House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 17% of the vote.
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my question is serious or if I am being tongue in cheek. We know how much this government loves Great Britain and the monarchy. Why is it that Great Britain has updated its laws on summary trials, but Canada is still dragging its feet?
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 23rd, 2012
Mr. speaker, it is difficult to find an explanation, because there is nothing rational behind this.
Not accepting every one of the recommendations in Justice Lamer's report is one thing. It would be unusual to have any report accepted absolutely in full.
But how can we drop from 88 to 23 recommendations, and completely forget the median number that had been agreed upon by both parties. I say “we” very modestly, because I was not in the previous Parliament. However, the work was the same. Parliamentarians had done an enormous amount of work to ensure that the resulting legislation would be the best possible piece of legislation and that it would meet the desired objectives.
The Conservatives claim that half the objectives are being met and we should support them, but why settle for less when it has already been demonstrated that we can do much more?
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. Needless to say, I can do no more than repeat what was said previously.
One might well ask why they are behaving in that way. Who has anything to gain from partisan politics when what is involved is a bill as important as this one? The bill has major repercussions on the lives of all soldiers, when for a perfectly minor—I repeat truly minor—misdemeanour, they can end up with a criminal record. When this happens, it has an impact on them throughout their lives, something that soldiers are not necessarily fully aware of when they sign up.
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that I agree fully with the part of the question about the good ideas put forward by members on this side of the House. I would add that there are so many good ideas that in a few years, we will be on the other side of the House. I believe that the people of Canada will be able to recognize this.
It seems clear to me that rather than concentrating on what amendments need to be made to the bill, we are still mired in partisan politics. This government, which was elected with a majority of seats but a minority of votes, is using its majority to show disdain for consensuses that had been largely developed, which is altogether regrettable.
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, if not all of them, I am always curious to see what happens to reports that successive governments ask from very honourable people, from experts who are often non-partisan and credible in their field of expertise. Some of these reports are shelved, others are partially followed, while others spur the government into moving forward. The intelligent use of these reports is often a good indication of a government's will to act.
In the case before us, the results are rather disappointing. When the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, a former Supreme Court justice and an expert on today's issues, tabled his report in the fall of 2003, we had before us 88 recommendations concerning military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.
After many attempts, Bill C-15 was expected to be an answer to the many recommendations of the Lamer report. However, once again, we are disappointed with the Conservatives' reluctance to solve the issue completely. The Conservatives are not, as their name indicates, progressive but, rather, conservative. Therefore, in order to move forward, it is better to rely on our side of the House.
So we are disappointed, because only 28 recommendations have been incorporated into the bill. What is most unfortunate is that important previous amendments that were adopted at the end of the last parliamentary session have not been included in Bill C-15. Allow me to point out here that for a government that so often proclaims itself to be the champion red tape reduction, this seems to be a contradiction. The work had been done. There was an agreement. But oops, into the recycling bin with it; well, at least I hope it is the recycling bin, for all this work. They are starting the process over again, but they are putting even less on the table this time. This is a strange way of advocating efficiency and optimization of the work within our own institution.
This brings us to the heart of this bill, and since time is short, I will focus on the issues relating to summary trials, because in my opinion, these are probably the issues that most affect the clients I served for 25 years. I am talking about young students who, for all sorts of reasons in their lives, choose a military career, whether because it is suited to their innate personal tastes, or they wish to pursue their education or to acquire some specialized skills. But the one thing that all of these young people have in common is that they are young. I am by no means persuaded that at the time of their enlistment, they are familiar with all the ins and outs of the commitment they are making.
The NDP has long been in favour of a much-needed overhaul of the military justice system. The military justice system in our country today is still a draconian system. It is a legacy from a military tradition that is no longer suited to our times. Changes are long overdue.
The bill that is before us, however, has to enable us to tackle the problems head-on. In spite of everything, this is a unique opportunity to examine our military justice system. So let us not shy away from the debate, and let us try, if possible, to improve this system again.
The members of the Canadian Forces have to meet high disciplinary standards, and it is easy to understand why. However, we are asking in return that the justice system that is applied to them be just as precise and exacting. That is the least we should offer our soldiers. This is a matter of the relationship of trust between the armed forces and the justice system they are subject to. That is why the NDP is disappointed with the result we see in this bill.
Bill C-15 does not adequately address the injustice created by summary trials. I will cite a few of the incongruities found in this bill. Do we think it reasonable that, in the military of a country that recognizes the rule of law and a democracy as advanced as ours, summary trials are held where the accused cannot consult counsel? Do we think it is acceptable for accused persons to be unable to read transcripts of their trials, for the simple reason that there is no trial?
I am well aware that the government is battling red tape, but even so, in matters as sensitive as justice, whether military or civilian, I think a trial transcript is a guarantee against errors and abuses.
I would like to quote retired Canadian Forces Colonel Michel W. Drapeau, who is an expert on military law. He was outraged about the legal consequences of a conviction in summary trial. He said:
...it is almost impossible for the court to address any challenge [by a convicted soldier], since no appeal of a summary trial verdict or sentence is permitted.
That is another incongruity in our system.
Colonel Drapeau went on to say:
As well, it is almost impossible for any other form of legal challenge to take place, since there are no trial transcripts and no right to counsel at summary trial.
That is another incongruity if ever there was one.
Again, is it acceptable for the judge to be the accused person's commanding officer? If that is not a conflict of interest, it sure looks like one.
In my opinion, all these provisions are much too severe in many cases. Yes, there is misconduct within our armed forces and this must be sanctioned. We understand that, but often these are minor offences that do not merit a criminal record.
I took a quick look at what could be considered minor offences. These include things such as quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness or disobedience. I taught teenagers and witnessed, identified, confronted, and dealt with all of these characteristics time and time again. It is often between the ages of 16 to 18 that a person thinks about enrolling in the army. These are very common—and temporary—characteristics among teenagers who are trying to adjust to the adult world. Every one of these behaviours taken independently in civilian life would likely not have serious consequences. But in military life it is a whole other story.
Let us remember that our armed forces must be disciplined and exemplary at all times, of course. Therefore, any improper behaviour or flouting of the rules, discipline or code of conduct that govern the armed forces must be fairly punished. But we also have to remember that our soldiers must not lose confidence in their own justice system.
Within the military justice system, the summary trial is the most common kind of tribunal, with 96% of all cases being determined by summary trial. Many soldiers experience this particular kind of military justice at some time in their career. It is a disciplinary method for dealing with infractions committed by Canada’s military personnel. The other 4% of cases are the exception, the court martial. It is a good thing that this is the proportion. It proves that lack of discipline in our armed forces is a rather rare phenomenon. Summary trials are available to deal rapidly with small infractions of the military sort. It can be done rapidly, within the unit, to maintain discipline.
The issue I want to raise concerns the legal consequences of these summary trials. Are all Canadians aware that a minor conviction in a summary trial leads to a criminal record? That is a fundamental problem.
I will repeat the example given by a Liberal colleague about someone who dropped a cigarette butt in a garbage can rather than an ashtray, where it belonged according to regulations. I can easily understand that in the military world, especially if one is near a munitions depot, it could be considered a serious risk. Still, there is an enormous difference between the treatment this offence would get in the military system and in the civilian one.
I will get straight to my conclusion. It is sad to see that the broad agreement on Bill C-41 has disappeared from discussions of C-15.
Thus, we may ask the government why it is content to do so little when we already had an agreement to do more.
Aviation Safety October 17th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the 600 security screeners at the Montreal airport overwhelmingly rejected the latest concessions being demanded by their employer, Securitas. Negotiations with Securitas broke down after Conservative cuts of about $19.4 million. In 2015, cuts will total $60 million a year. If officers do not have the working conditions they need to do their job properly, passenger safety will be compromised.
Why are the Conservatives jeopardizing passenger safety?
Canada Post Corporation October 16th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the situation at Canada Post has been getting worse and worse since the Conservatives came to power. As solutions they offer nothing better than reducing post office business hours and making cuts to services in rural areas.
The ship is sinking, and all the Conservatives are doing is taking an axe to the hull. Canadians and Quebeckers no longer recognize the postal service they loved.
Does the minister have a development plan for Canada Post, or is his solution still to close more offices?
Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act October 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles if she has noticed what seems to be a general trend. We see it again with this bill, which would eliminate judicial discretion. In a fair number of bills introduced by the Conservative government, the responsibility is shifting increasingly to those who administer the law. The latter will be reduced to establishing relationships, with charts and tables, instead of relying on their judgment. However, a judge—as the term suggests—can weigh the pros and cons, and take into account the circumstances of each situation.
Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medals October 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I had the pleasure of awarding 15 Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medals in recognition of the contributions, for the most part, by members of the Canadian Forces. These men and women of all ages have shown a level of commitment that we in our community are all proud of. I would like to thank the officials of the armoury in Trois-Rivières, the Naval Reserve and HMCS Ville de Québec for opening their doors to welcome the recipients with the full honours they deserve.
However, I would like to express my disappointment and sadness at the Minister of National Defence's refusal to grant me access to these locations, which deprived the medal recipients of a reception that they deserved in a location that has such significance to each one of them.
I would hate to think that this was a partisan decision, as that would imply that there are two classes of federal MPs. I would like to apologize to all those who were very pleased to be honoured on HMCS Ville de Québec. I assure them that they have and will always have my sincerest gratitude.
Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act October 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about something that seems increasingly evident in the Conservative government's bills. They always seem to polarize things. It is black or white, and in this case, it is good or bad. I think that reality is completely different and that there are many shades of grey.
For example, take the case of someone who suffers from mental illness and who commits a reprehensible act. Would this person not need support more than a surcharge? This seems to be a situation that is completely ignored in the bill before us.