Christine Moore

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

Mr. Speaker, during previous discussions about Bill C-15, we spoke about the interference of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in the Military Police Complaints Commission. We want to avoid such interference. The parliamentary secretary gave examples of investigators that could find themselves in the middle of a conflict.

I would like the hon. member to better define the concept of interference. I think that there is a distinction to be made between a situation in which a commander tells someone that this may not be the best time to conduct an investigation without necessarily being able to say why and one in which he gives instructions and interferes in an investigation. Can the hon. member explain that distinction?

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

No, Mr. Speaker. I think that the commanders of our units and platoons are smart enough to figure out when an investigation is appropriate. You do not carry out an investigation when you are being fired upon. That would be ridiculous. When you are being fired upon, you defend yourself and you get out of there. It is not time to get out your paper and your pencil and take statements.

I think that, logically, everybody knows that an investigation will take place when the time is right, not in the middle of an attack or an operation. No military police officer would try to gather evidence while his platoon is carrying out a tactical operation or some other manoeuvre. If that was my colleague's question, I think that the answer is obvious.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry. I had trouble hearing the end of my colleague's question because of the noise in the House. I am very sorry, but I did not hear the question. If you could let—

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I do not think that any member should claim that another member has contempt for the Canadian armed forces. I think his comments were unacceptable. The parliamentary secretary should retract his comments. Just because we have a different idea of what constitutes national defence, that does not mean that we have contempt for our soldiers. I find those comments particularly insulting. I work with my colleague from St. John's East every day, and I know that he respects the men and women of our military.

Yes, 10 years is a long time to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations. The Liberals were in power and they did not do so. I do not know why.

That said, instead of introducing a bill similar to Bill C-41, which had been amended, the government introduced Bill C-15, which was a step backwards.

If the Conservatives had introduced a Bill C-15 that was similar to what Bill C-41 had become, we would have perhaps wasted less time. Instead they chose to go backwards. What can we do? They are the ones who introduced the bill, and they decided to go backwards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my brief opening remarks.

I would like to go into some detail about clause 4, which should make the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence happy. He seems to be quite anxious that I discuss clause 4, which is the subject of the amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Bill C-41 was amended in committee, but it died on the order paper. When Bill C-15 was introduced for second reading, the amendments contained in Bill C-41, which had received widespread approval, were not included in their entirety.

As a result, we initially opposed the bill at second reading because we felt it was a step back. There had already been a similar bill, complete with approved amendments, but those amendments were not included in the new bill. We therefore decided to oppose it.

A number of amendments were proposed in committee. The NDP put forward 22 amendments and five subamendments. The Conservatives proposed two. One addressed dates and the other addressed clause 75, which would increase the number of sentences that would not result in a criminal record. That is why the amendment was passed. We have now decided to support Bill C-15 because of that improvement.

However, some problems have still not been resolved. The situation is not perfect, but progress has been made. This bill has not taken us as far backward. We are moving forward.

The NDP proposed amendments to clause 4 of Bill C-15. They were rejected. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. She does not have the right to sit on committee. The hon. member is now presenting amendments, and this is a perfectly normal part of the democratic process, since she did not have the opportunity to do so before.

These amendments pertain to the section of the bill related to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the investigations that will be conducted.

The wording of the second amendment, Motion No. 2, would be changed to read as follows: “The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) and the relevant rationale are available to the public.” “[A]nd the relevant rationale” is what is being added.

I agree with this amendment because it specifies that the Provost Marshal is not just making the guidelines available to the public but also the reasons for them.

This is a worthwhile amendment because it makes it possible to make the instructions and the reasons for them public. It makes it possible to provide a rationale for the guidelines. This lends weight to the instructions that the Provost Marshal could ultimately issue. It is worthwhile.

The other amendment, Motion No. 1, will read as follows if it is passed:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal and in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the Accountability Framework signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal on March 2, 1998, issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation, providing that the rationale for issuing the instructions or guidelines is also stated.

For the people listening to my speech, it is important to understand what the current provision of the bill says. It reads:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

The motion moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands adds a lot of details.

It is important to note that both amendments seek to ensure that a rationale is provided.

I find that really interesting because when such important decisions are made, it is crucial that there be an explanation of how and why they were made. That makes them much easier to accept and it gives a better idea of the intended direction.

I would also like to talk about the importance of strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission, the MPCC. The underlying issue is guaranteeing the independence of the MPCC.

Some aspects of clause 4 concerning the MPCC are a step backwards for the military justice system. Furthermore, there could be interference by the chain of command in military police investigations. Thus, I believe ensuring the independence of the MPCC would be the responsible thing to do.

The amendments specify that the rationale is to be provided, which would at least explain what happened. At the very least, there could be a better understanding of the interference and it might not seem unwarranted because the reasons would be provided.

I would like to point out that a former chair of the MPCC, Peter Tinsley, and the current chair, Glenn Stannard, have expressed their concerns about this provision. Both recommended that it be deleted from the bill. The provision at issue concerns the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and his authority to issue guidelines and instructions in respect of military police investigations.

One of the important things to point out is that the amendments proposed by my colleague would make it possible to provide additional information about the reasons for the investigation. However, clause 4 is problematic.

Of course the NDP will undertake to resolve this situation when it is in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that at the beginning of my speech I briefly mentioned—and perhaps he was unable to hear—that I would begin by quickly commenting on what happened in committee before speaking to clause 4 and the provisions set out in the amendments put forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I was coming to that, but the member seems to be in a rush. He should give me a bit more time.

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

Mr. Speaker, before addressing clause 4 and the related amendments, I would like to provide some background on Bill C-15, so that things are clear for everyone who is watching or trying to follow the debate.

Bill C-15 has appeared in various forms. First of all, Bills C-7 and C-45 died on the order paper because of prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008.

In July 2008, Bill C-60 came into force. It was intended to simplify the structure of the court martial system and establish a method for choosing the type of court martial that would mesh better with the civilian system. After that, in 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations containing amendments to be made to the National Defence Act.

Then, Bill C-41 was introduced in 2010. It responded to the 2003 Lamer report and the Senate committee report I just mentioned. It contained provisions on military justice, including sentencing reform.

The issue of military judges was addressed in Bill C-16 and therefore was not covered in Bill C-15. Bill C-15 also addressed military committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and contained a certain number of provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints processes.

Then, Bill C-41 died on the order paper because the election was called, but I would like to point out that this bill had been studied in committee and that there had been amendments—

[Petitions, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition calling for a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada. The petition has been signed by people across Canada.

It is important to understand that when shark fins are harvested, quite often, the fins are severed from the shark and its body is simply discarded at sea. This practice has serious consequences for marine ecosystems.

I therefore present this petition in the hopes of stopping that practice.

[Search and Rescue, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us continue with the Conservatives' poor budget decisions.

Closing the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre is one of their worst budget decisions. The Conservatives are incapable of making improvements to our operational search and rescue capacities. They refuse to maintain the same response times 24 hours a day. That is pathetic. What is worse, search and rescue capacities in Labrador deteriorated when Peter Penashue was an MP.

Do the Conservatives understand that they are playing with people's lives and that this is an unacceptable budget decision?

[National Defence, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another quick question. In terms of financial controls over Defence Construction Canada, the Auditor General raised some questions about the fact that, contrary to normal operating procedures, Defence Construction Canada was not the subject of cyclical reviews as part of the financial management processes. No cyclical reviews had been carried out since the signing of the MOU in 2008. National Defence therefore has no assurance that Defence Construction Canada is exercising its authorities correctly.

In response to the report, the department said it would hire an independent third party in the 2012-13 fiscal year. I would like to know if such a third party has been hired. What qualifications and experience does the individual have in that area? If such an individual has been hired, what is the status of the work and the cyclical review in question?