Chris Alexander

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks by the member for Sudbury, listening hard for the insight I was hoping to have with regard to the motion in front of us. We are discussing a motion to amend a bill that has already been considered at great length at second reading and in committee. However, he did not even mention clause 4, which is the subject of the motion.

Neither he nor any of his colleagues have yet to explain why today the NDP is supporting a motion that would drastically amend clause 4 when in committee in this Parliament, and in the previous Parliament, the New Democrats were prepared to accept clause 4 as unamended. Why were they happy to have the version of the bill we all agreed to in committee back in a minority Parliament, when they had more leverage and influence in committee, accept clause 4 as it was in committee in this Parliament, and then all of a sudden at report stage an amendment pops up from someone who was not in the committee and they are prepared to support it?

Does this not speak to the motives of the NDP?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre spent an entire speech without referring to the motion that is before us, which is to amend the bill. He says he wishes the bill to pass, as we agreed at committee, yet he is speaking here as part of a party that has said it is in favour of the amendment.

My question for the member for Hamilton Centre is, therefore, very simple. It was not answered by the previous member. I have not heard an answer yet. Why is the NDP favouring this amendment to an article of the bill whose version in the previous Parliament, in Bill C-41, it was prepared to accept? What is it in the tenacity of the NDP that leads it to invent a principle, invent a commitment that it never showed in committee, in this Parliament or the previous Parliament, at the last minute, and put up a number of speakers today to delay debate on a point that is now suddenly important to it, which we have never heard it speak on before, in four parliaments? What is that other than delay of an important issue, delay of the very objective that the member for Hamilton Centre has himself articulated today?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perplexed by the member for Sherbrooke's remarks. He claims that the NDP wanted to put in amendments proposed by the NDP and adopted in the last Parliament, that is, in the 40th Parliament. Bill C-41 was introduced in the 40th Parliament.

At report stage, there was no mention of clause 4 or the amendments proposed today by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Why was the NDP prepared to pass the unamended bill, with the current version of clause 4, whereas today it wants to accept the amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands? What has changed? Is this not further proof that the NDP merely wants to prolong the debate?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland said that there was no mistrust on the NDP benches toward the military. There obviously is, because New Democrats are not taking the advice of military people, past and present, who have knowledge of this issue; they are taking the advice of people who want to undermine the core principles of the military justice system and civilianize it.

He also said there are no checks and balances. There are. The Provost Marshal is required in the unamended bill to make public the instructions, and if there is improper interference, he has the right to go to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The only argument we have heard from the other side is what I call the argument from stupidity, from the members for St. John's East and Scarborough—Guildwood: the idea that military police are not so stupid that they would ever go to the wrong place at the wrong time. Conservatives also agree that they are not stupid.

However, what would the member for Beaches—East York think of the following situation? If the VCDS chooses to obey the law, which this amendment would have him do as we do in a civilian context, by never interfering or breathing a word to military police conducting an investigation, and military investigators went to a place where an exercise or military operation was about to take place that they did not know about, were not informed of and on which they did not have the benefit of secret operational information, where would the responsibility lie?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there was no syllable, no particle of that question, and presumably not of the answer, that had anything to do with the amendments in the two motions that are now before this House.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I stand by the view that members opposite have shown scorn and disregard for the particular situation that military members find themselves in when on mission, which requires the military justice system to be separate from the civilian justice system.

That is at the heart of the debate we are having today about these amendments. It would not be necessary to empower the VCDS to give instructions to independent military police if that special situation the Canadian Forces face did not exist. Does the member who has just spoken understand the bill?

At 18.5(4), in the unamended version, it says that:

The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) are available to the public.

That is in the bill as unamended.

The member also mentioned the desirability of not having some offences heard at summary trial translate into a criminal record. Is the member not aware that the bill as unamended contains an amendment of article 75, which would do just that? By making more speeches in this place, we are delaying the coming into—

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

First, in light of her preamble, does she not think that 10 years is a bit long to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations?

Second, our colleagues from St. John's East and Scarborough—Guildwood have shown contempt for the reality facing members of our military. As a former member of the Canadian armed forces, does the member not agree that this bill must contain specific provisions to ensure that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal is made aware of the situation on the battlefield, if necessary, when he or she is conducting an investigation on a battlefield where such a danger exists?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood would begin his speech by calling on us to bring the military justice system into the 21st century and then cite, as the only reason for supporting these amendments, a case that is quite far back in the 20th century. However, that is typical and it is typical of the stalling tactics by the opposition. In three years under a Liberal government, there was a failure to implement the Lamer recommendations, and in four Parliaments the opposition has conspired to hold back the amendments embodied in the bill.

The member for St. John's East talked about the military police being able to avoid walking into the wrong place at the wrong time because they are not stupid. What if these amendments passed and the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to provide instructions was not in the bill? Then the VCDS stupidly obeyed the law, which is that police investigations in this country are independent, and military investigators, not knowing on a battlefield that an operation was taking place or a live fire exercise was taking place, went to the place where something like that was in fact happening? Who would be stupid in that case? Would the member—

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we have never taken the position that there were not improvements required to ensure the constitutionality of this legislation.

That is why, in addition to the four failed attempts we have had to amend this legislation, there have also been Bill C-60 and Bill C-16. That means six pieces of legislation for this House, over four parliaments, without a full, thorough-going modernization, update, taking place yet.

Could I ask the hon. member to return to the issue at hand today? Why is it that he is speaking, after all our consideration in committee of this issue, in favour of a reprised amendment, essentially, that goes against the testimony of the Provost Marshal of the Canadian Forces on March 2, when he said that the safeguards in place are robust, and goes against the testimony of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, who says that this provision is required to potentially save lives on the battlefield, using the example of a live fire exercise?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it reflects the inability of the member and other members opposite to see the true context of the bill and the amendments we have proposed at report stage of the bill when he is required to refer all the way back to Somalia in even framing a question about this issue.

The military justice system has functioned extremely well in Afghanistan. It has functioned extremely well for two decades, since Somalia, because of changes that were made and accountabilities that were strengthened. Bill C-15 will strengthen them even further.