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.