Debates of March 21st, 2013

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know whether I should deal with a sad and pathetic question such as that. He is impugning seasoned military officers on the military police force with a level of ignorance that is unfathomable.

We have gone through Afghanistan on the basis of the current protocol. We have gone through Libya on the basis of the current protocol. We are in Mali on the basis of the current protocol. As far as I know, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, none of the investigations that have arisen by virtue of police investigations have resulted in any military police being killed, injured or maimed in the entire process.

What really concerns me about this particular bill is that it could have been so much better. For whatever reason, the government wishes to play the “it's all your fault” game. Frankly, it is regrettable to say, but we could have done better for our men and women in uniform.

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

Mr. Speaker, before addressing clause 4 and the related amendments, I would like to provide some background on Bill C-15, so that things are clear for everyone who is watching or trying to follow the debate.

Bill C-15 has appeared in various forms. First of all, Bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper because of prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force. It was intended to simplify the structure of the court martial system and establish a method for choosing the type of court martial that would mesh better with the civilian system. After that, in 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations containing amendments to be made to the National Defence Act.

Then, Bill C-41 was introduced in 2010. It responded to the 2003 Lamer report and the Senate committee report I just mentioned. It contained provisions on military justice, including sentencing reform.

The issue of military judges was addressed in Bill C-16 and therefore was not covered in Bill C-15. Bill C-15 also addressed military committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and contained a certain number of provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints processes.

Then, Bill C-41 died on the order paper because the election was called, but I would like to point out that this bill had been studied in committee and that there had been amendments—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake wishes to rise on a point of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that I have already risen once on the issue of relevance and that chapter 13 of O'Brien and Bosc is quite clear that when we are dealing with issues, especially amendments, at report stage, the discussions should be focused upon those amendments.

I respect my friend from across the way considerably for the input that she has on committee, but I do not believe that it is a good use of our time here in the chamber to be discussing a lengthy history of the entire process of getting to where we are today on Bill C-15, when we are dealing with the amendments by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her Motions Nos. 1 and 2. We are to deal specifically with those amendments for clause 4 of Bill C-15 and I ask that you enforce the rules.

We have rules in the House to improve decorum and to improve the use of time for all members of the House, as well as making valuable use of taxpayers' resources. Members need to be focused on what matters as business, which is what has been put forward through orders of the day. Currently, we are dealing with the amendments at report stage on Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that at the beginning of my speech I briefly mentioned—and perhaps he was unable to hear—that I would begin by quickly commenting on what happened in committee before speaking to clause 4 and the provisions set out in the amendments put forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I was coming to that, but the member seems to be in a rush. He should give me a bit more time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Once again the Chair thanks the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake for rising on this point of order and the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her reference to it as well.

I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier and possibly offer a suggestion on a go-forward basis.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake points out quite correctly that there are rules of relevance in this place, in particular that when we are at report stage and the House is dealing with specific amendments that have been put forward, debate ought to be focused on those amendments rather than on a broad, general discussion of the entire bill or the subject in general.

He has also suggested, if not stated outright, that in this way business before the House is in some ways similar to how a committee would deal with amendments. The points that he has made are all quite relevant.

The question becomes the latitude that the Chair grants to members to discuss business before the House, such as what would be considered allowable context, preamble or reference to other pieces of legislation or other amendments that had been brought forward on the same piece of business, possibly at committee, or other experiences that the hon. member has had.

Therefore, I would remind all hon. members that it is in the collective interest of this place and of all members that time in the House be used efficiently, that members stick to the matter before the House, keep their comments relevant to it and avoid repetition of points that have been made to the same end in terms of the efficiency of this place.

I would suggest to the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake that the Chair will review the comments he has made today regarding the points of order related to the debate that is taking place in the House today and will return to this matter if it is deemed necessary. However, within that context I would like the House to resume debate on this matter and would state that the Chair will continue to exercise judgment of relevance in a way similar to the way it has been exercised in the past, rather than in the more restrictive way requested by this hon. member. That will remain the practice of the Chair until the Chair has had an opportunity to review the matter. If changes to that practice of relevance are made, they will be announced in the House.

The point that the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake makes goes beyond this debate today and is a more general point. With all due respect to that point, it will be considered and if deemed reasonable or necessary, the Chair will return to this matter in the future.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my brief opening remarks.

I would like to go into some detail about clause 4, which should make the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence happy. He seems to be quite anxious that I discuss clause 4, which is the subject of the amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Bill C-41 was amended in committee, but it died on the order paper. When Bill C-15 was introduced for second reading, the amendments contained in Bill C-41, which had received widespread approval, were not included in their entirety.

As a result, we initially opposed the bill at second reading because we felt it was a step back. There had already been a similar bill, complete with approved amendments, but those amendments were not included in the new bill. We therefore decided to oppose it.

A number of amendments were proposed in committee. The NDP put forward 22 amendments and five subamendments. The Conservatives proposed two. One addressed dates and the other addressed clause 75, which would increase the number of sentences that would not result in a criminal record. That is why the amendment was passed. We have now decided to support Bill C-15 because of that improvement.

However, some problems have still not been resolved. The situation is not perfect, but progress has been made. This bill has not taken us as far backward. We are moving forward.

The NDP proposed amendments to clause 4 of Bill C-15. They were rejected. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. She does not have the right to sit on committee. The hon. member is now presenting amendments, and this is a perfectly normal part of the democratic process, since she did not have the opportunity to do so before.

These amendments pertain to the section of the bill related to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the investigations that will be conducted.

The wording of the second amendment, Motion No. 2, would be changed to read as follows: “The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) and the relevant rationale are available to the public.” “[A]nd the relevant rationale” is what is being added.

I agree with this amendment because it specifies that the Provost Marshal is not just making the guidelines available to the public but also the reasons for them.

This is a worthwhile amendment because it makes it possible to make the instructions and the reasons for them public. It makes it possible to provide a rationale for the guidelines. This lends weight to the instructions that the Provost Marshal could ultimately issue. It is worthwhile.

The other amendment, Motion No. 1, will read as follows if it is passed:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal and in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the Accountability Framework signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal on March 2, 1998, issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation, providing that the rationale for issuing the instructions or guidelines is also stated.

For the people listening to my speech, it is important to understand what the current provision of the bill says. It reads:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

The motion moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands adds a lot of details.

It is important to note that both amendments seek to ensure that a rationale is provided.

I find that really interesting because when such important decisions are made, it is crucial that there be an explanation of how and why they were made. That makes them much easier to accept and it gives a better idea of the intended direction.

I would also like to talk about the importance of strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission, the MPCC. The underlying issue is guaranteeing the independence of the MPCC.

Some aspects of clause 4 concerning the MPCC are a step backwards for the military justice system. Furthermore, there could be interference by the chain of command in military police investigations. Thus, I believe ensuring the independence of the MPCC would be the responsible thing to do.

The amendments specify that the rationale is to be provided, which would at least explain what happened. At the very least, there could be a better understanding of the interference and it might not seem unwarranted because the reasons would be provided.

I would like to point out that a former chair of the MPCC, Peter Tinsley, and the current chair, Glenn Stannard, have expressed their concerns about this provision. Both recommended that it be deleted from the bill. The provision at issue concerns the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and his authority to issue guidelines and instructions in respect of military police investigations.

One of the important things to point out is that the amendments proposed by my colleague would make it possible to provide additional information about the reasons for the investigation. However, clause 4 is problematic.

Of course the NDP will undertake to resolve this situation when it is in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

First, in light of her preamble, does she not think that 10 years is a bit long to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations?

Second, our colleagues from St. John's East and Scarborough—Guildwood have shown contempt for the reality facing members of our military. As a former member of the Canadian armed forces, does the member not agree that this bill must contain specific provisions to ensure that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal is made aware of the situation on the battlefield, if necessary, when he or she is conducting an investigation on a battlefield where such a danger exists?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I do not think that any member should claim that another member has contempt for the Canadian armed forces. I think his comments were unacceptable. The parliamentary secretary should retract his comments. Just because we have a different idea of what constitutes national defence, that does not mean that we have contempt for our soldiers. I find those comments particularly insulting. I work with my colleague from St. John's East every day, and I know that he respects the men and women of our military.

Yes, 10 years is a long time to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations. The Liberals were in power and they did not do so. I do not know why.

That said, instead of introducing a bill similar to Bill C-41, which had been amended, the government introduced Bill C-15, which was a step backwards.

If the Conservatives had introduced a Bill C-15 that was similar to what Bill C-41 had become, we would have perhaps wasted less time. Instead they chose to go backwards. What can we do? They are the ones who introduced the bill, and they decided to go backwards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I largely agreed with the sentiments of the member, at least until she got to the part about the Liberals. In addition to being a very able member of the defence committee, she is also a very mean right winger on Wednesday night hockey. In fact, she flattened the hon. colleague behind her last night. She is embarrassed, but he is even more embarrassed.

I want to ask a specific question with respect to the government's core argument on proposed subsection 18.5(3), which is about live fire exercises, et cetera: does she really believe that military police are so stupid as to not recognize when live fire is occurring on a battlefield?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry. I had trouble hearing the end of my colleague's question because of the noise in the House. I am very sorry, but I did not hear the question. If you could let—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Will the member for Scarborough—Guildwood please repeat his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member, having been an experienced member of the armed forces, really believe the government's core argument that the military police are so stupid that they will pursue an investigation into a live fire zone?

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

No, Mr. Speaker. I think that the commanders of our units and platoons are smart enough to figure out when an investigation is appropriate. You do not carry out an investigation when you are being fired upon. That would be ridiculous. When you are being fired upon, you defend yourself and you get out of there. It is not time to get out your paper and your pencil and take statements.

I think that, logically, everybody knows that an investigation will take place when the time is right, not in the middle of an attack or an operation. No military police officer would try to gather evidence while his platoon is carrying out a tactical operation or some other manoeuvre. If that was my colleague's question, I think that the answer is obvious.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I want to start my remarks by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue that was raised about relevancy. I think the various Speakers in this place are quite, pardon the term, liberal in the way that they allow us to put things into context, because each one of us brings to the House a particular life experience.

I hate to say this, but in my case it was 50 years ago that I was in the Canadian military for a couple of years. I recall one of the first things we were talked to about was good order and discipline. I want to take members back for a moment, again, in the sense of a context of the power and the control that is exercised within military circles. If we were in the military in 1914 and going through basic training, they would be firing live ammunition over the top of us as we crawled through a field. Obviously, over time, those kinds of things changed.

I was in the military in 1963-64. Two years before, a corporal would have had the right to strike me if I was doing something he was not satisfied with. That changed. At the time I was there, they still found ways to draw our attention to their dissatisfaction. As we stood at attention, they would come over and say, “Excuse me, I'm adjusting your tie” and then adjust it so tight that we would start to turn blue.

The context and the reason I am saying this is that it shows the thinking of those people in power and why there has to be some kind of limitation. Rights have evolved for all Canadians in this country over a number of years, particularly the last 50 to 75 years. Other speakers today have talked about the fact that Canadians, average Canadians on the street, would believe that those rules and rights apply to all citizens. Therefore, we find ourselves in a situation, and I will not give the history as others have done, where corrective measures were started in previous houses of Parliament. We did not succeed at those times in concluding them. Then we got to the point where Bill C-15 was brought forward. I understand it was a year, roughly, since the last report calling for change had been received.

There are other remarks I would like to make but I want to speak directly to the amendments that have been proposed today. I want to say very clearly that we do not agree all the time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. However, in these two amendments, she is attempting to go further than the members of the committee were allowed to go by the government, because some of the amendments we proposed in that committee were voted down by the government.

This, at least, affords us all the opportunity to discuss at length some important aspects of the bill that are missing. If we give consideration to the requirement of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to make a relevant rationale available to the public regarding his or her instructions or guidelines given to the Provost Marshal, that is a very serious application of accountability.

When I describe the things that have changed within the military from those past years, from the live fire in training to striking people and all those things, over time people came to clearly understand what improper usage is.

This is one of those cases where now we have the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff put in the public purview where the public will be able to see what his rationale was. I think that would improve the situation. It would require a level of due diligence that is not required today. Therefore, I certainly support that amendment.

The second amendment would require that instructions or guidelines given by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, again, to the Provost Marshal, be in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the accountability framework, signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and Provost Marshal back in 1998. Think of that date. We hear government members on the other side talk about how long it has taken to accomplish changes. It certainly has been a while.

Again, I want to stress that the NDP supports these amendments.

The accountability framework states that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff shall not direct the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal with regard to military police operational decisions relative to an investigation. We have an area here where we are going to have a contradiction in the framework resulting from the amendment, which could be problematic going forward. From our perspective, that whole provision should have been removed. Hopefully I am being clear in the sense of the relationship between these things.

We do believe, though, that the amendment is an improvement. It does not go where we would like it to go totally, but it is an improvement on what is in the bill. We strongly believe that granting the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the authority is in clear violation of that previous aspect. Very clearly, that just means, to the government side, that there is going to be more work required here on this.

I would like to go back to some of the notes I put together a little earlier. I had added those additional thoughts as I was sitting and listening to the debate here. In this place we often comment, particularly across to the other side, about the limitations on debate and the fact that time allocation, over and over, has prevented us from properly looking at a bill.

In this place we all know that sometimes when we are sitting here on House duty that there are debates that do not have the depth that they should have. Most times there is something we can learn from listening to the other members of Parliament. For example, for myself, the first few minutes of my presentation today came about because of the reminders coming from the statements from the government side and from previous members who spoke before me. The value of having that open debate is so important to this place and to what we are able to do.

Let us go back to a previous bill, Bill C-41, which I have not studied to the depth that committee members would have. When it came out of committee it had some recommendations that had passed at the committee stage but were left out of Bill C-15. We are kind of struggling on this side of the House to understand why that was necessary. When there was agreement in the previous committee on Bill C-41, why would the government not say, “We have looked at this. We have studied it. We will advance it forward in Bill C-15”? The government chose not to.

I would suggest a major omission was the failure to include a broadened list of offences, removed from the consequences of a criminal record. During the process on Bill C-15, New Democrats, both in the House and in committee, pressed for changes and amendments in that area. The purpose of that was to reduce the effect of disciplinary offences regarding possible criminal records.

We also challenged the failure of full charter rights in these cases. Full charter rights are as fundamental as it gets. There is no excuse or justification in my mind for a person who is serving their country, in some instances putting their lives at risk, to not have the value of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as every other Canadian has. Our military members, if anyone, who defend our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, who defend our very freedom, should have the absolute rights of all Canadians. I think it is incumbent upon this place to ensure that happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand by the view that members opposite have shown scorn and disregard for the particular situation that military members find themselves in when on mission, which requires the military justice system to be separate from the civilian justice system.

That is at the heart of the debate we are having today about these amendments. It would not be necessary to empower the VCDS to give instructions to independent military police if that special situation the Canadian Forces face did not exist. Does the member who has just spoken understand the bill?

At 18.5(4), in the unamended version, it says that:

The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) are available to the public.

That is in the bill as unamended.

The member also mentioned the desirability of not having some offences heard at summary trial translate into a criminal record. Is the member not aware that the bill as unamended contains an amendment of article 75, which would do just that? By making more speeches in this place, we are delaying the coming into—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that in Bill C-15 there were measures put in place that we agree with. We have already said that we agree with them. However, there are other aspects we are putting forward. To some it is repetitive, yes. Some people have similar comments, because our beliefs are similar.

We believe that the government has not gone far enough. We have had several reports over a number of years delivered to various governments. It is not the sole responsibility of the government. However, the onus has been on the government for the last eight years, and it has not responded. To take it a step further, one of the things that interfered with the delivery of previous bills was the prorogation of the House, which was done by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member started out in 1914 and said that he had been in the army, I thought that the hon. member was older than I remember him to be.

We all know the hon. member has a very keen interest in matters to do with human rights, and human rights do not end just because one puts on a uniform. He made that point quite eloquently.

I would be interested in his comments on the way the British do it with respect to summary trials. The British say that a summary trial cannot take place unless the accused is represented by counsel. There is a right of appeal to a summary appeal court. The appeal court is presided over by a civilian and two military members, and as a general rule, imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the soldier does not have legal representation.

It seems simple, straightforward and consistent with 21st century values. Why is it not here?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Parliament in Britain is our mother Parliament, in some sense of the word. The evolution of democracy, in another sense of the word, occurred--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was no syllable, no particle of that question, and presumably not of the answer, that had anything to do with the amendments in the two motions that are now before this House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I address that point of order, I would remind all hon. members of another practice, and that is that when the Chair rises to deal with a point of order, other members will take their seats.

On several occasions this morning, the issue of relevance has arisen. The last time it was raised by the member for Selkirk—Interlake, the Chair recognized the point the member was making. The member for Selkirk—Interlake was essentially taking issue with what I would call the standard practice of how the Chair deals with relevance in this place.

That was recognized, and it was suggested that the Speaker would review this matter and return to the House to clarify those issues. At the same time, I said that for the balance of the debate today, in the interest of proceeding with the business before the House, the interpretation of relevance that has been the standard practice in the House will continue to be exercised, notwithstanding that some members think it is too broad.

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary and other members to respect that judgment from the Chair. The question of relevance, particularly as it arises related to report stage when the House is dealing with amendments, and whether comments that relate to general aspects of the bill should or should not be tolerated will be looked into. However, it has been suggested that at this point, the Chair will not be re-categorizing or re-establishing what those parameters are for the terms of this debate today.

Was the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle rising on the same point of order?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour this point of order for no reason.

However, what I heard this morning helped me to understand the situation. I did not feel that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and my other colleague were being repetitive in their remarks. They gave the matter a lot of thought. They have a sense of duty, and they are doing their work as elected representatives very conscientiously.

However, I did hear very repetitive arguments from the other side of the House, and I know their talking points by heart by now.

That being said, when I heard the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue earlier, I knew exactly what she was getting at. I knew that she was explaining to people what was going on with this so that they could be better informed.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what you have said on the subject.