Debates of April 29th, 2013

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague for Malpeque. Of course, he has some experience in relation not only to the RCMP but also in relation to the justice system. As a former Solicitor General of Canada, he dealt with issues like this.

However, I can assure members that he would not have been interfering and trying to tell the RCMP how to conduct an investigation, which is the kind of thing we are talking about here in relation to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, who, under these rules, would be able to call a halt to a session like that. Like my hon. colleague, I am concerned about this idea.

We know that members of Parliament cannot talk directly to members of the RCMP to seek information on what is happening in their area and get information that they need to do their jobs. We know how little the Conservative government enjoys the idea of allowing members of Parliament to have access to information about what is happening in government. We know the problems that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has had in extracting budgetary information from the government, to the point that just the other day the Prime Minister had the gall to suggest that the PBO was being partisan by asking for information on behalf of members of Parliament generally. That is outrageous and inappropriate.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and to follow my colleague today in raising some of the concerns we have with Bill C-15.

It seems the longer we are here in the House, the more we see a variety of things happening. My colleague from Malpeque mentioned that now, in order to speak to members of the RCMP, MPs must have permission from the minister. I have had many conversations with the RCMP on the issue of sexual assault and harassment in the RCMP in the last year or so. That announcement just helps to bring forward more of these issues about a balance of justice and fairness in the system for everybody, whether they are in the military or a private citizen. We all need to be very much concerned when the politics get too far into the issues of policing or justice. Hence, the reason that I am on my feet and commenting on Bill C-15, which is an act to amend the National Defence Act.

I will read a bit of the information, so that we and anybody who is watching will know why we are raising some issues on something that we are not 100% against and at one point we may have even supported. It will put this in the context of so many other things that seem to be heading in a direction where we are going to politicize the police force the same way that everything that the Government of Canada puts its hands on is politicized. We need to flag these issues, so that we all are thinking them through very carefully. Therefore, I offer a bit of a summary on Bill C-15 and what it is about.

Bill C-15 would “(a) provide for security of tenure for military judges until [they reach the age of 60];...”, which is the retirement age for military judges, contrary to all other Canadian citizens who would have to wait until they are 67 to get their pensions. They could be removed for cause on the recommendations of an inquiry committee, or through resignation. It would also “(b) [allow for] the appointment of part-time military judges;” and outlining sentencing “...objectives and principles;”.... The bill would “(d) provide for [new] sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution [orders];...”.

As my colleague across the hall mentioned, there are some things in here that are supportable. Unfortunately, the question is whether there would be a true balance of justice in all aspects of it. Like many things that are introduced into this House, it does not necessarily qualify on many avenues. There are some parts of it that would be good, but there are always so many other parts in legislation brought forward by the government that are not good. We do not just adapt something because, while it has three good parts in it, the rest of it is no good. Because of that we have to support it? No. If it is not good in the overall 10 points that need to be examined, then we should not be supporting it.

Bill C-15 would look “...at amending composition of a court martial panel [selections] according to the rank of the accused...”, and it would change “...the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee”.

That raises another issue. In the RCMP or the military, when the members have a serious grievance, where do they go? In the RCMP, from what we have heard in the sexual harassment hearings, they have to go to their own supervisors. Many times that is the person causing the problem. Or they go to another person above that person, but it is always within the same confines of that same family. For the RCMP in particular, there needs to be an external review board that is 100 yards away from anything to do with the RCMP, that is truly independent and can hear a grievance from anyone who is working for the RCMP. Similarly for the military, there needs to be an arm's-length grievance committee, or a place where members can go and truly get a hearing on their issue. Complaining to their supervisor's friend who is going to keep everything within the same confines, and is not going to want to see anybody pay too big a price for a grievance, really jeopardizes justice in this country. Certainly, from what I have heard from the hearings, there is a need for a union to represent many of the officers.

If they want to do things right, then there has to be an arm's-length committee, as many of the police services across Canada have. It is an external body, where people can go with a serious complaint and get a true hearing. It is not just “passing the buck” from one to another; then people end up not getting true justice. One of the things that we hear a lot about in the Liberal Party, as I think all elected members of Parliament do, is justice. Justice does not only need to be done, it needs to be seen to be done. The perception out there is that is not way it is necessarily happening.

As Liberals, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. Canada has been the leader in so many areas when it comes to human rights, when it comes to the charter, and when it comes to issues of fairness, of ensuring that what we do in Canada is balanced and fair and respectful of everybody's rights. More and more we are having to question whether that is exactly what is happening or not. We believe, as Canadian citizens and as Liberals, that people who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose part of their rights before the courts.

Again, we are back into that system. We want to attract more and more young people to a career in the military. We see the men and women who are out there fighting for us and representing us, and we are grateful that they have the courage and the commitment to do this. We want to make sure that they are treated fairly.

Bill C-15 does not answer all those questions. It leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Before we pass Bill C-15, we should make sure we have perfected the bill so that those in the military are not losing their opportunities for a fair and just trial.

The Liberal Party also understands that rights and equality are universal. We talk a lot about that. That really means that it is for everybody. It does not matter who a person is, where they come from or what job they are doing, we would like to think that everybody in Canada is treated fairly and equitably. Without an effective means for an appeal and no recorded proceedings, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not represent the basic rights of a Canadian Forces member.

We also do not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain offences is fair and just as a means for pardoning offences, which has recently been removed by the Conservatives. Again, we go back to trying to be fair and balanced, and treating people with respect, making sure that everybody has their role and that they do not violate that.

We also find it problematic that the VCDS can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the code of service discipline.

Bill C-15 is in keeping with a lot of Bill C-42 and a lot of other things that continually try to give other people more power rather than making sure that we really have an equitable system that is going to be there to represent everyone, that we are not going to discourage people from joining the service, that we are not going to have people join the military and then leave, speaking very negatively about their experience.

Shifting the power around to different people rather than having an independent body do the review makes us question where we are going with this issue. I met yesterday with a group of people from Venezuela who were upset about the recent election. They were talking about how the government of the day controls everything. These things keep being raised.

I am really concerned that little by little we are losing the things that we value the most here in our own country, that there is an eroding of the power of parliamentarians, and that a real miscarriage of justice is happening.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak, and she is talking about fairness and justice for all. Our government is very intent on seeing those things happen and making sure that there is fairness in the process.

If my colleague sees these things as not being fair, then they were unfair under her government as well. She was there for 13 years. Why did her government not fix it—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thirteen long productive years.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thirteen long forgotten years, the member is absolutely right.

Why did the Liberals not put fairness into the process to ensure that these people were treated equitably? Why did the member allow it to go on for so long?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thirteen long years, Mr. Speaker, and I am looking forward to being back in government for another 13 years. We will make sure that we have a lot of time to undo all of the miscarriages that the Conservatives have produced.

I want to go back to the minister's comments on Friday about my colleagues and I continuing to work on issues like the RCMP and justice in general. I really and truly am very worried about the road that we are heading on where there will be no justice any longer. We are going to end up like those very countries that we are so critical of when it comes to people being able to speak out. The government has been muzzling RCMP officers and its own members, but it is not going to muzzle any of us.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put two ideas to my colleague for her response.

First, why would Colonel Michel Drapeau, perhaps Canada's most experienced military lawyer, a long serving member of the Canadian Forces and now a veteran, be opposing this legislation as aggressively as he is?

Second, if we look at other countries, which is a good thing to do when new legislation is being brought in particularly in an area as sensitive as this, we understand that the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania and Netherlands, to name a few, have improved their very legislation in this area by adopting the kinds of ideas we have been putting forward as an opposition party. Why would the government not want to do that to be in concert with so many other nations?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the shortcomings of the current government. The Conservative government is focused on our own boundaries, as if we live in a world by ourselves.

Canada has brought forward model legislation in many areas. We learn from things that happen in other countries. I want to quote Justice Létourneau who said so eloquently:

We as a society have forgotten, with harsh consequences for the members of the armed forces, that a soldier is before all a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen in uniform. So is a police officer; he is a Canadian citizen in uniform, but he’s not deprived of his right to a jury trial. Is that what we mean by “equality of all before the law”? Is not the soldier who risks his life for us entitled to at least the same rights and equality before the law as his fellow citizens when he is facing criminal prosecutions?

Justice Létourneau and the others are clearly very experienced people. Colonel Drapeau indicated similar concerns. It means we should take a step back and see how we can improve this legislation so it would achieve for all what is necessary as true Canadians and encourage people to join the military and continue with a great career.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently for equality for those individuals in the military who serve Canadians. This particular legislation purports to update our military criminal justice system, but in fact has some significant gaps.

It is always good to review our laws to make sure that they reflect present realities and that they are equitable, appropriate and consistent with our Constitution. The military criminal justice system is no exception. This legislation has been worked on for a long time but the Liberal Party of Canada believes it is not where it needs to be in order to get our support. The members for Winnipeg North, Halifax West and York West made that case in quite a specific and compelling way. We are being asked to support something that still has so many flaws; that is politics.

Clearly, many aspects of the military justice system remain inexplicably unchanged or give unnecessary powers in this bill. For instance, the bill enshrines in law a list of military offences that will carry a criminal record in the future, which is not necessary in many cases.

Given that the pardon system was recently revoked and that summary trials are what they are—with no record and no means of meaningful appeal—the members of the armed forces will find themselves with criminal records and unable to find employment upon release.

Clearly there are some flaws in the bill. The one I want to focus on in particular is the issue of human rights and equality. It really boils down to what kind of society we want to have in Canada, and I think Canadians are clear. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada is widely supported right across the country and is a very proud part of our framework for protecting rights but also for enshrining responsibilities in our country, to make sure those who are vulnerable have the law on their side to protect their right to equality.

It has been shameful and disappointing that the Conservative Party of Canada has chosen to minimize the importance of this very important part of our Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, essentially dismissing and not celebrating its great anniversaries. Last year was the 30th anniversary, and there was not much of a murmur from the government, but hundreds of millions of dollars went into celebrating the anniversary of a war.

That goes down to what kind of society we want to have. Do we want to have one that protects rights and freedoms, or do we want to have one that is all about punishment? We see changes to immigration. We see in Bill C-10, that grab bag of bad public policy, that the Conservative government is much more focused on punishment than on equality. That is reflected in this bill as well.

In his testimony before committee, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau noted:

...someone accused before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence. This is despite the fact that the verdict and sentence are imposed without any regard to the minimum standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, such as the right to counsel, the presence of rules of evidence, and the right to appeal.

In Canada, these rights do not exist in summary trials, not even for a decorated veteran, yet a Canadian charged with a summary conviction offence in civilian court... enjoys all of these rights. So does someone appearing in a small claims court or in a traffic court.

He goes on to say:

I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of these charter rights when facing a quasi-criminal process with the possibility of loss of liberty through detention in a military barracks.

Clear questions of inequality have arisen here. There are problems with the bill that are fundamental to the kind of society we want to have, not just a few tweaks that we could have put into the bill and that the government has not done. This does go down to fundamentally what kind of society we want to have. This kind of inequality is being unfortunately cemented into other bills and other laws brought forward by the Conservative government.

I want to refer to some comments made by my colleague from Mount Royal recently on the occasion of the 31st anniversary of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to Justice Létourneau, soldiers are citizens and they should enjoy the same constitutional rights guaranteed by the charter as any other citizen.

This is what he said:

“We as a society have forgotten, with harsh consequences for the members of the armed forces, that a soldier is before all a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen in uniform.”

In other words, they should be able to count on all of the rights and protections that citizens enjoy in our country.

Referring to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the member for Mount Royal raised a question of privilege in the House this past March and expressed concern that the government is failing to live up to its own statutory obligation, which is expressed in section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.

In law, this is requiring that the government, that the Minister of Justice, examine each and every government bill introduced in the House to ensure it is consistent with the charter. That would seem like a simple step to respect our fundamental constitutional obligations as parliamentarians and as government in law-making and public policy-making.

How often has the government actually done that? How often has the government checked and done a review to ensure that its bills introduced in the House are consistent with the charter and receive the constitutional seal of approval? How often has the government reported any inconsistencies, or otherwise, to the House?

Does anybody have an answer to that question?

[Some hon. members]

Never.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That is right. My colleagues are on the ball. No such report has ever been tabled by the Minister of Justice.

This is not just a procedural rule. This is actually fundamental to protecting our rights and freedoms that are engraved in our country's framework for justice.

Why has the government never actually done that kind of review, and what is the consequence of that?

Actually, the consequence is very expensive, because that means the government continually comes forward with bills that are then contested, either at the provincial level or through other organizations. That ties up court time. That ties up resources. For example, there are challenges now to other government bills. I think there is very likely to be a challenge to the bill we are debating today because this government omitted an important part of our equality framework from the bill, disadvantaging our troops, our Canadian armed forces, whom we all respect and would want to see treated equally. I think there may well be a challenge to the bill, because it is flawed, and it will then go through the hoops of being contested and found failing.

Let us avoid that. Let us pull the bill back. Let us fix it before it goes forward, on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of rights and equality and on behalf of our armed forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to begin by saying that many of us on this side of the House, on the government benches, are taken aback by the member's speech and the other speeches we have heard today from the Liberal Party members. While the member for Vancouver Quadra may have prided herself on running a leadership campaign that was pretty far to the left, many of her proposals today are actually more extreme than those proposed by the NDP in committee or at any other stage of this debate.

My question is: If she thinks the summary trial system is unconstitutional, does not cohere with the charter, then why did the Liberal Party not do something about that during the 15 years it was in government under the charter and with this military justice system?

Second, why were these points not raised in committee by the Liberal Party? Why are we suddenly, at report stage, hearing these radical musings from Liberal members about our military justice system, which never came up in committee?

Also, why are they relying on only two witnesses—two witnesses who took extreme positions?

Why are they delaying necessary changes, modernization updating in the military justice?

Finally, why do they not take pride in a military justice system that, as part of our larger justice system, is the envy of the world?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it amusing, actually, that the member opposite is using words like “radical” and “extreme” for a proposition the Liberals are making that in fact was applied by the British Parliament, and we have a Conservative government in Britain. The British government did actually go a long way to ensuring the fair treatment of soldiers facing summary trials. In Britain, I would claim that the requirements of independence, impartiality, fairness and equality are very similar to those in Canada.

If we are proposing that this law, before becoming law, should incorporate those kinds of changes that have been incorporated in Britain and so many other places, I fail to understand how these can be considered radical and extreme proposals.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reference to the member saying that the Liberal caucus was on the ball. I have to say it is a little late to come to be on the ball. When the bill was at second reading and report stage, only one Liberal member spoke at each of those stages. Furthermore, the Liberal Party never made any recommendations for amendments at committee. Now the member is saying these changes should be incorporated into the legislation before it is adopted. The place to actually make proposals is in committee, which the NDP did. We made recommendations for amendments at committee to make the bill better.

I would like to ask the member why more Liberal members did not speak on previous stages of this bill; why they did not recommend these changes or any changes to the bill at committee; and why they did not support the NDP amendments.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the NDP member prefers process over principle. This is about principle. Is the member saying that committees are an absolutely ironclad place to do great public policy? Do amendments actually happen in committee these days? Does the member feels that committee is a place that he and his party can get great public policy to happen? I would posit that is not the case. To rest a decision on the process in committee rather than the fundamental principle of human rights and equality is not something with which I agree.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the comment that was just made by the member from the official opposition. We still have time to amend this legislation. I put forward amendments that would preserve the independence of investigations and prevent senior military officials from interfering in the scope of an investigation. It is exactly the opportunity to pass those amendments today. I would be very grateful if the official opposition and the Liberal Party would change their current position of allowing this bill to pass on division and, instead, support a vote on the amendments to improve Bill C-15.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member ask a question of process to support a principle rather than a question of process to undermine a principle, as we heard from the NDP.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to join in the debate. It has been informative. Being neither a lawyer with a legal background or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces with a military background, I have certainly learned quite a bit from the debate here today. It has been worthwhile.

That being said, our caucus is blessed with a great depth of legal knowledge. My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, and my colleague from down the road in Halifax West have addressed many of the rights issues woven throughout this piece of legislation. I am certainly respectful of their opinion on it.

As well, our caucus boasts a number of people who have served our country in military service. The member for Winnipeg North is a former member of the Canadian air force. He was posted in Edmonton for a number of years. Our colleague, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, is a former naval officer, a colonel, in the Canadian navy. He went on to become involved in the space program and was Canada's first astronaut. He is a man whose opinion is widely respected across the country.

Then, of course, from the red chamber, there is Senator Romeo Dallaire. His vast experience and understanding of all issues military has a great deal of equity in his opinion. When people of that calibre bring forward concerns on a particular piece of legislation, such as Bill C-15, obviously it is worth taking note.

One of the key provisions brought forward today is the provision for security of tenure for military justices until they reach the retirement age of 60, resign or are removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee. The outlining of sentences, objectives and principles is another provision. The legislation would also amend the composition of a court marshal panel according to the rank of the accused. The bill also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee. One of the other key components is that it allows certain service offences to carry a criminal record.

In our party, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court marshal system and to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. However, we also believe that Canadian citizens who make that career decision, that life choice, to join the Canadian Forces should not lose some of their rights before the courts.

We believe and understand that rights and equality are universal. Without an effective means for appeal, and no recorded proceedings, which was mentioned by my colleague from Halifax West, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not respect the basic rights of Canadian Forces members. Our party does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, as the means of pardoning offences has been recently removed by the government.

Finally, we find it problematic that the VCDS can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the code of service discipline.

Obviously, there are a number of disparities between the military and civil justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. While we recognize that updates to the military justice system must be made, the government is missing an opportunity to make these changes properly.

Many aspects of the MJS inexplicably remain unimproved or provide unnecessary powers. For example, Bill C-15 enshrines in law a list of military offences that will now carry a criminal record, and some are hardly necessary. Without a pardon system, which was recently revoked by the Conservatives, and summary trials set up with no records and no meaningful appeal, a Canadian Forces member would be left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

I would think it would have twigged on the government that many Canadians, after they finish their military service, have challenges securing that first job out of the service. Many times, the skills an individual acquires, even the technical skills, do not align with accepted or traditional construction trade skills.

The helmets to hard hats program, which works with members who try to seek employment after having left the military, is recognition of that. The Conservatives take a great deal of credit for it, but they have put only $150,000 into the program. The program is really run by Canadian building trades and a number of corporate sponsors. That being said, it is a program that recognizes some of the challenges members of the Canadian Forces face upon release. It would be nice if the government would play a more significant role.

That being said, if the Conservatives were attuned to the challenges of departing members, one would think they would understand that coming out of the military with a criminal record because of an offence that in our own court system would not be recognized as a criminal act becomes a burden in itself. That is yet another challenge that has to be overcome by an individual. It is truly unfortunate and unnecessary.

My colleague from Ajax—Pickering said that the testimony given by a couple of witnesses was somewhat extreme. Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau is a respected Canadian with a very distinguished military career. I will read into the record his quote from the testimony presented:

I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of these charter rights when facing a quasi-criminal process with the possibility of loss of liberty through detention in military barracks.

We cannot dismiss testimony from individuals whose opinions we greatly respect. We should take that into consideration. Certainly the testimony of both Retired Colonel Drapeau and M. Létourneau was very compelling and should be reflected going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, the Liberal Party in the past, like us, has accepted the authority of former senior members of the judiciary, such as Justice Dickson, Justice Lamer and Justice LeSage, who have served at the highest levels with either the Supreme Court of Canada or the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. None of them have recommended that the summary trial system be dispensed with. None of them have said that it is unconstitutional or contrary to or at odds with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We now have the Liberal Party suddenly claiming support for the charter while ignoring the advice of these eminent jurists, who are great champions of the charter itself. It seems to me that the Liberal Party on this issue, as on so many, no longer has a position.

We just heard the member for Cape Breton—Canso say that Bill C-15 would strengthen the role of the grievance board. It would give it more independence and give it a new name. The member for Vancouver Quadra said that there was no such change in the bill.

It is clear that the Liberals are improvising. They are making up these changes that were never spoken about in committee. Why is that? Why delay the modernization of our military justice system and disregard the sage advice of eminent—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his opinion.

As we know, in every piece of legislation, a number of items will be impacted and a number of items will be changed. Our caucus, and I am sure the House, can agree that probably two-thirds of this bill are worthwhile and well founded.

As a matter of fact, we have seen other aspects of this bill brought before the House in the past. Bill C-7 was here in 2006, and Bill C-41 was in 2008. Both died on the order paper, but many of the components of this bill were brought forward at that time.

There are aspects of this bill we have absolutely no problem with. However, the concerns we have raised through the debate today are real, and I hope that the government is taking note.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to be a little confused this morning, but I will let it slide, since it is Monday morning.

In committee, they had the opportunity to oppose the bill. When they had the chance to move amendments, they did nothing. They also opposed all the amendments proposed by the NDP.

Could the Liberal member name one amendment proposed by the NDP and explain why he is opposed to it?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will host a party back at my office if anybody ever gets an amendment passed in committee, because we are being force-fed. I know that the member is a new member, but unlike anything I have seen in my 13 years, the impact of amendments now being brought forward at committee is, for the most part, laughable.

When there is testimony on the record, presented by such respected Canadians, I think it is worthwhile. It is never too late to bring it forward.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is bringing forward amendments. We will certainly look at those and take them into consideration to see if they can improve the legislation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important debate we are having today. This is about the men and women in the Canadian Forces, full stop. It is about whether they will be treated like every other Canadian citizen. It is about whether the government is manifesting what I would describe as stubborn pigheadedness when it comes to improving the military justice system that is in place.

It is impossible for me to speak about this criminal justice bill without being reminded of the typical conduct of the government under the Conservative Party. It is a government that consistently has refused to be bound by its responsibilities under section 4(1) of the Department of Justice Act. For Canadians watching, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, a lawyer, went to the bar when he was sworn in and pledged an oath to uphold the law. When he was sworn in to the role as a lawyer in the province of Ontario, he was sworn in to uphold the law for his entire legal career.

I would argue that since the arrival of the Conservative government, in some quarters described as a regime, it has seen fit to consistently leave aside its responsibilities in this regard. I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada may, for example, be in breach of his own code of conduct and his code of ethics as a lawyer. However, that is not what we are debating today.

I am reminded of the words of David Daubney. Mr. Daubney, for my colleagues in the Conservative caucus who do not know, was a member of Parliament with the Progressive Conservative Party. He then went on to a very distinguished career as a lawyer in the Department of Justice, where he served in his last post as director of the criminal law policy unit.

Two day after retiring from his distinguished career, he lashed out at the Conservative government in terms of its conduct with respect to the use of evidence, analysis, research, things that we would rely on as parliamentarians to make the right calls for everyday Canadians, in this case, everyday members in our Canadian Forces.

Mr. Daubney went on to say that he was extremely disappointed and that was one of the reasons why he left his career. Despite the fact that with his team he delivered hard evidence and good analysis to the government, particularly in areas like mandatory minimums, the government would not hear them. It was more than tone deaf; it simply shut it off.

Here we have another example of a bill. I would like to go back to some words spoken earlier by the MP for Ajax—Pickering, who stood up and boasted that Canada was the envy of the world. He is right. I could not be in more agreement with my colleague, but he knows better. During his time serving as a young ambassador in Afghanistan, he knew that one of the foundational documents we were trying to inculcate into the Afghani system of criminal justice was to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the baseline.

For Canadians who are watching or following, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now the number one document used in the world for strengthening the rule of law for helping to amend and strengthen constitutions all over the world. When I trained in the former Soviet Union after the wall fell in over 20 countries, I used the Charter of Rights. When I was in the Ukraine last fall, strengthening its legal system, I used the Charter of Rights. Many jurisdictions now look to Canada and look to our charter as the foundational document.

When my colleague for Vancouver Quadra rose to express her concern about the human rights implications in the bill, she was right. I know many members in the Conservative caucus know in their heart of hearts that the bill is incomplete, but it is capable of being, not perfected, but certainly improved, which is why the Liberal Party of Canada is raising these important foundational questions today.

This is about the average man and woman in the Canadian Forces. Should they make a mistake, should they make the wrong choice, as so many Canadian citizens do in their lives from time to time, we want to make absolutely categorically sure that these citizens have the same protections afforded to them as any other citizen living in Canada and walking our streets today possess.

This was why I raised questions this morning around why, for example, the government of the United Kingdom, the British government, had ensured that the requirements for independence and impartiality were woven into its domestic criminal justice system so it was in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a powerful precedent for Canada and for this Parliament, and I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada knows that.

In the U.K. context, the British government has ensured that the accused may be represented by counsel and entitled to an appeal under a newly created summary appeal court. It has ensured that the summary appeal court would be presided over by a civilian judge, yet assisted by two military members who were officers or warrant officers to ensure adequate military representation. Also, as a general rule, it has moved to ensure that imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the offender is not legally represented in court or in a court martial. This sounds to me to be an important and powerful precedent that we should look to weave into our amendments to the criminal justice system.

Comparatively, beyond our common law founding mother ship United Kingdom, why have countries like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and dozens more all moved to ensure that independence, impartiality, fairness and justice are hallmarks of their amendments and improvements to the criminal justice system?

Why only here are we seeing, as I described earlier, the stubborn pigheadedness that seems to find its way into every justice bill the Conservative government brings forward? When in the face of so much evidence, in the face of the opportunity to get it better, why is the government not seizing the opportunity and doing right by Canadian citizens, and more important, doing right by the men and women in our Canadian Forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the world continues to be inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Canadian Bill of Rights enacted by Mr. Diefenbaker. Those too are anchors of our judicial system, just like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, the real question is this. Why is the Liberal Party changing its position, or is without a position?

On the one hand, the Liberals are saying that the summary trial system is incompatible with the charter. On the other hand, for 15 years, when they governed under the charter, they did nothing to change the situation.

Second, some of the speeches today seem to imply very ambitious amendments, which were either not made by the Liberal Party or not supported by Liberals in committee. Why are they coming at this late date?

Third, when did the Liberal Party stop being inspired by and guided by Canadian legal excellence and start being guided by Lithuania?

Former Chief Justice Lamer, former Chief Justice Dickson, former Chief Justice Lesage have all agreed that the summary trial system, as updated in this bill, would serve Canadian men and women in uniform extremely well. Why does the Liberal Party not think so?