Debates of Dec. 6th, 2012

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to take part in the debate on Bill C-15, Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

This bill is closely related to a report produced in 2003 by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer. It may seem striking for us to be debating a bill relating to a report released in 2003, but the reason will be understood when I have put everything in context.

First, Bill C-15 has appeared in several forms, as my colleagues have noted as well, including Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, but they both died on the order paper. Far be it from me to accuse any party of not being concerned about this issue. Several attempts have taken shape and a lot of work has been done by all parties to change the military justice system as we know it at present. Was the work done seriously, in good faith and collaboratively at all times? I cannot say.

I do not want to accuse anyone, I do not want to say that this issue has never been important, and I do not want to seem as if I am asking why we are beginning the debate on Bill C-15 today. That is not actually the case, since several attempts have been made in the past.

Second, in the last Parliament, Bill C-41 was introduced in response to Justice Lamer’s report, as I said earlier. That bill unfortunately died on the order paper also. It contained provisions relating to the military justice system, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, the court martial panel, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and certain provisions relating to the Military Police Complaints Commission. All of those subjects were addressed in Bill C-41.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that was introduced in the last Parliament. I would point out that a number of amendments were proposed during debate on Bill C-41. Those amendments were the product of serious consideration, testimony and the work done by members and experts. Unfortunately, those amendments were not taken into consideration in Bill C-15. Why?

The reasons are still not clear to me. Why were these amendments not included in Bill C-15? Including them would have demonstrated that the government had genuinely considered them and that it was ready to work as part of a team to create a bill that met everyone's expectations and requirements. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

That makes the opposition seriously doubt the government's willingness to accept any new amendments to Bill C-15. Amendments were clearly put forward by all parties during the last Parliament. If they were not taken into consideration while Bill C-15 was being drafted, it is not because the government members were unaware of what the opposition wanted to include. This raises serious doubt about the government's goodwill and its readiness to consider the amendments that could be proposed at second reading, when the bill is sent to committee.

Having said that, I would like to continue by listing the elements that worry us the most in Bill C-15. They are the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes to the composition of the grievance committee, and a provision to ensure that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. Those are the three points that worry the opposition.

I will explain the NDP's suggestions for dealing seriously with these three elements, which unfortunately have not been addressed seriously enough or thoroughly enough in Bill C-15.

Yes, the NDP agrees that the military justice process needs serious examination. Does that mean that the NDP will support Bill C-15? What an excellent question. But no, that is not what it means.

I would like to make some additional remarks about parliamentary procedure and operations. We often hear Conservative members and ministers say that the NDP has voted against families. We often hear the Conservatives say that the NDP has voted against investment, against trade agreements or against justice, but that is completely ridiculous. Everyone realizes that. Why do we hear them say things like that? There are several reasons. And we shall see that there is a close connection to Bill C-15.

It is not true that this is just about whether the NDP is for or against exports or trade agreements with certain countries. That is not the issue. The issue is much more complex. We can vote against a bill on a specific subject without being opposed to that subject. We may simply be opposed to the approach because we think it is not the best way to address a problem or to resolve a situation. These are reasons why a party may vote against a bill without necessarily voting against the subject matter addressed in that bill. I will not discuss this point any further because it is obvious; anyone can understand it. The ministers and members who advance these arguments have to know that. They are consciously grandstanding to deceive the public. I believe it is very important to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

So is the NDP opposed to military justice? No, Mr. Speaker. The NDP simply believes that Bill C-15 does not address the issue correctly and that, if it is going to be done, we could do it much better. That is why the NDP will not support Bill C-15 at second reading.

Exactly what is the NDP's proposal for a better solution?

First, we must take a different approach to reforming the summary trial system. Why? Because we believe Bill C-15 does not adequately address the injustice of summary trials. For example, in some instances, summary trials may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the accused having the opportunity to consult counsel. In summary trials, the judge may also be the accused's commanding officer, and that can cause problems. This has to be addressed, but Bill C-15 does not do it. It is too severe in the case of minor offences such as insubordination, quarrels, drunkenness and disobeying an order. That is the first aspect.

The second aspect is reforming the grievance system. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board must be perceived as an independent external civilian body. However, people who have retired from the forces may currently sit on the board. The NDP's amendment suggests that at least 60% of grievance board members must never have been a Canadian Forces officer or member. Is the Conservative Party opposed to this amendment? We do not know. However, we do know that it has not included it in Bill C-15, but we do not know why, and that is troubling.

Lastly, there is the strengthening of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Yes, Bill C-15 addresses this matter, but only with respect to the time required to resolve complaints. In the NDP's view, we should do more to strengthen the commission, but this is not addressed.

I could go on and on, but unfortunately I do not have a lot of time. However, I want to say that the NDP has long supported a necessary updating of the military justice system. That is clear. But Bill C-15 is not the way to do it. As I explained earlier, the opposition has serious reasons to doubt that the government intends to work with the opposition to rectify that. This has not been done previously, and we do not believe the committee work on this bill will be done seriously.

Why not? Because the government insists on meeting in camera, limiting debate and controlling witnesses in committee. I could continue, because the list is long. We have reason to doubt the government's desire to work as a team with the opposition.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill, Abortion; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, The Economy; the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Citizenship and Immigration.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments and the conclusion I draw is that the New Democrats will never support any bill of any kind going to committee because they do not trust the government in committee. That is pretty obvious.

I will quote former Chief Justice Lamer, who stated:

I have approached the task of writing this report from the perspective of the women and men in the Canadian Forces. These soldiers who risk their lives for our country deserve a military justice system that protects their rights in accordance with our Charter, while maintaining the necessary discipline for achieving successful missions. Further, they deserve a grievance process that addresses their grievances in a fair, transparent and prompt manner. I believe that my recommendations will go far towards achieving these goals.

Bill C-15 implements most of the remaining Lamer recommendations. Would the hon. member opposite not agree, and I suspect I know the answer, that it is time to stop playing politics and agree to move Bill C-15 to committee so that the goals, so clearly and eloquently set out by former Chief Justice Lamer, can be fulfilled for the members of the Canadian Forces?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member asked me that question, with those comments. Perhaps he misunderstood what I wanted to say.

I was not saying that the opposition will oppose all bills from the government. What I said was that several attempts were made before arriving at Bill C-15 and that some amendments had been presented to the government. Those amendments cannot be found anywhere in Bill C-15. With respect to this specific bill, the opposition has good reason to doubt the government's will to work with the opposition on the amendments needed to make Bill C-15 a good bill.

Now, I would like to add that the hon. member said himself that most of Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer's recommendations have been included in Bill C-15. Why is it most and not all of them? The Conservatives cannot answer this question. Often in committee, the experts ask questions or give their opinions, but they are completely ignored by the Conservatives. That is unacceptable and it is not the way the NDP operates.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I have a brief comment. A lot of hay has made about why we are debating this. First, it is our job, and second, the vast majority of us are not on the justice committee. This an opportunity for us to voice our opinions on a bill. It is a shame that the government needs to go to the extreme and say that because we disagree with a certain point, we disagree with everything. My colleague has made it quite clear that there are elements we would like looked at in good faith, which the government has not done.

Would my colleague elaborate on the issue of our serving men and women who find themselves in the military justice system and end up with criminal records for very minor incidents when they leave the military. How does that affect the lives of the men and women who leave the armed forces?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber, for his excellent question.

In fact—I am repeating it and I can say it as many times as people want to hear it—the NDP agrees that we should take the time, right now, to improve the military justice system. That is clear. For too long, people have demanded reforms. Still, it cannot be done in a slapdash way. Since it needs doing, let us do it well.

Right now, Bill C-15 does not remove all the flaws. My Conservative colleague said, “Bill C-15 implements most of the remaining Lamer recommendations”. Why not all the judge's recommendations? Why not listen to the experts' opinions?

My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber said it very well: we have doubts about the government's willingness to work with the opposition. These are serious doubts arising from our experience with other bills like Bill C-15. That is why the NDP is not ready to work, because it does not think the government is ready to work in good faith with the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would like to start by saying a few words about my family. I had a great uncle who was a veteran of the second world war. As hon. members can imagine, he has now passed on. One of my cousins is a member of the Canadian Forces. He went to Afghanistan several times and to other hot spots throughout the world to do his duty as a soldier.

I have also had the opportunity to meet veterans in my riding, particularly at Remembrance Day ceremonies. These ceremonies are always very dignified affairs with a high level of decorum. They show a remarkable level of discipline.

In my riding, there is also a place called the Legion, where veterans go fairly often to socialize and talk to each other. This meeting place is very important for them. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to these veterans because they have welcomed me very warmly every time I have been there.

There is also another very touching event in my riding. Once a year, the ladies auxiliary—volunteers—go and get veterans with reduced mobility at the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital or other long-term care facilities. They bring them to the Legion and make them dinner so that they can all socialize. These veterans have the opportunity to meet with other veterans, some who may be a bit younger than them, and other people who are there. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the ladies auxiliary volunteers. No one asked them to do this. They do it because they have such great respect for veterans. They want to take advantage of this day to pay tribute to veterans and to give them an opportunity to enjoy some good moments together.

When we talk about veterans, we often think of people who fought in the Korean War in the 1950s, and the first and second world wars. However, we often forget the people I call our new or recent veterans, those who went to Afghanistan and other places. I cannot imagine the extremely difficult situations that these people experienced throughout the world. The same goes for all our veterans.

Some of these “recent” veterans, if I can call them that, have come to see me in my office. They often have medical problems or mental health concerns, but they are also having difficulty obtaining basic services from their government. They are completely distraught. They are having a really hard time adapting to civilian life and, once again, they cannot seem to get answers to their questions when they need them. When one feels a sense of urgency or is in distress, when one is feeling panicked, one is bound to have questions and expect service.

Those people expect a timely response, one that is reassuring. I had one very troubling case that really struck me.

I would like to talk about myself a little bit, in contrast with the people who enlist in the Canadian Forces. These people are held to the highest disciplinary standards in order to face situations that I could never face. Their world is very strict, with very strong discipline and no room for questioning. They must follow the chain of command and so on.

The bill currently before us talks about a justice system. If you will, there is a separate justice system for the military, the justice system that applies to the rest of us, and then there is the criminal justice system. The purpose of this bill is to ensure fair justice for all, whether or not one is in the military, since military personnel are citizens like the rest of us. Although military personnel are subject to specific disciplinary standards and hierarchies, justice must nevertheless be fair and consistent with that in the civilian world. This bill tries to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian system, because serious repercussions and abuses could ensue, although we hope not.

Furthermore, this bill, and also others that died on the order paper, as was mentioned earlier, were introduced in response to the existing system. In 2003, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—who is well known—made 88 recommendations, and 28 were included in the bill. I will not go over all the bills introduced. However, this shows that since 2003 there has been a desire to strike a balance so that there are no abuses of power in the military justice system.

With regard to reforming summary trials, these amendments were made because we did not want someone who committed summary offences to have a criminal record and experience its crippling effects. All these amendments will strike a balance.

With respect to the reform of the grievance system, I would like to say that if the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is to be seen as an external, independent civilian body, as it should be, the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that.

I see that time is passing. In short, this again is to strike a balance and ensure that members of the military have a justice system that is in line with the civilian system.

In conclusion, the NDP believes that members of the Canadian Forces must comply with extremely high standards of discipline, that in return they deserve a justice system subject to standards similar to civilian standards, and that a criminal record has detrimental effects. We must ensure that we respect this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is some commonality in the sense that we in the Liberal Party and the New Democrats appear to support the fact that there is a need to reform our military justice system. On the surface, it would appear that the government also concurs and that is one of the reasons why it brought Bill C-15 here.

We anticipate that there could be amendments. We are being told by the government that there will be some amendments to the legislation. We in the Liberal Party have indicated that the men and women of our Canadian Forces have waited a great deal of time for this reform to take place. We believe that at the end of the day there are other things that could be done to improve and strengthen the system, but we would ultimately like to see it sent to committee. Therefore, Liberals support the bill in principle and would like to see it sent to committee with the hope that we will see the amendments.

Why does the NDP not support the bill in principle? That is where it seems a bit confusing, because if the NDP does not vote in favour of the bill being sent to committee what it is really saying is that it does not support the principle of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Back in 2003, Mr. Lamer made 88 recommendations, only 23 of which were accepted. I think that this Supreme Court justice deserves a certain amount of trust. He has a huge amount of experience and made 88 recommendations. But accepting 23 of 88 recommendations is not very much.

When this bill was examined, a number of amendments were put forward and rejected. That is unfortunate.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that we are having this debate in the House because I think it draws attention and focus to the issue of military justice, which probably most Canadians know very little about.

I feel very disturbed that so many times in the House we hear the government members say the NDP is opposed to the military, the NDP is opposed to everything. However, here we are actually debating a bill where we support the need to have a fulsome, proper, fair and balanced military justice system. It is the government side that is whipping through a bill, as it does so often now, without properly considering amendments that were previously in a bill that the House looked at before.

I wonder if the member could comment on the practice of what is taking place, because it is just getting worse and worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very astute observation of the system and the debates.

In the parliamentary system, discussions among the different parties and members of Parliament are important, but committee work is also extremely important. That is the source of some of the frustration. We have tried many times—just look at Bill C-45—to propose amendments that could improve a bill and that often reflect the testimony of the various experts who have appeared before the committees.

We are not pulling these amendments out of nowhere. They are often inspired by different parties—not in the partisan sense—from civil society who share their expertise, their good faith and their opinions.

We hope the government's new year's resolutions will include starting to listen to the amendments we propose.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15 in spite of my colleagues across the way, who think we should just shuffle it off and not hear from people and not get suggestions, but just send it to committee and somehow, magically, that committee would work differently than all the other ones we sit on.

I have had the pleasure of sitting on a couple of committees, and I will tell the following story, because it was not in camera. I will not tell the other stories, because they were in camera and we are not allowed to talk about what should and could have happened but did not happen in those cases.

I can tell the House about Bill S-11 at the agriculture committee, where the government said, “Here is an important bill on food safety”. The official opposition said the government was absolutely right, that in principle it was a good bill, a good foundation that we could build upon and make it better. My colleagues across the way, who I have heard all day, said that we should the current bill go committee and it will be fixed there.

I can say that my colleague, the member for Guelph, and I offered about 16 amendments in total to Bill S-11 to enhance that food safety bill. They would have strengthened it, by talking about an audit and whistle-blower protection and about when the clock would start to tick on a five-year review. My colleague and friend from Guelph said that we should start the clock when we enacted the bill, and not wait six months. It was a great suggestion.

The government, in its wisdom, debated the first four amendments, argued against them, but realized that its arguments were so full of holes that it stopped. Accordingly, on amendments 5 to 16, the government members listened to us and then said, “No, no”, and on and on it went until they were all done.

Now, what should we do with that? Should we trust them and suggest that we go to committee with our amendments, where somehow a “no” will become “We are thinking about it, maybe it looks like a good idea”? Of course, the end result will be “no”.

That is why we are debating the bill here in the House, because we want folks out there to know that there are good ideas, that there are things that need to be in this bill, because they were in it before. This is not new. This legislation did not just get dropped off the shelf a few months back.

Speaking of dropping off the shelf, I hear my colleagues across the way in the government saying how they need to get these things through. This bill was introduced by them last year. If it is so urgent, why was it not equally urgent last year when the government introduced it? The government waited a year to bring it forward and now complains that we want to debate it. I thought that folks elected us and sent us here to debate legislation. Call me naive if that is not what I was supposed to do when I got here.

Clearly, if I do not sit on that committee, my only opportunity to offer input on this bill is here in the House. That is the only opportunity to say, “Listen, we have some suggestions”.

What I find really ironic about this particular bill is that it is not its first incarnation. It was here before and amended. The other side actually accepted the amendments. Then magically, after an election, the government lost those amendments and forgot about them. Something happened on the way back to Ottawa after the election. All those good amendments fell off the bus somewhere. They are out there somewhere, never to be found.

That is really disappointing, because if they were good amendments then, they are good amendments now. Why not incorporate them? Why go through this charade of, “Come on, you approve it in principle, you want to do this, so let us get it off to committee”, only then not to make any changes, but bring it back and enact the legislation because you have the majority. We accept that fact. That is the will of democracy: You won the last election, you got a majority. That is fair.

Ultimately, do not expect the committee to accept amendments when the proof so far to date has been that you do not.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Welland and others in the chamber, the Chair has been reminding members to address the Chair in their remarks, both physically addressing the Chair as well as addressing the Chair as opposed to their colleagues.

I am not only singling out the member of Welland, as I know many others have done this. That is the appropriate form in this place.

The hon. member for Welland.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to address you directly, sir. I know that you would never take the opportunity to single me out. You do as you have always done and remind us all to participate in a way that we know we should. I appreciate that reminder.

Clearly, when we look at Bill C-15, we see it is about bringing justice to our brave men and women in the military for whom all in this House have the greatest of admiration and respect. I genuinely believe that. We, as a Parliament, ask them to serve Canada and they come to us voluntarily to serve.

As parliamentarians, we can disagree on what the missions are, but when a decision is ultimately taken in this House, members of the Canadian Forces serve this House and Canadians in general. This legislation should have been about ensuring that their justice system is as robust and as good as we can possibly make it. However, that is where we have let them down.

The reason we are bringing this to the government's attention is that we have such a high regard for the members of the military and hold them in such high esteem because of the service they give to all of us regardless of what role they take on here at home or abroad. We want them to have the most robust system of justice, which we know they deserve, and we should not provide anything less than that.

We have had reports that have been named many times, whether it be the Lamer report, the committee's report or the previous bill, which have been in this House before. We have had all of these things already, not necessarily in this session of the House, but certainly in other sessions. I was here last session of the House, and there was a bill here before that.

We have had all of that information, which has been studied to a certain degree, but where has it disappeared to? What happened to those pieces of legislation that folks agreed were good? Why would we lose those bits and pieces? Why would we not just say, yes, we disagree on certain aspects, but in the end, why would we not look at the pieces that are here?

There are concerns around the complaints commission. For example, a soldier who logs a grievance ends up in front of his or her commanding officer. That is the way the system works in this process. If one does not come out the other side of the process thinking one was treated fairly, then the system does not work.

The issue is not about the decision. Grievers can file grievances and not win, but if they think that the system works, then they just do not like the decision at the end of it, which is fair. Grievers quite often do not like the decision if they do not win. However, if a griever does not think the process is fair, then regardless of what happens in the decision, it is the process that is the annoyance.

I think we need to look at the grievance procedure and ask how we can make it a fair system. How do we make it a system so that those who have to enter it can say to themselves that the system works? They may not like the decision, but they would not complain that the system was unfair. This is much different from thinking that the reason they got a bad decision was that the process does not work, which ends up with two negatives and that just does not work for everyone involved. It does not work for the military as a whole or its sense of what it wants to do in making sure that justice seems fair. It is not a question of justice being done, but about justice seeming fair as well.

Ultimately, that is what we needed Bill C-15 to do, and it started down the path of taking it to a better place. However, the issue for me is: Why did we not go down the path a little farther? There is some suggestion that maybe it will happen later on. Why do we not do it now? If we were starting from scratch, I guess we might think this is a great start, but the problem is that we are not. We have started from other places. We could have built that into the bill, which is what we find disappointing on this side.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch my colleague's whole speech, but I caught the last few minutes and there are a couple of things I want to point out.

It is not just this member but others who have said that this side had agreed to some amendments the last time that are not here this time, which is misleading the House. There were two amendments we had agreed to last time. One is in Bill C-15 and on the other one, the criminal records aspect, the minister has already stated very clearly that it will come back to committee. The members need to stop misleading the House on that.

With respect to the grievance external review board and its make-up, we did not agree to that the last time. To suggest that somehow we have changed our minds on that is simply not true.

There was a question put to me previously. Of course, I am here to ask questions and not answer them, but I will answer anyway.

There are 36 of the remaining Lamer recommendations that are in Bill C-15. There are 21 that are in fact still under study because they are extremely complex issues and they do require an awful lot of study. We have accepted 81 of the 88 recommendations, 29 have been implemented, 36 are in Bill C-15 and the other 21 are still under study.

I know it is politics, but I wish the opposition would stop misleading the House.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question, but that is okay. I respect my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre. He served our country for a long time and we are extremely proud of his service and thank him for it. I to want to say it publicly again.

The member is right. What I said previously was that the committee had the amendments. It may not have accepted everything and that is fair. Ultimately it amounts to the fact that there was an acceptance of a certain pace of a go. If the member is telling us that the Conservatives are studying the additional pieces, then why would they rush to bring this? Why not wait until they study the other 36 pieces, recognizing that they are complex and need further study? If it is too long, then they cannot wait.

Clearly now that we know the government is studying some things, what is that timeline? I wonder if the minister could tell us that at some point. Is it 30 of 90 days from now? Is it 3 years from now? If the Conservatives are studying them with the prospect of enhancing the bill with those additional pieces, perhaps they should have helped us with that information and perhaps they could have been in the bill in a month or two, or less.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments deal with the actual process, something I am fairly keen on, wanting to get a better understanding myself. He makes reference to Bill C-15 and other legislation. There is no doubt that there is frustration within the Liberal Party on numerous legislation. The most recent one would have been the budget bill, where we attempted to get through literally hundreds of amendments and were constantly turned down. On other legislation such as on immigration and so forth where amendments are in fact being brought forward, the government seems to turn a blind eye to it.

Does the member believe as a result of the reaction we receive at committee ultimately should dictate how we vote on the principle of a bill going to committee? In other words, if the principle of the bill is strong enough to allow it at the very least to go to committee, should you vote for it to go to committee, or because of the behaviour of the government in terms of not accepting amendments, do you oppose all bills that would require some form of amendment?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Once again, before I go back to the hon. member for Welland, I would encourage all members to refer to their colleagues in the third person as opposed to the second person, even in a hypothetical.

The hon. member for Welland.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we voted for Bill S-11, the food safety bill. My recommendation to my caucus was to vote for second reading and send it to committee to amend it because the government's sense was for us to bring it our ideas. That is exactly what I did. We voted to send it to committee.

It is not so much the process. It is about looking at individual legislation on the merits of the legislation. We do not vote because of a process; we vote on what the legislation is about. If the legislation in our view deserves to go to committee, then we will vote to do that. Bill S-11 is a prime example of that. That is exactly what we did, but then we found out what the process was, and it was “no”.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. It works out good that my colleague spoke before me.

The first thing I want to do is read back into the record comments that were made on November 4, 2011, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence with reference to this legislation in its earlier version. He said:

As I begin my remarks, I would like to congratulate those of our colleagues, the hon. member for St. John's East, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, and the hon. member for Hamilton Centre, who worked very hard with members on our side to develop a common approach.

I thought that was a decent thing to do, early on to offer up. However, I would point out that he said that in a minority government. Whether the government was so inclined as to be friendly and wanted to work together and show a lot of camaraderie, it was really forced into it. When we get into a majority, we start to see the government's real view of the opposition. Let us just say that is less than encouraging in terms of wanting to “develop a common approach”.

I raise that because there has been a lot of discussion on all sides around process and a lot of questions about the way we view the process and why it is somewhat different than the way we voted previously.

What is really important is that the earlier version of this legislation was in a minority government. In a minority situation, there can be all kinds of preachers within Parliament. There can be coalitions, accords, day-by-day, which was the system that we lived under in a Liberal minority government and, ultimately, the Conservatives until the last election. We would have liked to have seen it more often but at times there was an element of working together, particularly on matters that were important, that had legal timeframes and that had legal implications, and this legislation was one of those. The military needed these improvements and, as we do every day, we wanted to put pressure on the government and hold its feet to the fire. At the same time, there are certain issues where we set that aside and work together because it is in the best interests of Canadians. When we are in a minority Parliament, the only way that can happen is when somebody works with the government to create enough votes to pass a law. That was one of those times.

I was given some acknowledgement because I was defence critic at the time and the reference was when we were trying to get the bill through the House at that time. The work at committee was done by my colleague from St. John's East who was the defence critic before me and continued as critic afterward when our new leader was sworn into office and created his shadow cabinet.

At that time, we had a bill that everybody had worked hard on. They put a lot of time and effort into getting a bill that they could agree on because it was important to the military. We did that job collectively. The remarks that the parliamentary secretary made at the time were in reference to the work that I was doing with him and his House leader, his minister and my party leader, our interim leader at the time, as we tried to find a way to get that bill in front of the House and get it passed because the work had been done and we had agreement.

I point that out because it is critically important to understand the context of the previous bill if we are going to understand at least the politics around the current bill.

We had this whole process. Compromises were made. Compromise is not a dirty word. That is how things get done. Everybody found language they could live with and, as far as I know, it was unanimous. There certainly was a majority, meaning our caucus and the government. There may have been others but I do not see any nod from the Liberals, but that is not relevant to this point. The point is that the bill would have been law had we been able to get it in front of the House. I do not want to point fingers. I do not know who to blame for that. There is lots of blame to go around. Everybody can have a bit. However, what matters is that it did not happen.

The government now has its majority Parliament and when we came back here, the bill came back. We had reasons. Any reasonable minded person would have reason to believe that the bill that would come back would be the bill that we agreed upon. That makes the most sense. That way it would have ensured a quicker passage through the House. We would not be standing here right now. It would already be law.

We were not about to change our minds or our position. We had made the compromises. We had put together a bill that we could live with and we were prepared to stand behind it, and dare I say, we would have been prepared to stand behind that bill in this Parliament had it been brought back in whole, but it was not.

I do not care whether it is one clause, one amendment, two amendments or a thousand amendments. When we are dealing with legislation such as this, one clause, if it creates an injustice or leaves an injustice in place, is not acceptable. It is not a question of how many amendments the government did not put in here. It is the point that it did not bring back the same bill that everyone had agreed on was in the best interests of this Parliament, and more important, of the military, and most important, of the personnel within our military.

That would have been the process that a reasonable person would have expected. It would have been one that I assure the government we would have responded to, because what ground would we have had to stand on? If we were standing here at second reading and for some stupid reason we were opposing it, the government would ask us what the deal was, and say that we agreed to it before so why were we not in agreement now.

We were not going to do that but now we, the official opposition, are in a position where the shoe is on the other foot. The government brought back a bill that is not the bill that was agreed upon. We will agree that this is a step forward. In this context I say to a number of members who have raised procedural questions about why we are not supporting it at second reading, even though we say it is a step forward, this is not a regular bill and it is not a regular situation. That is why.

I cannot imagine why we would support a bill that is not the bill we supported before and does not have the things in it that we thought were important and made other compromises and changes in the whole process. Why on earth would we now say that it is a great bill, no problem, let us whiz it through, when some of the things we fought for to make sure there was justice in there are no longer there. Why on earth would we support that bill?

Now we are left with the situation we are in right now, which is the making of the government. Government members own this situation. Had they brought the bill in that had been agreed upon before, the bill would already be law.

However, for reasons we do not yet know, government members went into that with the majority mindset that they do not have to listen to anyone anymore, they do not have to do anything, they have all the power, they have the stable majority and they can do anything they want. They could ram it through here. Hell, they control the Senate. They could ram it through there too. That is the mentality we are left with on the bill.

We are so far away from the climate of co-operation that existed in the creation of the previous bill, Bill C-41, that we have no choice but to make our principled stand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the one-minute notice. I managed to get through two of my seven points.

[Stephen Woodworth]

I can't hear you. Louder.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The hon. member does not know what my ultimate objective was.

I will wrap up by just saying that for all the government members' to-ing and fro-ing and lighting themselves on fire over what the official opposition is doing, if they had just followed through with the commitment and the compromises they made in the previous bill and brought that here, we would stand by those compromises. We would stand by that bill and we would honour our word and honour our armed forces, in this case, something the government is not doing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre will have his five minutes of questions and comments when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Radiocommunication Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to talk about the rules governing the placement of telecommunications towers.

I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, on behalf of all Canadians, mayors and MPs who are dealing with this problem and have been calling for some time for a transparent consultation process so that the public and elected representatives will be able to provide input regarding the location of telecommunications antennas.

To demonstrate the scope of the phenomenon, in Montreal, for example, there are approximately 2,000 structures with antennas. In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, it is estimated that there are approximately 35 structures of this type. Moreover, some towers can easily house approximately 50 different antennas. The rapid proliferation of wireless applications and of new service providers is bringing increasing pressure to bear on existing infrastructure.

Canadians must be consulted because erecting telecommunications antennas raises a number of issues that directly affect their daily lives. The matter of aesthetics and respecting the built heritage is obvious: nobody wants to have that kind of structure in their backyard. But it is also a question of public health.

Moreover, it appears that the effects of these antennas on our health are not entirely known. Option consommateurs, for example, considers that the standards developed by Health Canada and imposed on service providers by Industry Canada are inadequate, and has argued that they only apply to the amplified thermal effects of radio frequencies that are emitted and not to non-thermal effects in the long term. Most Canadians I have met share this opinion and think that the current safety provisions are inadequate.

To illustrate the frustrations that Canadians and local elected representatives face, allow me to describe something that recently occurred in Saint-Eustache. I am singling out this case, but there are hundreds of similar cases across Canada. I could also list several other comparable cases in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

In the summer of 2011, residents of the des Jardins neighbourhood got the surprise of their lives when they saw a 27-metre telecommunications tower go up behind the car dealerships on Dubois Street, which is adjacent to a residential area. When questioned by angry residents, the elected representatives of the City of Saint-Eustache had to admit they were powerless. The negotiation process between Rogers and the municipality took place in 2010. The company first informed the City of what it needed to improve its network. The municipality proposed a number of available municipal lots, but the proposed lots were not suitable in the opinion of the Rogers engineers.

Faced with a deadlock, the telecommunications company turned to the private sector to find a location for its tower. Canadian law requires that for each telecommunications tower project of this type a 30-day public consultation must be held. All residents living within a radius of three times the height of the tower must be informed by letter and invited to comment by regular mail or email. Nobody voiced any opposition during the 30-day period. Industry Canada was therefore able to authorize the Rogers project. How is that possible?

The municipal council argues that, “neither the City, nor the provincial government have jurisdiction in this file,” and that, “since residents are consulted in this kind of process, it is they who are entitled to object to such facilities being built in their neighbourhoods.” The city has reminded residents on several occasions, by way of resolutions, that the council opposed the decision.

Rogers, for its part, claims that it met its regulatory obligations by contacting residents who were directly affected, by being courteous, and by mailing a copy of the consultation to the city.

In my opinion, the legislation and the circular published in June 2007 by Industry Canada governing the installation of antennas poses two problems. On the one hand, telecommunications companies are not forced to share existing towers. Competition is fierce and the companies do not want to share their infrastructure. This is understandable. However, legislators need to bring them back into line. This is public property. Its use comes with responsibilities.

The CRTC must be given the power to adjudicate disputes regarding the sharing of telecommunications towers.

The other problem with respect to the law is that consultations are not really public, to the extent that most of the time, residents and municipal elected representatives have not knowingly given their consent or had time to organize themselves.

The bill introduced by my colleague amends the Radiocommunications Act and stipulates that the construction of all new antenna bearing structures be preceded by a study to examine the option of using existing infrastructure. If this is impossible, all new construction projects involving pylons, towers and other antenna bearing structures, however high, must be subject to a public consultation.

The general idea is to halt the proliferation of antennas by forcing telecommunications companies to reach agreements to share existing facilities. In cases where it is impossible to use existing infrastructure, the bill requires that public hearings be held and forces developers to ensure they have the support of the municipalities before they proceed with their projects. In keeping with this legislation, developers will no longer be able to install antennas without taking into account the concerns of municipalities and their residents in the development of their projects.

Moreover, the bill introduces new obligations in terms of public consultations. For instance, a public consultation must be held on the construction of towers or antenna-bearing structures, regardless of their height. At present, towers that are lower than 15 metres are exempt from public consultation. Industry Canada must then publish confirmation that the public consultation process was respected.

In my view, the bill is a balanced approach that helps find a middle ground between the interests of citizens, municipalities and proponents. We hope to regulate the installation of new antennas, but we do not want to hinder the development of the industry. We want proponents to respect municipalities' lead-time and to respect and consider the concerns of the municipalities and their citizens.

This strategy is completely in line with the NDP's approach. For instance, I like the fact that it aims at strengthening the framework for the development of telecommunications towers by co-operative measures, among proponents, municipalities and citizens. In addition to promoting discussion and co-operation among all parties, the bill would provide the CRTC with the authority to intervene in order to minimize the effects of a new antenna in a community.

I also appreciate that the bill is flexible enough to allow for an antenna to be put up quickly, if necessary. Since there may be certain antenna systems that are not detrimental to the municipality or citizens, the bill provides that an exemption from public consultation could be established by local and government authorities.

Moreover, I have been told that the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association is drafting a non-binding protocol on the installation of telecommunications antenna. Wireless providers know that many people are grumbling about the current process, and they are trying to avoid legislation that is even stricter by preparing a framework for self-regulation.

However, history has shown that telecommunications companies have to be persuaded simply to respect their legal obligations. I am thinking, for instance, of the carriers' reluctance to comply with their own regional coverage improvement plan. How can anyone believe that a self-regulation system would allow citizens' interests to come before the interests of these huge corporations?

As I have been told that I have only one minute left to finish my speech, I would like to emphasize the fact that the industry must acknowledge that my colleague's bill makes sense for a lot of reasons. The industry should also work with him to make it better, because the alternative is likely to hurt even more. We have already seen, for instance, in Repentigny, where the city demanded that an antenna be dismantled, that a less heterogeneous approach could also be detrimental to the industry.

I am interested in hearing my colleagues’ comments and questions.