Generally, it is preferable to have an impartial outside observer.

This is why, as the Létourneau commission recommended, we believe that an inspector general, working independently from the Canadian armed forces and accountable to Parliament, would ensure a fair, neutral and balanced analysis of the activities of the military, which the present bill will never be able to do.

Not only does the Bloc Quebecois think it would be preferable to have an non-political and independent review body, but all other parties in the House have also expressed the same view.

The Minister of Defence tells us that the Somalia commission of inquiry's recommendation regarding the office of inspector general is being implemented, but in other ways. Among other things, the minister is referring to the review committee he set up last fall.

As we pointed out at second reading of the bill now before us, this committee bears no resemblance to what the Létourneau commission wanted to see. This review committee is composed of eight individuals who will examine the implementation of the changes announced in the department and in the armed forces. These people will have no say, however, regarding the actual conduct of the Canadian armed forces.

In addition, the minister is deliberately not pointing out that this committee has a mandate of only two years. In the end, what will there be for it to do? A few annual reports here and there in order to meet the accountability requirement.

The minister is thus misleading the public and giving the impression that he is agreeing to an inspection. We are not so foolish as to think that there will be a real inspection, independent of military activities.

In his various interventions on Bill C-25, the minister has also said that implementing the amendments to the National Defence Act will increase the fairness and effectiveness of the military justice system. Bloc members have raised several procedural shortcomings in summary trials during second reading of the bill. Time prevented us from discussing the problems associated with the military justice system specific to courts martial. We therefore welcome the opportunity today to comment on this matter.

The National Defence Act provides for four different types of courts martial: the general court martial, the disciplinary court martial, the standing court martial and the special general court martial. The first two are comprised of a military judge and a committee whose membership varies the same way that of a jury does in a civilian criminal court.

The members of this committee are the triers of fact, which means that they determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is therefore up to the committee to sentence any accused who has been found guilty. However, this prerogative of sentencing is abolished by the bill before us, and it will fall to the military judge. This amendment brings the military judicial process more in line with ordinary criminal procedure.

Even though it will no longer have authority over sentencing, the committee will nevertheless continue to determine guilt or innocence of the accused. Its judicial independence and impartiality is therefore of paramount importance to the accused.

At present, only commissioned officers can sit as members of general and disciplinary court martial panels. The bill ensures greater openness to non-commissioned members by allowing them to serve on courts martial under certain circumstances. However, since court martial panels remain composed of military personnel, the issue of institutional independence remains.

Can a military tribunal, made up of military personnel and therefore likely to be affected by military culture, really be impartial within the meaning of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Is it really independent enough to render a verdict without reasonable apprehension of bias?

According to the principle of impartiality, a court must not be influenced by either the parties or outside forces, except to the extent that it is convinced by the arguments on the point of law being disputed.

The decision makers' status must guarantee freedom from all outside influence. As we know, military personnel undergo periodic performance evaluations which can impact on their career advancement as well as their pay. A member of the military may therefore find himself in a situation where his performance as part of a court martial can be evaluated. The assessment might, therefore, reflect the satisfaction, or dissatisfaction, of his superior.

It is true, however, that the Queen's Regulations and Orders were amended several years ago to prevent any consideration relating to the performance of a member of the military from affecting his promotion or pay.

Can we reasonably believe, however, that this change in the regulations has had the expected results? In other words, can the person evaluating a member of the military really disregard that individual's performance in a court martial?

Similarly, can a member of a court martial panel really disregard the fact that he is running a risk if he goes against the will of the military establishment?

Despite the changes to the regulations, the risk is still there. What effect does this have? It leaves us with committee members who may not be totally independent and whose judgment may be influenced by outside forces or considerations .

Earlier we pointed out that the bill now allows non-commissioned members to sit on a court martial, under certain circumstances. This opening up of the system to include non-commissioned members is probably the result of the negative image projected by the court martial of certain members of the Airborne Regiment, in connection with the incidents in Somalia.

The public as a whole gained the impression from these events that the lower ranks were the designated fall guys, while the senior ranks escaped unscathed. These cases also left the impression that court martial panels were too heavily stacked with Defence Headquarters brass with interests to protect.

Now they are trying to reverse engines by indicating a willingness to allow non-commissioned members to serve as members of court martial panels. Imagine, however, the pressure there will be on non-commissioned members to go along with the wishes of high ranking officers on court martial panels. Imagine the pressure there will be on non-commissioned members to conform to the military establishment. Imagine the consequences on military careers of stepping out of line.

This is not an attack on the personal integrity of NCMs who serve as members of court martial panels. It must be admitted, however, that the knowledge that a general or disciplinary court martial panel includes a non-commissioned member in a position of vulnerability might cause a reasonable and well-informed person to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the tribunal's impartiality.

At the risk of being repetitious, I wish to say that my remarks are not intended as any sort of attack on soldiers. We must simply be aware of the risk of hierarchical influence.

The U.S. military court of appeal has already described hierarchical influence as the mortal enemy of military justice. Despite the sanctions in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, the problem of undue hierarchical influence remains intact.

This does not mean that a court martial is always impartial, except that the knowledge that a general or disciplinary court martial panel includes soldiers might cause a reasonable and well-informed person to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the tribunal's impartiality.

The very composition of general and disciplinary court martial panels does not meet the requirements of section 11( d ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The bill does not answer concerns about the impartiality of court martials. Under the circumstances, would it not be appropriate to simply abolish the court martial committee, which, one way or another, will always be open to criticism, and replace it with a real jury of civilians, which would be more in keeping with the standards of impartiality and independence guaranteed by the charter?

I would also like to say a few words about the new commission to review complaints about the military police. Under the bill, the commission will examine complaints of misconduct by the military police. It will also look into complaints of interference by members of the Canadian forces and senior officials in the department in its investigations.

At first glance, there is merit in creating a new commission. Unfortunately, the Minister of National Defence missed the opportunity to give this body real powers to intervene, because the conclusions and recommendations of the commission are not binding. In fact, its conclusions and recommendations are reviewed by one of the authorities provided by the legislation. According to the type of complaint and respondent, the reviewing authority will vary. It may be a provost marshal, the chief of staff, the deputy minister or the minister himself. In other words, the final decision on treatment given complaints rests with one of these individuals.

Therefore, the commission has no decision-making authority, since the final decision on the handling of complaints rests either with the military—the provost marshal or the chief of staff—or with the executive—the minister or the deputy minister. The minister therefore considered it enough to create a body similar to the public complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or its imperfections.

So what exactly is the point of creating such a commission when, in the end, the result is the same? Once again, had the minister really wanted to change things he would have created a commission with real powers instead of trying to fool us by setting up an empty commission?

In closing, I must say that the Bloc Quebecois will not vote in favour of Bill C-25. Contrary to what the minister claimed, we do not think that the amendments made to the bill will ensure transparency in the military justice system and increase its fairness.

On the one hand, the accountability mechanisms provided by the bill will not ensure a better review of the activities of National Defence and the Canadian forces. On the other hand, since the standards that apply to military justice do not offer the same constitutional guarantees as those of civil criminal courts, we cannot support the bill. It is a matter of respect for all military personnel. They, like any other Canadian citizen, have a right to be treated fairly. Otherwise, their right to equality before the law is compromised.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed a bill to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

National Defence Act

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in this debate on Bill C-25. The bill was introduced last December. It proposes the most extensive set of amendments to the National Defence Act in the past half century.

The main focus of this bill and a key focus of the act is the military justice system, the distinct system of penal law applicable to members of the Canadian forces and other persons subject to Canadian military jurisdiction.

The eight parts of the act comprising the statutory basis for service, that is military offences and the procedures for enforcement, investigation, prosecution, trying and punishing those who commit them, are called the code of service discipline.

Service offences under the code of service discipline naturally include infractions which relate uniquely to military service. However, the code of service discipline also incorporates offences against the Criminal Code and other federal acts and with a few notable exceptions permits the military justice system to have jurisdiction over persons who commit them while subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Canadian forces.

As we all know, the military justice system in recent years has been under increasing scrutiny and pressure for significant changes. One factor is undoubtedly the extended and unprecedented period of time since Canada was last involved in a major war and the perception that the chances of such involvement are remote. This situation tends to lead people to be less tolerant of any perceived systemic unfairness in the system and its retention of punishments perceived as excessive or anachronistic.

Another factor has been the adoption of the charter of rights and freedoms. This constitutional change has brought the military justice system as well as the Canadian legal system generally under increased public scrutiny regarding procedural safeguards for accused persons and principles of fairness and equality of treatment in general.

Particular attention has been drawn to aspects of the military justice system which reflect the disparity of treatment between soldiers and civilians or among military personnel such as the lack of certain traditional criminal law safeguards at summary trials; the fact that only junior ranks, private and corporals, and non-commissioned officers, master corporals and sergeants can be summarily sentenced to detention or reduction in rank; the considerable discretion of commanding officers in deciding to proceed with or dismiss charges, possibly including even serious criminal offences; and that persons exercising judicial functions or what would be judicial functions in the civilian system are frequently members of the chain of command who have no legal training and who have other apparently conflicting responsibilities for administering the code of service discipline.

In the past few years such issues and concerns have been brought to the forefront by various high profile cases such as those relating to misconduct by some Canadian forces members in Somalia and Bosnia, which has been well discussed here this afternoon.

Moreover, the 1997 reports on Somalia and the Dickson report recommended a series of changes to the military justice system. There have also been a number of other internal and external studies about possible reforms to our military justice system.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about some of the things that have not been addressed in Bill C-25 that came out of that Dickson panel. One is the office of the inspector general which was discussed at some length here this afternoon.

The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of such an institution as a general supervisory and review body outside the chain of command. It did not happen. Whistleblower protection was another item that came out of the Dickson Report. Again referring back to the Somalia inquiry, it recommended specific measures aimed at protecting both those who reported wrongdoing in connection with Somalia, both at the time and in conjunction with the inquiry, and those who may do so in the future.

Another item that was conveniently ignored in Bill C-25 is trials by civilian judges and juries. The Somalia inquiry recommended that military accused charged with offences punishable by five years imprisonment or more have the right to elect trial by jury before a civilian court. The Somalia inquiry also recommended that all military judges be civilians appointed under the federal Judges Act with the same security of tenure as civilian judges. Again, this was not acted on.

On the independence of military police, a number of recommendations of the Somalia inquiry were directed at making concrete institutional and procedural changes to ensure the equal treatment of all suspects without distinction of rank and to insulate military police from direct or indirect command interference. This was not acted on at all.

It is not surprising that as a result one of the three commissioners, Peter Desbarats, called the shutdown the most brazen cover-up and denials of responsibility in the history of our country. He also said that the government's action were a brazen cover-up and a total denial of responsibility. Because the government opposite snuffed out the inquiry Canadians will never know all the truth about what happened in Somalia or who was responsible for the ensuing cover-up. It has to be constantly restated that this was the first time in Canada's history that a federal government shut down a commission of inquiry before that important work had been completed. It was profoundly undemocratic and an extremely dangerous precedent was set by the government in the previous parliament.

I want to draw my remarks to a close by referring to the charges of sexual misconduct in the military that have been revealed recently, particularly by Maclean's magazine, but by other news media as well. I want to talk about it in terms of a specific case that deals with one of my constituents, with whom I met less than two weeks ago. I want to put her case on the record.

Before I do that I want to say that, without a doubt, this was the most stomach churning, upsetting bit of casework that I have ever done in the brief time I have been here as a member of parliament.

Here are the key points as they were related to me. This individual, who was then 18 years of age, signed on as a female bosun. As I understand it, it was at a time when females were being allowed to take that position for the very first time, which was in 1989. She was dispatched to the west coast and assigned to a ship there.

During the fall of 1989 this individual said that she experienced several instances of unwanted and unwelcome sexual advances that included touching, rubbing, petting and patting. She advised that there was a particularly disgusting incident prior to Christmas 1989 when she was presented with a plastic penis from some members of the crew of another ship that was in port.

Following the break over the holidays this individual, who went in as an ordinary seaman and had been promoted to an able seaman, returned to the west coast. The occasional harassment and unwelcome sexual advances continued, including one incident of a male superior exposing himself in front of her on board the ship. However, nothing during the early months of 1990 prepared this individual for what took place on a night in early May of that year.

On this evening the individual stated that she was asleep on board the ship when she awoke to find a seaman in the cot with her. The seaman was partially naked. She says that she could feel his penis against her thigh and her bra had been pushed up. According to this individual, the male seaman had his hand in her underwear and a finger inserted in her vagina. Her screams awoke the other females present in this female only section of the ship, who in turn began screaming at the male seaman, who then apparently picked up some of his clothes and repaired to a female only washroom to get dressed.

The military police were called and the male in question was either arrested or detained. A rape kit indicated that the individual, despite the overbearing harassment, had not in fact been actually raped, but she was sent home on compassionate leave.

When she returned two weeks later she felt that she was being completely ostracized, excluded and was unwelcome by her peers and superiors.

The insensitivity of the military officials was heightened by the fact that she was forced to share a military bus on the base for two weeks with her assailant before somebody figured it out and changed one of their schedules so she did not have to go through this ordeal.

She eventually requested a leave. She could not go back on the ship. She was not much longer in the military before she sought to get out and was released from duty.

Although she was under psychiatric care in Esquimalt, when she left there she was not eligible for treatment and there was no military psychiatrist who could treat her. Her parents helped her out for a bit in terms of psychiatric help, but it was too costly and she stopped seeing anybody for professional help.

It is also worth noting that the navy lost all of her performance records and she was told that if she wanted to go back she would have to start all over again as an ordinary seaman.

My sense of this is that what the military did after this odious, horrible and shameful incident is as bad as the actual incident itself.

No one ever contacted her. She never had a chance to testify at the trial. No one has ever told her that she may be eligible for compensation under veterans affairs.

This is symptomatic of the problem we have in the military. We have low pay. We have low morale. We have a lack of leadership and we do not think that Bill C-25 begins to deal with the root of the fundamental problems in the military.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.