Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. We have this bill in front of us yet again. I know there is some frustration from the government side that we chose to get up in the House to speak on the bill.
However, from where we sit, frankly, it is our job. It is a bit rich to hear from the government members that they have heard just too many speeches and that somehow we are getting in the way of getting the bill done.
I do not have to tell members that back in 2006 we had an offering from the government. Then there was a parliamentary crisis, for the government at least, in that it had to prorogue Parliament. It is interesting. The reasons for proroguing Parliament were around issues dealing with the military and the fact that the government could not share documents with Parliament, which put the military in a very difficult position because of the political gamesmanship.
However, the government had this bill in front of Parliament and what did it do? It prorogued Parliament because of a political crisis for the Conservatives, not because of Parliament.
As members will well recall—I certainly recall because I was on the committee—we put forward the issue and asked the Speaker to act on the lack of co-operation from the government on its due diligence to share information with Parliament.
Therefore, when the government claims that somehow the NDP, the official opposition, is getting in the way of progress on bills, it should look in the mirror. The bill could have been passed long ago if the government had chosen to have it pushed through. However, we did get some gains, so to speak, by pushing amendments.
I find it interesting that the Liberal Party is trying to play some kind of crafty game by asking us in the NDP to cite exactly where the amendment is, in terms of trying to change the act.
The difference between the NDP and the Liberals is that we actually put amendments forward. Maybe they should actually read the dossier when they are at committee. I am assuming the members who are asking the questions were actually at committee, so maybe they should look back in their files.
I guess the Liberals' strategy is fascinating for them, but we on this side, in the opposition, actually want to get results. That is why we push for amendments and we are not playing little “gotcha” games as the Liberals are doing down there.
I appreciate the fact that they might not have any ideas. However, then they try to push it onto the official opposition members who actually stand here day in and day out saying we are against the government but we have solutions and alternatives. I guess the Liberals sometimes have problems with that, but that is for them to sort out.
It is interesting. This bill's origins come from a report from former chief justice Lamer. I was a big fan of his. I found that he was one of our best. He was someone who saw the importance of having a balance between the rights of citizens and the importance of governments to be able to act. His recommendations were very thorough, as the Speaker knows. In fact, I believe the Speaker knew him well and knew of his work.
On a side note, I was able to vacation with him, ever so briefly, just down the road here on the Rideau Lakes. One of the things that so impressed me, with respect to his kind of analysis of the law, is that he understood that we had to do a much better job when it comes to allowing our men and women who put their lives on the line to receive the same kind of rights as we have as everyday citizens, and we can see it in the work here.
I am a son of a veteran. My dad served in World War II. Both my grandfathers served in World War I. It was clear to them when they signed up that they had certain responsibilities. They went to defend our country. They also believed strongly, both of my grandfathers and my father, that Canada was an example for that balance that I talked about and Lamer was referring to, but they thought we could do a lot better. Over time, we have done better. Let us acknowledge that.
However, what we are talking about here is the importance of looking around the world and seeing that other jurisdictions are doing a much better job when it comes to military justice. For example, Australia, New Zealand and others have looked at the whole issue of summary trials.
My colleague has already outlined the concern we have about how often summary trials are used. However, it seems to us on this side of the House that if we are to be genuine and authentic in supporting our men and women, it has to be comprehensive. When we are talking about summary trials, clearly this is an area that deserves a lot of attention. All we have to do is look at what our allies are doing. They certainly have been seized with it and have made sure that something has been done.
Also, I want to underline the importance of those who serve in our Canadian Forces having confidence in the integrity of the system, one that would allow them to appeal and to access justice in a timely manner. Those are the standards we all use in the civil system that we are under. However, it seems that when it comes to our men and women in the military it is a different scenario. Of course there is a different atmosphere because of command and control and the way in which discipline is used. Therefore, we were looking for changes to reflect that in this bill.
The House will recall that, when the Speaker was on this file, retired Colonel Drapeau appeared before committee and pointed out a number of smart things that could be done and encouraged the government to be involved in making changes. He talked about summary trials and the right to appeal the verdict or the sentence, as I mentioned before, because if military members are not able to appeal either, then there is less justice. It is not just about it being seen to be done but actually being done.
Colonel Drapeau also stated:
There are growing worldwide concerns regarding the compatibility of the military justice system with international human rights standards. In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights has had an impact on national military law, particularly in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, to name a few.
What he is referring to—and I think Lamer was onto this as well—is that we have to put things into context, that there have been changes in international law and international conventions, so that the men and women who serve us have to have their rights acknowledged in that context. If we are signing onto conventions that allow for more accountability and more access to justice, then it should not be something that is just for a chosen few, as in this case, or a majority, and when we look at the military it is obviously not the majority. In fact, other countries have done this. That is important.
For example, with signing onto treaties, we have a bit of a problem with the way in which the government has implemented the cluster munitions treaty. We have concerns with the way the government's legislation has been written with respect to that treaty. There are the issues of interoperability with our allies. We want to make sure that, if we are signing onto an international treaty to ban the use of cluster munitions, we will not put our men and women into harm's way to be prosecuted by any laws from elsewhere. Certainly we want to make sure we are acknowledging and in line with our own commitments when it comes to that treaty.
All that is to say that we will support this bill. As the official opposition, we have done a good job in putting forward our ideas. Sadly, the government did not take them all. Some changes have been made, but there is more work to be done. However, we stand proud to renovate the laws that would serve our men and women who serve us so well, which I can say was the case with my father when he served our country. It is the least we can do for those who serve for us.
