Chris Alexander

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Why does the opposition not do its own work?

In all these debates, it shows an incredible lack of rigour. It wants to reduce the number of criminal records, and now the number of summary trials, such as in the case of insubordination, disturbance, absence without leave or drunkenness. Those are the types of convictions members opposite are rather familiar with.

By prolonging the debate and preventing the bill from being referred to committee, the member shows that he does not want to accelerate these reforms. The NDP and the opposition asked for these reforms, but with each speech they make, they delay the implementation of necessary reforms that everyone wants. How can the member justify that?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, members opposite are praising our soldiers, but their words are empty, because every day we can see that the opposition is prepared to deny the Canadian Forces the equipment they need. It is opposed to the Canadian Forces participating in overseas missions, and now it is opposing the modernization of the military justice system.

The government is committed to reducing the number of convictions resulting in criminal records in 27 cases. The minister said so yesterday and I am saying so today. We want to repeat what happened with Bill C-41, but that can only be done in committee. We want to refer this legislation to committee as soon as possible.

Why is the member for Chambly—Borduas opposed to speeding up the passage of a bill that is necessary and that would modernize the military justice system?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my honourable friend. First, does she agree that Justice Dickson and Justice Lamer, former chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, have said the Canadian Forces' current summary trial system manages to protect charter rights as well as the principles of natural justice?

Second, given we all agree on the need to modernize the system, does she agree that the best way to reduce the number of convictions leading to a criminal record is to send the bill to committee and pass it? We have even offered to remove 27 offences that can lead to a criminal record upon summary conviction, which is quite a lot.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as every member well knows, two former chief justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Dickson and Justice Lamer, both agree that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as natural justice are protected by the Canadian Forces' current summary trial system. According to some well-respected leaders in the field of justice, this system works fairly well.

There are currently 27 offences leading to a criminal record in the summary trial system that we are hoping to remove from the list after the committee has concluded its study.

By prolonging the debate, which has already lasted a year, and preventing the committee from proceeding with its study, the member is perpetuating a system that all of us want to change.

I have a question for the member about criminal records. Does he agree the time has come to send the bill to committee in order to speed things along?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, does the member across the way understand that, by giving his speech, particularly on the subject of criminal records, he is perpetuating the system he hopes to change? Does he realize the Minister of National Defence rose in the House yesterday to indicate the government's willingness to propose an amendment that was first proposed during consideration of Bill C-41 in a previous Parliament? The amendment deals with criminal records arising from summary conviction trials. It would add 25 new offences to the two offences currently in the bill, bringing to 27 the number of offences that do not lead to a criminal record, in the hopes of modernizing the summary trial system.

These amendments need to be considered in committee. Does the honourable member understand that by prolonging debate in the House, we are perpetuating the system he hopes to change?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the draft before us absolutely does guarantee those measures that the member for Vancouver Kingsway mentioned at the end of his speech, because it has been designed by Canada's leading judiciaries over decades. Of the 88 recommendations made by a former chief justice that are embodied in the bill, 83 have been accepted on this side of the House as much as on that side.

We have not heard anything new on the bill from the member opposite. We still have not heard an answer from him or his colleagues about a point on which they have been misleading the House.

The member for Timmins—James Bay, others among his colleagues and now the member for Vancouver Kingsway have implied that this requirement for 60% of the grievance board to be civilians comes from a recommendation of Justice Lamer. It does not. Will the member opposite acknowledge that it is not part of the 88 recommendations?

We, on this side, do accept that civilians should be eligible. However, we do not accept that there should be a quota of civilians on that board because military experience is relevant to the hearing of grievances for the Canadian Forces. Also, it has not been recommended by high judicial authorities.

Will the member for Vancouver Kingsway come clean about the origins of this proposal, which absolutely had no place in his party's position during the last Parliament?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we get our facts straight in this debate.

I want a clear acknowledgement by the member opposite that he understands that Justice Lamer and all the other senior members of our judiciary who have reviewed the military justice system accept that the summary trial system is appropriate for the military justice system in Canada's armed forces.

Second, could the member set the record straight on behalf of his colleague from Timmins—James Bay who said that the idea there be 60% civilians on the grievance board had come from Justice Lamer. It did not come from Justice Lamer, nor did it come from Justice LeSage or the other senior members of our judiciary who painstakingly reviewed the military justice system. The idea actually comes from the NDP. It is not justified in our view and we will not be accepting it on the basis of the weak arguments put forward by the NDP.

Could the member set the record straight that this proposal does not come from a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada but in fact from somewhere within bowels of his party?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite really needs to recall what this government has committed to at every stage of this debate on Bill C-15 to update our military justice system.

We have accepted 83 out of 88 of the recommendations. Several of the member's colleagues have tried to argue that we have accepted only 29. We have actually implemented 29 and have accepted 83 out of 88. We want to move faster on implementation, but we need the bill passed to do that.

Could the member explain to this House why, instead of talking about the bill and what could possibly be preventing the opposition members from wanting to move it into committee, he is talking about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is not talked about in this bill and is not governed in any way by the military justice system?

He mentioned Mr. Leduc. If he wants to talk about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, would he care to comment on the very good appointments to that board made by this government over the past week? They are people who represent a combination of civilians and former senior serving military officers.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the question I want to ask the hon. member opposite is a very simple one. I feel the need to ask it because there is a specific fact she did not mention in her speech and showed no awareness of.

Does the hon. member realize that most of the amendments proposed in this bill were suggested in 2003 by Chief Justice Lamer, who has since retired?

These amendments are absolutely essential if we want to improve and modernize Canada's military justice system.

The best, most appropriate and ideal place to consider changes to these amendments is in committee, as the Minister of National Defence suggested yesterday. Indeed, we should examine this rather complex bill in committee as soon as possible.

[Petitions, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of 34 Canadians, including many from my own riding of Ajax—Pickering, calling upon the government to celebrate Canada Day on July 1 every year to ensure that it is not a floating holiday, regardless of whether July 1 falls on a Sunday or not.

It is an important issue for those who are otherwise sometimes obliged to work on Canada Day, a great central national holiday where all Canadians should have the opportunity to celebrate with their families and to put down their tools.