Jack Harris

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is more of a comment. We have been debating this now for over two hours. We have had a number of speakers, even some from the other side. Not a single member on the opposite side who wants this to go to committee has indicated that one single amendment would be presented or accepted in committee.

What we know so far is that the amendments that were accepted and the consensus that was developed in committee the last time were stripped out of the bill. Now we have the bill as it was when it was first presented to Parliament several years ago. It came back to the House and the government did not even call it. The Conservatives were so anxious to get it passed, they did not even call it. That is what we are left with here. We are left with a government stonewalling this by saying that we should bring the bill to committee so that we can study it. Well, the Conservatives have a majority on the committee. We know that, they know that. Is this a game?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer of long standing and great experience, the member's comments on these matters mean a lot.

I just want to add that Mr. Justice LeSage of the Ontario Superior Court, who did this report, said that the amendments that were in Bill C-41 took away the criminal record for certain offences but that, “I am of the view that the language contained in Bill C-41 is too narrow and should be expanded”.

He went on to say:

Suffice it to say I have very real concerns about obtaining a criminal record from a summary trial conviction. The issue of criminal records flowing from convictions at summary trial must be reviewed. The very damage that flows from a criminal record and the potential effect on a person's life is far too severe a consequence for most offences tried by summary trial.

He made the same arguments that we are making, which are that although it is constitutional it does not provide the safeguards of a civilian criminal trial and that the unintended consequence of acquiring a criminal record at summary trial should only occur in exceptional circumstances.

Is the member suggesting that the amendments that we had in Bill C-41 when it came back was the starting point for a further review and that we would expect members opposite to take it from there and in fact improve on the amendments that were made the last time instead of shipping them away?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was particularly interested in the grievance process. Members opposite are not speaking, so it is hard to ask them to justify why certain things are missing from the bill. For example, in the last Parliament, Bill C-41 was amended to provide that the Chief of the Defence Staff would be given the final authority to grant relief, including financial compensation if somebody was not properly paid, for instance, or given the right benefit. That is not in Bill C-15. That was taken out of this version of it.

There was also a recommendation that the name of the grievance board be changed to the military grievance external review committee to emphasize that it was supposed to be outside of the military, an external review, and that it be populated by people without a military background. That has been taken out. Mr. Justice LeSage, who studied this issue, recommended that the change be put back again and also that there be a time limit of one year for dealing with grievances. In the last Parliament, the government rejected that idea, but Mr. Justice LeSage, in reviewing the act, says that it should be put in.

I do not know if the member can answer this. I am wondering why members opposite in the government have failed to recognize the importance of having a grievance procedure that is fair, effective and speedy.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Justice LeSage's report. In it he says that he went around the country and was shocked to find that many of the Canadian Forces members and lawyers he talked to were not even aware that service offences could attract criminal offences. He noted that, even for minor service offences, there was the requirement of a three-year wait before someone can apply for a pardon because it is under the Criminal Records Act. The government says that pardons can no longer be granted, that it can only be a suspension of record.

Does the member find it surprising that in this day and age, with the expectations about disciplinary matters, that is still the case, as Justice LeSage pointed out?

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about this bill as being a way of exhorting Canadians to save. There is a particular group that the Conservatives insist ought to save so they can pay for two more years that they are not going to get old age pension, age 65 and 66.

Who is going to be able to save for that? And who is going to be most affected by that? Are they going to be able to save, regardless of whatever exhortation the government lays down?

[National Defence, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we can take that to mean that the minister does not want to co-operate and will not help this family get to the truth.

These are very simple matters. The commission chair has asked the minister to release information on first, the legal reasoning why a suicide watch was not given to Corporal Langridge; second, who decided to deny next of kin status to Langridge's family and why; third, the rationale behind DND's flawed investigation.

Why is this too much to ask? Why will the minister not allow this civilian oversight to take place? Why will he not let justice be done?

[National Defence, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission wrote the Minister of National Defence asking him to take a “common sense approach” to the investigation into the death of Corporal Stuart Langridge. He agreed with our understanding of the law of solicitor-client privilege and asked the minister to waive the privilege in the interests of justice. DND lawyers at the commission pointed out that only the minister can grant access to these documents.

Will the minister co-operate with the commission and allow a full and comprehensive inquiry to take place?

[National Defence, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is what it has come to: a minister who is refusing to release legal documents and who denies the facts as they have been presented to the commission. He will not even admit that this family has been abused by the system, and now he is hiding behind a legal principle that he knows does not prevent him from releasing the information.

Has he no shame? Why can he not do the right thing in the interest of fairness?

[National Defence, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's own lawyers at the Military Policy Complaints Commission have admitted that the department is withholding documents and have said that it is not willing to give them up. However, it is the minister who is the client and it is up to him to waive the privilege and release the information. The Department of National Defence has delivered a board of inquiry report to Ms. Fynes that blamed her for her son's suicide.

Does the minister not feel any sense of accountability for this? Why does he continue to make excuses?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 13th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Oakville talked about investment. I hope he is not so blinded by ideology and talking points.

The member is from Oakville and knows about the car business and the role of the unions. How can he say that the unions are opposed to investment? Was it not the auto workers who insisted that the car companies invest more money and asked the government to ensure that more money was invested? Did these unions even give up wages and benefits in order to encourage investment?

Could the member take off the blinders and recognize that what he has said is just not true?