Debates of Feb. 28th, 2019

National Defence Act

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, ultimately, we in the House, cabinet ministers and the Chief of the Defence Staff set the example. If we do not lead by example by fulfilling our roles and responsibilities free from political interference and recognize the independence of the judiciary and the responsibilities of the military, then there is no way we will have a national defence act that does so.

The second thing for us to remember is the difference between the military and why it is subject to a National Defence Act and what their roles and responsibilities are. By ensuring that we have a military justice system that takes into account training, access to justice and all those kinds of things, we will ensure that members in uniform feel as though there is a code of service discipline and that it is fairly applied.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her service. She brought up some concerns about an individual not receiving the right to counsel or perhaps having difficulty paying for it. What is her and her party's plan? I would like to hear more about universal legal aid and better access to justice principles.

I know the hon. member was elected as a progressive, but I wonder if she could discuss better access to justice issues which she or her party sees for the future.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very simple question. The simple answer is that the military has a structure to indemnify members in uniform when they find themselves in legal difficulty. Mark Norman requested that, but was denied it by the government. Therefore, it is very easy. The government could indemnify him and could do it now. It could ensure that there is no political interference and that he has access to a fair trial.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend a very simple question based on her experience in the military.

She talked about how poorly equipped the military had become under the present government. Could she provide her views on how the present government is treating the military?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I said that defence was not a luxury. The government said that it would invest, but it has not invested by over 50%. It has not even delivered the money it said it would. Of course, worse than that, the government is equipping our military with 40-year-old, used Australian F-18s.

The Australians are smart. They would not be getting rid of fighter aircraft if they were still operationally capable. They are older than the ones we currently own, because they bought them before us.

Therefore, it is not only embarrassing and not contributing to the security and safety of our nation, but it is humiliating. Our allies know we are not serious about defence, and that is because of the actions the government has taken.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the functionality of an F-18 is not necessarily determined by years as much as it is hours flown.

The question just posed was interesting. The Conservative Party was absolutely abysmal. It totally failed on providing. The Conservatives make reference to the aircraft. Stephen Harper was an absolute, total disaster in getting a replacement for the F-18. That is the core of the problem. The attitude of the member's party in not providing the proper resources in the 10 years of Stephen Harper has put the Canadian Forces in the position it is in today. This obligated us to get a replacement aircraft in the short term so that in the long term our Canadian military would be better served by more modern equipment.

I wonder if she would agree that Stephen Harper should have done his job as prime minister and invested in our Canadian Forces when it was the right time to do it, which was 10 years ago.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Cariboo—Prince George that the Speaker will determine when the time is up.

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is that argument again. Because someone else did not do it, we do not need to do it and we do not need to be responsible or accountable for the actions we have taken, we can blame it on somebody else. When it comes to our military that is just highly unacceptable.

Ultimately, though, the Liberals said that they would spend some money on defence and they have not done that. They campaigned on advanced fighter jets. There is no way that 40-year old, used F-18s from Australia are advanced capability fighter jets. Yes, it is about flying hours. The Australians flew them a lot and over oceans, so they have corrosion charges as well.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased this important bill has reached this advanced stage in the legislative process. I am equally pleased for the opportunity to say a few words in support of the adoption of Bill C-77 and to further illustrate the improvements it would bring to Canada's military justice system.

By now, members have heard a fair bit of detail about how the bill would further modernize the military justice system; how it would ensure our military justice system would continue to evolve in harmony with the civilian justice system, while continuing to respond to the unique needs of our military; how it would enshrine victims' rights within the military justice system and ensure they would be well supported at all stages; and how it would support our government's commitment to repairing our nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous and protecting LGBTQ2 individuals from discrimination and injustices based on their gender expression or identity.

Those are all much-needed steps to strengthen our military justice system to ensure it is responsive and reflective of our deeply held Canadian values and of our number one priority, to care for our people.

However, there are other important changes in the bill, changes that will help streamline our military justice process, changes that will make those processes more efficient and better suited to meet the demands of a modern military. Today I would like to re-examine some of those changes.

The legislation before us promises to reform the summary trial process in ways that will enhance the military's ability to maintain fast, fair and effective discipline. Canadians, military and civilian alike deserve a military justice system that is responsive to operational demands and that applies fair and proportionate disciplinary measures when dealing with minor breaches of military discipline.

Our proposed changes will simplify the process of dealing with minor breaches of military discipline by replacing the current summary trial process with a new system of summary hearings, while continuing to process more serious breaches of military discipline through the court martial system.

These summary hearings would make it much easier for the Canadian Armed Forces to address minor breaches in a fair and timely manner. Summary trials have generally tended to comprise approximately 90% of all service tribunals. Courts martial have made up just one-tenth.

By creating the new summary hearing process, Bill C-77 would enable simpler and faster handling of minor breaches of military discipline. As members have heard us say before, this new process would be non-penal and non-criminal.

It would focus exclusively on minor breaches of military discipline. These minor breaches, called service infractions, would be created in regulation and dealt with exclusively through summary hearings. They would not be considered criminal offences, so they would be dealt with swiftly and fairly at the unit level.

Sanctions may be imposed in respect of a service infraction, such as reduction in rank, reprimands, deprivation of pay or minor sanctions that are non-penal, non-criminal and that would be prescribed in the regulations.

Under the proposed changes, the new summary hearing will be conducted by officers who will have jurisdiction if the person charged is one rank below the officer conducting the hearing or if he or she is a non-commissioned member. That means military commanders will have more flexibility and thus be better able to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale. In this way, the summary hearing process will maintain the current responsiveness, while enhancing operational effectiveness.

At the same time, the proposed reforms show trust and confidence in our military leaders and their ability to address minor breaches of military discipline. Of course the more serious breaches of military discipline, known as service offences, would continue to be tried under our system of courts martial.

All of that means greater efficiency within the broader military justice system.

Our military justice system is unique and necessary to meet the needs of our armed forces. The Supreme Court has affirmed this on a number of occasions. It is the solemn duty and responsibility of everyone here in this room to ensure we are supporting a military justice system that is set up to preserve the highest standards of conduct and discipline. We owe that to our armed forces, which must remain ready at all times to act decisively and effectively in service to their country.

Just as the civilian criminal justice system has progressed to reflect our current times, so too must the military justice system continually evolve.

Bill C-77's proposed summary trial reform is about making that system simpler, more effective and more efficient. It is about making sure breaches of military discipline are dealt with appropriately and effectively, based on their severity. A new summary hearing process would help preserve discipline and morale at the unit level, with sanctions that are non-penal and non-criminal and would not trigger detention or criminal record.

It would improve the chain of command's ability to address minor breaches of military discipline swiftly and fairly, which would enhance the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces. All told, the legislation would create a fairer, faster and more flexible process, one that reflects our Canadian values while staying responsive to the unique needs of our military.

Through our defence policy “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, our government is demonstrating its unwavering commitment to supporting the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. The bill offers more opportunity for all of us to reaffirm our people are our number one priority. The bill is essential to ensuring our military members have the support and systems they need to remain ready to defend and protect Canadians at home and abroad.

I am proud to be part of these efforts, and I thank my colleagues for their support in passing this important legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that are incorporated into the legislation is the issue of victim rights. This is something being welcomed universally and that is fairly significant. It takes into consideration a number of things that should be taken into consideration relating to victims. These are all very positive aspects of the legislation.

I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the issue of having victim rights put into the legislation, which is really outside the law we have today. It is something completely new that is going to make a very positive change to the law itself.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, victim rights are important in the civilian system. This is one of those issues that needs to evolve in the military justice system. I can only imagine the feelings someone who has been the victim of a serious criminal offence must feel in dealing with something that may seem like a closed system. Again, it is important for the military justice system to ensure victim rights are respected, and that is something we continue to put forward. It is something that is a priority in our civilian system, but it should be a priority in our military justice system as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe the member for St. Catharines has a legal background. Bill C-77 is a bill we are supportive of, and it is based on the Conservatives' original bill, Bill C-71, from the last Parliament.

The one change that was made that I struggle a bit with, which is something we discussed at committee for quite some time, is the question of the burden of proof when it comes to summary hearings, rather than summary convictions, which are carried out in the military and are penal in nature, often resulting in confinement to barracks, yet it does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was guilty. Now it is a balance of probabilities.

Does the member think that would violate the charter rights of the Canadian Armed Forces members?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do know there is a difference between those two different burdens of proof. However, when we are dealing with non-penal matters, my understanding, based on the discussions within committee, is that it was a matter of making it more like the civil courts and bringing it to the same level. If we are not dealing with an issue that is penal in nature, a different burden of proof may be acceptable in those particular circumstances.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee, including the hon. member, for their thorough debate on that matter. We all look forward to bringing the bill forward and ensuring its swift passage through this chamber.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend has spoken quite well about the issues raised by the bill. There are some changes that add to inclusivity on the basis of changing some of the rules. I was wondering if perhaps he could elaborate as to how it helps inclusivity.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill deals with inclusivity in two regards: in terms of indigenous rights, and also in terms of gender identity and expression and dealing with those concerns, issues and rights of the LGBTQ2 community.

We talk about the military justice system evolving and meeting the civilian justice system. These are important rights as the Canadian Forces have become inclusive and have tried to lead the way to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces represent Canadian society and look like Canadian society does. There have been some strong efforts to move forward, but the criminal justice system has to move along with that as well.

The bill is a wonderful opportunity to move the military justice system ahead, to bring it more in line with the civilian justice system and ensure the rights of all individuals are protected.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to continue on that same point, earlier this morning I gave the example that an individual who does not show up for work in the military, under the current system, could be subjected to a court martial. That would then lead to a criminal record. Comparing that to the civilian world, if someone does not show up for work, he or she will not have a criminal record as a result. When we talk about modernization, having the current law better reflect some of the aspects of civilian law, this is a good example.

I wonder if my colleague would provide his thoughts on someone not showing up for work. We understand and appreciate the difference between military service and civilian service, but at least there would be much more discretion to allow someone who is absent without leave the opportunity to have a disposition that does not allow for a criminal record, which is of benefit. That is one aspect of the legislation that is really encouraging.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I was a student at Queen's University, I had the opportunity to take a course at the Royal Military College in military history. That became clear when the professor yelled at the entire class because people were signing in for other students. As a civilian, I did not think that was such a big deal, but I immediately became aware that these students were absent without leave, which was skipping class.

We want to deal with an issue like skipping class at a summary hearing in a way that is proportional and reflects the nature of the offence committed, rather than bringing it to a court martial, destroying a career and negatively impacting that person. The bill would give the commander the ability to deal with that in a proportional way and provide greater flexibility to deal with it and truly have justice, especially in minor cases like that. That was an example that became clear to me as a student and it is something we should strive for in all levels of our justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing that was very disappointing in the committee study of Bill C-77 was around the issue of self-harm. It was proposed by the defence critic for the NDP, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, that we eliminate paragraph 98(c) from the National Defence Act, where those who hurt themselves or try to commit suicide could be charged and imprisoned for violating the National Defence Act. That action stigmatizes those dealing with PTSD and other operational stress injuries.

I would ask the member if he would support striking down that part of the National Defence Act so that we would end stigmatization and help those who would seek help.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. The government cares deeply about this issue and has invested over $17 million in a strategy moving forward. I look forward to debating the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke's bill on this particular issue.

I know the committee studied it and it was deemed outside the scope of this legislation. However, it is something I believe needs to be debated further and I look forward to the private members' debate on that subject.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before resuming debate, I want to remind the next speaker that unfortunately I will have to interrupt his speech because of question period. However, he will be able to continue when the subject comes before the House after question period.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to preface my intervention by letting you know that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. As they say, “I get by with a little help from my friends”.

It is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-77.

We have such a short time to try to get in all these points. However, the bill really is a carbon copy of the bill from our previous parliament that the strong team of Conservatives put forth, which was Bill C-71.

Having listened to the debate today, I want to congratulate our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on his very measured approach. As we have learned, every day we sit in the House there is so much we can learn from all sides. His was an interesting intervention and I want to thank him for it.

I want to focus my intervention on a couple of different areas. However, I imagine I will have to continue after question period, because I would not want to pre-empt that, as we must give question period its full allotted time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George for his co-operation. He will have eight minutes to resume his speech following question period.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Nunavut.

Nunavut

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Government of Canada announced $1.6 million in funding to support the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link. This project will significantly reduce Nunavut's dependency on fossil fuels and for the first time bring reliable Internet connectivity to communities in the Kivalliq region. This represents a big step toward building a sustainable economy for Nunavut, and I was proud to be a part of that effort.

However, a sustainable economy also requires the kind of social service supports most Canadians take for granted. In Nunavut there is not one mental health and addictions treatment facility, despite the fact that we have the highest suicide rate in Canada.

Addictions are causing untold damage to families and communities, tearing at the very fabric of our society. It took Canada decades to get on board with the hydro-fibre link project. I can only hope they will recognize this urgent need and work with the Government of Nunavut to make a mental health and addictions treatment facility a reality.

Firearms

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week I attended an open meeting hosted by family and friends of people who were injured or lost in the Danforth shooting.

At that meeting, they shared a letter for the Prime Minister. I would like to share part of it with this place. It reads, in part, “Having taken some seven months to grieve and consider what we should do to make a difference, we are urging that Canada follow the lead of other like-minded countries such as the U.K., Japan and Australia and impose a ban on the private ownership of handguns and military-style assault rifles.”

The letter goes on to say, “We acknowledge that this action is not the only step that needs to be taken to stem gun violence; however, we believe that it will be impactful and effective as the results in other countries have shown.”

I want to thank Noor Samiei, Ken Price, Quinn Fallon and Claire Smith for their advocacy, as well as members of the community, including the leadership of the Broadview Danforth BIA and the GreekTown BIA.

Retirement Congratulations

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to stand and recognize the director general of Encounters with Canada, Linda Brunet, who is with us here in Ottawa today. Encounters is the largest student exchange program in Canada.

Ms. Brunet has been director general of Encounters since 1999. Her leadership has made a real difference in the lives of over 100,000 young Canadians. As a volunteer for Encounters, I have seen first-hand the incredible work she is doing. Every year, thousands of youths are afforded the opportunity to visit the national capital and learn about our Canadian institutions.

Current members of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill, Milton, Fredericton, Gatineau, Surrey Centre, Central Nova and Sturgeon River—Parkland are among the alumni of this great program.

Ms. Brunet has been pivotal in ensuring Encounters stays a dynamic, exciting experience for young Canadians. She has announced that she will be retiring on March 1. I join generations of Canadians in thanking Linda Brunet for her dedication to Encounters with Canada and wishing her all the best going forward.