Jim Maloway

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary.

I was planning to acknowledge that that is for half a year; however even if we took those numbers, we would be looking at a figure of around 800 summary trials. We would still have an increase, not by a factor of five but a factor of two and a half times from 1999-2000 to 2008.

The member has explained that that two-and-half-times increase from 800 to 2,000 summary trials a year would have to do with Somalia and our involvement in Afghanistan. We still need more information as to the types of incidents involved in these trials.

I would like to ask the member if he would comment on the portions of the act that deal with giving victims of crime status in this bill through the introduction of victim impact statements. I think this is something that would be seen as a positive.

In terms of the reports, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's information that the report will be tabled. I was just interested in the process.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member should not be offended here, because this is the annual report of the Judge Advocate General to the Minister of National Defence on the administration of military justice in the Canadian Forces. The review is from April 2008-09 and the report is available to anybody who wants it.

I asked the parliamentary secretary a question and he provided me with the answer through a copy of the report. Out of the report, I took the information that 426 summary trials were reported in 1999-2000. Within 10 years, that number went up fivefold to 2,035. Why was there a fivefold increase? In a later question, the minister said that it made sense because we are in Afghanistan, which is why we have more discipline problems. However, he has not gone beyond that statement to indicate why we have such a huge increase in activity—

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the April 2008-09 annual report, which the parliamentary secretary provided in the last hour or two, indicates that in terms of summary trials there has been a fivefold increase in the last 10 years. In 1999-2000 there were 426 summary trials and in 2008-09 there were 2,035. The parliamentary secretary indicated that it probably had something to do with the Afghanistan theatre but he has not been any more specific than that.

I am wondering whether the member has any more information about the types of trials and why there would be a fivefold increase in summary trials.

While I am up, I would like to get the member's views on what is a positive in this bill, and that is giving victims a voice. The bill would allow victim impact statements similar to what is in the Criminal Code. There is also a provision for a review.

The parliamentary secretary clarified this morning that the review will now be every seven years. The problem with the review, though, is that it is an internal review sponsored by the Minister of National Defence and will be carried out every seven years. The question is whether it will be reported back to Parliament. Whether we will be updated as to what is going on with the review is, in my mind, an open question because it is not necessarily specified.

I would ask the member if he has any comments about any of those three points.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is in three parts. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for sending me the annual report so quickly. I noted in it that summary trials in 1999 and 2000 were only 426. However, there is a five-fold increase in summary trials between the years 2000 and 2007-08, 2,035 summary trials. Perhaps when the member stands again to answer another question, he could tell us why there is a five-fold increase.

I know my colleague would be interested and would want to comment on the issue of giving victims a voice in this process by virtue of having victim impact statements similar to Criminal Code provisions. That should be something positive.

The parliamentary secretary said that although the backgrounder indicated the review would be only every five years, I believe he said that the plan now was to have a seven year review process. However, I was very interested in knowing what kind of review. It does not sound like it is parliamentary review at all. It sounds like it is a review involving the defence establishment itself and I would be a bit worried about that. Maybe we could get some clarification as to just who will find out about this review if and when it ever happens.

Maybe the member would like to expand on some of these points.

[Petitions, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by dozens of Canadians to end Canada's involvement in Afghanistan.

In May 2008, as the Speaker knows, Parliament passed a resolution to withdraw Canadian Forces by July 2011. The Prime Minister, with the agreement of the Liberal Party, broke his oft-repeated promise to honour the parliamentary motion. Furthermore, he refuses to put his new mission extension to a vote in Parliament.

Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents a danger to the troops and an unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been used to improve health care and seniors' pensions right here in Canada.

Polls show clearly that a majority of Canadians do not want Canada's military presence to continue after the scheduled removal date of July 2011.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Prime Minister to honour the will of Parliament and bring the troops home now.

[Canada Post, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week two areas of Winnipeg affected by a new technology being used by Canada Post to pre-sort mail suffered temporary work stoppages that delayed local delivery.

The local sorting and distribution centres in South Winnipeg and the Transcona portion of my own Elmwood—Transcona riding had work disruptions as a result.

It is well known that Winnipeg letter carriers face adverse weather conditions like rain, ice and snow.

The problem in a nutshell is that the new sorting machines can only handle approximately 80% of the materials having to be sorted, while the delivery workers are expected to manually sort the remaining 20%. Management demands delivery staff carry two separate bags of arranged mail at the same time and juggle both.

I hope that some common sense can be used to take advantage of the experience of people who actually do the work. It should at least be expected from a high-profile public crown corporation like Canada Post.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago the member's former leader, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who still sits on the front bench, made a statement that the Afghans do not need any training because they managed to beat the Russians a number of years ago in the war. Now the current leader of the Liberal Party and the member for Toronto Centre support the Conservatives in their efforts to continue the process of war through a training mission and all this without informing their caucus or getting their own caucus involved in the decision.

Where does the member and his party actually sit on this issue?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in all of the notes I read on this issue, I never did get any information to indicate how many judges we had in the system and how many people were involved in the system.

Usually in background information there is the technical information, which we certainly have a lot of here, but there is usually some information as to the size of the problem, how many people are involved in the system, how many judges there are, how many people are charged with different offences and so on. That was the basis of my original question.

Another part of the bill that I find rather positive is the review we would have every five years. I do not know how realistic that is, given how long it has taken us to get this far. I would like to see that in as many bills as possible, so we can take a look and see how the legislation actually performs in the real world.

Could the member get me some information as to how many judges are involved and the size and scope of the current military justice system?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 seems to be a result of a very long and torturous process involving a number of prior bills.

Does the parliamentary secretary have any statistics as to how the system worked before in terms of the number of people charged under the old system versus projections under the new one? Because we are making some changes to the system, I would like to know the number of complaints being dealt with.

There are reasons for wanting it to be updated, and I know the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a big part of that, but what was wrong with the old system that would not allow us to leave it the way it was? How many people have been charged, how many have been processed through the system and how many complaints are usually dealt with?

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-575.

At the initial presentation from the presenter of this bill, in the question period, I asked the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar who she had consulted in the formulation and development of this bill and who was supporting the bill, including any organizations. I was expecting her to give me at least one group or person who she consulted with, or at least one supporter. Surely there should be at least one. However, she did not answer that question, which caused me to wonder about that.

We all know how much work is involved in developing a private member's bill. I would have expected, if she has developed this bill, that she would have been consulting with first nations communities in her riding, in her province or somewhere around the country.

As far as I can tell, based on her answer to my question, she has not consulted with a single one, not a single first nation, not a single member of a first nation. As to whom she actually has consulted, of course, we are none the wiser on that point.

Mr. Speaker are we really out of time? Is there not even one minute left?