Chris Alexander

[Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that any member of the House would see fit, for any reason, to politicize an issue, to link an issue that really is, and I think the member for St. John's East would agree with me, technical in nature, that is urgent because of the judicial context now set for this issue.

Yes, there is give and take in the House. There is free flow of requests and agreements, sometimes request refusals. However, let us be clear, if this measure does not move forward expeditiously, and we had hoped it would do so today, and we still think expeditious progress for the bill is possible, those who will suffer are all of us in the House because our credibility in serving the military and the military justice system will be in doubt.

Every single member of the Canadian armed forces who is served by the court martial system, by the summary trial system, runs the risk of having the constitutionality of that system being called into question as early as December 2. Therefore, the urgency does transcend the give and take that we habitually engage in in the House. It should compel all members to reconsider their positions and to move toward expeditious passage of the bill.

[Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of the bill that addresses the urgent need to ensure the proper functioning of our military justice system.

The bill comes to us in the context of two facts that I think all hon. members will recognize. One, a legal circumstance that places additional pressure on all of us to ensure the smooth functioning of our military justice system, one that has served Canada well for decades. We just celebrated the centenary of the Office of the Judge Advocate General without a challenge to its constitutionality. I will come back to that issue and delve into the circumstances that have led to a danger of that happening.

This is a measure that has been considered in the House three times during three previous Parliament when bills were brought forward that provided for exactly the very limited measures that are provided for in this bill. They died on the order paper, despite two days of debate in the House in the last Parliament and five days of debate in committee in the last Parliament. These issues have been thoroughly ventilated among all of us.

They have received the benefit of the views of the members opposite in committee and in the House, and our consultations to date lead us to believe that, on this narrow but important issue of the independence of military judges, there is a consensus among the parties represented in the House to move forward with alacrity and to ensure that trial by court martial in this country's military justice institutions continues to take place in full conformity with the law and the continuing modernization of our civilian, civil and military justice practices.

Ensuring the safety of Canadians requires that members of the Canadian Forces remain in a constant state of operational readiness. In this regard, the military justice system is a critical tool in allowing the chain of command to deal with matters directly related to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. Many hon. members on all sides of the House will know first-hand from their experience, and we all know from our observation of the excellence of our Canadian armed forces the importance of morale, the fundamental importance of justice that is swift, justice that is fair, justice that brings together a team that reinforces the cohesion of that team to the smooth operational functioning of a military.

It is not just a question of the institution's effectiveness, it is also a question of our military's ability to reflect the values that we as Canadians hold dear. Any Canadian soldier, private, sergeant or officers, whether they are in Libya or on a peacekeeping mission on the Golan Heights or anywhere else, will tell us that they can only do their job to the extent that they are representing and projecting Canada's values. Those values are built upon a system of law, a system of justice and that system must be fully reflected in the system of military justice that serves our military.

In the absence of such a system, our military men and women would not be able to focus on their top priority—protecting the interests of Canada and its people.

For that reason, the government, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Constitution have recognized the importance of maintaining a robust military justice system. The military justice system must meet the unique needs of the Canadian Forces and must also be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter guarantees that a person who is charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

It is on the issue of independence that I speak to the House today. The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental right of all Canadians, and maintaining that independence is an important responsibility of government. This means ensuring that Canadian courts, including courts martial, are free from real and perceived undue influences and interference.

Judicial independence, or the freedom to deliver a ruling based solely on fact and law, requires that the judge presiding over a trial have a certain level of job security and that his appointment be permanent.

That is the system we have in our civil courts and it is the system we must now have in our military justice system.

On June 2 of this year, the Court Martial Appeal Court made an important decision regarding the security of tenure of military judges. I am referring to the case of Regina v. Leblanc. This ruling assessed that the process by which military judges are appointed, currently on a five year renewable basis, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for an independent judiciary. Therefore, the court has given Parliament six months, or until December 2, to pass remedial legislation to update the National Defence Act, otherwise, its provisions related to the appointment and tenure of military judges will be declared constitutionally invalid. This is not a new issue.

Since it took office, the government has been actively seeking to make amendments, similar to those I just mentioned, to the National Defence Act.

The enhancement of judicial independence is one issue that the government first attempted to address in 2006 with Bill C-7, which died on the order paper, as I mentioned at the outset. Since then, the government has attempted to amend the National Defence Act on two separate occasions: Bill C-45 in 2008 and Bill C-41 in 2010, both of which died on the order paper as a result of prorogation or the dissolution of Parliament.

Therefore, we cannot be taken to task for not having tried to resolve this issue earlier as circumstances literally did not permit us to bring these efforts, which we all have endorsed in one way or another, to fruition. Ideally, Parliament would have passed legislation that would have dealt with the issue of security of tenure in 2006, unfortunately, circumstances were such that this was not the case. Today, with a renewed sense of urgency on this issue, we come before this House with Bill C-16

In order to address the concerns identified in the Leblanc decision, the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act contained in Bill C-16 would provide military judges with security of tenure to the fixed age of 60, subject only to removal for cause based on the recommendations of an inquiry committee established under regulations. This is a procedure that reflects, in the military justice system, the type of removal proceedings that we see in our civilian justice system in extreme cases when it is applied to judges.

The government recognizes that 60 is an earlier age for retirement than most judges in the civilian justice system. However, we must remember that military judges are commissioned officers in the Canadian Forces, colonels and lieutenant colonels at the moment, and that the military must balance the need for an experienced judiciary with the need for physical fitness and deployability in all of its members. It is the principle of universality of service. For this reason, 60 is the maximum prescribed retirement age for all Canadian Forces members, and this must include military judges who are, of course, members of the Canadian Forces.

I would like to close by emphasizing that the government recognizes that the amendments proposed in this bill are technical in nature, but they constitute amendments that are necessary to ensure that the National Defence Act is consistent with the charter and that the military justice system operates in accordance with Canadian legal standards.

We are really talking about the modernization of our military justice system, the obligation we have to ensure that our system reflects developments in the civil justice system. I am not only speaking about our own observation as parliamentarians, as government, that this must take place, but observations that have been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada and by a recent decision by the military appeals court that this now take place specifically with regard to the issue of the independence of military judges.

Should Bill C-16 not move forward quickly the ability of military judges to hear cases will be put into question, causing uncertainty within the military justice system. By ensuring security of tenure to the fixed age of 60, Bill C-16 would make a significant contribution toward ensuring the continued independence of military judges within the military justice system.

Let us keep in mind that our military justice system has a long-standing and proud tradition in Canada. The Court Martial Appeal Court was created in 1959 by Parliament. It is a military justice system that is subject to civilian control, civilian supervision and civilian oversight. It is also subject to that oversight in that the Court Martial Appeal Court is a superior court of record with a chief justice of its own. It is composed only of superior court judges appointed by governor in council. Appeals from this court go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, so our military justice system fits under the charter, under our Constitution, into a system of justice that is overseen ultimately under appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let us also put the bill into perspective. The full-time military judges of whom we speak and to which this new measure would apply number four in this country at the moment, three of whom are lieutenant colonels and one a colonel. They do handle a large amount of work. The bill really would apply to a relatively restricted field of the military justice system and our military as a whole.

This government recognizes that while urgent, the issue of judicial independence is but one of many aspects of our military justice system that requires updating. Performing a regular review of any legal system is necessary to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness, which is why the government has also introduced Bill C-15, which proposes implementing many of the recommendations found in the 2003 report by the late chief justice Antonio Lamer.

Together, Bill C-15 and Bill C-16 represent a comprehensive response to the recommendations found in the Lamer report and in Regina v. Leblanc to ensure that our military justice system remains consistent with Canadian values.

I therefore call upon the House to support both of these important bills as they move forward. I also call upon those independent members of the House, some of whom were active in committee in reviewing the provisions now contained both in Bill C-15 and Bill C-16, to join us in moving the bills forward expeditiously in recognizing that the values we all share, the military we all support, deserves to see these technical but important updated measures move forward as quickly as possible.

It is one of our duties to our military. It is our duty to Canadians to move quickly forward on this. We need to ensure that our Canadian Forces are served by the best, the most modern, the most effective military justice system that we can have in this country at this time.

[Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I stand this morning with great pleasure in support of a bill that addresses the urgent need to ensure the proper functioning of our military justice system.

I will begin by reminding all members that our debate--

[Fair Representation Act, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the principle of proportional representation was established in Canada in the middle of the 19th century at a time when there was no income tax for individuals. We did not have the corporate tax structure we have now.

Would the member not agree with me that today when the role of the House in determining government spending, in ensuring accountability for taxpayers, the principle of proportional representation is more important than ever and that by opposing these measures through a period of minority government over the last seven years and in the current Parliament, the members opposite, in both parties, are in effect opposing equity and accountability for taxpayers for the way that their hard-earned money is spent by the Government of Canada?

Would the member agree with me on that?

[October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the immense, wild nature of this country cannot be controlled. Neither this government nor any other is able to prevent natural disasters in the country. However, we remain absolutely determined to ensure that one of the Canadian Forces' highest priorities is the duty to provide help to civilian authorities in the event of a natural disaster. This year, their level of commitment in that regard has broken almost every record.

In the case of operation Lotus, in Montérégie, more than 800 soldiers provided their help at the height of the operation. They repaired two major dikes, filled 224,000 bags of sand, spent more than 1,100 hours helping members of the community make checkup visits and protected more than 800 private residences.

[October 25th, 2011]

To begin, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member for Saint-Jean that this government stands by the people of Montérégie who were affected by the flooding and all those affected by disasters across Canada. This has been a year marked by flooding and forest fires in many provinces. Of course, the Department of National Defence remains committed to fulfilling its obligations in terms of national security and helping affected communities. That is what we did in Saint-Jean and the other communities throughout Canada, providing help to civil authorities during a particularly active season for natural disasters.

I would like to thank the hon. member for recognizing the expertise, know-how and contributions of the Canadian Forces in Saint-Jean. They were there not just once, but twice. The first time they stayed until the waters had stopped rising. The second time, a bit later in the summer, they were there during the flood, when the waters of the Saint-Jean River rose even higher.

My duty and my commitment to the hon. member and to the opposition members who are seeking an answer to this question is to remind the members of this House of the role that the Canadian Forces play during a natural disaster and of the concrete contribution they made this summer in Montérégie and elsewhere in Canada. We empathize with the people in Quebec and Manitoba who have suffered so much, as well as with those who were affected by the forest fires in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario. Although it was not hit as hard as Montérégie, New Brunswick also experienced fairly serious flooding.

It is a top priority for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces to deliver excellence at home and to ensure the safety and defence of the people of Canada when a crisis occurs. The Canadian Forces are proud to help civilian authorities by responding to a wide variety of situations that may threaten our country, in particular, natural disasters.

In the wake of a natural disaster, such as a snow or ice storm—something for which Quebec and Ontario are famous—fires or major flooding, the Canadian Forces can use their unique abilities to help the civilian authorities. When such situations occur, the Canadian Forces deploy to the affected area immediately following the catastrophe to offer their help and they stay there until their unique abilities are no longer needed. That is exactly what they did in Montérégie this summer.

The help the Canadian Forces provide depends on the nature of the request. Specialized abilities, particularly in the areas of engineering, security, transportation, aviation and logistics, may be required. The Canadian Forces can also provide support to health services, various vessels, dive teams and satellite imagery services.

As the hon. member knows, follow-up to these operations is a provincial responsibility. The government offers programs that share the financial burden of this second phase of public assistance through the Department of Public Safety.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has gone on and on about whether we know the real wishes of western Canadian farmers. For everyone listening to this debate and for everyone in the House, we have taken countless measures to ensure the aspirations of western Canadian farmers are not subject to a monopoly for the marketing of their grain. They want to be treated the way farmers are treated in the rest of the country. We saw that on May 2 with the clear expression in our platform of our intention to move ahead with this. We have seen it by countless other measures.

What the hon. member and no other member on that side of the House has answered is why they persist in thinking that these farmers should face the handicap of a monopoly. Throughout Europe, even in Ukraine and Russia, the places where the planned economy, especially in agriculture, flourished for most the 20th century, monopoly no longer exists. It does not exist in Australia and it does not exist in the United States. Could the hon. member tell us why it should exist in western Canada?

[National Defence, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, all reasonable Canadians agree that we need fighter jets to protect our sovereignty. We will continue to ensure that our Canadian armed forces have the best equipment.

But we have a question. This F-35 program started under the Liberal government. Why are they now opposed to it? Why are they opposed to industrial benefits for cities like Montreal, for example?

[October 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to all of us in the House at this point that the member has lost his sense of perspective on this issue. He has not as yet answered the question as to why it is fine for him and many other members to follow the rules, participate in the search and rescue exercise, but not fine for the Minister of National Defence, who is responsible for search and rescue in our country, to do the same.

We on this side can well understand why the NDP asks so much about this. It opposes so much of what the Canadian Forces does, such as the operation in Libya, the operation in Afghanistan, Canada's economic action plan, the procurement of equipment, the minister's commitment to doing his duty to fallen soldiers.

What we cannot understand on this side of the House is why a Liberal member, whose government used these assets five times more than this government, is questioning the commitment of the Minister of National Defence to knowing his job as the lead minister on search and rescue and his minimal use of Challenger aircraft to get to places in Canada.

[October 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin a substantive answer by simply noting that the low tone of the remarks we just heard in that rant, which the hon. member tried to qualify as a question, is what gives some hon. members, and certainly the party to which the hon. member belongs, a bad name in the eyes of Canadians. I would put the hon. member on notice that this kind of unfactual insinuation is not going to wash with Canadians. It did not wash in the last election and it will not wash in the future.

However, I would like to thank him for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight on the use of government aircraft. The Minister of National Defence is the lead minister for search and rescue in this country, and he attaches enormous importance to his role in this respect and to understanding the work that is done each and every day by the men and women involved in search and rescue, including by the men and women of the Canadian Forces, who are just one element of the overall solution.

Canadians are fortunate to have one of the most effective search and rescue systems in the world. We can be forgiven for forgetting that fact in the wake of dozens of questions by the other side casting aspersions and alleging abuse that is simply not there.

A vast network operates across this country to ensure that appropriate resources are available to respond to incidents that may arise anywhere. We have 18 million square kilometres of responsibility. The hon. member may know that is 13% of the earth's surface, an area of land and sea greater than the size of continental Europe.

The Canadian Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard work very closely together to coordinate responses to more than 8,000 incidents per year. The forces are proud of what they do and they take advantage of all opportunities to welcome senior officials and government members to showcase their capabilities, as the member well knows. I am grateful to him for coming clean in saying that he took a trip with the 103 Search and Rescue Squadron in Gander, Newfoundland in July 2010, a trip that was even longer than the minister's trip, which was under an hour we are told.

However, there has been no question from this side or any side about the appropriateness of that. Indeed, members of this House have a duty to understand the operations of the Canadian Forces, above all, the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence. And the Minister of National Defence, with statutory responsibility for these forces, has a responsibility to know their work intimately. Fortunately, he does and is dedicated to his job; he does not take it lightly. And, fortunately, he has committed to doing this job seriously and to knowing the work involved as no other minister in recent years has known it.

While the 103 Squadron was pleased to have the opportunity to demonstrate its capabilities, obviously the visit would have been terminated had an incident arisen and those resources been required elsewhere. I do not want to single out the member. Many members have taken part in these sorts of demonstrations. However, for the Minister of National Defence, there is a special responsibility, and the government is committed to ensuring that the Canadian Forces have the people, equipment, infrastructure, and readiness required to defend Canada and Canadians, including in the field of search and rescue.

On the Challenger flights, I just have one thing to say. The hon. member opposite, representing the great riding of Avalon, should know better than to ask about this issue when he represents a party that had the highest rate of use of Challengers, and, probably, abuse from time to time, in Canadian history. This government has reduced that rate of use by 80%, and I think those facts speak for themselves.