Christine Moore

[Language Skills Act, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, which was introduced by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

This bill would require anyone appointed to the office of the 10 main officers of Parliament to understand French and English and to be able to communicate in both official languages at the time they take the job.

The positions in question are the following: the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the President of the Public Service Commission.

These positions are very important and the people who hold these offices interact regularly with parliamentarians. They do an excellent job. They keep us apprised of what is going on. For example, the Auditor General just released his latest report and we learned a lot of things.

That is why I think it is very important for these officers of Parliament to be able to communicate in both official languages.

On occasion, the general public also has to interact with these people. As we saw with the allegations of electoral fraud, I think it is important for a member of the public to be able to speak with the Chief Electoral Officer in either official language in order to discuss the problems and to make a complaint.

I think it goes without saying that anyone appointed to the positions I mentioned will have a lot of experience, will have worked in the field and will have had training. They will probably have a few degrees. This is not a job you get right out of university.

That being said, the reason I wanted to point this out is that, when a person progresses in his career, no matter what that career may be, and things are going well and he thinks that he might want to aspire to another position, it is logical to think that, at some point, he might have the opportunity to be appointed Auditor General.

If that person knows that the position requires him to be bilingual, then he has more than enough time, from the beginning of his career, to say that he is going to learn French or English right away, depending on which language he is less familiar with.

It is completely reasonable to think along those lines. If a person knows he needs to be bilingual in order to reach his future career goals, he will do his best to learn the other language. Often, the people appointed to these positions are from the public service. They have already worked in various capacities and have therefore had access to courses in the other official language. I think that that is an important point to make.

I would like to come back to the work done in committee. At report stage, a Liberal amendment was rejected and four Conservative amendments were accepted. I am sorry to see that the preamble was done away with.

The preamble reiterated the fact that the Constitution recognizes that English and French are the official languages of Canada; that English and French have equal rights and privileges as to their use in Parliament; that parliamentarians use both official languages during parliamentary debates and proceedings; and that persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament must be able to communicate with parliamentarians in both official languages.

I think that it is unfortunate that the preamble was removed. I think that all parliamentarians should be proud to stand and say that, in Canada, we are lucky to live in a unique country with two official languages and two linguistic communities that live together and that have learned to value each other.

Yes, there is sometimes conflict between the two communities, but Canada is an example of a country where two communities that are fairly different in terms of language and culture are able to live together and to be proud of who they are. Still, the Conservatives decided to remove this preamble. The preamble would have given us the chance to reiterate how proud we are of our country. I find it really sad that it was removed.

I believe that the Conservative Party is wasting an opportunity to stand up and proudly say that Canadians are proud of our language skills and proud to speak French and English, that we are proud of who we are and that it is important to put that in a bill.

In deciding to have bilingual officers of Parliament, we are taking a step in the right direction to show that, in Canada, we speak two languages and to give the reasons why we pass these types of bills. We are proud of our two communities, which are equal before the law. Instead, they decided to eliminate the preamble.

With regard to clause 2, which was amended, we originally asked that the incumbent understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter. It was decided that “without the aid of an interpreter” would be deleted. I find that unfortunate.

Members will recall that the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, said the following, which is taken from the Official Languages Act, and I found it to be appropriate.

If you say that people can use an interpreter, that indicates that the person does not have sufficient proficiency in the other official language.

I believe that it was important to keep these words to indicate what is meant by “understanding of the other official language”. If someone does not need an interpreter, it clearly shows that they are proficient in the other official language. That provides a criterion for determining whether or not the person has sufficient knowledge of the other official language. I am disappointed that the Conservatives decided to delete this clause.

It is also unfortunate that they deleted clause 3, whereby the Governor in Council could, by order, add offices to the list established in section 2. It would have been possible to add offices without necessarily having to go through the entire legislative process with a new bill to amend a bill about to be passed. The government might realize, for example, that some offices should have been on the list, or a new office could be created. No one knows what the future needs of the country may be. It is possible that other officer of Parliament positions may be created; they could have been automatically included in the bill and the law. I find it unfortunate that we are not giving ourselves some flexibility. There was no need to eliminate this clause.

Clause 4 stated that, in the event of the absence or incapacity of the incumbent of any of the offices listed in section 2 or vacancy in any of these offices, the person appointed in the interim must meet the requirements set out in section 2. In other words, the person must be bilingual even in an interim position. I regret that this clause was also deleted.

I know that Canada has an abundance of competent people with outstanding skills. I also know that there are bilingual candidates for all positions. It is not true that there are not enough; we can find them. We could have applied the same requirement to interim positions, if only out of respect for Canada's official language communities.

It is simply too bad that the requirement was deleted and that it was decided—even before the situation occurred—that it would be impossible and that we needed some flexibility. I know that Canada has a lot of competent people. Every time we conduct studies in committee, we see the expertise of Canadians. Many people have the skills and can give us the right information. This is really about not being willing and refusing to look for bilingual people. That is just too bad.

It is important to remember that a number of people supported our bill in its entirety before it was amended. For instance, Marie-France Kenny, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, supported it. They all said good things about the bill.

I am clearly pleased to support my colleague's bill, but, honestly, I would have much rather not seen it amended. I think the clauses that were deleted made the bill better and it is unfortunate that they were removed.

It is also unfortunate that the Conservatives missed the chance to keep the preamble and to reiterate how much they believe in a bilingual Canada and the importance of two equal French-speaking and English-speaking communities in our country.

I am proud of this country. I used to wear the flag on my shoulder when I was in the military.

I am very proud of what Canada stands for and I am always happy to say how proud I am of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the Minister of National Defence had introduced Bill C-15 with the amendments from Bill C-41, we could have perhaps avoided a few hours of debate. However, I do think it is important for this bill to pass. That is why we have decided to support it. We will see what happens, but I think that we should be prepared to vote quickly so it can pass.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence understands there are still some flaws and I hope that he will continue to work on the issue of military justice along with the Minister of National Defence, so they can introduce other bills in order to enhance and improve the military justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not an MP in 2003, but I know enough about politics to remember that the Liberal government still had a majority.

I find it hard to understand why the Liberals did not try to improve the military justice system. Some recommendations were made a long time ago. I find it hard to understand why they chose not to propose changes at that time. I also find it difficult to understand why the Liberal Party did not propose a single amendment while the bill was being studied in committee and why, during certain votes, no Liberal Party members voted. I have a hard time understanding all of that.

To me, military justice is an essential issue. They should have at least tried to take some sort of action, but they did not. The Liberals have not introduced a bill either, but it likely would not have had time to get through all the stages in the House before this Parliament is dissolved.

They did not make an effort in 2004 or in 2006. It is beyond comprehension.

I was not here at that time. I find it hard to understand, but the fact that Canada was actively involved in Afghanistan makes me think that it would have been a good time to pose this important question.

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

Mr. Speaker, in some cases, that can in fact result in conflict of interest.

Reserve regiments routinely have three or four members from the same family. For instance, in Sherbrooke, a sister and her two brothers were all in the same regiment.

At some point, one of them could be a commanding officer and might have to sit in judgment. Usually, in a situation that is so clearly a conflict of interest, the commanding officer must transfer his authority to his deputy commander.

There may well be conflicts of interest, but it is up to the commanding officer to show maturity, to recognize the conflict, and to delegate authority to the deputy commander, as he is in a position to do so.

Of course, if a criminal record is on the line, it is particularly problematic. If there is no possibility of a criminal record and since the commanding officer can delegate authority to the deputy commander, it is possible to handle the situation within the military system in a way that our military can find satisfactory.

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

Mr. Speaker, the context must be taken into account.

If we are talking about a summary trial in which a guilty verdict could lead to a criminal record, it is important to respect the rule of law and give people the right to appeal. However, if we are talking about the summary trial process that was expanded considerably and will not lead to a criminal record, that is altogether different.

Indeed, these summary trials were designed specifically so that people can be tried quickly, so that military forces can go on to the next thing and quickly return to operational status. Since there is no potential impact on the soldier's life when he leaves the military and the impact is limited to the military aspect, that is understandable.

For instance, if someone works as a nurse and does something wrong, their employer could put a note on their record. There is no transcription of what happened and there are no lawyers involved. The note would simply stay on the employee's civilian work record, so to speak.

The nuances of these rules of law need to be established based on potential consequences. This is particularly problematic when the defendant could end up with a criminal record, does not have access to a lawyer and has no right to appeal and when there is no transcription.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-15 at third reading. The bill seeks to strengthen military justice.

As some members know, I serve on the Standing Committee on National Defence. For obvious reasons, I have been following the debate surrounding this bill closely. As some members also know, I am a former member of the military. In my opinion, the military justice system is a really important part of the Canadian Armed Forces, but it can be difficult to understand. Discipline is crucial and requires a unique justice system. The goal is to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces' operational capability.

I would like to mention that it is important for our men and women in uniform that we take this seriously and carefully study legislation that will apply to them. They make incredible personal and social sacrifices for our country. It is essential that we try to provide them with the best military justice system possible.

Clearly, justice systems are complex. We are not talking about new paint colours; we are talking about a justice system, which is extremely complex. Sometimes, there is no perfect solution, and sometimes it is too complicated to find the one solution that will fit and make everything work.

When the bill was debated at second reading, one of the first things my colleague from St. John's East, the official opposition's defence critic, said was that an amendment passed when Bill C-41 was being studied had not been included in this bill.

A minority government was in power when Bill C-41 was being studied. It had no choice but to work with the other parties. A consensus was reached about Bill C-41, which, at the time, had support from all the parties. Unfortunately, the Conservatives prorogued Parliament. Bill C-41 was not voted on at third reading.

In his speech, my colleague from St. John's East emphasized, as I did, that the proposed amendment to Bill C-41 would have lengthened the list of offences eligible for summary trial under the National Defence Act. It would have increased the number of offences that would not result in a criminal record. The Minister of National Defence promised that the parliamentary secretary would bring that amendment back to the Standing Committee on National Defence during the study of the bill, and that is what he did. The amendment was passed.

Because of that amendment, Bill C-15 was improved at the committee stage.

Since we are talking about amendments, I will quickly point out that the Conservatives proposed only that amendment and one other to correct a date. That is all.

For its part, the NDP proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments that were rejected in committee. Still, we did our work, we studied the bill and we proposed amendments to improve it.

I believe that we demonstrated our support for our men and women in uniform. We showed that this bill was important to us, that it was important to study and improve it. Unfortunately, our amendments were rejected, but at least the Conservatives' amendment was passed, which improved the bill. I do not think that amendment would have gone through without the persistence of my colleague from St. John's East and all NDP members.

Although this was a Conservative amendment in the beginning, it is important to understand that it was made because of the NDP's work.

Before I go into more detail about criminal records resulting from convictions at summary trials, I would like to briefly mention that the Liberal Party did not propose any amendments in committee. I think that this is an important bill and that we must at least try to improve it. Nevertheless, the Liberals did not put forward any amendments.

A quick look at the record shows that the Liberal Party did not have anything to say when this bill was examined clause by clause or during the votes. We also see that no Liberal members voted during the recorded votes.

In my opinion, this serious issue deserved careful examination. I think that it is unfortunate that all parties in the House did not show the same commitment to our men and women in uniform. That is what I wanted to say about what happened in committee.

I would like to deal more specifically with the issue of criminal records resulting from convictions at summary trials. Clause 75 was amended to expand the list of offences included in the National Defence Act that can be dealt with by summary trial and that will not result in a criminal record following a conviction.

Right now, 95% of summary trial convictions are exempt from a criminal record, which leaves only 5% of people who can end up with a criminal record even though they would not necessarily have one for a similar offence in civilian life. At least things are improving.

It is important to understand that the issue of summary trials and criminal records is extremely complex. On one hand, summary trials are known to be efficient and they make it possible to deal with cases quickly. On the other hand, we also know that the rules of law for these summary trials are not followed.

For example, we would not want soldiers to be exempt from receiving a criminal record for offences that would have resulted in a record in the civilian world. However, we also would not want soldiers to have criminal records for offences that would not have resulted in a record in the civilian world. We need to find a balance. The issue of military justice is therefore extremely complex.

What is more, the National Defence Act is somewhat problematic in the sense that certain offences are very broad in scope and can include both very serious crimes and offences that are more benign. That is part of the reason why I wanted to make subamendments in this regard when we examined this bill in committee.

In the case of a demotion, the individual could still end up with a criminal record. It only makes sense that someone who commits a serious offence should be demoted. It would not be possible for a new recruit, who cannot be demoted, but it would be possible for all of the other ranks. If the offence is serious enough, the person should logically be demoted and the soldier would therefore have a criminal record.

I would like to talk about some sections that are very broad, such as section 113, which deals with fires. The problem is that section 113 of the National Defence Act covers a wide range of offences related to fires, whether those fires are caused wilfully or otherwise.

Here is an example of an accidental fire. A recruit could be tired when he is on training in the countryside, and he may not necessarily have any camping experience, any experience being in the forest or any life experience to rely on in this situation.

I mention this because it is something I have experience with. He could mistakenly put kerosene instead of naphtha in the stove. This could cause a fire. This person is not doing so wilfully or for the purpose of hurting the Canadian Forces. He is simply tired and is not following directions, yet it is all the same offence. If someone wilfully burned down a building, he would be charged with the same thing, and section 113 on causing fires would apply. These two people would have criminal records when they leave the Canadian Forces. However, everyone at home understands that these two situations are drastically different.

That is why this issue is so complicated. We understand that someone who wilfully causes a fire in civilian life would have a criminal record. Logically, we do not want this person to be exempt from having a criminal record. However, we would also want this person to have a trial that observes the rules of law. We cannot give someone a criminal record if the rules of law are not observed. The issue was examined from this perspective.

Also, someone who accidentally made a blunder would have a criminal record too. I assume the fines would not be the same for the two offences and that the punishment would fit the crime. We need to understand that the same section can in fact mean two different things.

Another section was rather odd. It had to do with setting a prisoner free without authority or helping a prisoner escape. That may seem odd, but in clause 75, under the Conservative amendment, escaping from prison does not warrant a criminal record. However, if you help someone escape, you can have a criminal record. I think it is a little unclear. It makes no sense that the person who escapes has no criminal record.

An unauthorized release or helping someone escape can also include involuntary actions. If someone who is very tired does not properly lock a door, the action was not voluntary. The person had no intention of letting the prisoner escape, but they made an error. Of course people should be punished for the error, but should they have a criminal record? Twenty years later, if they have a job interview, a potential employer will see the criminal record and may or may not ask why. That is the problem. At least, if the employer asks why the candidate has a criminal record, the person will be able to explain what happened and how the military justice system works. Perhaps that might not be such a problem, but the potential employer will not necessarily ask the person to explain why they have a criminal record in their file. The details of the story are not recorded. That is why I felt these subamendments were important.

I want to say once again that there has been an improvement because 95% of the cases are covered. This is a very complex issue. It is very difficult to come up with a perfect solution. We must focus on the fact that there has been change for the better, and that the provisions have been expanded considerably, which means that the NDP will support this bill.

Naturally, there will be more work to do as we continue to improve the military justice system. All parliamentarians want to improve it, or at least I hope they do. Improving the military justice system is of great importance for our men and women in uniform. I am hopeful that we will continue to try to make improvements, to find the flaws and to make good laws to correct them. This is a complex issue, and it is important that we address it for the sake of our military personnel.

I spent a great deal of time talking about criminal records. I would now like to briefly speak again about potential interference from the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff into military investigations.

I would just like to say that interference can be defined in different ways. It is important to understand that we must make a distinction. For example, someone from command could tell investigators that, for operational reasons, it is not the right time for an investigation. In that case, there is no interference in the investigation. They are simply saying that it is not safe to be investigating at that time, and that the investigation could be carried out at another time. That is not the same as really interfering in a case. It is important to make that distinction because there has been a lot of hearsay and misunderstanding about this subject. It is important to make that clear.

I have worked very hard on this bill in committee, and I am very interested in hearing my colleague's questions and comments. I will be happy to respond.

[Search and Rescue, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, following on the heels of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Auditor General is confirming that there are not enough bilingual search and rescue employees.

Yet the Conservatives are determined to close the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre even as the Auditor General is saying that we have reached a breaking point, because the Conservatives have no plan or policy in place for search and rescue.

We have oceans on three sides of our country. We have millions of lakes and rivers. We have mountains. When will the Conservatives get serious about helping Canadians in distress?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, during the debate in committee, the NDP made quite a few comments.

It was important to us to participate in the debate because we wanted to stand up for military personnel and we felt that the bill was flawed. Unfortunately, during the last four hours of debate in committee, the Liberal Party said not a word.

I know that my colleague is not a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, but why did he not convey his thoughts to the Liberal member who is on the committee? The Liberal committee member could then have shared those thoughts with the committee. Why did the Liberals have nothing to contribute to four hours of debate? Worse still, for some of the votes, no Liberal member voted.

[National Defence, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative defence cuts are having a serious impact on Canadian Forces members and communities across the country. Consider, for example, the whole fiasco of danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan.

There is more. According to new information, the Conservatives are about to go after air cadet flight training. Every year, this inexpensive program allows thousands of young people to discover the joy of flying.

Do the Conservatives plan to cut the air cadets' budget or not?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, but first, I would like to say something about the committee's study of Bill C-15.

The study in committee lasted longer than normal, about four hours. If you look at the committee transcript of those four hours, not one Liberal member spoke. During a four-hour meeting, the Liberals did not speak at all.

I would like to know why they thought it was a good idea not to participate in the four-hour debate in committee and why they are raising these issues now.

Why did his colleague not bring this up in committee when it was studying Bill C-15?