Chris Alexander

[Search and Rescue, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this government is absolutely committed to replacing those aging aircraft, as we have been committed to upgrading our search and rescue capability every year we have been in office. Just last week, the Minister of National Defence and the associate minister outlined a wide range of initiatives this government is taking, including a quadrennial review to make sure that the best service arrives on time to meet the needs of more and more Canadians who are using more and more parts of this country for tourism and responsible resource development.

The real question is, why has the opposition, the NDP in particular, voted against every single equipment procurement for the Canadian Forces over the past seven years?

[Search and Rescue, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, like the Auditor General, our government recognizes that quick and efficient search and rescue service is critical to many Canadians across the country. We, too, see the replacement of our search and rescue fixed-wing aircraft as a priority. We are committed to an open and transparent process to replace our aging Buffalo and Hercules aircraft fleets. The process will result in the best outcomes for search and rescue, with a modernized replacement fleet as soon as the procurement process allows.

[Peter Desjardins, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on April 27, Canada lost a proud and loyal officer, Lieutenant Colonel Peter Desjardins, who spent over nine decades in devoted service to his country.

In October 1940, Peter enlisted in the Canadian Grenadier Guards, at the age of 20. During the war, as the 22nd Canadian Armoured Regiment, the Guards saw action around Falaise, Belgium, the Netherlands and finally across the Rhine, earning 12 honorary distinctions. After service in France and Holland, Peter was accepted for officer training at the Sandhurst Military Academy in England. While there, he met his wife-to-be, Winnie.

Peter and his new bride came back to Canada and continued to take postings. He saw service, among other places, in Petawawa, Kingston, Germany and Ottawa. Peter served as a financial controller in NATO both in Rome and in Brussels. He retired with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel after 30 years of distinguished service.

Peter Desjardins was proud, upright, responsible, principled and clear about what he stood for and what he represented. He was the epitome of the Canadian soldier and officer who did so much to keep Europe and the world safe from World War II onwards. He was devoted to his wife Winnie, his daughters Mary and Geri and his granddaughters Sara, Monica and Leah.

On behalf of the House, I offer condolences to his family and ask that all members join me in remembering this remarkable Canadian.

[Speech and Hearing Month, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Canada's speech-language pathologists, audiologists and support personnel as they honour Speech and Hearing Month.

Each year the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists dedicates the month of May to raising public awareness about speech, language and hearing disorders in Canada and the professionals who can help.

Too often we take our ability to communicate for granted, especially in this place, yet the ability to speak, hear and be heard is much more central to our lives than most of us realize. Alarmingly, one in ten Canadians suffers from such disorders.

Throughout the month of May, the more than 6,000 members of the CASLPA will be highlighting the importance of early identification and intervention to overcome disorders which affect speech, language and hearing. Whether working with a child with autism, an adult with a hearing impairment or an elderly person recovering from a stroke, CASLPA's goal is to help people speak well, hear well and live well.

I invite my colleagues in the House to join Canada's speech-language pathologists and audiologists in celebrating Speech and Hearing Month.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who has worked so hard on this bill. However, I have a simple question.

Now that there have been 120 speeches in the House, dozens of speeches in committee, eight days of debate in committee and 12 days in the House and two important stages of debate in the House and now that our Canadian Armed Forces have waited 10 years, is it not time to sit and vote to ensure that this bill moves on to the other place and becomes law?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the committee on national defence recently visited his riding and CFB Esquimalt. We join him in congratulating all the members of the Royal Canadian Navy for the fine work they do on that base, as others in the Canadian Forces do across the country.

I have two questions, one on substance and one on process.

First, does the member understand that the provisions of the bill relating to the empowering the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to communicate with the military police through their Provost Marshal are actually in both the spirit and letter of our military justice system. They allow the operational imperative of the battlefield or of a military mission to be communicated, to be brought to the attention of those conducting a police investigation,and that there are safeguards.

The intervention must be in writing. The military police have the right to make that representation public if it wishes. If members are not happy with the nature of that representation, they have the right to go to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Is he aware of those safeguards?

Second, the NDP now agrees with the bill. They want it to move forward. They see the improvements it represents. Will the member take responsibility for the fact that this is happening much later than it should have?

There have been 112 speeches at all stages. There have been many more speeches in committee, and 90% have come from the NDP. It has taken us two years to get through the bill, and this is the fourth version of a bill that is long overdue.

In the member's view, why have we taken so long to get to this point?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question to put to the hon. member for Pontiac.

If the NDP really has the interests of the Canadian Armed Forces at heart, why did it take him two years to vote in favour of this bill? The government was prepared to go ahead two years ago. This is the fourth version of this bill we have considered. Why?

It is not merely a matter of the over 50 speeches the hon. member for St. John's East has mentioned. Why were there 77 NDP speeches at second reading? Why make 16, or whatever, at this stage? Why delay the passage of a bill that the NDP is now supporting and which is very important and very worthwhile for our Canadian Armed Forces? This bill could have been passed two years ago.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side would like to congratulate the member for St. John's East for his support for the bill, for his party's support for the bill, and for his recognition of the important progress it represents in our military justice system. It represents progress by ensuring that criminal records would no longer be generated by a whole series of summary offences. It represents progress in sentencing reform, in victim impact statements, with regard to entrenching the rule of the grievance board, the Provost Marshal of the Canadian Forces, and so forth, as well as entrenching the process of review in which we all believe.

The member cited Clayton Ruby and Mr. Justice Létourneau. Would he not agree, just for the record, that there is a very strong position to be considered that says, as Chief Justice Dickson said, as former Chief Justice LeSage has confirmed in his most recent report, that “the summary trial process is likely to survive a court challenge to its constitutional validity”, and that the most curious aspect of this third reading of the bill so far is the absolutely vertiginous change in position by the Liberals?

I do not know if they have it back to front or front to back. I do not know if it is because the member for Papineau is now in charge and that someone is not really in control of the wheel, but the Liberals seem to no longer accept the constitutionality of the summary trial process that they lived with for decades in government, that they accepted at second reading and voted for, and that they sat on their hands for and did nothing to change in committee.

Would the hon. member agree with that assessment?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, now let us get this straight.

For decades in the 20th century, we had a summary trial system. Under Liberal governments, it was seen as constitutional, and indeed legal in every respect, a model to the world.

After 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched in our Constitution. We had Liberal governments for about 20 years at that time, the better part of two decades. The Liberal Party of Canada saw summary trials as they existed in our unreformed National Defence Act as constitutionally legal.

Fast forward to 2003 and the Lamer report, which recognized summary trials as legal and constitutional, but recommended some modifications, some updating of the National Defence Act. The Liberals did not act on that for three years.

From 2006 to now, Liberals, as they are today, blocked every attempt to make these amendments, but on the final stage of third reading of the fourth attempt to bring these changes in, they decided that summary trials were no longer constitutional and legal.

Does the Liberal Party simply not have a position, or has it changed its position 180°, and if so, why?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

First, Mr. Speaker, to clarify a point of principle, because it was not made by the member opposite at several points during his speech, when Canadians join the Canadian Forces, they do not waive their rights; they join to defend our rights, and they absolutely enjoy the same rights of other Canadians under the civilian justice system and under the military justice system. That has been confirmed by eminent Canadian jurists time and time again.

Second, on a point of fact, in the summary trials system the accused does have access to defence counsel services from anywhere in the world—from any location, any foxhole, however obscure, in any part of the world, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is one of the benefits of the summary trial system.

When did the Liberal Party lose its faith in the summary trial system? It existed throughout many decades of Liberal governments and which existed while the Liberals were in government for 20 years, since the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its entrenchment, and whose constitutionality was recognized even by Chief Justice LeSage in his most recent report on the military justice system? He said:

—regarding the constitutionality of the summary trial process, I am satisfied, as was former Chief Justice Dickson, that “the summary trial process is likely to survive a court challenge as to its constitutional validity”.

Why is the member opposite taking a position he did not take during previous consideration of the bill? I do not think it was taken in previous Parliaments by the Liberal Party.

He is suddenly elevating the rather eccentric views of a single defence counsel from Toronto, who, by his own admission, has almost no experience of the military justice system, as gospel about the constitutionality of a military justice system that has survived challenges. That constitutionality has been upheld by some of the best legal minds we have had. Why is the Liberal Party suddenly in an entirely different and quite eccentric place on this issue?