Debates of Feb. 28th, 2019

National Defence Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is the Liberal way. They have to study something that is just common sense. It is unbelievable. It is not that studying further is not common sense, but just getting it done, just action, is common sense.

I thank my hon. colleague for bringing up two points that I feel are very important. Everybody in the House knows that I am passionate about doing everything in our power to provide those whom we trust to serve our country and community with the tools to both complete their mission and to come home and remain healthy.

My hon. colleague brought up two valid points. They were on the unreported sexual assault that is taking place or could be taking place within our military, as well as the point on death by suicide, self-harm and post-traumatic stress disorder.

We now know more about post-traumatic stress disorder, mental health injury and the mental illness that can be caused by the sights and sounds experienced by those who have served.

There is so much that we can do, that our forces can do, by building trust at the very beginning, by building and creating more resources so that our new recruits know what they are getting themselves into on all sides. I agree with my hon. colleague that the first step would be removing paragraph 98(c), and the other part is Bill C-211—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I have to allow for other questions. I would ask members to keep their preambles short so that we can get in as many questions as possible.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his tireless work on behalf of veterans and on the issue of PTSD.

What we are trying to do is change attitudes. I commend the senior leadership of the military for taking on the task for trying to change attitudes, but I do not commend the glacial pace at which we are working.

Again, when I talked to the families, they identified that in the cases of the individual family members they lost, making self-harm a disciplinary offence and treating self-harm as a disciplinary offence was a barrier to getting assistance.

I think this is one of the things we could easily do. However, when the minister says that we should study it again, it means that it would not get done in this Parliament. We are out of time. Therefore, we need to act more expeditiously, and that is why I am calling on all parties to support my private member's bill to get this done before the next election.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spent a great deal of his time talking about PTSD and mental health issues, and I think it is important to recognize that within the proposed legislation there are some measures bearing on these issues. I do not know if they are present to the same degree that my colleague across the way wishes to see, but what I do know is that over the last while we have had a commitment and a realization, in good part, of 200 additional medical and health care personnel to deal with the situation. Back in the 2017 budget, in fact, there was $17.5 million put aside for a centre of excellence focused on the prevention, assessment and treatment of PTSD and related mental health conditions for military members and veterans.

Would the member not agree that while the legislation is one thing, we also need to look at other things that we could be doing to address this serious illness and treat it appropriately? One of the ways of doing that would be to increase the number of health care providers, which is something we have done.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course I agree that there are other things we have to do in addition to the legislation. However, one of the things that is most important in treating mental illness as an illness is changing those attitudes. When we enshrine in law that it is a serving member's fault and that they should be disciplined if they are suffering from mental health issues that lead to self-harm and even death by suicide, it is a major thing we could change at this point, which would flow into all of the other things we are doing.

The member referred to money that was set aside for additional health professionals and a centre of excellence. However, without being too harsh, I would say that the Liberals are better at saying than doing. Those things appear in budgets, but they do not actually appear on the ground. When I go to the base in my riding, I see that there are still vacancies in existing positions and that they are having trouble hiring people to deliver those services.

Of course, one of the reasons is that DND employees have the whole shemozzle of the Phoenix pay system, but I will not start into that issue as a part of this debate.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comments, his tireless advocacy and his support for families in bringing their stories to light. He has enabled us to hear what the impact has been on families when we have something in law that does not make any sense and could do more harm than good.

I brought this up with the minister when we were discussing the bill earlier in the week, and I want to underline it, because our hon. colleague on the opposite side brought it up. It does not matter how much investment we make in services if people do not access them because there is a stigma attached. We can all agree that there is a stigma attached to mental health; it is the biggest barrier. As my hon. colleague said, regardless of whether the military has ever used this part of the military code to prosecute people, the fact that it is there sends a message to people.

I want my hon. colleague to add further comment on this. The money and the services might be there, but if there is a barrier preventing people from accessing the help, what is the point?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon West for her comments. She has restated the argument much better than I did originally. She hit the nail directly on the head.

Certainly, what we hear from families is that the stigma prevents access to services. It causes people to hide their problems so as not to lose the confidence of their commanders or colleagues in the military, whereas if they break an arm, they would not hide it but would get treatment. If they have a different kind of illness that is not visible, the stigma makes them hide that illness, so it becomes worse and we eventually lose the services of that member to the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as the loved ones of those families.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

It is great to be in this chamber today and to hear the overwhelming support from all sides of this House on this very important piece of legislation. It is an honour to rise in the House today to share my thoughts on how the government is supporting victims of inappropriate conduct by members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

When victims display courage by coming forward with a complaint, we must ensure that they are fully supported. Anything less is unacceptable. Every victim, whether a Canadian Armed Forces member or a civilian, deserves to be treated with trust, dignity and respect. We are fully behind the chief of the defence staff and his leadership team as they take steps to root out harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour in our military.

Since General Vance launched Operation Honour in 2015, we are seeing progress. As former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps recommended in her report in 2015, we put in place a sexual misconduct response centre, which provides support to those affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour. We established the sexual misconduct response centre and extended its services to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. It is accessible no matter where a service member is deployed around the world. Last fall, the Canadian Forces provost marshal re-examined 179 sexual assault cases previously deemed unfounded, and determined that 23 should be reopened to further investigation.

This past May, we introduced Bill C-77 to add the declaration of victims rights to the military's Code of Service Discipline. This piece of legislation before us today enshrines victims' rights in the military justice system. This is good news, because it shows that military justice in this country continues to evolve in the best interests of Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces. It shows the government recognizes the harmful impact that service offences to victims have on the military and on society. It shows the government's commitment to strengthening victims' rights in the military justice system. It is our view that this legislation advances Canada's position as a global leader in supporting victims.

The amendments in this bill would strengthen and uphold victims' rights within the military justice system while ensuring that these rights mirror those in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Simply put, the legislation creates and extends rights for victims in four specific areas: first, the right to information about how the military justice system works; second, the right to protection of their security and privacy; third, the right to participation by expanding how victim impact statements can be presented at courts martial; and fourth, the right to restitution for damages or losses. We have a responsibility to make sure victims are treated with dignity and respect. We are taking this responsibility seriously. We owe it to victims and their families.

In his report last November, the Auditor General included a report on efforts to stop inappropriate sexual conduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. It came with a number of recommendations that will help lay the ground for the next steps of Operation Honour. Canadians can have complete confidence in both the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to apply these recommendations. The chief of the defence staff has made it clear that serious administrative action will be taken against Canadian Armed Forces members who are found guilty of sexual misconduct. He has zero tolerance for Canadian Armed Forces leaders who fail to act when confronted with inappropriate behaviour within the ranks.

When my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, reviewed the Auditor General's report, he had a clear message for Canadian Armed Forces members and victims. He said that this was about making sure we are doing the right thing for victims; we know we need to do better, and we will.

This is why we are moving Bill C-77 through this House as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is why we expanded the sexual misconduct response centre, so victims can access support in Canada and abroad 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. It is why the SMRC is looking at ways to enhance service delivery to better meet the needs of all Canadian Armed Forces members, and it is why the sexual assault review program was established to conduct reviews of all sexual assault investigations deemed unfounded by the military police.

Our government wants the Canadian Armed Forces recognized as a respected leader on this issue, both inside the Canadian government and by militaries around the world. At the same time, we know this is not just a military issue. The Canadian Armed Forces is not alone in dealing with sexual misconduct. It is deeply rooted in society. Sexual misconduct is wrong wherever it happens, but when it happens in the military, it threatens the welfare of all members of the Canadian Armed Forces community, military and civilian alike.

Our people are at the centre of everything we do. The way we support and treat them is directly related to the military's operational effectiveness. It is also directly related to our values as Canadians. The Canadian Armed Forces has put down a good, solid foundation on which to build. Now it is shifting toward sustained cultural change. Later this year, the Canadian Armed Forces is expected to release its fourth report to update Canadians on all progress made to date on Operation Honour, followed by a cultural change strategy.

Along with Bill C-77 and through the declaration of victims rights, we are strengthening the rights and protections of victims who come forward when they have been wronged. In the passing of this legislation, we are reinforcing Canada's position as a global leader in maintaining a fair and effective military justice system, one that continuously evolves in harmony with our civilian laws. In passing this legislation, we are demonstrating clearly and without question that anyone who is victimized by inappropriate behaviour within the Canadian Armed Forces will be supported fully in the military justice system through these enhanced victims' rights.

For these reasons, I appeal to all members of this House to support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, we had a good, vigorous debate and study of Bill C-77, and a number of shortfalls were identified by some of the witnesses: retired Lieutenant-Colonel Perron in particular, as well as the Barreau du Québec.

One thing that came up that we did not get positive feedback from JAG on was the issue of changing the burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to the balance of probabilities. The argument from National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces' legal advisers is that we do not need to have such regimented tests within a summary hearing process, unlike in the old-fashioned court martial and summary conviction process.

I would ask the member if he feels we got to the bottom of it to protect those who are wrongfully accused in view of the potential punishments that will be laid down, such as confinement to quarters and being sent to the brig for a period of time, as well as a reduction in rank and pay.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman would not overly criticize this bill, considering that earlier he said it is a complete replica of the Conservative bill that was introduced by the previous government. I am sure any criticism he might make about it now would equally apply to the former bill.

His question digs into the nuances of what happened in committee, the various testimonies we heard and the results we came out with at the end of the day as a result of that deliberative process. When we had the opportunity to do that and when we heard from the various witnesses, that informed our opinions on how to proceed.

However, what we end up with here is a bill that would put our military personnel within the same form of evolution in terms of their rights as people get outside of the military. That is the primary objective here. That is what has come forward through this piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on my colleague's last point and cite an example.

Under civilian law, if someone does not show up for work, there is a marginal consequence for that, whereas under military law, a service member could end up going to court and receiving a criminal record. If a criminal record is received, that has a profound negative impact once that service member leaves the military on things such as taking a trip to the U.S.A. or applying for a job. Bringing these things together, military law and civilian law, and making them closer in resemblance would be a good thing for the service member.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill is really about that. I talked about the evolution of putting it more in line with the similar supports and processes which people outside of the military go through. This is about that.

We find that within the miliary, just like outside the military, not every case should be treated the exact same way, given the different significance of what was inappropriately done. This legislation would give the flexibility to allow the different processes to take place so people would not necessarily be subject to the exact rule depending on the particular violation.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Davenport, it is an absolute honour to have this opportunity to rise today and engage in the third reading of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This proposed bill amends the provisions of the National Defence Act with respect to the governance of the military justice system and it adds a new section on the declaration of victim rights to the Code of Service Discipline that specify the victims of service offences have a right to information, protection, participation and restitution in respect to service offences. It adds or amends several definitions, including victim and military justice system participant rights and specifies who may act on the victim's behalf for the purposes of that division.

I am so pleased to speak about how Bill C-77 is part of a broader effort our government is making to increase diversity and inclusiveness within the Canadian Armed Forces. Canada's unique, diverse and multicultural population is one of its greatest strengths and we are determined to see that strength reflected in Canada's military.

We know that embracing diversity and drawing on all the strengths of Canada's population will enhance military operational effectiveness. That is why Canada's defence policy “Strong, Secure, Engaged” makes diversity and inclusion a core institutional value for the Canadian Armed Forces. Canadians know diversity is our strength, and we will always champion that.

A diverse and inclusive Canadian Armed Forces starts with a respectful and open work environment for all. “Strong, Secure, Engaged” has identified several initiatives that will help our military continue to cultivate a culture of respect, and it is delivering on all of them.

We are ensuring that the Canadian Armed Forces has the ability to respond effectively and appropriately to anyone who discriminates against fellow service members. Through Bill C-77, we are calling for increased sentences and sanctions for service offences and infractions when there is evidence they are motivated by bias, hate or prejudice based on gender expression or identity. This focus on deterring crimes based in hate for those whose gender expression or identity differ from our own is an important step in the significant progress the forces has made in changing its culture to one of greater inclusivity and diversity. These changes will help the defence team ensure it remains an institution based in honour, integrity and honesty.

However, the changes proposed in Bill C-77 are not the only steps the forces are taking. Through Operation Honour, the Canadian Armed Forces continues its vital work to eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour. Above all else, it is putting its focus on support for people affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour. That includes expanding the role and mandate of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, or SMRC, to make it the authoritative voice on victim support and advocacy.

As the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre assumes this increased responsibility, it has already established itself as a leader in this field. This past December, the SMRC hosted the first-ever Five Eyes forum on preventing and addressing sexual misconduct, allowing experts from Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand to share with, and learn from, one another. These efforts will also help National Defence be an even greater leader in achieving a gender balanced military.

We should all be proud that Canada is already a world leader in this area. As of this January of this year, there are 15,116 women in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is 15.7% of our military, and significantly more than the NATO average of 11%.

I was honoured to recently visit the Canadian Armed Forces mission in Mali. It is participating in MINUSMA, which is the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission. Right now 14% of all those deployed there are women. That number compares to about 4% for all other UN missions.

I know we have a long way to go, but we have already made great progress. We should celebrate the progress we have managed to make.

Through “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, we are increasing the percentage of women in the military to 25% by 2026. That is our target. The Canadian Armed Forces has undertaken a number of activities to meet this goal. I will go through them in a minute.

I want to add that right now the national defence committee is looking at how we can increase diversity in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are looking to put forward a number of other policy ideas and immediate action steps on how we can increase the number of not only women, but those from visible minorities, the LGBTQ community and the indigenous community, among others, in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I will go back to the additional activities that the Canadian Armed Forces is undertaking to meet the goal of 25% of 2026.

First, it has established a team of representatives from across the military, the federal government and the private sector to examine recruiting strategies for women joining the defence team. We have gone outside of government to get the best ideas so we can achieve our goal of 25% by 2026.

Second, the Canadian Armed Forces has introduced policies and practices that promote a healthy family and work-life balance. I was blessed to join the Canadians Navy on the HMCS Charlottetown during the summer. When I talked to women there, I heard that more and more women were joining because the navy had done a wonderful job of improving the work-life balance, making it easier for people to have families and to support their families while they were pursuing careers in the Canadians Navy.

However, diversity is more than gender. The Canadian Armed Forces also has specific initiatives under way to increase its diversity across a broad spectrum of ethnicity, religion, age, experience, language and more.

The Canadian Armed Forces continues to modernize, streamline and standardize recruiting to ensure that it is truly welcoming to all applicants. It has recruiters who are multilingual and from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. These recruiters receive extensive training designed to help them understand and be attuned to cultural norms that may differ from their own background and beliefs. This has helped improve communication with potential recruits, which in turn has alleviated many of the misconceptions that visible minority applicants sometimes have regarding the military.

The Canadian Armed Forces has also made important changes to the way it welcomes people of different backgrounds into the military. While the military maintains strict dress regulations for professional and operational purposes, it refuses to allow those regulations to be a barrier to someone who wishes to join.

As important as all these initiatives are, we also have to recognize the impact of past actions.

In November 2017, our Prime Minister rose in the House to issue a formal apology to Canadian members of the LGBTQ2 community for historic injustices inflicted upon them in the country. That included many members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were not just discriminated against, but interrogated and persecuted for nearly forty years during what has become known infamously as “the purge”.

We can never undo the damage of this persecution, but we can recognize and remember the pain it caused. We apologized in order for us to move on and make changes.

We are doing just that with the Canada pride citation. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were directly impacted by anti-LGBTQ2 policies and practices can wear the Canada pride citation on their uniforms. The citation stands as an acknowledgement and reminder of past injustices and as an affirmation of our commitment to ensuring that this dark chapter in our history never happens again.

I note that over a year ago, the military launched the positive spaces initiative to promote a safe and inclusive work environment for all employees regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. I am happy to answer questions on that.

I am very proud of the actions we have taken to date and I ask everyone in the House to support Bill C-77.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about some of the challenges that occur in the Canadian Armed Forces, and that Bill C-77 incorporates the Gladue decision from the Supreme Court, ensuring that indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces will have a chance, at the time of sentencing, to make sure that any cultural sensitivities are taken into consideration.

We just witnessed an unfortunate event over the last few weeks, where the former associate minister of defence who is also the former attorney general, a very proud indigenous leader, was forced to resign. I would like to know, from the member, why the former associate minister of defence left her office.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will focus my comments on Bill C-77.

The member talked about the indigenous population. As we mentioned, we are actually trying to increase the number of indigenous peoples within our Canadian Armed Forces. Two key things that we are really focused on in Bill C-77 are including indigenous sentencing provisions, which require military tribunals to consider the circumstances of indigenous offenders at sentencing, as is the case in the civilian justice system, and ensuring that indigenous peoples are given the same rights and respect in the military as in civilian courts.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for her speech.

I am not an expert in military justice. However, it has come to my attention that, in the military, acts of self-harm are considered an offence. This makes it punishable behaviour.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the new legislation does not address this problem, even though it is a known issue. Self-harm is still considered an offence.

Obviously, if an individual is struggling with this problem, it will be hard for them to seek help because they could end up being reprimanded under the Code of Service Discipline.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am the member for Davenport, although many people do confuse me with the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, and that is okay. However, I did want to correct it for the record.

I would say that self-harm is absolutely something that was brought to the attention of the committee. It was mentioned and we questioned whether there were some adjustments that we could make to Bill C-77 to address all of the concerns around self-harm.

The context of the bill did not allow us to address that particular issue, but we recognize that we need to continue to adapt our approach to care and to those suffering from mental health issues. That is why our minister invited the national defence committee to study the issue of suicide and self-harm within the Canadian Armed Forces, with a view to providing our government with recommendations related to these challenges, specifically as it relates to self-harm.

We have acknowledged that this is an issue. There was an impassioned plea by a mother who was affected by a Canadian Armed Forces member impacted by this particular issue. We made a commitment to look at it and we will continue to take this very seriously moving forward.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a very important conversation that we need to have today regarding the amendments to Bill C-77, which seeks to amend the National Defence Act.

The most important thing we have to talk about is why we have a National Defence Act and why people in uniform have a separate judicial system than those in the civilian world. The reason for that is very important. It is that people in uniform are the only people who are entrusted with the right to take a life in aggression, not in self-defence. They are entrusted with the responsibility and sacred reliability of taking a life.

Therefore, as elected officials in a liberal democracy, we must ensure that would never happen without the authority of the citizens, who have entrusted the people in uniform with that responsibility. That is why we have a National Defence Act that separates them from regular citizens, because they have a responsibility and authority that the average citizen does not have.

When we talk about amending the National Defence Act, we have to understand why we have it in the first place. A military is foreign policy by other means. Therefore, when, where, how and for what purpose would we use people in uniform to fight acts of aggression and take lives on behalf of the country? Our alliance in NATO and the Washington treaty, signed on April 4, 1949, after the Second World War, clearly outlines exactly why. It says:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.

Therefore, why do we have a military? We have a military to ensure we can safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of our peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. That is incredibly important to remember, particularly in light of the conversations that have gone on over the last couple of months and the testimony of the former attorney general yesterday.

Our foundation of democracy is based on the separation of the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch and the military under the National Defence Act. Those pillars are the checks and balances to ensure that individuals are not in a position to undermine the value of these institutions.

Individuals take responsibilities in each of those institutions, just like I did when I swore an oath to serve in the Canadian Forces. The oath I swore was not to a person but to the position of Queen and country. I swore an oath to serve and defend the values of the nation for which it stands. The Prime Minister, members of Parliament and cabinet ministers are also not individuals but people who have also been entrusted with the roles and responsibilities associated with their positions. If and when we forget that these are positions, not individuals, and that the role is bigger than the individuals themselves, the very nature of our democracy is under threat, because, as we can see, those individuals think they have the authority to wield the system in their favour.

We heard from the former attorney general that the Prime Minister had an unrelenting and coordinated attempt at influencing her decision as the Attorney General, the top prosecutor in the land, to do something that was actually illegal so that he could achieve political gain.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating Bill C-77 today. The previous Speaker had just cautioned members to try to remain relevant to the bill. I can somewhat sense that the member is trying to be relevant but is skirting around it, and now she is getting to a point of wanting to reflect on something that took place at committee yesterday.

There has been an emergency debate requested and approved for tonight. Maybe the member could save that aspect until tonight and for now concentrate on Bill C-77.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is some flexibility, as he well knows, during the debates. However, I also want to remind those who are making speeches that their speech has to be relevant to the bill that is being debated at the moment. Therefore, I am sure that the member will come back to the bill itself and will ensure that her speech is surrounding the bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the relevance is that we have a military to defend the very nature of our institutions, both at home and abroad, because we send them to save the world for democracy. If we do not understand what that democracy is and what they are defending, we risk undermining the nature and value of democracy. We certainly cannot be in a position to amend the National Defence Act if we do not uphold the values and the principles the National Defence Act was put in place to defend.

Let us go to the chief of the defence staff. We have also heard in papers that the chief of the defence staff went directly to unelected officials to discuss an ongoing court case when Vice-Admiral Norman was actually undergoing a trial. For those who do not know, the chief of the defence staff does not report to unelected officials. The chief of the defence staff reports to the Minister of National Defence, under the National Defence Act, and through the minister, to the Governor General and the Queen. That is how we ensure that our ability to use the military is only exercised within its sovereign ranks. Therefore, we need to understand exactly what the chief of the defence staff was doing, potentially breaching the chain of command, going to dinner with unelected officials to discuss things that are within the purview of his responsibilities as chief of the defence staff.

Furthermore, we need to look at whether there was political interference in Admiral Norman's ability to get a fair trial, because Admiral Norman was conducting military operations when he allegedly committed whatever offence he is being charged with, yet the Minister of National Defence has decided not to indemnify him. That means that he does not have the ability to have the military pay for his trial and his defence to ensure that he gets a fair trial. One could argue that this in itself is political interference, because trials can cost a significant amount of money, and this could potentially prevent him from getting that fair trial. Is that a good use of exercising the defence budget, and, under the National Defence Act, access to justice? Those are significant, serious concerns.

Now we are talking about amending the National Defence Act, yet these amendments do not remotely address the effectiveness of the act. We found, through evidence, that we have issues with timeliness. People cannot get charges, courts martial and summary hearings in a timely manner. Because we are finding that charges are not being laid, it is undermining the confidence of the military in the justice system.

We have judges in the military system who are not getting effective training or experience and who no longer have the extensive qualifications they need to execute on the National Defence Act.

We are talking about fairness. We actually have people within the military justice system who have been charged and found guilty and have been given a punishment. However, other people have been given a different punishment within the military justice system for that same crime. There is no balance and equity among members within the military justice system or compared to their civilian counterparts or even compared to our allies and their militaries.

All those things undermine the code of service discipline and the military justice system we are attempting to put in place, yet none of the amendments to the National Defence Act being put forward today address any of those things.

Even more disconcerting, we have a justice system that is not delivering and executing on that justice, as we have seen in the fact that we can have members of the military who are not being held accountable when they have perhaps breached the chain of command or have acted in a partisan and political way.

Defence is not a luxury. Defence is the foundation of our society. It allows us to have the principles of democracy, individual liberties and the rule of law. We cannot have anything that undermines any of those clear checks and balances and the structures of our democracy, as we heard from the former attorney general, who was also the former associate minister of national defence. Thank goodness she recognized that she had two hats: one as the attorney general and one as the minister of justice. She could understand the rules and responsibilities that came with each of those hats. She knew that she was the last line of defence, the check and balance, that upheld the very structure and nature of our system. She did what needed to be done. She stood up and was counted.

We need a military justice system that reinforces the ability to maintain our democracy and the principles for which it stands, and that is at risk right now.

Defence is not a luxury. Defence allows us to have the freedoms and liberties we have. The more the Liberal government undermines its commitment to defence by not funding it, by giving the military terrible equipment, by not ensuring that the CDS is accountable to the Minister of National Defence and by politically interfering in the trial of a senior admiral, possibly preventing him from getting a fair trial, the more it calls into question not only the individuals and their roles but the very nature of what we are asking people to put on a uniform, swear an oath, serve and defend and give their lives for.

Members of Parliament, cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister are more than just individuals. As we say in the military, I was an officer first, I was air force logistics second, and I was an individual far after that. The same is true of the people who sit in this place.

There are partisan issues we are going to talk about. We are going to disagree on perhaps how and what and when we should prioritize, but at no time should any of us ever disagree or risk the actual structure and sanctity of the institutions and everything they stand for. If we do, we are no better than all those countries we are so quick to criticize that are not as fortunate as Canada in having democracy.

It is a slippery slope. We have seen over the last 20 or 30 years the lack of independence and separation between the legislative branch and the executive branch. Now we are seeing the slippery slope moving into the judicial branch. With the lack of material in the National Defence Act and the inability of the justice system to execute military justice, it is also slipping there.

It is very disconcerting. We have now come to a point when Canadians are giving up. They are looking at government, not only the individuals in government but government as an institution, and saying that we do not know what we are doing, that we cannot be trusted and that we are all the same. If we do not have our democracy, what do we have?

We owe a great deal to the former attorney general for having the courage and fortitude to stand and be counted and stand for democracy. She can recognize that she has a responsibility and has been entrusted with something that is bigger than she is, as the former attorney general and the former minister of justice. While they may be the same person, they are two separate roles and responsibilities.

Members of Parliament, cabinet ministers, the Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council and all of us also need to remember our roles and responsibilities and the separation of the executive branch, the judicial branch and the legislative branch. Our system does not work when those things are intermingled.

There is still much work to be done to amend the National Defence Act to ensure that we have a vibrant, modern military justice system that compares with our allies' justice systems. At the same time, we can never forget that defence provides the safeguards for our freedom, our individual liberty and the preservation of the rule of law. The minute we start to erode that, we have absolutely nothing left. It is very worrying, because we have arrived at a place in our history where I am concerned that our country is at stake.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to the member, one of the conclusions one can draw is that she believes that this legislation is falling short and that many other aspects should have been incorporated that were not incorporated.

If we actually go through the bill, we see that this legislation has its founding in Stephen Harper's government. It was Stephen Harper who initiated the process. We have taken the process, have not deleted anything, and have added to it indigenous considerations and one or two other aspects after a series of consultations. We have enhanced the bill. When the member criticizes the government today for not doing enough, she is really criticizing her own party, the Conservative Party. She is criticizing Stephen Harper.

We have a good piece of legislation that would help modernize our military law and makes it more in line with civilian law. That is a good thing. Would the member not agree that, for example, the modernization is to the benefit and in the interest of forces members who are serving today and even those who are retiring?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a flawed argument to say that because people who came before us did not do it, we should not be held accountable for not doing it ourselves. That is like saying that we do not need stoplights for horses and buggies because we did not have cars. It does not make any sense.

The current government put this legislation forward. The government is trying to amend the NDA. The amendments to the NDA far fall short. The Liberals need to be held accountable for the things that are missing.

Would I say that modernizing the National Defence Act to make it more similar to civilian law is a good thing? Not necessarily, because as I said in my speech, there is a significant difference between the rights and privileges of someone in uniform and the rights and privileges of civilian society. That is why we have a National Defence Act, and that is why it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We do have to allow for other questions, so I would ask members to keep their preambles and their responses and questions to a minimum, which would be about a minute, if possible.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oshawa.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her service. I know she is committed to the institutions we all hold so dear. Her comment that defence is not a luxury is important for people to realize.

The member brought up the importance of avoiding political interference. We have seen the current government make extremely bad decisions. She mentioned the Norman affair, which many people are interested in, and the debacle of the jets. With the testimony yesterday on the SNC-Lavalin affair, I think Canadians are rightly concerned.

What does the member think needs to be done to make sure that our military justice system is there for the people who are in the military and to attract the wonderful Canadians who will put on uniforms in the future?