Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The legislation is a comprehensive package of amendments that will strengthen the statutory framework governing the operations of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces. It deals primarily with the military justice system. The amendments proposed in the bill are the most extensive amendments to the National Defence Act since it was first put in place in 1950.
The men and women of our armed forces have maintained our defence forces at a high state of readiness in the face of many challenges. They have contributed with enthusiasm and professionalism to our wide range of international and domestic commitments. In the Saguenay, in Red River in Manitoba, in central, eastern and Atlantic Canada they have played a crucial role in protecting the health and the safety of Canadians.
During the recent ice storm, one of the worst natural disasters in our history, almost 16,000 members of the Forces provided relief to literally millions of Canadians who were without power.
They helped restore power, set up evacuation centres, assisted police and other emergency response teams and comforted people in need. Their very presence helped Canadians cope with the disaster and face it with added confidence and resolve. The Canadian forces demonstrated once again that it is truly a vital national institution. We and all Canadians have good reason to praise the dedication and the professionalism of these men and women.
We must also remember that the Canadian forces are an armed force trained for combat and requiring a distinct system of military justice. This requirement derives from the uniqueness of the Canadian forces' mandate, purposes and roles as well as special responsibilities and obligations to its members.
Military personnel may be required to risk injury or death in the performance of their duties. This puts a premium on the discipline and cohesion of military units. This operational reality has specific implications for military justice.
First, the Canadian forces require a justice system that can try offences against the ordinary law of Canada and offences that are unique to the military, such as mutiny or being absent without leave.
Second, the military chain of command which is accountable not only for the maintenance of discipline but for carrying out the missions assigned by the government, must play a key role in the administration of justice.
Third, the system must be able to try and punish violations quickly so that individuals can be returned to service as soon as possible.
Finally, the system needs to be portable so it can function wherever the forces are deployed in times of peace or conflict, either here in Canada or abroad.
Discipline is the lifeblood of any military organization. Whether in peace or war it spells the difference between military success and failure. It promotes effectiveness and efficiency. Its foundations are respect for leadership, appropriate training and a military justice system where equity and fairness are unquestionably clear to all.
In recent years however, the capacity of the military justice system to promote discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice has been called into question by a number of incidents. The government looked closely at these events and has acted decisively.
In March 1995 the Somalia commission was established and the commission brought us a great number of recommendations. Over 80% of those recommendations, including many on military justice, are being implemented. It has been asked what about the inspector general recommendation. It is here in other forms. There are other people responsible for the military justice system who will carry out those same functions. Indeed there will be independent monitoring, looking over the shoulders of the military to ensure that in fact they are implemented.
In December 1996 the government commissioned a special advisory group under the right hon. Brian Dickson, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. We asked him and his colleagues to assess the military justice system and the police investigation services.
The group reported on time and under budget. The minister of the day supported the recommendations in his report to the Prime Minister on the leadership and management of the forces of March 25, 1997. The Prime Minister endorsed early action on the recommendations and work began immediately to pursue their implementation.
The special advisory group was also asked to examine the quasi-judicial role of the minister in the military justice system. I am pleased to accept the recommendations it has made. They are also being implemented.
When the government saw that the military justice system was one of the key areas where change was needed, we took action. We sought advice from within the military, from the public at large and from distinguished Canadians with specialized knowledge. The amendments under Bill C-25 are a product of that process.
Bill C-25 addresses a broad range of provisions in the National Defence Act. It will modernize the provisions with respect to boards of inquiry. It will clarify the legislative authority and performance of public service duties by Canadian forces members such as those during the recent ice storm.
Bill C-25 is primarily about the modernization of the military justice system. The four principal thrusts of this initiative will first, establish in the National Defence Act for the first time, the roles and responsibilities of the key figures in the military justice system and set clear standards of institutional separation, a very important element, for the investigative, prosecutorial, defence and judicial functions.
Second, it will enhance transparency and provide greater structure to the exercise of individual discretion in the investigation and charging processes.
Third, it will modernize the powers and the procedures of service tribunals, including eliminating the death penalty under military law.
Fourth, it will strengthen, not weaken but strengthen, oversight and review of the administration of military justice.
Each component is a major building block in the revitalization of the Canadian military justice system.
Allow me to present a brief overview of each, so that the totality of the improvements are apparent.
The roles, responsibilities and duties of the key figures in the military are not precisely set out in the National Defence Act as it is presently constituted. This has led to a degree of uncertainty and misunderstanding about their respective functions and relationships in the overall process of delivering justice.
The amendments contained in Bill C-25 will establish in clear terms the duties and relationship between the prosecution, defence and judicial functions. The bill clearly defines the role of the judge advocate general as a legal adviser to the Governor General, the Minister of National Defence, the forces and the Department of National Defence in matters of military law.
The bill will establish the office of the director of military prosecutions who under the general supervision of the JAG will be responsible for deciding which charges are tried by courts martial and for the conduct of all prosecutions at a courts martial.
It will provide for the appointment of a director of defence counsel services who will provide legal services to accused persons in proceedings under the code of service discipline.
It will provide explicitly for independent military judges to be appointed by the governor in council for fixed terms.
Under the system as it now stands, the Minister of National Defence is also a key figure and plays an active role in the routine administration of individual cases under the code of service discipline. Bill C-25 will remove the minister from such day to day administration. This will reduce potential conflict of interest between the minister's duties in individual cases and the minister's responsibility for the overall management of the department and the Canadian forces. It will enable the minister to focus on other duties and responsibilities.
These amendments will also complement the recent initiative to establish the national investigative service of the military police. This organization will be independent of the operational chain of command and will have jurisdiction to investigate serious and sensitive service offences. They are people who are being well trained to carry out that function.
Bill C-25 will also improve the structure of the investigation and charging process and enhance transparency within that process. The current system has been criticized for its lack of transparency and for the broad discretion it gives to a commanding officer to make final decisions concerning not only minor offences but also serious and sensitive offences that may implicate interests well beyond his or her individual unit.
The amendments to the act will remove from commanding officers the power to dismiss charges. They will provide a clear statutory basis for tailoring the jurisdiction of summary trials to those minor offences necessary for the maintenance of internal unit discipline. They will also require that a charge that is beyond the jurisdiction of commanding officers is referred to the director of military prosecutions.
Changes to the act and to the regulatory administrative provisions dealing with investigations and charging of service offences will increase openness and refocus the exercise of individual discretion. At the same time they will ensure the valuable and essential participation of the chain of command in the process.
The amendments under Bill C-25 will also modernize powers and procedures associated with the two types of service tribunals that try military offences, summary trials and courts martial.
Reform of the summary trial process is already well under way. Amendments to the Queen's regulations and orders enacted on November 30, 1997 restrict the jurisdiction of summary trials to more minor offences that affect internal unit discipline. They also grant accused persons the right to elect trial by courts martial in all but the most minor cases.
In addition, commanding officers are being provided with more comprehensive training in their military justice duties and responsibilities.
Bill C-25 will complement those ongoing reforms of the summary trial process by reducing the powers of punishment at summary trial in keeping with its disciplinary focus.
The maximum period of detention that may be awarded at a summary trial will be reduced from 90 to 30 days. The power to reduce in rank will be limited to one rank below the rank held before the summary trial.
In respect of courts martial, they will deal with more serious offences and will be conducted in accordance with rules similar to those at a civilian criminal court.
Currently general and disciplinary courts martial are composed of a judge advocate who officiates at a panel of officers headed by a president. Even though the president and the officers and the panel are not required by the act to possess any legal training, they nonetheless make judicial decisions and determine sentences. Moreover, as it now stands, only commissioned officers can sit as members of general and disciplinary courts martial panels.
Bill C-25 will recognize the judicial nature of the courts martial. As such, it will eliminate the position of president of the courts martial panels. It will authorize the presiding military judge to make all decisions of a legal nature, contrary to what I was hearing earlier from a colleague opposite.
It will enable a military judge presiding at courts martial rather than the members of the court martial to determine the sentence. These people are well qualified to do that.
Moreover, Bill C-25 will permit a non-commissioned member of the rank of warrant officer or above to serve as a member of a general and disciplinary court martial when the accused is a non-commissioned member.
This participation, which is for the first time, will enable the Canadian forces to tap into the considerable wealth of experience and leadership offered by their senior non-commissioned members, men and women who also have a significant role to play in the disciplinary process.
We are moving to enhance accountability and transparency within the military justice system. Oversight and review mechanisms must be in place to ensure that day to day decisions are monitored effectively and are capable of being assessed.
Bill C-25 will establish two oversight bodies, both of which will be independent of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces.
The first is the military police complaints commission. Its mandate will be to receive and investigate complaints by any member concerning the conduct of military police in the performance of their duties.
It will also investigate complaints by military police about improper interference in their investigations by members of the Canadian forces and senior departmental officials. That is something that is not done in other police complaints commissions.
Second, the Canadian forces grievance board will make findings and recommendations on certain categories of grievances prior to their being referred to the chief of defence staff for final decision.
If any finding or recommendation of the grievance board is not acted upon, the chief of defence staff will be required to provide reasons in writing for not doing so.
In addition to these oversight bodies, Bill C-25 will impose new review and reporting requirements. The Minister of National Defence will be required to report to parliament on the operation of the act within five years of the amendments coming into force.
Moreover, the Canadian forces grievances board, the military police complaints commission and the judge advocate general will be required to report annually to parliament. This will provide a great deal of opportunity for oversight of many reports coming into the public forum for examination.
These measures will greatly enhance accountability, transparency and increased competence in the military justice system.
The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-25 are the most extensive in the history of the act. They will provide a more modern and effective statutory framework for the operations of the department and the Forces.
They will more closely align military justice processes with judicial processes applicable to other Canadians.
In conjunction with other elements of our comprehensive program of institutional change, these amendments will increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of our armed forces and enable the men and women of the Canadian forces, who do so much for us and do it so well, to do it all even better.
