Debates of March 21st, 2013

Motions in Amendment

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks by the member for Sudbury, listening hard for the insight I was hoping to have with regard to the motion in front of us. We are discussing a motion to amend a bill that has already been considered at great length at second reading and in committee. However, he did not even mention clause 4, which is the subject of the motion.

Neither he nor any of his colleagues have yet to explain why today the NDP is supporting a motion that would drastically amend clause 4 when in committee in this Parliament, and in the previous Parliament, the New Democrats were prepared to accept clause 4 as unamended. Why were they happy to have the version of the bill we all agreed to in committee back in a minority Parliament, when they had more leverage and influence in committee, accept clause 4 as it was in committee in this Parliament, and then all of a sudden at report stage an amendment pops up from someone who was not in the committee and they are prepared to support it?

Does this not speak to the motives of the NDP?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have a point of order.

I would just remind members that when there is a request for a point of order, the Chair is on his feet and everyone else sits down.

The hon. member for St. John's East on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not think it is appropriate for a member of Parliament who is on a committee to put facts that are not true to another member of Parliament who was not there and ask him to comment on it.

There was an amendment proposed and defeated in committee on the section the member is talking about. The bill passed at committee on division, not supported by this hon. member. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to put untrue matters to a member and ask him to comment on it based on—

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to go back and finish the question.

He is using up a substantial amount of time. I do not know if he wanted to add anything further or if I could go to the hon. member for Sudbury to respond.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is very simple. Clause 4 was in this version, the version of Bill C-15 that was reported back to the House in the 40th Parliament. It was in the same version after consideration by his colleagues in committee in this Parliament. Why is there suddenly, after four Parliaments' consideration of the bill, a desire on the part of the NDP to amend clause 4?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to answer that question, because it seems to me that it has been answered numerous times. The only question the parliamentary secretary has is the same one over and over again.

I thought we were in a debate. I thought we were listening to new ideas to try to find ways to make the bill better. I believe that at the top of this, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands brought amendments forward to make it better. Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary is confused. We are in the House of Commons to try to create legislation that works for Canadians rather than to ask a simple question over and over again.

This question has been answered numerous times. I would actually like to ask him a question. Why has the government not recognized that we need to fix Bill C-15 to ensure that we have the same standards that all Canadians can expect from their legal system?

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not the way the process works.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has the floor.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to me that the opposition, both official and otherwise, is basically saying that this is good and is a move forward but that it is not perfect and could be better, and here is a small way in which it could be made better. Yet we get this wall of resistance to what is ultimately a relatively minor change. This is what happens in committee. This is what happens here. We get this bizarre system of ridicule, which makes it very hard to support the government, even when, by the operation of random luck, it actually gets it right, or mostly right.

If the hon. member looks at the section being debated, which is a very small section, it does not restrict the VCDS to simply saying that there is live fire, so we cannot go there. It lets him or her tell the police that this is where they go, this is where they do not, and this is how to conduct its investigation. It is a pretty serious issue.

I would be interested in his comments on the enemy of perfection.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that it makes us scratch our heads as we sit in the House of Commons talking about and debating a bill, trying to find ways to make it better. When we do support something that is being brought forward, they still question it. It makes us wonder where their thinking is. Sometimes it seems ideological rather than an attempt to make the best laws for Canadians.

I would also like to mention that there are many validators of this position. Peter Tinsley, the former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, spoke to this. He said:

My very brief summary submission is that if Bill C-15 is passed into law in its present form, inclusive of the new subsection 18.5(3) authorizing the VCDS to interfere with police operations and investigations, it will be inconsistent with the principles of police independence as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as late as 1999 as underpinning the rule of law, as well as run counter to the norms of police-government relations...

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15 on military justice once again.

I would like to begin by saying a few words about what was truly an excellent week for the official opposition, the NDP. Yesterday evening, speaking of justice, one of our colleagues succeeded in getting a bill on sexual identity and the protection of transsexual and transgender people passed. Congratulations! That was a good example of our New Democratic values.

We also put forward a motion on science, which the Conservatives rejected. We revealed the truth about the Conservative government: it does not like science, rational thought or facts. We already knew that, but now we have incontrovertible proof. What a victory for the NDP.

Now, with this bill, thanks to the hard work of my New Democratic colleagues in committee and in the House, we have persuaded the government to listen to reason and we have improved this bill, which, initially, was deeply flawed.

This is a step in the right direction, and I am very proud of the NDP's work. The official opposition has made things better and ensured greater respect for the men and women who defend our country and serve in the armed forces.

There is room for improvement in this bill. The government waited too long. We need a comprehensive overhaul of the military police justice system. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has dragged its feet. It has made small changes here and there that do not meet the needs of the men and women of our armed forces. It has refused to adopt a comprehensive approach that would solve all of the problems at once.

Justice Lamer's report came out in 2003, and it is now 2013. That means that these recommendations have been pending for 10 years, over several Parliaments. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have dragged their feet, proving that even though they claim it is a priority, they do not have much respect for the men and women who serve in the Canadian armed forces. Sadly, their actions prove that this is not a priority. There is also the issue of respect for our veterans, which comes up often.

The official opposition is often accused of not liking the armed forces. The Conservatives often make somewhat dishonest, vicious and mean attacks in that respect. The NDP's work in this area shows how rigorous we are and how much we respect the people who serve in Canada's armed forces.

We ask a lot of them. We often ask them to sacrifice their family life, to go abroad and put themselves in extremely dangerous situations where they risk not only getting hurt, but also losing their lives. We cannot ask these Canadians and these Quebeckers to give so much unless we, as a country, as a government, as legislators, put in place a set of mechanisms that will ensure that they are treated with respect, fairness and compassion.

More and more countries are thinking about how to ensure that the military justice system in large part respects human rights and international conventions. Thanks to pressure from my NDP colleagues, we managed to improve the situation of our soldiers. Since we are asking so much of them, we must give them back as much.

As the representative of the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I believe it is important to move in the right direction. That is what we have done and what we are continuing to do here today. I say this in anticipation of the parliamentary secretary's question when I finish my speech in 10 minutes. Our successful work means that 95% of disciplinary code breaches no longer lead to a criminal record. That progress is in large part responsible for the fact that the NDP caucus is now united in supporting Bill C-15.

At the time, I remember rising in the House and making much more critical comments, because there had not been amendments, which were made later.

We had a problem with the current system because relatively minor disciplinary infractions left a permanent mark on the lives of these people, who are often relatively young when they retire from the armed forces and who have a career after leaving. Members can imagine how difficult it can be for them to find a new job, new occupation or new profession, especially if their military criminal record, resulting from a breach of conduct or bad behaviour when they were members of the Canadian armed forces, follows them.

It was unfair. This hung a millstone around people's necks and put them at a disadvantage for the rest of their careers. However, we fought for them. We stood strong. We argued. The members of the committee did their work. Our excellent defence critic led the fight on this. Today, given the improvements made to this bill, the NDP caucus will support it.

The amendments made to clause 75, which pertains to criminal records, are a great victory for the NDP. That is why I started my speech by talking about our recent victories, which always make us happy, despite the fact that we are dealing with a majority government that rarely listens to parliamentarians or Canadians.

That is not all. I also wanted to point out that the NDP fought to ensure that many members of the Canadian Forces who have already been convicted can have their criminal records erased. This is not simply for the future; it also rights past and present wrongs. That was very important to us.

We also moved a series of amendments to improve the bill in order to show our commitment to our men and women in uniform, as well as to a more comprehensive reform of the system that would make it possible to implement a more logical, consistent and respectful structure. For example, we suggested giving the Chief of the Defence Staff the financial authority to compensate members of the Canadian Forces as part of a grievance resolution process. This is found in the amended version of clause 6 of Bill C-41, in direct response to a recommendation made by Justice Lamer 10 years ago.

We also want to make changes to the composition of the grievance resolution committee to include 60% civilian membership and to not include active members of the Canadian Forces. This was the amended clause 11 of Bill C-41, which would help make the committee more independent. These changes are important to us, because there is a problem with the current system, in that the judge is both judge and jury. The danger of being judged by one's peers is that they are involved. We believe the judicial process must be independent to protect the rights of the accused. That is a basic judicial principle that is generally applied in civilian society.

We think that the process should be made more civil, in the sense that more civilians should be involved in the process so that people who are directly involved do not end up judging their subordinates, especially in cases of insubordination.

We also proposed a clause to ensure that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. This is the bill's famous clause 75.

The NDP also proposed that we guarantee the independence of the police by abolishing subsections 18.5(1) to 18.5(5), in clause 4 of the bill, to prevent the Chief of Defence Staff from issuing specific instructions on an investigation to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Once again, this is a matter of independence, respect and the basic principle of justice.

Lastly, we asked for precisions regarding the letter of the law, as recommended by Justice LeSage, to indicate that a charge must be laid within a year after the offence was committed.

This concludes my speech to show how much the NDP—the official opposition—cares about this issue. We care about the men and women who defend our country, who bear arms and who risk their lives. They do their job, and we—in the NDP and in the opposition—do ours too, in their best interests and in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, once again, my question is very simple. Why is the NDP favouring an amendment that it has never mentioned before today? It never mentioned it in committee, at second reading or during the previous Parliament.

Is it because the NDP lacks expertise and had to wait to hear from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in order to understand the idea? Or is it simply because the NDP is trying to needlessly prolong this debate?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative government, we in the NDP like debate. We do not try to muzzle anyone. We do not stop debates unnecessarily, as this government has done by imposing 30 time allocation motions in this Parliament, showing utter contempt for parliamentarians and the work we do.

Why can we support amendments here today that come from other political parties? Because we are capable of listening. We are capable of hearing and seeing what is in the best interest of Canadians. I would remind the House that when the orange wave swept through Quebec nearly two years ago, our slogan was “Working Together”.

This is a perfect example to illustrate that we in the NDP are capable of working together.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie both for his speech and his exchange with the Conservative member, who is obviously not listening to Canadians.

Before I ask my question, I would like to say that when the NDP is in power it will make the military justice system fairer for members of our armed forces who risk their lives to serve Canada. The members opposite can take notes if they want to change their policies. The Conservative government has been systematically incapable of putting in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure the independence of the Military Police Complaints Commission and the courts of the military justice system.

I will now put a question to my colleague, who takes note of amendments no matter who proposes them. Can my colleague tell me why the NDP will support the amendments? I would like him to talk to us about amendment no. 6021288, which was proposed by a colleague in the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for a short answer. Then we might have time for another question.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his very specific question. I would also like to say to members that I recently had the pleasure of visiting Chicoutimi—Le Fjord with him. He is lucky to represent such a beautiful riding.

This is what we are proposing. We want to undertake a comprehensive study and reform summary trials, which are the most common type of trial, but present certain problems with respect to basic justice. We want to expand the list of military offences that do not result in a criminal record, and we want to reform the grievance system.

Therefore, unlike the present Conservative government, we are committed to a military justice system that will work in the best interests of members of the military.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the parliamentary secretary's question for the member. The NDP actually did put forward an amendment on this very item. It was a better amendment than the one being proposed and debated today, in my opinion. However, before there is too much back-patting, I want to note that the NDP has in some respects moved the debate forward in terms of a simple and elegant way of dealing with the very subject that the hon. member spoke to, namely, the disconnect between the severity of the offence and the actual service offences.

All parties in the opposition have every right to ask for a relatively simple move toward fairness and justice for our soldiers, sailors and air people, and that is the motivation behind the issues around subsection 3.

Could my hon. colleague reflect upon the issue that has been raised, namely, the openness, the way in which one could actually drive a truck through, subsection 3, if a VCDS chooses to drive a truck through this section? It is not restricted in the same manner that the government is saying it is restricted.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the truck analogy.

I am rising in the House to thank my colleague from the Liberal Party for his kind words, for his appreciation of the work of the New Democrats and his willingness to set the record straight.

I spoke about science and fact at the beginning of my remarks. I thank him for taking the time to correct the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

In fact, the NDP had tabled an amendment on that issue because it was a concern. However, we, like the Liberal Party, are also capable of accepting that other political parties have good ideas. We proved that today. When an idea is good, regardless of political stripe, we can support it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we wonder why we do certain things in life. Minutes, days or weeks go by and we wonder if we were struck by lightning or something. I must have dreamt about the parliamentary secretary last night, and I mean nothing untoward by that. I do not want to start any rumours.

After a crazy day filled with justice issues, I knew that I still had to prepare a speech on Bill C-15. I do not believe that there are many military justice experts in the House, and I do not claim to be one myself. Some members have some military experience that must surely help them.

Still, I did as I always do and I began by reading the bill. Then, I enjoyed reading what happened in committee, because we are at report stage and we are looking at the amendments proposed by the Green Party member.

Since this morning, the parliamentary secretary has been rising, proudly bringing us to order and trying to convince the Speaker that we are breaking the rules because we are not talking about the amendments or the business at hand. It is as though I were reliving my nightmare from last night.

After reading what happened in committee, I was not surprised to see that they took this path, which does not do justice to the file we are debating. The majority of those who have spoken in the House have said that this is not the first time this has been studied during a parliament. However, it could be said that this is being used as an aggravating factor.

It is clear that, on a number of occasions, federal parliaments have decided that changes needed to be made to military justice. There is nothing inherently wrong with pushing for amendments that are fully warranted for a sector of the Canadian public.

We need to move beyond slogans about how great the army is and how wonderful our men and women in uniform are. We need to move beyond words. We need to do more than what this government constantly does. No matter what the topic, they focus on photo ops and headlines. However, when it comes time to act, nothing happens.

Yesterday evening, I was definitely having a nightmare, but I was very happy to be reconciled with the fact that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I sometimes find it tedious to have to convince my colleagues to propose certain amendments to various bills, however well-meaning they may be. I got a glimpse of another committee, of which, thank God, I am not a member.

I considered the file before us and the proposed amendments. The official opposition is not proposing those amendments like some sort of crude magic trick, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. These amendments are being proposed as a result of testimony heard from people who have experienced military justice first-hand within our armed forces.

Just for fun, I decided to dig up some of the testimony that was particularly relevant to the amendment proposed by the member from the Green Party. Here is some of what Colonel Drapeau had to say:

At the end of the day, I hold a firm belief that we owe our soldiers an immeasurable debt of gratitude for bringing glory to the Canadian flag, for bringing unflinching solidarity to our allies, and for impeding a global threat to national security.

In deploying to Afghanistan, our soldiers carried with them our rights and values....they put their lives at risk so as to give the Afghan people a taste of democracy and the rule of law. Sadly, many did not return.

I believe that Bill C-15 should in many ways be in recognition of, and be the incarnation of, their courage, their commitment, and their sacrifices. Out of gratitude as well as justice to these soldiers, Bill C-15 should be first aimed at protecting their rights, not creating more bureaucracy, military lawyers, and military judges. It should be written from the perspective of soldiers and their commanders, not the military legal staff serving in the safe enclave of National Defence Headquarters.

I will spare the House some of his other comments, for he had some criticisms of various aspects of the bill.

We are at report stage, looking at the amendments proposed by the hon. member from the Green Party.

I have been hearing a bitter undertone to these criticisms even though the debate should touch on as many aspects as possible out of respect for the men and women who sacrifice themselves, dedicate themselves and do things on a daily basis that very few of us would do. They risk their lives in defence of our values. They deserve more than a petty debate that cannot seem to get past the comments and insults that I have read about people who gave their lives. I am astounded at how some Conservative members treated some of the witnesses, including Colonel Drapeau, by accusing them of just trying to sell books.

Back to the amendments. I would like to go off on a tangent because even though I am not an expert on the subject, this issue is important to me. Many of the people who live in the riding of Gatineau work for the armed forces. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them.

Yesterday evening, I was reading testimony to prepare for this and become more informed about the subject, knowing full well that I would be hearing the outraged and sometimes outrageous remarks of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Life is full of coincidences. I realized that one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee was a former law school classmate, Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Marie Dugas. I would like to give him my regards. He came to talk about his experience as a lawyer and as the director of the Canadian Forces Defence Lawyers. I would also like to congratulate him on the work he has done defending the rights of these people.

The Green Party amendments were not pulled out of thin air. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence may have been ignorant of the facts or may have failed to understand, when he said that the NDP never suggested any amendments. That is false and insulting and not the case at all. My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood was absolutely right.

The good thing about the NDP's proposed amendment is that it was based on something even better than what the Green Party amendment attempts to do. It was based on the recommendation of the Military Police Complaints Commission. That is exactly what the NDP suggested. The commission recommended removing the section in question.

However, as we know, and I see it all the time at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, government bills are often so badly written and fundamentally flawed that we know they will wind up in court one day. We would like to be able to delete clauses, but we all know that we cannot. They cannot be deleted simply because they go beyond the scope of the bill.

When these kinds of amendments are proposed, we are told that they cannot be presented. We have to proceed as our Green Party colleague did and introduce an amendment that makes the bill a little more palatable, although not perfect.

I probably will not have time to repeat everything that the Military Police Complaints Commission had to say about the famous new subsection 18.5(3) in clause 4, the subject of the Green Party member's amendments. Basically, the Commission believes that there is a problem in the clause related to the independence of operations and accountability. We would have preferred that the clause be deleted.

I highly commend the NDP members who sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence. I commend them for their patience. They were subjected to a number of unpleasant and mean-spirited comments. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie mentioned this earlier. This sometimes surprises me coming from people with diplomatic experience. I just cannot fathom it.

Therefore, I congratulate the team that did its utmost to make this a fair law that respects our charters. I am saying that for our men and women in the Canadian Forces. Unfortunately, because we have a closed government that does not want to listen to anyone, the bill is the way it is. It improves on what we had in the past, but it could have been so much better.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during previous discussions about Bill C-15, we spoke about the interference of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in the Military Police Complaints Commission. We want to avoid such interference. The parliamentary secretary gave examples of investigators that could find themselves in the middle of a conflict.

I would like the hon. member to better define the concept of interference. I think that there is a distinction to be made between a situation in which a commander tells someone that this may not be the best time to conduct an investigation without necessarily being able to say why and one in which he gives instructions and interferes in an investigation. Can the hon. member explain that distinction?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has already mainly explained this nuance. She is one of the people I would like to sincerely commend for the patience she showed on the Standing Committee on National Defence. In all seriousness, despite my almost respectable age, I would not have had such patience and I might no longer be an MP because I might have said some really disgraceful things. I will avoid doing that.

Since my colleague has presented me with the opportunity, I would like to quote the commission. The commission said that it does not take issue with the general supervisory role of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff—the VCDS—vis-à-vis the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal—the CFPM—set out in subsection 18.5(1), nor with the authority of the VCDS to issue general instructions to the CFPM in respect of the discharge of his responsibilities. The problem arises when those instructions start to interfere in cases. Then it comes dangerously close to interference.

The government's problem is that it did not make a distinction. The government is not detail-oriented, which is not a compliment. This is a bad habit that would be in the government's best interest to break, particularly when it comes to such important portfolios that affect our men and women in the Canadian Forces. These people give of themselves to serve our country and I think that we should try to stick as closely as possible to the principles of justice, fair play, natural justice and equality before the law. There is not necessarily any evidence of that in Bill C-15, at least not as much as there should be.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Gatineau and to her response to the first question. However, I still do not know how she feels about the amendments. She has yet to speak about them and has not shared a single new fact about her opinion.

Does she know what is in the amendments? Why does the NDP support the amendments today, when it did not support them in committee? It did not propose them or support them at second reading or during previous parliaments. What has changed over the last 10 years?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Gatineau has one minute to respond.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he contradicted himself a bit in his question. He started by saying that he listened to my speech, but that is clearly not the case.

Perhaps he wants me to talk about the two motions moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The first motion proposes that clause 4 of Bill C-15 be amended by replacing lines 11 to 13 with the proposed amendment. Perhaps he wants me to talk about the second amendment as well. We have already said it and I will say it again. This time, he should listen carefully.

We did better. Even the member for Scarborough—Guildwood said that in committee, the NDP did more than just propose amendments such as the ones proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The NDP called for the clause to be removed completely. That would be a very smart amendment to make.

However, the amendment was not in order because it went beyond the scope of the bill. It could have been accepted by the government opposite. Just because an amendment is not procedurally in order does not mean that we cannot continue. It makes no sense.

I argued before the commission about this clause. The commission feels that it would be best to remove the clause. That is what should have been done. The member should not say that I have not spoken about the amendments. We were not about to ask for anything less than what should be done. That is what the parliamentary secretary is accusing us of. That is ridiculous.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Gatineau, who covered this topic so well.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15 as well as the committee amendments that we are debating today.

I would also like to thank our defence critic, the member for St. John's East, for the work he has done on this file. He has done a marvellous, remarkable job.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence say over and over again that the opposition was not doing anything, that it was just debating and not offering any sort of solution. When we look at what really happened, we can see that meaningful changes came out of those discussions.

This bill was introduced, debated and studied in committee during the 40th Parliament. Then it was deferred until today.

When the government introduced this bill, it did not take into account the amendments that had already been proposed, considered and passed by the parties. Once again, the government came back with a bill filled with holes and things that could have been fixed at that time.

One of the main things that concerned me, and that I mentioned at second reading, is the matter of criminal records. In the NDP, we believe it is important not to say two different things when it comes to the men and women of the Canadian Forces. These people help us, and we owe them the greatest respect. We must not change our tune: we cannot support them when we send them off and forget them when they return.

We rose to speak about the impact this could have with respect to criminal records. This is a victory for the NDP and the opposition. We made sure that the government backed down on criminal records. It gave more consideration to the consequences this would have for CF members.

One of the important points we are talking about today involves the Military Police Complaints Commission and guaranteeing the independence of the MPCC. We discussed the aspect related to the interference that this involved.

As drafted, clause 4 presents a number of problems in that respect. On February 11, 2013, Glenn Stannard, the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, stated in his testimony:

As far as the commission is aware, there have been no problems with the accountability framework that justify its revocation at this time, and proposed subsection 18.5(3) runs counter to various efforts over the years to shore up public confidence in the independence of military policing.

Therefore, we are talking about subsection 18.5(3). In committee, the NDP made some proposals and asked to have it removed. That is exactly what Mr. Stannard said as well.

It is important to listen better. Unfortunately, once again, the government did not listen to us. That is why we are rising today and discussing that point.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I must interrupt the debate at this time for statements by members. The hon. member will have six minutes to complete his speech.