2010-11-26

Government Orders
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:  moved that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and sent to a committee.
Hon. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill to amend the National Defence Act. This bill will ensure that Canadians can maintain their trust in our military justice system. This bill will improve the speed and fairness of the military police complaints process. Furthermore, this bill will give members of our armed forces access to a faster, fairer and more flexible grievance process. 
In 1998, Bill C-25 made significant amendments to the National Defence Act. One of the amendments was the requirement for an independent review of those portions of the National Defence Act amended by Bill C-25. 
The late right hon. Tony Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, was appointed to conduct the first independent review, and his report was tabled in Parliament in November 2003. In his report, former Chief Justice Lamer made 88 recommendations: 57 pertaining to the military justice system; 14 regarding the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the military police complaints process; and 17 concerning the Canadian Forces grievance process.
The bill that we are debating today is the Government of Canada's proposed legislative response to recommendations made in the Lamer report. Implementing the proposed response will require changes to the National Defence Act, the Queen's Regulations and Orders to the Canadian Forces and some administrative practices.
A similar bill, Bill C-7, was introduced in April 2006 but it died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. A successor bill, Bill C-45, was introduced in March 2008 but that bill also died on the order paper.
While the bill before us today largely mirrors the contents of previous bills, some changes have been made, and I will discuss those changes in a few moments. It should also be noted that some amendments to the National Defence Act related to changes suggested in the Lamer report were made in June 2008 by Bill C-60. Bill C-60 was required to respond to the judgment of the Court Martial Appeal Court in the case of R. v. Trépanier.
Further, during consideration of Bill C-60, the minister requested members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to consider studying the provisions and operation of Bill C-60 and to provide a report on their findings and recommendations, which the committee did in May 2009.
In October 2009, the Minister of National Defence responded to the Senate committee members thanking them for their recommendations and indicating that all of their recommendations were either accepted or accepted in principle by the government. 
Thus, in a nutshell, the present bill replicates most of the provisions of Bill C-45, minus some provisions implementing Lamer report recommendations, which have now already been enacted in Bill C-60, plus some additional elements arising from the recent recommendations made by the Senate committee.
I would now like to discuss the amendments we are proposing for the National Defence Act in the current bill.
In his report, former Chief Justice Lamer wrote that, as a result of the changes made in 1998 by Bill C-25, “...Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence.” He added that observers from other countries see this system as one their country might wish to learn from. However, he also pointed out that there remain areas for improvement in the military justice system.
The Department of National Defence analyzed the recommendations in the Lamer report very carefully. It undertook extensive policy analysis and consultation to determine the appropriate legislative response to the recommendations. This response is reflected in the legislative amendments we are considering today. These amendments deal with the military justice system, the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the military police complaints process, and the Canadian Forces grievance process.
I would like to look at each of these areas in turn, beginning with the military justice system.
The Canadian military justice system has been developed to deal expeditiously and fairly with service offences, while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and meeting the expectations of Canadians. It is a system designed to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces by contributing to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale. It must also ensure that members of the Canadian Forces who are subject to this process are dealt with fairly.
The proposed amendments to the military justice system would make improvements both in process and in substantive law. They would also ensure that the military justice system keeps pace with evolving legal standards in Canadian criminal law.
Simply put, the bill before us today would reinforce the continued compliance of the military justice system with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while preserving the system's capacity to meet essential military requirements.
I will now go over the main military justice amendments proposed in the bill.
The bill would strengthen the provisions of the National Defence Act regarding the independence of military judges. More specifically, the bill would ensure that judges are appointed until retirement.
The bill would increase the timeliness and flexibility of the system by providing for the appointment of part-time military judges to a reserve force judges panel.
The bill would modernize and enhance sentencing provisions of the Code of Service Discipline.
It would provide more flexibility in the sentencing process, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders, providing summary trial presiding officers and military judges at courts martial with a greater ability to tailor a sentence having regard to the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender, replicating many of the options available in the sentencing regime of the civilian justice system.
As well, a greater voice would also be given to victims by providing the introduction of victim impact statements at courts martial.
The bill will set out the sentencing goals and principles that will apply to military tribunals, promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces and uphold a system that supports a fair, peaceful and safe society.
This codification of sentencing principles and objectives in the National Defence Act would provide an important statutory articulation of the fundamental principles underpinning Canada's military justice system, as well as providing guidance concerning sentencing to all actors in the military justice system, including presiding officers at summary trials, military judges at courts martial and the appellate judges of the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. This statutory guidance would parallel that already provided in the civilian criminal justice system in the Criminal Code, with the additional specification of factors unique to the distinct military justice system.
I will now explain the key elements of the bill as they relate to the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the military police complaints process.
Although the National Defence Act establishes specific responsibilities for the Canadian Forces provost marshal in relation to the military police complaints process, neither the actual position of the provost marshal nor the full scope of its responsibilities are found in the current act.
Establishing the Canadian Forces provost marshal in the National Defence Act would bring greater clarity to the role and responsibilities of that position and to the military police in general.
We cannot forget that military police are different from all the other police entities in Canada. They can be called upon to undertake both traditional police duties, such as investigating offences, and what I would call purely military duties, such as providing security for airfields and other defence establishments or facilitating movement of troops in a theatre of operations. Bill C-41 reflects the dual nature of the Canadian Forces provost marshal's responsibilities. 
It would also ensure that the provost marshal has the independence necessary to ensure the integrity of military police investigations and promote professional standards.
At the same time, the bill recognizes that the provost marshal will be directly responsible to the senior Canadian Forces chain of command regarding the military functions of the military police.
Bill C-41 would also enhance the timeliness and fairness of the military police complaints process by requiring the Canadian Forces provost marshal to resolve complaints within one year of receiving them in normal circumstances, and by protecting individuals who submit complaints in good faith from penalty.
I will now turn to the Canadian Forces grievance process.
In his report, former Chief Justice Lamer indicated that there was a clear need to improve the process for dealing with grievances submitted by members of the Canadian Forces. The proposed changes to the National Defence Act would help ensure that grievances are addressed in a fair, transparent and prompt manner.
For example, the bill provides for an amendment to the National Defence Act requiring the Chief of the Defence Staff or those he authorizes, where circumstances permit, to informally and expeditiously deal with any issues that arise.
At the same time, the bill allows for an expansion of the Chief of the Defence Staff's responsibilities as the final authority in grievance procedures.
These changes would enhance the efficiency of the process and ensure that a backlog of grievances, such as that which existed at the time of the Lamer report, does not recur. 
Before concluding, I will discuss the differences between the bill we have before us today and previous Bill C-45. While the content of Bill C-41 is largely the same as that of the previous Bill C-45, some modifications have been made.
Principally, the differences between the two bills reflect the deletion of issues that have already been dealt with in the interim in Bill C-60, such as the requirement for unanimity of the panel to convict or acquit an accused person at a general court martial, the reduction of the number of types of courts martial from four to two, and the enhancement of the powers of military judges to deal with pretrial matters such as disclosure.
Other differences are related to the recent recommendations of the Senate committee. These include reducing distinctions based on rank and the composition of panels for general courts martial, amending the limitation period for summary trials to provide that a charge must be laid within six months after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed, and allowing an accused person to waive the application of a limitation period for summary trials in certain circumstances.
A further point to note relates to the independent review provision. As recommended in the Lamer report, a provision will be added to the National Defence Act requiring that portions of the act relating to the military justice system, the military police complaints process and the grievance process be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
In the current bill, as was done in Bill C-45, the timeline for conducting future reviews has been modified to seven years. This would allow for more comprehensive and useful reviews to be conducted by ensuring sufficient time to work with and assess amendments to the National Defence Act after they come into force before a review is conducted.
Finally, this bill would propose that the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board be changed to the military grievances external review committee. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board plays a vital role in the process established under the National Defence Act for members of the Canadian Forces to seek redress of grievances. The impartial findings and recommendations of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board buttressed by that organization's institutional independence from the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence helped to increase the confidence of Canadian Forces members in the grievance process. 
The proposed change in name would assist in communicating the Canadian Forces Grievance Board's current role, in particular its institutional independence and mandate to all stakeholders. It should be emphasized that the bill merely proposes a change in the organization's name, at its own request, to assist in this regard, not in its mandate, which will remain unchanged.
To conclude, reforming the military justice system is just one step in a process of continuous improvement.
As Canadians, we are privileged to have a military justice system that reflects our values and respects the rule of law.
These proposals to amend the National Defence Act would ensure Canada's military justice system remains one in which Canadians can have trust and confidence. They would clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and bring greater timeliness and fairness to the military police complaints process. They would ensure that a more responsive, timely and fair grievance process is available. I am confident that these amendments would serve to further strengthen the Canadian Forces as a vital national institution.
This is a very technical bill and for that reason it would be appropriate to pass this bill quickly at second reading and get it to committee where we can hear various expert witnesses to drill down into the details that many will want to do. It is more appropriate that it be done in that setting where we time can take time to reflect fully on all the implications and suggestions that may be come up.
I request that hon. members pass this bill quickly at second reading and move it on to committee for further consideration.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): 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?
[Interjection]
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific number of charges, those past and those projected, previous charges would be a matter of record, and I could get those numbers if he wishes.
The main point is there was a requirement after the Lamer Commission to modernize the Canadian Forces military justice system to bring it more in line with some of the aspects of the civilian justice system with respect to the Criminal Code.
 Recommendations were made to make the provisions for judges more clear, to ensure their independence was maintained, to pay more attention to the rights of victims, in conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to ensure changes as recommended by Justice Lamer, 88 in all, were actioned. Most have been actioned and others are in the process of being actioned. 
The purpose behind this is to bring us in line with all of those recommendations, which the government of the day accepted all of them in fact or in principle. It has been a long and torturous process. As a result of several minority Parliaments, bills such as this have gone forward only to be stopped by elections and so on.
 Some of the aims of the Lamer Commission have been achieved through Bill C-60 and through other changes to regulations and policies. Not all of them have to be legislated. A lot has been accomplished.
 A couple of things still need to be done, even after we pass Bill C-41. More complex issues are being worked on as we speak. Again, this is another try, hopefully a successful one this time, to get the provisions of the Lamer Commission actioned and into law.
Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 provides important opportunities to update the military justice system in the armed forces. Could the parliamentary secretary also elaborate on the opportunities that the bill brings to further improve operational effectiveness within the armed forces?
[Interjection]
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, one of the prime reasons for a military justice system is the normal rule of law. It also is to enhance the operational effectiveness for the Canadian Forces. We do that by providing maintenance of discipline, maintenance of efficiency and morale and to contribute to the respect for law and maintenance of it in a just, peaceful and safe society.
A lot of it is about maintaining the Canadian Forces in a state of readiness, because we have to be in a position to enforce internal military justice or internal discipline. Canadian Forces members are often tasked, as we know all too well today, to operate around the world, sometimes in very difficult circumstances.
It is absolutely vital to operational effectiveness and operational readiness that we have a system of discipline and a system of military justice. In certain circumstances, one person can jeopardize the safety and survival of an entire unit.
We need a justice system that can try offences against both the ordinary law of Canada and those that are unique to the military, such as mutiny or being absent without leave, that kind of thing. We have to address breaches of discipline in a prompt and fair manner, with the aim of returning the individual to service as quickly as possible.
It needs to be portable to be able to function wherever the Canadian Forces are deployed around the world, in places like Afghanistan, Haiti or wherever.
It is a complement to the civilian system of justice. It is one that is very necessary for the unique requirements that the Canadian Forces is asked to have and the unique situations they find themselves in around the world. To date, they have done an incredibly good job in all those regards. The aim of this is to ensure that the military justice system keeps pace and can to do that in the future.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: 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?
[Interjection]
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, we can get him a short resumé of that kind of information.
It starts with the Minister of National Defence. There is a Judge Advocate General who has statutory responsibilities to superintend the administration, to conduct regular reviews, to report annually, that kind of thing.
A chief military judge assigns military judges to preside at the courts martial. The military judges are all officers within the Canadian Forces.
However, I would like to talk about the review process because that is very important. In fact, one of the changes under the bill, and which has been proposed in other ones, is to change that review period from five years to seven years. That is primarily to allow a fuller period of experience to build up some knowledge base based on changes that may have come since the last review.
The current review is overdue and that is for a variety of reasons. A lot of them are related to the minority Parliaments, bills dying on the order paper. We are conducting a review at the moment and the minister has committed to reporting that at the earliest opportunity.
[Interjection]
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our government very much believes in the importance of giving victims a voice. Could the parliamentary secretary please elaborate on how Bill C-41 proposes to give a greater voice to the victims of offences within the military justice system?
[Interjection]
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. Victims do need voice. One of the major changes would be the introduction of victim impact statements similar to what we see now in civilian courts. That will allow victims to give details, people who have experienced significant physical, emotional or financial harm, and to express themselves in the sentencing process at the courts martial. It is meant to give greater voice to victims in the trial process.
As I said, it is similar to provisions in the Criminal Code and will allow the court to consider that statement when determining a sentence imposed on an offender.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-41, particularly since I serve the men and women on the Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt who do an extraordinary job serving our country. I pay homage and give thanks to them and their families for all that they do, have done and will do in the future.
On June 16, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-41, which is designed to strengthen military justice in defence of the Canada Act. It was given first reading in the House of Commons. The bill would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Among other things, the proposed bill provides for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement and permits the appointment of part-time military judges. It specifies the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process. It provides for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It modifies the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person. It modifies the limitation period applicable to summary trials. It allows the accused person to waive the limitation periods. It sets out the Canadian Forces provost marshal's duties and functions and clarifies his or her responsibilities. It also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the military grievances external review committee. It makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process. 
The Liberal Party understands the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. The Liberal Party also believes that Canadian citizens who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose their rights before the courts. As well, the addition of new penalties, in particular, absolute discharge intermittent sentencing and compensation, is important if we are to have an equitable system.
The rationale for our position is as follows.
There is a significant disparity between the military justice system and the civil system. This disparity must be eliminated as much as possible. It is also worth noting that this disparity does not represent an advantage, but rather a disadvantage, in being subjected to military law, which imposes harsher sentences and applies a less flexible system than the civil system.
 It is for that reason the Liberal Party is supporting this bill. We would certainly would like it to be moved forward to the next stage.
Part of this comes out of Chief Justice Lamer's report. I want to read a quote from him as I think it is instructive in terms of illustrating why we need to change the status quo. Justice Lamer said the following:
 To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. 
I have no argument there. He goes on to say:
 Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. 
The Liberal Party has a problem with that. Individuals who are giving of themselves in the Canadian Forces should not be treated more harshly under a military system than a civilian system. We do not think this is very fair at all.
Let us bore down into some of the specifics, and a little history is important. 
The government's legislative process in response to Justice Lamer's report was first introduced in the House of Commons back in April 27, 2006. It was Bill C-7. Bill C-7 died on the order paper when the government prorogued Parliament in September 2007. A successor bill, Bill C-45, was introduced in March 2008, but it met a similar fate as Bill C-7. It too died on the order paper in the 39th Parliament because of a federal election.
Therefore, it is not true that the government wants to move this speedily along. It has had two kicks at the can already and, through its own hand, has ensured that bills like this died on the order paper.
Let us take a look at some of the more specific aspects of the bill, which could be quite instructive. One deals with military judges. The bill actually provides that military judges have security to tenure to retirement age and would serve to enhance the independence and effectiveness of military judges in their role in the military justice system in part by creating a reserve force military judges panel. It is important, though, that these individuals have experience of being in the forces, in the field and in the theatre, as our forces members do. 
One of the ongoing challenges in dealing with veterans is that there are not enough people on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board who understand what military folk and their families have to go through and what military members are confronted with in the field, which is completely different from the lives that we are privileged to share in our country. As a result of that absence of understanding, in my experience, justice is not being provided to our veterans when they go before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The people on the board are frequently individuals who are appointed for partisan reasons. That has always happened, to be sure, but we need an element of competence on the board. One of the problems we have is an absence of competence and knowledge with respect to what our military men and women endure in the field.
The government would be well served to make sure that individuals who are on this review board and other review boards such as we have for our veterans must have the competence and understanding of what our forces members see and do within the context of being a member of the forces and what they are confronted with in the field. 
Also with respect to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, a number of the members of that board should have experience in health care, in medicine. It is crucially important because many of our veterans are suffering from medical problems and need people who have medical knowledge with respect to what they have to endure and can assess them.
The other thing is on sentencing reforms with respect to the bill. The Lamer report recommended a comprehensive review of the sentencing provisions in the National Defence Act with a view to providing a more flexible range of punishments and sanctions.
On the purposes and principles of sentencing, these changes would ensure that we articulate the purposes, objectives and principles of sentencing in a military justice world. That is really important for everybody to understand and to have clarity into why things have been done.
The proposed amendments would provide for additional sentencing options in the form of absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders. The amendments would also provide for the use of victim impact statements, as we have heard before.
I would like to speak to the summary trial limitation period. The National Defence Act provides that an accused person cannot be tried by summary trial unless it commences within one year after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed. These amendments would add an additional limitation period for summary trials that would require that the relevant charge be laid within six months of the commission of the alleged offence.
One question we have is whether this would result in more court martials for less serious matters. In other words, although we are trying to make sure that the system is more balanced, in the end would our military folk be confronted with a system that is more punitive than what need be for minor offences?
I want to address a couple of issues with respect to justice for our veterans in particular. The pension reform issue is a very big one for many of our veterans. The current situation is that spouses of veterans who are married after the age of 60 cannot share equitably in their pensions. This must change. The world is a different place now and the rules as written have been around for many, many decades. For the sake of our veterans, and I believe it applies to RCMP officers too, for those who marry after the age of 60, there must be fair and equitable treatment under the law for their spouses with respect to their pensions. 
In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, we have a very extraordinary program. It is Cockrell House. It is named after World War II veteran Jack Cockrell. This house, quite remarkably, is meant to deal with a situation that many Canadians would be appalled to find out occurs in our midst, and that is to deal with homeless veterans.
Cockrell House provides housing for homeless veterans, and due to the leadership of a very remarkable developer named Russ Ridley in my riding, as well as the Mayor of Colwood, Dave Saunders, who have come together with veterans such as Dave Munro, Angus Stanfield and others to create this house, our veterans actually can go this house and live there for up to two years while they receive treatment for their mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder, operational stress injuries and socio-economic problems that they may find themselves in.
I was visiting there recently with our critic for veterans affairs and it was heartbreaking but inspiring to see these men and women who were there in the house. It was heartbreaking in the sense that some veterans had been living in the bush for years. Can we imagine, veterans who have served our country, living in the bush for years on end? That is the situation we have today, and this is not a problem isolated to Vancouver Island, but rather, this is a national problem.
We do not know how many veterans are actually living out in the bush, who are homeless, but we know there are probably more than 1,000. There should not be one veteran in a homeless situation in Canada. They gave to our country and make an enormous sacrifice for us. We have a reciprocal duty to take care of them.
I commend retired General Hillier for his work in trying to deal with this, but I would ask communities from coast to coast to please take a look at the model of Cockrell House on Vancouver Island, because it can help. It is a partnership between the private sector, the developer, the local community and our veterans to ensure that we have a home for our veterans who have fallen under hard times. I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to please take a look at this, because it is an issue of fundamental justice for our veterans and for their care.
We are seeing younger and younger veterans who have been traumatized and are seeking justice for what they have endured. They are seeking care for what they have endured. 
For them on the issue of Afghanistan, I have to say that while our troops are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan, that mission has not been backed up by the diplomatic work that has to be done. In order to support them, what is missing are huge pieces of the puzzle that will enable the Afghan people, the Afghan government and us to be able to see some semblance of security and stability in the country. In particular, we have failed to see the government, with our partners in ISAF, put together a plan with our Afghan partners to have an on-the-ground diplomatic initiative to flip elements of the insurgency. 
It is very sad to hear in this House when members of the government refer to the fact that we are battling “terrorists” in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that we are battling an insurgency. It is a complex insurgency made up of different groups with different motivations. There are people involved in the drug trade and common criminals. There is the Taliban, individuals who have a vicious view of the world and are absolutely brutal. Negotiating with those elements of the Taliban will probably not work out, but there are parts of the Taliban that actually can work in terms of bringing them into the power structures in the country.
The other issue is corruption. The ongoing corruption of Mr. Karzai's government and our support of him is a message to the Afghan people that we support his actions. By being seen to be almost blindly supporting what Mr. Karzai does and not demonstrating to the Afghan people that our support for him is absolutely conditional, we are seen as part of the problem, which means that our troops are being seen, in too many cases, as part of the problem, because they do not differentiate one from the other.
In the support of our troops and the extraordinary work that they are doing, it is crucial to ensure that we have an on-the-ground diplomatic effort to be able to hive off and negotiate and flip elements of the insurgency. Only by doing this will security come to Afghanistan. Only by doing this will the training option that we are engaging in now, to train the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police, be successful.
If the training element is all we do and if the other elements of the mission are simply going to be runts in what we do within the country, then Afghanistan five years from now will be little better than it is today, because we are not going to beat an insurgency by virtue of throwing more troops into the situation. The kind of war being fought requires very few people. It is done by stealth to create havoc in a country. It takes very little effort to do that and that is what we are seeing now.
The other aspect is that there has been very little effort to get India and Pakistan on the same page. India will support Mr. Karzai in a non-Pashtun government, and Pakistan will support the Taliban and Pashtun within Afghanistan. As we see, these two countries are playing a proxy war within Afghanistan. Unless India and Pakistan get on the same page, working in lockstep towards the security and development of the country, we are never going to see security in that country.
Why do we not have a regional working group? We are not alone there, but due to the extraordinary commitment and cost in terms of the blood of our troops and with respect to the treasury of Canada, surely we have the cachet to put our foot down and demand a number of things for the success of this mission.
To my knowledge, we have not done that. What we tend to hear in Canada are discussions on the military option with respect to Afghanistan, which is certainly a part of it, but we know that we are ultimately not going to be able to address an insurgency unless we deal with the diplomatic initiatives that are required.
On the development side, I met with the medical officers at the Mirwais Hospital in Kandahar city, as well as in a hospital in Kabul. These hospitals do not even have the ability to secure an airway, intubate and ventilate people. They do not have the ability to provide general anesthesia. 
The levels of trauma they see within Kandahar city and Kandahar in general, as well as in Kabul, are atrocious. Yet we have been in the country nine years and there has been billions of dollars in aid spent within the country, and the Mirwais general hospital in Kandahar city and hospital in Kabul do not even have the ability to provide general anesthesia and are operating with local anesthesia. How horrific is that? That is absolutely cruel and inhumane punishment. It should not happen.
I beseech the government, through CIDA, to engage the Mirwais general hospital. I know we have given money to the Red Cross. I certainly understand doing that, but there has been a failure in that mission. There has been a failure in implementing the Red Cross' actions within the Mirwais general hospital and these people desperately need access to basic services.
I actually have the ability now to provide the equipment they need. I have a needs list for them. I have tried to engage CIDA to help. I have tried to get DND to help. All that is needed, quite frankly, is a very small area within a C-17 aircraft, smaller than two desks here. A space that size in a C-17 aircraft would provide lifesaving tools for people to use at the Mirwais general hospital. Increase the space to an area the size of eight seats here and there would be enough equipment for two hospitals.
I beseech the government. I would be happy to work with it so that our troops can deliver this equipment to both the Mirwais general hospital in Kandahar city and the general Hospital in Kabul. We can work together to enable those people to have access to the medical equipment that will save people's lives within the country. I am happy to work with the government to do this and I hope it sees this as a non-political endeavour but one that will certainly help our provincial reconstruction teams working within the country.
In closing, I know I added a few extra things that may be outside the realm of this bill, but I did it to provide information to the government that there are some options that we could work together on to help the mission, our troops and the Afghan people. I certainly hope that the government takes a look at some of those options, and I know my party would be very willing to work with it to implement these things for the good of our troops, the good of the mission and the good of our country.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague had very wide-ranging and comprehensive remarks. I think somewhere in there he actually touched on the topic of military justice. I have a simple question for him.
I would like to confirm that he and his party will actually be supporting this bill.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is yes.
Jim Maloway: 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?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party and the Government of Canada dealt with where we ought to go on the mission, and whether or not to extend it, we agreed that we would extend the mission to 2011 with respect to the combat aspect. The combat aspect would terminate at that time. That is what the government and the Liberal Party have agreed to.
There was nothing in that agreement that said we would not maintain a presence. We were quite explicit in saying that we would remain and have a presence within Afghanistan. That presence would be a non-combat role, but it would enable the Afghan people to provide for their own security. It would be irresponsible if we walked away right now and did not enable the Afghan national police and Afghan national army to scale up their training.
Our troops do a phenomenal job in training. That is what our party and the government have said that we would support. It is a fair and reasonable thing in combination with the development aspects. The member certainly knows there cannot be development without security. It would be absolutely irresponsible to have development without security because we would be leaving people to the ravages of individuals who would kill or torture them.
I am sure the member understands that our party and the government have chosen a balanced approach between development and security. That development is a fair and reasonable approach to what obviously is a very complex situation. We certainly hope other aspects including the diplomatic ones I mentioned will be part of the ongoing discussions and actions of Canada with respect to the mission.
[Interjection]
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, since we seem to have unanimous consent to stray off topic, let me follow up on that one. 
I would like to ask the hon. member about something that came up yesterday. The hon. member from the NDP talked about the Afghans not needing training because they beat the Russians.
I would like my hon. colleague's comment on the fact that we are not training the Afghans to be an insurgency. We are training the Afghan national army to be a professional organization mirroring as much as possible the Canadian Forces to actually deal with an insurgency. There is a subtle difference that may have been lost on the NDP. I would like my hon. colleague's comments on that.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary posed a very good question and he worded it very well. He is absolutely right. We are actually scaling up the ability of the Afghans not only to have a constabulary force, but also an army so that we can be out of there and the Afghan people can provide for their own security.
In reference to the question by the NDP member, if we did not have a constabulary force in Canada, if we did not have an army to provide for our own security, what would we have? There would be anarchy. In countries without a proper police force, without a proper justice system, without a proper army, civilians are left to elements that are untoward and that can cause quite a bit of destruction and havoc.
We enjoy a secure country, so why on earth would we not enable other countries to have access to the same elements of a secure country? This involves a constabulary force, a strong economy, a strong justice system. It also involves the police which I would argue are more important, as the parliamentary secretary alluded to. At the end of the day the police are more important than the army in providing the day-to-day on the ground security for the people.
Once upon a time there was an Afghan domestic police force and remnants of it still remain. That grassroots police force which was driven from a tribal level had a great deal of respect. If the constabulary initiative we are engaging in with the Afghan national police can incorporate that historical element of a domestic grassroots, partially tribal-based Afghan national police force, we would have a culturally congruent Afghan national police constabulary force that could be secure and supported by the people in the long term.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-41, regarding military justice. 
First, I have to respond to the comments in the last back and forth between the two members. It should be noted that the parliamentary secretary was trying to attribute the comments of the former Liberal leader to the NDP. My colleague was simply trying to get an actual position from the Liberal Party, which is difficult to do these days. He was raising the point that the former Liberal leader, the new ally or old ally, I do not know anymore, of the Conservative government, was asking why it is that we need to train more troops. It was his supposition, not that of my friend from Winnipeg. We have simply said that NATO is already going to meet its goals by next year and, as the parliamentary secretary knows, so is the Pentagon. Why did it break its promise and abandon the civilian equation?
It is a matter of getting things straight, and I know the parliamentary secretary was challenged at the special committee on Afghanistan on even knowing what the numbers were for his own government. It is interesting that he would now take the assertions of the former Liberal leader that there need not be more training for the Afghans because they beat the Russians. It was the former Liberal leader who said that. I know the member from B.C., his colleague who sits just a couple of desks away from the former Liberal Party leader, would know that as well.
Now that I have cleared that up, which is always difficult when we are dealing with a government that does not even read its own press releases, let us talk about the bill before of us.
 When we are looking at strengthening military justice, it is important that we understand the ambit of this. This is an area that is important to look at. The last time we looked at the issue was in 1998. We were considering Bill C-25 at that time, legislation to modernize the defence act. However, the importance of military justice vis-à-vis changes to our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not looked at. 
Let me be very clear with the government that we will be supporting sending this bill to committee. I do not want the government to misquote us or attribute our comments according to what the Liberals might say on any given day, which is always challenging. Let me be crystal clear. We will support sending this bill to committee with a view to looking at strengthening some of its provisions.
With respect to this review, our members have already mentioned that we need to get it right. On the one hand, we need to look at what the responsibilities are of the military in terms of its conduct and allowing the military to discipline its troops in a way that is in line with its mandate. On the other hand, we also have to recognize the rights of members of our military as citizens, and ensure that they do not forgo the rights they have as everyday citizens.
 It is a balancing act between recognizing the rights of members of our military as citizens of Canada in line with the charter provisions and understanding the unique role of the military in our society and the way it conducts itself. When we are talking about summary justice, for instance, the military has a special role to play which allows it to use its disciplinary tools.
I remember talking to my grandfather about my father's service in the second world war. As a sergeant, he had to ensure that the troops who were working with him understood that there was a code of conduct. In the case of my grandfather's service in the first world war, he told me about the fear that was invoked by his commanding officers. That was important because the discipline that is needed when in situ and also when being trained must be understood.
There is also a need for justice to be supported when there are allegations of misconduct. That is where we have to get the balance right. Notwithstanding the need for proper discipline, the need for summary justice for military conduct, we also need to ensure that if there are allegations of misconduct and there is a serious charge against a member of our military, that he or she is afforded the same protections the he or she would get if he or she had been charged outside the military under the ambit of the Criminal Code of Canada. That is where we have serious concerns.
If we look at the balance between the support of someone who is coming forward in the military justice framework versus regular court proceedings, we would know there is not an equal support for troops who are under the guise of military justice.
The Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but, as he knows, it is 11 o'clock. He will have 14 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks when debate is resumed on this matter.

Statements By Members
Demolition FestivalMr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome a dynamic team of young volunteers who have made the trip to Parliament Hill today, despite the inclement weather. Nothing can stop this group, which has created a major, exciting recreational event and tourist attraction in Bellechasse.
For its fifth edition, the now famous Festival des Barres-à-Jack in Saint-Raphaël drew over 10,000 people this summer. On a site that has received environmental approval to host demolition derbies, the Barres-à-Jack team breaks new ground every year with exciting races in which the participants spend hours perfecting their machines. From the combine race to the now famous hearse derby, they will stop at nothing to provide one-of-a-kind entertainment, and this year was no different. From having participated myself, I can truly say it was an exciting experience.
As they share their passion with the rest of Canada today, I believe they are perfect role models for how people can become involved in their communities. Congratulations to the Barres-à-Jack team and thank you for volunteering at such a unique and popular event. 
Mosque and Synagogue Twinning InitiativeMr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to congratulate the Jewish and Muslim communities in Don Valley West for their exemplary twinning initiative between mosque and synagogue.
As part of a North America-wide initiative, Temple Emanu-El and the Noor Cultural Centre organized a weekend of events that focused on the theme “Struggling with the language and imagery of war within our traditions”.
The weekend featured Jum'ah prayers at the Noor Centre, Shabbat services at Temple Emanu-El, lectures from Jewish and Muslim spiritual leaders and discussions among members of both communities.
They have demonstrated a fine example of true inter-culturalism, strengthening the relationships between Jews and Muslims and building bridges for a better Canada.
I was pleased to be part of this endeavour and commend both communities for making this event such a success, especially Samira Kanji and Joe Goodbaum, Rabbi Debra Landsberg and Dr. Timothy Gianotti, Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub and Rabbi Dr. Reuven Firestone.
[Member spoke in Arabic and Hebrew as follows:]
 As-Salamu Alaykum. Shabbat Shalom. 
Estelle DesfossésMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to pay tribute today to Estelle Desfossés, who is this year's recipient of the City of Gatineau award for her contribution and dedication to culture.
On November 10, at the Culturiades 2010 gala of excellence, the Fondation pour les arts, les lettres et la culture en Outaouais recognized Ms. Desfossés for her outstanding contribution to the development and advancement of the Salon du livre de l'Outaouais.
Ms. Desfossés, who is passionate about the arts in all their forms, was honoured for her integrity and her outstanding commitment to making this event a success year after year. The Salon du livre de l'Outaouais, Quebec's third-largest book fair, attracted some 31,000 book lovers to its 31st edition, which ran from February 25 to 28 this year.
My Bloc Québécois colleagues join me in congratulating Ms. Desfossés on her award, and we thank her for being so actively involved in the cultural life of the Outaouais region. We are also glad that she is part of our team on Parliament Hill. 
Canada PostJim Maloway: 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.
DiabetesMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, November 14 was World Diabetes Day.
Many families, including my own, are affected by this condition. Today, more than nine million Canadians live with diabetes or pre-diabetes. Diabetes rates are expected to increase substantially over the coming years, and we must continue to fight against this growing public health epidemic.
Our government remains committed to finding a cure for diabetes. We are proud to say that last November this government committed $20 million as part of a $34 million partnership with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to support the development of a Canadian clinical trials network, a groundbreaking effort to accelerate made in Canada solutions to the management, care and cure of type 1 diabetes.
Thanks to the exceptional work of JDRF and its partners, we are closer than ever to finding a cure. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the ongoing commitment of the millions of Canadians who have built awareness of and live with diabetes in Canada.
Special Olympics Canada AwardMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an exemplary young woman from my constituency of Cape Breton—Canso.
Next Tuesday in Toronto, Lynette Sampson from Sydney River will receive the Female Athlete of the Year award from Special Olympics Canada.
Lynette's achievements in the swimming pool over the past year have been nothing short of outstanding. In July she won a silver medal in the 25 metre backstroke and a bronze medal in the 50 metre freestyle event at the 2010 Special Olympics Canada Summer Games in London, Ontario.
In May she was named Special Olympics Cape Breton's top female athlete. In July, she learned she would be named Nova Scotia's top female Special Olympian, and now she will receive this national award, which takes into account not only her athletic achievements but her overall outlook on life as well.
I know it was a proud moment for all a year ago when she carried the Olympic torch on to the stage at the Joan Harriss Cruise Pavilion. It will be just as thrilling, I am sure, Tuesday in Toronto when she leaves the stage as Canada's top female Special Olympian.
Please join me, my colleagues in the House and all people from Cape Breton—Canso in asking Lynette to accept my heartfelt congratulations—
Grey CupMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last year the Saskatchewan Roughriders came within a hair's breadth of winning the Grey Cup. This Sunday, green vengeance will sweep over the Alouettes in Edmonton. The green and white will end their 100th season in victory, to the delight of nearly 100% of the fans in attendance. 
There is a reason the Roughriders sell more CFL merchandise than all the other teams combined. Decades of socialist oppression forced the residents of Saskatchewan to scatter across this great country. Yet they always carried Saskatchewan and Rider pride in their hearts. It is why Canada has now became Rider nation. As the premier reminds us, we have never won a cup with the NDP in power.
Saskatchewan is growing in numbers and reaching her full potential, thanks to Premier Brad Wall's leadership. Likewise, under the leadership of coach Ken Miller and quarterback Darian Durant, the Roughriders have fought their way to the top once again.
This shall be our finest hour. Congratulations Saskatchewan. Au revoir, Montreal.
Sainte-Élisabeth and Sanankoroba CommunitiesMr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the twinning between the municipality of Sainte-Élisabeth and the Malian community of Sanankoroba. For 25 years, these two communities have been working together on various strategic projects. This venture has resulted in friendly relations based on mutual respect. 
On November 6, I attended a rally in Sainte-Élisabeth. More than 200 people, including the mayor, Mario Houle, attended our gala where we celebrated this 25th anniversary of the collaboration with emotion and mutual admiration, and also raised money to buy a tractor for Sanankoroba.
A few years ago, the village was going through some tough times, but things have turned around since then. This shows how beneficial twinning can be and how the people of Sainte-Élisabeth have helped improve the situation.
Congratulations to the Des Mains pour Demain committee, the municipal authorities and the entire population of Sainte-Élisabeth.
Grey CupMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, determination, courage and passion. These terms describe our Montreal Alouettes who, this weekend, will try to win the prestigious Grey Cup championship for the second consecutive year.
In front of a roaring crowd at the east division final in Montreal last Sunday, the Alouettes pummelled the Toronto Argonauts.
In this year's final game, our Larks will meet the Saskatchewan Roughriders in a fight to the finish. But Marc Trestman's team will not back down.
Our pride in the Alouettes will continue to be immense when they win the Canadian Football League championship once again.
On behalf of everyone in the Quebec Conservative caucus, I wish the Alouettes the best of luck. Go Alouettes go.
Oscar DuquetteMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the memory of Mr. Oscar Duquette.
Born in Hull on May 28, 1896, he worked as a firefighter for the old City of Hull and then as an RCMP officer. However, it is his major contribution to the improvement of the Hull sector of the current city of Gatineau that I would like to speak about today.
Oscar Duquette initiated two major projects: the Lac-des-Fées parkway and the large lighted cross that has been shining from the highest point of Columbia Park since 1950 and can be seen from most of the city.
Last Saturday, I had the honour of participating in a ceremony in memory of this great pioneer. Over 80 members of the Duquette family were in attendance. From now on, when we drive on Allumettières boulevard over the Lac-des-Fées parkway, we will be driving on the viaduct named in his memory.
Let us celebrate together the memory of Oscar Duquette and of all our great builders.
Long live the family of Oscar Duquette!
Violence Against WomenMr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an important initiative to end violence against women. As we all know, ending violence against women requires a co-operative approach involving governments of all levels, community groups and individuals.
The invitation to men to be part of the solution is essential and should be commended. Take, for example, the Ending Violence Association of B.C., a community group that recently engaged in an educational initiative and a subsequent video entitled Men Speak Up: Ending Violence Together.
This initiative aimed to change attitudes that condone behaviours related to violence against women and to provide men with tangible skills and information to talk with their peers about violence against women. Six hundred and sixteen participants were trained or engaged, and EVA B.C. should be applauded for its efforts.
This is just one of the many examples of men becoming part of the solution, demonstrating strength and standing up for something as critical as ending violence against women.
Food BanksMr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while seniors and families in my riding of Welland go hungry, the government is spending millions of dollars on treating their friends to rounds of golf and massages at high-end spas, right when folks are struggling the most to make ends meet.
A record 870,000 Canadians are using food banks, 80,000 for the first time. Over the past two years, food bank usage has risen by more than 25%, and 31% of food banks do not have enough food to meet that need.
This winter I will join with community members by participating in the Port Colborne-Wainfleet food bank diet challenge, committing to live off a food bank diet for three days. Organized by Lori Kleinsmith and her team at Bridges Community Health Centre of Port Colborne, this challenge is meant to bring awareness to the desperate situation that so many are facing in my riding.
I applaud the Bridges Community Health Centre's youth health promotion team for organizing this important initiative, because in a country like Canada, no one should go hungry.
Korean PeninsulaMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government and, indeed, all Canadians are committed to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Canada reiterates its firm support for the Republic of Korea and urges North Korea to abide by the Korean armistice agreement.
We once again extend our condolences to the families of those who were killed and injured as a result of an unprovoked attack by North Korea earlier this week. Canada will continue to condemn all acts of aggression by North Korea in violation of international law.
Recently, Canada announced the termination of all official bilateral contacts between the Government of Canada and the North Korean regime, with the exception of those necessary to address regional security concerns, human rights and the humanitarian situation in North Korea.
Our government will continue to vigorously defend the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world.
Michel DruckerMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Michel Drucker, an iconic French television personality and a long-time admirer of Quebec, was made an officer of the Ordre national du Québec.
Michel Drucker has done a lot for Quebec in France, and has done even more for our artists. He has helped launch many of their careers in Europe. As he has said himself, “Quebec artists have always amazed me; they are unique.”
A knight since 2001, Quebec has now made Michel Drucker an officer. He considers Quebec to be his second country. Few individuals from outside the country have received such honours.
Mr. Drucker, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I are proud to offer you our sincere congratulations on these huge honours, and we, along with all Quebeckers, are proud to share this great friendship.
Sergei MagnitskyHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory and in tribute to the heroic Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who uncovered the largest tax fraud in Russian history and paid for it with his life. While his story is one of great moral courage, his saga shines a spotlight on the pervasive culture of corruption and impunity implicating senior government officials in Russia today. Tragically, Magnitsky is but the latest in a list of Russian heroes who lost their lives standing up for principle, truth and the rule of law.
Although the world was outraged at the case of Sergei, who was tortured and who died in prison, corrupt Russian officials were never brought to justice and were even rewarded.
Accordingly, we must call upon Russia to bring the perpetrators to justice; stand in solidarity with Russian human rights defenders; deny entry to Russian officials implicated in this criminality; and remember and honour the heroic sacrifice of Sergei Magnitsky. We can do no less.
Conservative Candidate for VaughanMr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, members of the Liberal Party have attacked and denigrated the character and integrity of Julian Fantino, the former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police and now Conservative candidate in Vaughan.
This is Liberal hypocrisy at its finest, given that it was revealed today that both the Liberal leader and his chief of staff, Peter Donolo, personally tried to recruit Mr. Fantino to run for them. The Liberals wanted Julian Fantino to be their candidate in Vaughan. He was their first choice. In fact, after he said no, the Liberal leader told a radio host in Halifax this morning that his party went to several other people before finally settling on Tony Genco, its fourth or fifth choice.
It is only fair for the people of Vaughan to know that Mr. Fantino was not only the Conservatives' first choice but he was also the Liberals' first choice.

Oral Questions
PensionsHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have uncovered a Conservative directive that will drastically cut pension incomes for up to 1.5 million lower income Canadian seniors. Effective May 17, 2010, seniors who make an emergency withdrawal from a registered retirement income fund, as they try to cope with unexpected emergencies such as medical costs and urgent home repair, will lose government pension benefits as a result.
Will the minister now confirm to the House that this is indeed her new and, up until now, secret pension policy for seniors, and, if they have not done so already, will her cabinet colleagues force her to rescind the policy?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was very concerned by what was reported this morning and that is why I have instructed departmental officials to immediately put a hold on this policy while we review it completely. I have also instructed officials to contact those individuals affected directly so that their applications can be reviewed and evaluated for eligibility under the old policy.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, review is not reversal. There has been no notice, no consultation, no information and no compassion. The minister now says that it is brand new information. Allow me to table letters the minister signed to senior citizens across Canada informing them of this policy just recently. Now she says that she will review it.
Well, 1.5 million lower income Canadians have just been told that all is on the table when it comes to pension income. 
Will the minister, or at least her cabinet colleagues, not just review this policy but reverse it and table changes to the Old Age Security Act to prevent it from ever happening again?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, our government has done more than any previous government, including the hon. member's party when it was government, to support seniors. That is why we are taking steps immediately to put this policy on hold. We want to ensure we are treating seniors fairly, which is why my officials have been instructed to contact the individuals affected directly and to immediately re-evaluate their applications and their eligibility according to the original policy.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, seniors deserve a pension system they can trust, not another double-cross like income trusts. 
The Conservatives did it all right. They did it to seniors. They did it in the Senate when it came to Nortel pensioners. 
How can the Conservatives look at 1.5 million senior citizens at a time when we are moving more and more into seniors' poverty, 25% more. What are the Conservatives going to do? They are going to do a review. They stuck it to 1.5 million pensioners in this country and all they are going to do is review it. They must act immediately to change the OAS Act.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to helping seniors, it is our government that brought in pension income splitting. The Liberals voted against that. We are the ones who brought forward increases to the age credit. The Liberals voted against that. These are programs that would leave more money in seniors' pockets. 
On this other issue, we will be immediately contacting the individuals affected to ensure their applications can be reviewed under the old policy. No change there. However, we are supporting seniors to ensure they have more money in their pockets, not voting against those initiatives as the Liberals have done consistently.
Mrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, seniors and retirees deserve something better than backroom cuts made on the sly. The Minister of Finance is colluding with the Prime Minister to make the most vulnerable seniors in our society pay for his fiscal incompetence.
Would he be doing this if his parents depended on the guaranteed income supplement?
Why is the Minister of Finance not trimming fat from the Prime Minister's Office instead of taxing registered retirement income funds?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we want to help seniors. And that is what we have been doing since we formed the government nearly five years ago. When I learned of this situation, I instructed my officials to immediately put this policy on hold so that we can study it thoroughly.
I also asked them to communicate with the affected individuals to reassess their applications based on the previous policy.
Lise Zarac: Mr. Speaker, that is not helping our seniors.
In a few weeks, disabled Nortel retirees will lose their homes because the Prime Minister refused to pass Bill S-216. In a few months, other retirees will desperately be awaiting a cheque that will never come. But the Prime Minister could not care less. He is plunging these people into despair by making them pay for his government's excesses.
If he can waste $300 million on an internal row between his ministers, could he have the decency to not hit our parents and grandparents with hidden taxes?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think every member of Parliament and senator recognizes and sympathizes with the difficult situation facing Nortel pensioners and long-term disability recipients. 
Unfortunately, in the committee studying two private member's bills on these issues, witness after witness has said that neither bill would actually help former employees of Nortel. In fact, many witnesses have pointed out that these bills would lead to more bankruptcies and could have a significant negative impact on the pensions of other Canadians.
Sales Tax HarmonizationMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite media reports that Ottawa was close to reaching an agreement with Quebec regarding compensation for harmonizing the QST and the GST, the Minister of Finance talked about modest progress. The QST and GST have been harmonized for 18 years now. We have been negotiating this issue for over 10 years. Ontario, British Columbia and three Atlantic provinces have already been compensated.
Can the Minister of Finance assure us that an agreement will be reached quickly on this matter, which the Government of Quebec wants to resolve with Ottawa as soon as possible?
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have had some positive discussions. I spoke with my colleague, the Quebec finance minister, just this week. We have made some progress, but there are some challenges. We will continue working together.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has never been able to tell us precisely what problems are standing in the way of an agreement with Quebec regarding compensation for sales tax harmonization.
Can the Minister of Finance assure this House that Quebec's collection of the two taxes is not getting in the way of the agreement?
Jim Flaherty: Mr. Speaker, the discussions that take place with respect to harmonization stem from the 1990s. The previous government had harmonization discussions with some of the Atlantic provinces that were successful. There were subsequent discussions more recently with some other provinces.
 There are several principles involved, but the basic principle is that the systems must actually be harmonized with only a small degree of variation. This has been consistent for all of the provinces in all of the discussions and it is what we are trying to accomplish with Quebec.
HydroelectricityMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's deputy premier has said she is willing to look at any possible way of preventing the federal government from funding a transmission line that would allow Newfoundland to compete unfairly with electricity from Quebec, which is produced without any federal assistance. 
Instead of getting embroiled in a new dispute with Quebec, why does the federal government not just promise to reject this unfair request from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?
Jim Flaherty: Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal that, as I understand it, has been submitted to PPP Canada Inc., a federal crown corporation responsible for fostering and giving advice with respect to public-private partnerships in Canada, which is a good deal for Canadian taxpayers. 
Newfoundland and Labrador has made a proposal that will be reviewed by the agency in the normal way, at arm's-length from government. Quebec is welcomed to put in proposals as well. In fact, there is a recent proposal for a public-private partnership in Quebec that I recently approved, and I look forward to that announcement.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, it would be extremely unfair for Hydro-Québec to face competition on the U.S. market from electricity subsidized by the federal government with Quebeckers' money. The Conservative government cannot hide behind PPP Canada. The federal government funds the agency, appoints its board and determines its mandate.
Does it not make sense for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to pay for their own electric facilities, as Quebec has always done?
Jim Flaherty: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the particulars of any particular proposal because I do not know the particulars in any particular proposal. 
If the Government of Quebec wants to make an application for a public-private partnership, it can do so. If Nova Scotia wants to, it can. If Manitoba wants to, it can. In fact, many have.
 I welcome everyone who feels they have a good idea for a public-private partnership to go to the PPP Canada Inc. website and follow the procedure.
TaxationMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear the CEO of the TD Bank, Ed Clark, say what the NDP has been saying for years: that Canada's tax system is unfair. “The shape of the economic recovery will not leave Canadians equally well off”, he said. Since the banks are the big beneficiaries of the Conservatives' tax cuts, Mr. Clark sure knows what he is talking about. 
Is it not time that the Conservatives took the advice of their friends at the TD Bank and tackled this unfair tax system that is leaving too many people worse off?
Jim Flaherty: Mr. Speaker, I listen, with interest, to the remarks of various bankers from time to time. I listened to the advice, and certainly the comments, of the chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, who had this to say. He said, “our economic performance was better than any other industrial nation”, which just goes to prove that sometimes the banks get it right.
I do not agree with the comment about tax relief. We have removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls. I do not understand why, every time we reduce taxes for low income Canadians, the NDP votes against it.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the government cannot escape the reality that seniors poverty is rising again. Therefore, what does the government do? It tries to sneak in a change that will hurt seniors. Hearing the minister today, putting this mean policy on hold just does not cut it. 
The fact is the Conservatives are wasting billions on useless corporate tax cuts, single-sourced jet fighter contracts and fake lakes. Why do they not change their priorities and raise the guaranteed income supplement to guarantee that no Canadian senior lives in poverty? That is the priority.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the fact is Canada has one of the very lowest rates of seniors poverty in the entire world, thanks to many of the measures that our government has brought in over the last few years, such as pension income splitting, raising the age credit, allowing people who are collecting the guaranteed income supplement to work and not get those dollars clawed back.
The unfortunate aspect of all this is the NDP members voted against every one of those measures to help lift seniors out of poverty. Shame on them.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the number of seniors living in poverty increased by 25% between 2007 and 2008, and the situation is getting worse because of the recession.
By changing the law, the government is putting people in a bind. These pensioners count on the guaranteed income supplement. It is not fair to penalize them for using their own savings.
Why give big corporations $5 billion in tax breaks? Why not help our seniors instead, at a fraction of the cost?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, we have put an end to this policy. I have instructed my officials to get in touch with the people affected by this change and reassess their applications in keeping with the old policy.
But if members really want to do something for seniors, they should support our initiatives, such as pension income splitting and all the other things we have done for seniors, which the member voted against.
Taseko Mines LimitedMs. Siobhan Coady (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are very serious and legitimate concerns that a leak from the government resulted in a stock sale of Taseko Mines Limited, which benefited a few connected insiders at the expense of many honest investors. So far the Conservatives have brushed off these concerns as speculation. That is not leadership. That is ignoring the facts.
Will the Conservatives do the right thing and launch an investigation into this matter?
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is making some allegations based on speculation. She has obviously already come to conclusions and I would encourage her to table with the House any of the information that she has on this file that would lead her to those conclusions.
Siobhan Coady: Mr. Speaker, a secret cabinet decision was made to block Taseko's purchase of a controversial mine. In a few hours on October 14, 30 million shares of Taseko traded hands. That was 10 times the normal amount and it wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars. That does not sound like a coincidence. That sounds like a leak.
As a result, we formally requested the RCMP to undertake an investigation into this very serious matter. How can the Conservatives stand in the House and ignore the facts? How can they deny these very serious allegations?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet was not even sitting on October 14. That was during a constituency week and members of Parliament, including ministers, by and large, were in their ridings.
The member opposite is speculating as to what the facts may be. If she has facts that she would like to table in the House after question period, I would encourage her to do so.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the leaked information on the Taseko Mines, these are the facts. Two weeks before the government's decision to block the development of the mine was made public, shares in the company took a nosedive. It is no coincidence. Cabinet meets and Taseko Mines shares plummet by 40%, two weeks before this government's decision to block the development of the mine is made public.
While average investors lose their shirts, others smell like roses, selling their shares and making millions of dollars. The government has known about this for six weeks. What is it waiting for to call for an RCMP investigation?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, a publicly available report was released some months before this, an environmental assessment in this regard. It was a scathing report that said that this project would do irreparable harm to the environment. This government accepted that report. It did the right thing for the environment.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is saying that the Conservative government has not called for an investigation. The government is hiding something, as it did in the Public Works renovation contract issue.
We are not waiting for the government. My colleague, the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, has formally asked the RCMP to investigate possible insider trading at Taseko Mines involving the Conservative government.
In fact, the real question is: who is the Conservative government trying to protect? Former colleagues, departmental staff, Conservative cronies, people here who know things? Who?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ajax—Pickering has in the past made wild accusations against Canadians. He has been hauled before the courts and has been forced to retract his unsubstantiated allegations. He has even been forced to stand in the House and apologize to the victims of his slander.
The member opposite is coming to some wild conclusions. If he has any evidence, I encourage him to put it before the House.
CopyrightMr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly of Quebec and a large coalition of artists, creators, authors, performers and even the Union des consommateurs are calling for the Conservative government to make extensive changes to the Copyright Act.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages listen to this request from Quebec and Canada and amend his bill, which is designed mainly for big distributors, so that it adequately protects our creator's rights?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This government will not support the iPod tax or the digital tax that the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals put forward. They have put this forward despite the fact that many Canadians, from a broad spectrum right across society, have indicated that this is a bad idea.
Graham Henderson from the Canadian music recording industry said, “I don't think that's the solution. I don't think creators benefit from that...I don't think consumers are going to benefit from that. No one will”. 
Why do those members support this ridiculous position?
Roger Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, some Canadian musicians have now joined Quebec artists in asking the Conservative government to impose a levy on MP3 players. The logic is simple: without the work of artists, MP3 players are worthless. The House approved a Bloc Québécois motion to authorize the collection of royalties to compensate artists for their creative work. 
Why, exactly, is the government refusing to compensate artists fairly?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, as we have noted before, the opposition coalition has never seen a tax it did not like. In fact it has never seen one it would not hike. We know that for a fact.
Loreena McKennitt, Juno Award winning singer-songwriter said, “I would oppose the iTax. I would rather have a strict and predictable business model in which to conduct my business.
We can have that today. By unanimous consent, we could pass the copyright reforms today. Let us pass Bill C-32.
TelecommunicationsMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is preparing to open wireless spectrum auctions to foreign carriers. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology examined this issue last spring and arrived at the conclusion that foreign ownership of telecommunications companies would not increase competition and would only jeopardize Quebec and Canadian content broadcasting.
Will the minister realize that authorizing foreign takeovers of telecommunications companies will open the doors to mergers and acquisitions in this sector and will not increase competition?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the spectrum auction. Radio frequency spectrum is critical for growth and innovation in the wireless sector and the economy, as a whole.
 The policy of this government has always been clear. We are very much in favour of more competition. That is why we set aside spectrum during the previous auction to allow new entrants to compete. New entrants mean more competition. More competition means lower prices, better quality and more services for Canadians.
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, workers in the telecommunications sector are very worried about this government's stubborn resolve to relax restrictions on foreign ownership in the telecommunications industry.
When will this government admit that increasing foreign ownership of Quebec and Canadian broadcasters will mean fewer jobs and less protection for our culture?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, our government has a record of standing up for greater competition. We have removed the restrictions on foreign ownership of Canadian satellites. 
There are considerable advantages to foreign investment, including increased competition on the international playing field due to enhanced investment and economies of scale. This will allow firms to access foreign capital and know-how and invest in new and advanced technologies. These measures solidify our commitment to consumers.
G8 and G20 SummitsMr. Francis Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the persistence of the government operations committee, we now know a bit about what the OPP spent millions of federal tax dollars on for the G8 and G20 conference. The only problem is details representing items that “number in the thousands” and total almost $8.4 million have not been released.
The Minister of Public Works told the House, “the government will table all costs, down to the penny, of the G8 and G20 summits”. Why did she break her word?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, the Ontario Provincial Police is making this information available. As the Ontario Provincial Police stated, it expects to be under budget. 
Listen to what Superintendent Tim Charlebois of the OPP said at the government operations committee, “Quite frankly, our anticipated projections are that we will come in under budget”.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, the acting commissioner said that he would not release the details.
 The OPP alone spent twice as much on security as South Korea did for its entire G20 conference. The minister promised to document every penny, yet the OPP says it is “not possible” to account for $8.4 million, while seniors poverty has increased by 25%. We know about the $1.2 million the OPP spent on hotels and resorts and the $25,000 on bug jackets.
Is this undisclosed $8.4 million the real reason that Julian Fantino will not show up to debates or talk to the press in Vaughan?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the truth is when the Leader of the Opposition needed a candidate in Vaughan, he went to Julian Fantino first. When the liberal leader was turned down by Mr. Fantino, and many others, he finally settled on Tony Genco.
Mr. Fantino will be a welcomed addition to the Conservative caucus on Monday.
Public Works and Government ServicesHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, Paul Sauvé answered a question about whether or not the Conservative Party receives kickbacks by stating, “I believe so. The system is completely ridiculous.” Mr. Sauvé had to pay 3% of his contract to a friend of the Conservatives in order to obtain the contract.
Why did the Prime Minister not call in the RCMP to investigate this Conservative corruption? Why did he not suspend the minister in question? Why?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I expect, as usual, the Liberals will talk tough, will talk like a lion in the House and talk like a lamb outside the House, when they have to take responsibility for their actions.
I know what this question is all about. It is an attempt to try to change the channel from the leader of the Liberal Party's trying to court Julian Fantino to run for the Liberal Party and Julian Fantino's refusal to do so. We know the Liberals are trying to change the channel.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, last December, the Minister of Natural Resources promised to table a report on the progress of the West Block. Now, a year later, after being riddled with scandal, we have yet to see the report.
We heard of the kickback scheme last Tuesday, with Mr. Sauvé paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Conservative Party insiders in order to secure a contract on the West Block.
Why will the Prime Minister not call in the RCMP and fire the minister? He had no trouble kicking to the curb his female minister when she got into trouble. Therefore, why does he not do it with that minister?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we have learned a lot this week. We have learned that Mr. Sauvé was courted by the Liberal member for Bourassa to be a Liberal candidate in Outremont. That is what  Le Journal de Montréal  has reported.
Now we have learned that the leader of the Liberal Party tried to recruit Julian Fantino and Julian Fantino said no. We also know that the leader of the Liberal Party then went after many other candidates, as he told a Toronto radio station, and had to settle on his final candidate. It was the best he could do.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks and again today, the Liberals in this place have been attacking Julian Fantino's character, a man who has dedicated his entire life to serving and protecting the public. Julian Fantino's character and integrity are second to none.
We now know that the Liberals are guilty of hypocrisy and mudslinging of the worst kind. 
Would the Minister of Public Safety tell the House what the Liberal Party really thinks of Julian Fantino?
The Speaker: I am not sure that the question has anything to do with the administrative responsibilities of the government. I do not think the Liberal Party's views in respect of Mr. Fantino are relevant, so we will move on.
The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
Veterans AffairsMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the Conservatives promised a compensation package from 1958 to 1984 for over 300,000 victims of Agent Orange in the foliage spraying in Gagetown for military and civilian members. 
They came out with a package and only $90 million was offered, and yet we find out today that $33 million of that $90 million are still sitting in the fund, leaving thousands of people out of a minuscule compensation.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to stand in the House and say today that the $33 million will be released so that thousands of veterans will at least get some form of compensation--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Greg Kerr (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, our government made a clear decision in 2007 to provide compensation for victims of Agent Orange.
Unlike the Liberals, we took decisive action to care for our veterans and over 3,000 people have received compensation to date.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs  has directed the department that absolutely no veteran who is sick because of Agent Orange will be denied compensation due to an arbitrary deadline.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, at the same time, the government is spending $8 million worth of tax dollars fighting the victims of Agent Orange in the foliage spraying by taking them to court over the class action lawsuit, because he is right, only 3,000 people have been compensated, but the Conservatives promised that over 300,000 would be compensated.
The truth is that thousands of veterans, civilians and their families have been denied any assistance by the government.
 I would like the parliamentary secretary to look into the camera and tell Bette Hudson of Widows on the Warpath of New Brunswick why she and thousands of others are being denied assistance by the Conservative government.
Greg Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I will take it as a compliment that this is the only government that decided to move on this very important file. For many years these people were left out there with no hope, no answer and no program.
 Unfortunately, it did come late and many of the files were not available to help out, but we are fully committed to helping every victim of Agent Orange in any way we can because our veterans deserve that.
Securities IndustryMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance's absurd plan to have a single securities commission is floundering, while Alberta and Saskatchewan are looking at the possibility of creating a joint securities commission. Concerns about the minister's plan are clearly growing. 
As of right now, Quebec and five provinces have expressed opposition to the plan. That is a lot of opposition. Frankly, this plan is very divisive. What is the minister waiting for to abandon this plan?
Jim Flaherty: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this plan is optional for the provinces. I am happy that 10 provinces and territories are on board .
This is an optional plan. If Quebec does not want to join the plan, that is okay. If Alberta does not want to join the plan, that is okay.
I am surprised to see the suggestion in the press that Alberta wants to create a common regulator with Saskatchewan, because it has taken the position that it does not need a common regulator. However, that is okay and that inconsistency is okay also. Everyone has a choice in Canada and it is a good thing for the country.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, no one, except in Ontario, is interested in a Canada-wide securities commission.
The evidence is growing daily. Does the minister not think that he should abandon his Supreme Court challenge to strip Quebec of its financial autonomy and give up on this plan that no one is interested in, no one besides his Bay Street buddies, that is?
Jim Flaherty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking nonsense. Where there is an optional plan where there is a choice, how can it be said by any reasonable person that any province is losing anything? Any province or territory that does not want to join a Canadian securities regulator may choose not to join the Canadian securities regulator. That is it, that is all.
CensusMs. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from an order paper question, we learned that over 700 different clients and over 50 federal government agencies have all bought reports to develop policies and deliver programs to help aboriginals, visible minorities, the disabled, seniors, women and unemployed workers. There has been an outcry from across the country, including cities like Brampton and regions like Peel, to save the census. Why are they being ignored? Why are ethnic communities and minorities being abandoned in Canada? Why are they being left to fend for themselves?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, speaking of part of an outcry here, I have a letter written by the Liberal member of Parliament for Richmond Hill in 2006 to the then industry minister where he was hearing an outcry from his constituents. He writes that they are primarily concerned with the great deal of personal information they are required to fill out and therefore potential invasion of privacy. He says, “I share this constituent's concern”.
We will no longer threaten Canadians with jail time and fines because they do not want to tell the government what their religion is.
Ruby Dhalla: Mr. Speaker, it is not about threatening Canadians, it is about helping minority communities in Canada. I would encourage the member to look at a letter that I have written to the Minister of Industry on behalf of the cities like Brampton and the region of Peel. We have 297 government bodies, 232 businesses, 66 non-profit organizations and 54 health and social service agencies all across the country that need the data and use the data.
Why is the government ignoring the facts, because the fact is that the census is helping minority communities? Why are the Conservatives silencing the voices of Canada's minorities?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that it is not about threatening Canadians, but what happens to new Canadians who do not want to tell the government what their religion is? What happens is that an enumerator fills out what is called a total refusal form. At the top of the form it says that the information provided in the following sections may be used to support a legal prosecution. The other line the enumerator fills out asks for a description of the person who refused, for example, age, gender, height, weight, other physical details, such as facial hair, tattoos, glasses, birthmarks, distinctive clothing, et cetera.
I would say that seems a little heavy-handed approach for someone who does not want to tell the government what his or her religion is.
Product SafetyMr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, across North America today marks Black Friday, the beginning of the holiday shopping season. Bill C-36, Canada's updated product safety legislation, passed by the House with all-party support, is being held hostage in the Senate for a second time in the past 14 months. Canadians need up to date product safety legislation now. Our children should not be opening toys this Christmas laced with cadmium.
Will the Senate again be obstructionist and act in contravention of the House, or will it respect the will of the House and pass Bill C-36 before the holidays?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, Canadians should have confidence in the consumer products that they buy and the best way to do that and to ensure that countries and their importers comply is to pass our Canadian consumer product safety bill, Bill C-36. We are eagerly awaiting the passage of the bill in the Senate and we hope this time around the Liberal senators will not hold it up.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, it is not the colour of the unelected senators' tie, it is whether they will respect the will of the House. 
The protection of our children should be paramount to the government. Parents have a right to know that the products they are giving their children are safe and toxin free. This is why the government needs to ensure that Bill C-36 is passed before Christmas. 
Will the government show some leadership and tell its unelected bagmen in the Senate to adopt this important legislation for the safety of our children?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely astonishing that the NDP, on one hand, would complain about the Senate of Canada and then, on the other hand, not agree to support our legislation to reform the Senate.
We have been trying to get the NDP and all opposition parties to support our reforms to the Senate for many months. I cannot find anything more hypocritical than a member of the NDP saying, on the one hand, that the Senate is bad and yet he will not try to make it good.
Public SafetyMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week, the public safety committee heard from witnesses on an important bill that would eliminate pardons on serious crimes. Committee members heard from ex-cons who want to leave the pardon system as is. It also heard from first-hand victims who said that while criminals' jail terms may end, their suffering lasts a lifetime.
Would the Minister of Public Safety tell the House how this bill would make repeat offenders more accountable?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, a criminal's right should not come first in our criminal justice system. As I said at the public safety committee, we need to draw the line somewhere. Our proposals are tough but reasonable and would make repeat offenders more accountable to victims for their crimes.
We call upon the opposition to support Bill C-23B, a bill that would deny child sex offenders the right to ever receive a pardon.
Canadian Somali CommunityRob Oliphant: Mr. Speaker, I recently met with the Ottawa Orléans Somali Community Organization. It shared its deep concern about the current situation for the Somali community in Ontario, particularly youth.
In Ottawa, where over 8,000 of them live, more than 60% of Somalis live below the poverty line. Understandably, they are worried about the future of their kids. They lack the necessary language training, settlement services, educational and recreational opportunities to thrive here.
What will the government do to help Somali Canadians in Ontario?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern the member opposite has raised about the Somali community in Ottawa. We have taken a number of measures through the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to support these important members of our community.
We have also worked with the provincial government and have come to a better agreement with respect to immigration settlement funding. For far too long, Ontario did not get its fair share under the previous Liberal government, but now it is getting a substantial amount more. A significant amount of work is still required to be done and we will continue to work hard on this.
Official LanguagesMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the most recent report by the Commissioner of Official Languages concerning the Olympic Games in Vancouver confirms that the government has once again failed in its duty by not including linguistic clauses in the contribution agreements to provide more of a framework for organizations that receive funding. 
With preparations underway for the Canada Games in Halifax and the Pan American Games in Toronto, will the minister act in accordance with his responsibilities and ensure that the linguistic rights of francophones are respected?
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, we will read the report once it is released by the Commissioner of Official Languages and we will take the time needed to review his recommendations.
We will continue working with the commissioner, as we have always done, in order to support Canada's two official languages.
Employment InsuranceMalcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, in the communities of my riding, where thousands have lost their jobs, unemployment rates are among the highest in the country and yet less than one-third of unemployed Ontarians qualify for EI benefits. The extended benefit pilot project was reinstated to 21 regions facing high unemployment but the communities I represent were excluded by the government.
When will the government end this regional discrimination and commit to extending the same EI benefits to hard hit communities in Ontario?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, throughout the recession, we did make special arrangements to help those who were most affected by the global economic downturn. We did provide five extra weeks of benefits right across the country. We took a pilot project and made it national. We also provided extra support for long-tenured workers because we recognized that it would take longer for them to get back to work.
Most of the changes in our economic action plan were designed to be targeted, timely and temporary through the worst of the recession. We are trying to help Canadians. It is too bad the NDP never supports any of our efforts.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, lower approval rates at the independent Immigration and Refugee Board are sending a clear message to human smugglers and to those who jump the queue: if people come to Canada improperly, the Government of Canada will send them back. It also underscores the need for the opposition to support legislation currently in front of the House that would combat those who would undermine the integrity of our immigration system and undermine the confidence that Canadians have in this system.
 Will the government update the House on the status of this legislation?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, certainly Bill C-49, our tough legislation to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system, gives us the tools we need to stop illegal smuggling boats. Longer detention will keep our streets safer. Preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining sponsoring relatives for five years reduces the incentive to queue jump. Finally, we will have the tools under our criminal law to pursue and punish the captain and crew.
 We did it with Bill C-11, refugee reform legislation. We did it with Bill C-35, dealing with crooked immigration consultants. Let us work together to get this bill through the House.
Rob Oliphant: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader and the government are long on words but short on action.
 If they are committed to helping Somali Canadians, why have they failed to deliver the funds promised under the Canada–Ontario immigration agreement? As this agreement expired, the Conservative government withheld $207 million under the agreement. Almost half of Canada's immigrants settle in Ontario and the government is letting us down.
When will the government pay its bill? When will it sit down with Ontario and negotiate a new agreement? That is $207 million.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, this government is going to make no apologies for the amount of settlement funding that we have put in place since we were elected in 2006. Whether it is Ontario or any other province in this country, every province and every community has benefited from the settlement funding that it requires to do what is necessary, versus what the previous administration did, which was absolutely nothing. In fact, it cut settlement funding.
What we are doing now is ensuring, especially with Ontario, that we have a deal in place that serves the needs of the people in the province of Ontario. We are more than open for negotiations and they are happening right now.
Guaranteed Income SupplementMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when we asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development why the government refused to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $110 a month, we were told that the government is already helping seniors through the TFSA, as though our most vulnerable citizens have the means to play the stock market with their GIS cheques.
How can the Conservative government be so out of touch with the reality facing our seniors?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we have done a great deal to help seniors. That is why we have one of the world's lowest levels of poverty among seniors. The GIS is automatically adjusted when the consumer price index increases. We have also increased the exemption credit twice and the Bloc Québécois voted against this initiative to help the seniors who built our country.
TaxationMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people from Thunder Bay to Rainy River woke up this morning to more than 15 centimetres of snow. They are also feeling the burden of the Conservatives' HST. Snow removal now costs 8% more. Home heating is up 8% too. This means that people already hit by the economic downturn will also face colder days and dangerous sidewalks.
If the HST is so great, why is it already causing so much harm to the people of northern Ontario?
Jim Flaherty: Mr. Speaker, I knew the taxation was responsible for some things. I did not know it was responsible for snowfall in Thunder Bay in the winter.
The HST is a provincial responsibility. Provinces can decide to harmonize or not. Some provinces have. This is a decision that the provinces make. 
The sales tax that we have federally is called the GST. We have reduced it from 7% to 6% to 5%, as we promised in the last election. Promises made, promises kept. 
Every time we want to reduce taxes, the NDP votes against it.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte is rising on a point of order.
Points of OrderGerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during the course of question period, I will be seeking unanimous consent to table documents that are in direct reference to the government's recent decision to amend the OAS regulations to exclude RRIF funds from an optional exercise of the calculation for purposes of the guaranteed income supplement.
Specifically I would like to table five items.
 One is a recent letter that I referred to during question period, from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to a constituent of mine. This letter indicates that she understood the program, accepted the program and defended the program. It is the same program that she now says she knows nothing about.
The second item is on the regulations, the actual revisions to the functional guidance given to members of Service Canada in revising the program. This is dated May 17, 2010. These are the functional guidance orders that the minister authorized to amend the program that she says she knows nothing about.
The third item is a court case, which the minister refers to in her letters to my constituent. One is the case of Ellen Ward, made January 11, 2008 by Justice Hershfield. When we talk about whether or not the minister was aware of this, I will read the following for the relevance of members so that they understand whether to accept that or not: 
 [I]t may be necessary for the appropriate policy and legislative department of government to revisit the subject provision with a view to ensuring that it operates in a manner that reflects the policies of government in an intelligible way and in a way that does not discriminate against one group of retired persons...[versus] another 
These are all relevant documents that I am sure hon. members will want to have tabled in the House.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  There is no consent.
The hon. Minister of Natural Resources also has a point of order.
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know that during question period, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine misled the House by referring to a report on which I had been questioned last December. There was an investigation report, and I said at the time that it would be made public shortly.
The member is alleging today that this report had to do with the renovations to the West Block, which is completely false. I never said that in the House. The report was about the actions of an official at Public Works and Government Services Canada. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons even said as much in response to previous questions, and the report has been posted on the Public Works and Government Services website.
Either the member is completely unaware of the facts or she simply did not do her homework. Gratuitous allegations like the ones she has made damage an institution for no reason, but more importantly, they mislead the House. She should immediately withdraw what she said.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this point of order.
At the time, I was the member who questioned the Minister of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of the Liberal Party. I asked him about an internal investigation at Public Works and Government Services Canada and I also asked him whether there had been any interference in the awarding of the contract for the renovations to the north tower of the West Block. Those two issues were quite often dealt with together in my questions and in the responses from the Minister of Natural Resources, who was Minister of Public Works and Government Services at the time.
It was in response to one of my questions—and this can be checked in Hansard—that the minister said there would be a report. That should be checked in Hansard. I suggest my colleagues check that. I will also check it, and I think the minister should as well. Then we can talk about this again. 
The Speaker: I am sure there will be further submissions on this point. We will deal with it if necessary when other submissions have been made.

Routine Proceedings
PetitionsMr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that calls on Parliament to pass Bill C-510, Roxanne's Law, a law that will help stop coercion against pregnant women, coercion to make those pregnant women end their pregnancy.
This is an important law that I am hopeful will get passed. This petition is calling for that.
Jim Maloway: 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.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
A number of citizens in that riding have concerns around child pornography, and they are suggesting some changes in the Criminal Code to reflect both mandatory minimum sentences and actually changing the wording to include “child sex and abuse materials”, significant changes to the Criminal Code to protect our children.
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous folks across this country about banning asbestos.
In my earlier career I had the opportunity to represent the widow of a member of my union who had died of mesothelioma. His disease was caused by and attributed to asbestos in the workplace. We won that claim, but the gentleman had been dead for nine years. It took four years subsequent to his death to actually win that claim.
For the workers around the world who are exposed to asbestos, the petitioners are saying, “Let us ban it”. What they are also saying is that they understand the hardship the workers who are actually in the asbestos business and who are mining asbestos will face. We need a just transition for them, as well.
I present this petition on behalf of not only those workers who have had mesothelioma and have it today, but also for those who have passed and for those workers who are working in that industry who indeed deserve to have a just transition from what they do now to their next career.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition to ban asbestos. The petition is signed by dozens of people from right across Canada.
As we know, asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos. Canada spends millions subsidizing the asbestos industry.
The petitioners call for the ban of asbestos in all forms, the ending of all government subsidies of asbestos both in Canada and abroad, and that we stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos.
In my former career, I had the unfortunate opportunity of working with asbestos. I have regularly been tested in the past for asbestosism, so I know exactly what these petitioners are asking.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has 14 minutes left to conclude his remarks.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue my comments on Bill C-41, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.
Before question period, I was referencing the need to strike a balance when it comes to military justice. It is absolutely critical.
We have seen a lot of changes in our military. We have seen the merging of the Canadian Forces from three distinct groupings into one umbrella organization. There has been a lot of flux and change within the Canadian Forces, not just in the mandate but in the way in which they have been resourced and how they are organized. One of the things that has not kept up with the changes is military justice, and that is what this bill is about.
As I said before question period, I want to make it known that we support sending this bill to committee after second reading, so the committee can look at the legislation and propose improvements and perhaps amendments. Essentially what we are talking about here is modernizing the military justice system.
It is important to recognize the work that was done back in 2003 by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Hon. Antonio Lamer, who has since passed away. He made a lot of recommendations, not just on modernizing military justice but in other areas as well. He made 88 recommendations, most of which pertain to military justice and the rest to the oversight of certain bodies of the Canadian Forces, such as the Military Police Complaints Commission, which we have discussed quite often both in this House and outside of this place.
We did not get to all of his recommendations in this House. Essentially what we are trying to do with this legislation is to finish the recommendations that he had put forward. Some of the things include providing a greater flexibility in sentencing, including the introduction of intermittent sentences that extend the limitation period for liability claims by Canadian Forces members, and a number of other measures that bring the Canadian military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. 
Summary trials is one aspect of the military justice system. They are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial, and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer.
I mentioned the experiences of my father and grandfather when they served in the military. There was an understanding that they had to take orders and follow certain conduct. One of the things they would have wanted to see would be a modernization of the way in which discipline is assessed. Certainly when charges are brought forward against members of the forces, they should be accorded similar supports that they would be afforded in civilian trials under the Criminal Code.
As I mentioned before, there needs to be a balance between members of the military having to abide by certain codes of conduct that are obviously different from those that apply to public servants here in Ottawa, and their being afforded similar rights, if not exactly the same at least in outcome, for any trials they are involved in. If we leave out of the military justice system the same protections that would be afforded to citizens in a similar kind of scenario within our criminal justice system, then we have not struck the right balance.
We have to establish that. Within the military justice system, how do we ensure there is access to counsel and to the same kinds of processes that exist within our civilian system? When we look at the consequences, what will follow members of the Canadian Forces if there is discipline?
Right now, the concern is if discipline is handed out to someone in the Canadian Forces and the person has been found guilty of a certain crime within the code, would that individual have anything on his or her record in the civilian system? Would something languish and affect the individual negatively? That has to be understood.
The grievance procedure has to be overhauled. Right now there is a lack of access for those in the Canadian Forces who have been subject to a military trial. If there is no appeal, it is very difficult to say it is a fair system. It is hoped that a lot of these things will be addressed. Most people would see it as something we can work on in a multi-partisan way in order to modernize the act.
There must be access to justice in all of our institutions. If there are insufficient supports to counsel, then we will have a vastly insufficient system of justice for members of the Canadian Forces when we compare them to those who are under civilian oversight.
Summary justice for military conduct is understood as something one signs on to in terms of the military, but we also know that for people who are subject to military tribunals or justice, there are insufficient processes as it relates to our modern justice system particularly when we look at the charter. If we are to do this well, we need to hear from people who have studied this. 
As I mentioned, the work that was done by former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer is important, but we also need to hear from those who have looked at how to modernize other jurisdictions to ensure we get the balance right. If we are able to do that and hear sufficient evidence from witnesses, we will be able to improve the bill by ensuring the aspirational aspects to modernize military justice will be found and strengthen the notion of what it means to have a fair trial within the military.
If we look at the history of the military and how it relates to the conduct of soldiers and how the accountability measures are put in place, it is clear to anyone who has looked at this that we are out of date in terms of what the processes are. When we looked at this in a previous Parliament, there was an attempt to get this moving. 
Sadly, there was an election which most Canadians did not see coming. We believed the government was going to abide by its own legislation on fixed date elections, but it did what it has done too often and ignored its own legislation, even though it was a promise made by the Conservatives in an election. The government forced its proposal on us and then took it away because of its actions. That was the case in the 2006 to 2008 period when this legislation was in front of us. 
It is important to understand that if this is going to be done, it needs the government's backing, not just by putting a proposal in front of Parliament and saying, “Here it is, this is what we support”, but by the government wanting to work with other members of this place to ensure this legislation gets through. It would be unfortunate if this bill died on the order paper and we were not able to modernize military justice. I do not have to tell members the need for it. We have seen some very sensational cases recently involving members of the military. It is important that there be a balance between ensuring that the military is able to behave and organize itself in a way that it sees fit, but at the same time in a way that falls in line with the justice system of this country.
In conclusion, if it is the intent of the government to modernize military justice, I think it will have a lot of support from members of all parties. However, the government must be open to ensuring that the rights of the accused would be supported, similar to that in a civil situation.
 If the government is serious about modernizing the military justice system, we need to ensure that at committee the government is willing to listen to other parties, that the government is willing to support amendments based on sound evidence from witnesses. In that way, we can get the bill back to this place and ensure that the modernization process which started back in 1998 is completed in 2011.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. This is best saved for committee but there are number of areas that he brought up which in fact have already been addressed, but that will become clear at committee. 
I want to read a quote from former Chief Justice Lamer:
 Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence. 
 That being said, obviously there is always room for improvement. There is always room for modernization.
Would my hon. colleague agree that we are starting from a foundation of a system that is basically fair and just and has served us well for many years?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the notion that we have a system that has tried to be fair and just in its delivery. The problem has been its structure. We have to catch up to the changes within our own Constitution when we look at the charter, for instance.
I think what Chief Justice Lamer was doing at the time is essentially what the parliamentary secretary said. He was acknowledging the spirit of what had been in place, but he was also underlining the fact that we need to catch up with the changes within our own Constitution and to ensure that the rights that are afforded civilians are afforded to our military. As I said in my speech, that is the balance we are trying to strike. I would agree with the parliamentary secretary on that. I would also note that it is important to capture the fact that he believed it was urgent that we modernize our system and ensure we get the balance right.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, picking up on the comments of the parliamentary secretary, in 1992 Chief Justice Lamer said:
 Recourse to the ordinary criminal courts would, as a general rule, be inadequate to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military. There is thus a need for separate tribunals to enforce special disciplinary standards in the military. 
Essentially he was talking about a separate system of military justice developed to deal expeditiously and fairly with service offences while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and meeting the expectations of all Canadians, not just those in the military.
Would the amendments that are being proposed here serve to enhance the independence and the effectiveness of military judges and their role in the military justice system?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I used the word “balance” a number of times in my comments. If we do not pay attention to strengthening the rights of the accused and access to things like counsel of their choice to ensure they have access to transcripts, some of the most basic fundamentals in justice, and if we do not have that as part of the reforms, then we will have failed. 
On the one hand, it is important to note that there needs to be an understanding of the separate nature of the military in terms of its conduct. On the other hand, we need to ensure that we do not discriminate when it comes to the rights afforded all citizens of our country. That is where we have to be very clear on what our intentions are and what the outcomes are when this legislation gets to committee.
Jim Maloway: 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.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: I would, Mr. Speaker, and I would start off with the importance of reflecting in military justice what exists in the regular system under the Criminal Code and civilian justice. When we look at victim impact statements, access to evidence and the ability of the victims or the accused to access resources, those are lacking and they are required.
The statistics that were just cited by my colleague from Winnipeg would indicate that there is an increase. If we are talking about an increase between 2008 and 2009 of the number of summary trials, and this is the database that we have before us, we are looking at over 2,000 between 2007 and 2008. If we go back from that date, it is 506. There is a major proliferation.
 Why is that happening and how are we going to deal with it? At committee, we will need to hear how these cases are dealt with, how the structure handles it and, most important, what changes need to be made to modernize it.
If we are using a system and a structure that is antiquated and yet it is being given more and more to deal with, then we have to look at not only the resources available to deal with that, which I know is an issue within the military, but also the structures with which we are having to deal.
Finally, when we have seen changes in law from the government, it often forgets that when we change the law, we also have to ensure we provide the resources on the ground, be it at the provincial level or in this case for the military. 
The Conservatives are great on the wedge politics of using justice issues and changing laws, but the resources they are providing to support the changes in law are very scant . That is yet another thing about which we have to be vigilant. The changes, as reflected by my colleague's intervention on the proliferation of cases, will also be commensurate with the resources that are provided for the military to deal with this. That is an issue we will have to deal with at committee as well.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I will try to raise this in the form of a question, but in the wake of the Somali experience, there was obviously concern about the efficiency of the summary trial system. As a result, the amendments made by Bill C-25, which is coming into effect, confidence in that system was restored and summary trials were returned to their place of importance in the whole process. That is one reason for the increase.
The other thing is we have more people in the Canadian Forces and we do much more difficult ops. Afghanistan is a big factor in that. There are more summary trials because of the kinds of things that arise on those kinds of deployments. This is an answer to that question.
The simple fact is the system is not antiquated. The system is still effective. It needs updating and that is what we are doing.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, when we acknowledge we need to modernize, it usually means something is antiquated. I will not get into too much of a semantic argument with the parliamentary secretary because that probably will not serve anyone any justice at all.
However, it needs to be recognized that our system needs to be updated to reflect what happens with civilian justice. Anyone who is looking at it will realize that, and we are trying to achieve that on this side.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-41. This bill was introduced on June 16, 2010, to amend provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system. 
 The amendments, among other things, provide for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement; permit the appointment of part-time military judges; specify the objectives and principles of the sentencing process; provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution; modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person; and modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods. 
The text of this bill, beyond what I just listed on military justice, also sets out the Canadian Forces provost marshal’s duties and functions and clarifies his or her responsibilities. It also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the military grievances external review committee. 
Finally, it makes amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process and makes consequential amendments to other acts.
The Bloc Québécois wants Bill C-41 to be studied in committee. It is true that the purpose of this bill is to improve the military justice system by enhancing judicial independence, but we lean heavily in favour of the healthy administration of justice. Accordingly, we are in favour of any initiative to enhance impartiality and the quality of judges and courts. However, this bill is long and complex and it contains a number of other measures. That is why we are calling for it to be studied in committee, in order to have witnesses inform our decisions.
I will try to put this into context. Military justice reform dates back to 1997 and stems from two reviews. First, a special advisory group received a mandate to study the code of service discipline set out in the National Defence Act. Then, the commission of inquiry into the deployment of Canadian forces to Somalia was asked to review how to handle the actions of certain soldiers sent to that country.
The two resulting reports led the government to introduce Bill C-25, which went into effect in 1998. This bill amended the National Defence Act by abolishing the death penalty in the military justice system; incorporating civilian parole ineligibility provisions; creating the Canadian Forces Grievance Board; creating the Military Police Complaints Commission; strengthening the independence of military judges by making changes to the terms of their appointment, their qualifications and their tenure; and creating new positions within the military justice system in order to separate the investigative function from the prosecution and defence functions. 
Clause 96 of Bill C-25 provided for an independent review every five years in order to examine the amendments to the National Defence Act. That was in 1997. With this in mind, the federal government appointed a former Supreme Court justice, Antonio Lamer, to conduct the first review. He presented his report to Parliament in March 2003.
In this report, Justice Lamer observed that “Canada's military justice system generally works very well, subject to a few changes.” Consequently, he made 88 recommendations to improve military justice, especially in the areas of arrest procedures and pre-trial detention, procedures for proceeding by indictment, the structure of the court and sentencing. He recommended that the rights of the accused be more in line with those in a civil court so they could choose the type of court martial, and that the finding of court martial panels be arrived at by unanimous vote. The purpose of another recommendation was to strengthen the independence of the principal intervenors in the military justice system and to improve the grievance and military police complaints processes.
In order to implement the recommendations of Justice Lamer and amend the National Defence Act, the government introduced Bill C-45 on August 27, 2006, but it died on the order paper.
So the government introduced Bill C-7, which was identical to Bill C-45, on March 3, 2008, and it died on the order paper when the election was called in the fall of 2008. Of course Bill C-45, which had been introduced on August 27, 2006, died on the order paper when the election was called in December 2006.
In April 2008, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case of R. v. Trépanier. At issue was the possibility of choosing the type of court martial. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada ruled that a provision of the National Defence Act that gave the court martial administrator exclusive authority to select the type of court martial was unconstitutional. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada found that it was unacceptable that the accused could not chose the kind of court martial that would judge him or her. 
Following that ruling, the federal government introduced Bill C-60 to accomplish the following: to more closely align the manner in which the mode of trial by courts martial is determined with the approach in the civilian criminal justice system, while still satisfying the unique needs of the military justice system; to reduce the types of courts martial from four to two; to allow military judges to deal with certain pre-trial matters at any time after a charge has been preferred; and to require court martial panels to make key decisions on the basis of a unanimous vote. 
Bill C-60 passed in the House on June 18, 2008.
Bill C-41 is a new version of Bill C-45 and therefore fits into the notion of general reform with a view to implementing Justice Lamer's recommendations.
Bill C-41 before us here today is a new version of Bill C-45 and, once again, aims to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations. A closer look at Bill C-41 reveals that it fits into the broad military justice reform that began in 1998, as I mentioned. It contains several provisions.
First, it contains a number of provisions concerning military judges, which I will list. It provides judges with tenure until their retirement, grants judges immunity from liability as granted to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, grants the chief military judge the authority to establish rules of practice and procedure with the Governor in Council's approval, improves the system's flexibility by appointing part-time military judges from a panel of reserve force military judges, and stipulates that in order to be appointed as a judge, the member must have served as an officer for at least 10 years.
There are provisions in Bill C-41 concerning summary trials. For one, in terms of the limitation period, charges must be laid within six months after the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the trial must commence within one year after the offence was committed. The accused person may waive the limitation period established for summary trials.
There are other provisions related to the court martial panel. In the majority of cases, the rank required in order to sit as the senior member of a panel would be lowered from colonel to lieutenant-colonel. As well, the pool of Canadian Forces members eligible to sit on a General Court Martial panel would be enlarged, and the number of non-commissioned members would increase from two to three for the trial of a non-commissioned member.
In addition to these provisions, Bill C-41 would reform military justice by putting additional restrictions on the power to arrest without warrant, by extending the limitation period from six months to two years in terms of civil responsibility, by granting the Chief of the Defence Staff the authority to cancel an improper release or transfer if the member consents, by indicating that the role of Canadian Forces provost marshal is provided for in the National Defence Act as well as by setting out his responsibilities and ties to the Canadian Forces chain of command and by requiring the provost marshal to provide the Chief of the Defence Staff with an annual report on his activities and those of the military police.
Lastly, Bill C-41 would protect individuals who file any type of complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission and would require the provost marshal to resolve conduct complaints or to close cases within 12 months. 
This is clearly an impressive and important bill. Once again, that is why the Bloc Québécois wants to discuss it in more detail in committee and wants to bring in witnesses with expertise in military justice so that they can provide some insight.
There are other arguments. The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to keeping military justice separate from civilian justice. It makes sense for the Canadian armed forces to have its own justice system, in light of the particularities of military life and military requirements. It is absolutely necessary to have discipline within an army. Without that discipline, we would lose any sense of structure and effectiveness.
Since the primary goal of our armed forces is to protect the safety of Canadians, this issue is vitally important. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized this principle in 1992, in the Généreux decision, which I will quote:
 The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians [and Quebeckers] depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Service Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs. In addition, special service tribunals, rather than the ordinary courts, have been given jurisdiction to punish breaches of the Code of Service Discipline. Recourse to the ordinary criminal courts would, as a general rule, be inadequate to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military. 
I repeat, that was a quote from the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the Généreux case. The Bloc Québécois subscribes to the principle of keeping military justice separate from civilian justice.
There are also offences in the Code of Service Discipline that have no equivalents in civilian justice. I am thinking of offences such as disobeying a command or a superior officer. Military justice applies to three categories of people: military personnel in the regular forces, reservists and civilians who work with military personnel on missions. But although military justice is necessary, people who join the Canadian Forces do not lose their rights, including their Charter rights.
For 12 years, a great deal of thought was given to modernizing military justice to bring it more in line with civilian justice. In its May 2009 report, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs wrote the following:
 ...the military, as an organization, benefits when the rules that govern it largely reflect those that apply to Canadian society in general. 
The Bloc Québécois feels it is useful and necessary to reform military justice. Obviously, we have some fears and also some suggestions. As I said, the Bloc Québécois wants this bill to be sent to committee so that we can call the appropriate expert witnesses. But we feel that justice must prevail at all levels of society, and justice often depends on police work. We are afraid that because the provost marshal can be reappointed, he will not want to delve too deeply into something that could ruffle feathers among the defence staff. The Bloc Québécois will ensure that this does not happen, and we will introduce amendments to correct this situation.
Once again, when we have a complex bill before us, we need to take the time to do the necessary analyses and studies. This is the case with this bill. The provost marshal, who is the person who will ultimately be in charge of military justice within the armed forces, will have a renewable term. We need to look at that.
Why must this mandate be renewable when judges are appointed until they retire? We must then consider how this would affect the provost marshal's work. Would he give the defence staff less firm direction because his mandate is renewable? Would he be more sensitive when a case involves defence staff? It would be to our advantage to ask these questions in committee.
It is important that the listening public understands how this works. Committee work is of the utmost importance to the operation of any parliament, whether it be the British model or any other parliament in the world. Witnesses may appear before the House of Commons only in very exceptional circumstances. Generally speaking, with only a few exceptions, witnesses appear before committees.
It is therefore important that the national defence committee take all the time required to analyze Bill C-41 and examine all of its ins and outs. It is true that military justice must become more like civilian justice, simply so that citizens can understand how military justice works and relate to it. If the military justice system is completely different from the civilian justice system, citizens will not understand it and might question all the work done by our military personnel. Thus, this is a very important issue.
This work began in 1998. Some bills were deferred or came to an abrupt halt when an election was called. We must now—and I hope we will have time—deal with this issue before the next election campaign.
I am interested in responding to the questions of my fellow members. Once again, the Bloc Québécois supports sending this bill to committee for improvement. We hope to convince members of other parties of the benefits of the improvements we would like to make to it. 
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, sending it to committee in this particular case would certainly create a great deal of analysis, I would hope, especially regarding the judges, providing for security of tenure for military judges until their retirements, permitting the appointment of part-time military judges. Certainly the amendments to be made give it its independence over its own jurisdiction but, at the same time, make sure it adheres to all the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill also deals with increasing eligibility in court martial panel selection by allowing any officer, or non-commissioned member with at least three years of service in the Canadian Forces, to serve on a panel, indeed, and deals with amending panel composition in courts martial involving non-commissioned members. There we see that the marriage of the two certainly is desirable not only by the Canadian Forces but by all of us certainly.
The hon. member made a couple of comments that justice must reign on all levels. The government is certainly eager to send this to committee to do the appropriate analysis and amendments to correct things, starting with the analysis. I commend him on that. He gave some good illustrations as to what needs to be addressed.
 One of the items he mentioned was the situation with the provost marshal. There is an amendment in place that sets out the duties and functions of the Canadian Forces provost, and it certainly is a good thing to be doing, but he mentions that the term of the provost must be renewable. The government seems to have questions about that.
I was wondering if he could delve into that a little further as to the appropriate reasons why having this renewable term, which I believe he says lacks expertise, is necessary in this particular piece of legislation.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with my colleague's question because it will allow me to clarify things. I hope that my speech was not misunderstood. We see an issue with a renewable mandate for the provost marshal. If judges are irremovable, why is the provost marshal not? That is the kind of question that needs to be studied in committee.
We believe we will have a chance to hear from military justice experts. There is some inconsistency with having military judges be irremovable—they are appointed until they retire—but having the provost marshal be removable and replaceable. Will the fact that he must be reappointed, that he is not irremovable, prevent him from doing his work? Under certain conditions, in certain cases, could he push the Chief of the Defence Staff to reappoint him?
Those are the kinds of questions that need to be asked in committee and of the Department of National Defence officials who made this recommendation. They are the ones who made the recommendations to the minister, and he approved them. I hope that the minister asked the right questions. In any event, if he did not, the Bloc Québécois will be able to ask the right questions in committee.
Jim Maloway: 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.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of some parts of Bill C-41. That is why we wish to study it in detail in committee. The measure to protect persons who file a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission is a good one. A member of the Canadian Forces who files a complaint should not be subject to retribution. However, we must ensure that there is appropriate oversight for this measure.
With regard to the first question posed by my colleague, he is referring to a document given to him by the parliamentary secretary barely an hour ago. The study is off to a bad start. If some members or political parties have information that others do not, we are getting off to a bad start. I can understand that the Conservative Party has its own way of governing. We are trying to keep up with them. There may be a saying that goes like this: politics has its reasons, which reason knows nothing of.
When I see what the Conservatives are doing, there is surely no sense to it. They give documents to one party and not to the others. If it is true that my colleague received the documents from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence an hour ago, it is difficult for me to comment on them at this point. I hope that the Conservatives, when they have documents available, will provide a copy to all parties. That would allow us to move forward on the issues. If they continue in this manner, I can understand why it is difficult for them to be respected by the other parties in the House of Commons.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: 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—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: I will need to stop the member there to allow the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel a chance to answer.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I see that this report is probably available and it is possible that my colleagues who sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence already have it. I am not a member of that committee.
For the rest, and as far as increasing sentences is concerned, these are questions that could be asked of the government in committee. If sentences are increased, we will have to consider why and see how, through this bill, we could influence later decisions.
One thing is clear: the Bloc Québécois wants military justice to look more and more like civilian justice while remaining independent, something the Supreme Court recognized in 1992.
The members of the Bloc Québécois are great democrats. We are always prepared to respect court rulings. Again, we support the 1992 Supreme Court ruling and we hope we will have enough time to call on expert witnesses to improve this bill—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for more than one reason to participate in this debate dealing with amendments to the National Defence Act. 
First, the statute is in need of updating and there have been significant studies done for the purpose of preparing us for this sequence of amendments. 
Second, I had a period in my legal training where I worked for the Judge Advocate General for a couple of years and I have very vivid recollections of the applications of the National Defence Act and the complexity of it at that time.
The engagement by Canada in Afghanistan for close to 10 years now has put the National Defence Act, at least the older parts and its weaknesses, under some stress and has brought out the evident need for change and reform. It is not like we just happened to notice that it needed change. Former Chief Justice Lamer looked at this area of the military justice system a few years ago. He studied it very well and made some great recommendations, many of which are contained here.
 We should have no doubt here in the House as to the importance of getting these changes. This is not only a modernization, but it is also an adaptation to our modern standards of justice and, in that context, it is influenced by the more recent engagement of our military forces in some real war operation scenarios. 
One of the things I will keep repeating in my remarks is the complexity of the military justice system, which everyone in the armed forces will appreciate, but most Canadians on the street do not. It is complex because people who are in the armed forces are subject, of course, to the Criminal Code, but they are also subject to standing orders, special orders and discipline type rules, and the military justice system is there to enforce all of those rules. 
What kind of judge makes decisions about discipline, rules in other countries and the Criminal Code in Canada and elsewhere?
Fortunately, those people who end up making decisions about the conduct, good or bad, of Canadian Forces personnel are all well-trained. However, we need to remember that within the military justice system there are problems and incidents that range from homicides to driving a military vehicle recklessly, or not wearing one's uniform correctly or being rude to a senior officer in a conspicuous way. That is quite a range and those are not all Criminal Code offences. It is not a Criminal Code offence to be rude to a senior officer but it is an offence. However, the people who make the decisions on many of those things, we believe, are reasonably well trained. In every case, it is at least a military officer and, in some cases, it is a dedicated military judge making the decisions. 
Most of this military justice system is contained within the National Defence Act. That by itself is very complex legislation, but the components of it that deal with the military justice system are also complex. If we wanted to look back 100 years ago, justice within the military forces was probably very summary, very quick and in some cases brutal. It was handled by officers who, in the whole history of our military, had that authority to police and discipline those people over which they had command.
Some of those incidents, if we look back in time, are pretty rough and rugged. We can look back to the whole history of Canada and the British history and the military justice was very tough. Even in the first world war, there are some very compelling stories of the application of the Canadian military justice system with respect to our serving men and women. There are some very sad stories about very tough application of justice and summary decisions, executions and a very firm hand.
By the time we entered the second world war, there had been some refinements, but generally the decisions made on Criminal Code and discipline matters were made by generals, colonels and people in the higher echelons of the service. It was still pretty rough but, over time, the legal judging of military personnel became more stratified and there were scenarios where officers made disciplinary decisions and provided for punishment at an appropriate level. Then there was the concept for certain types of offences of importing a judge from outside of the unit and having a fair trial of the service member.
We can imagine how complex things can be. In Canada, under the National Defence Act, we have the two concepts of the disciplinary decision making, which involves penalties and applications of penalties and convictions, and we have the Criminal Code, where similar persons make similar types of judgments about the conduct of military personnel here. 
If there is a military person in service on a base, the National Defence Act has the authority that the person sometimes can be charged with an offence under the National Defence Act, which is really an offence under the Criminal Code. That jurisdiction was always there. When the military person was off the military base, the police outside of the base would normally take care of it. However, there were always instances where the military police on the base would come in contact with civilian police off the base and the offence itself straddled the base and civilian territory. Therefore, in Canada the enforcement of the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act has been and perhaps continues to be potentially complex.
Imagine how much more complex it is when we have personnel serving outside Canada. They can be in a foreign country on a Canadian base where there will be an agreement between Canada and that other country. They can be in a foreign country where Canada does not have an agreement with that country. They might not be on a military base. The Canadian can be serving on a ship in a port in another country. The Canadian can be serving on a ship, but be off the ship in the port in or out of uniform when a disciplinary offence or a Criminal Code offence takes place. Or the personnel could be in an aircraft. 
There are all kinds of scenarios that develop. I do not want to give the impression that Canada and the other countries have not found a way to manage all of this complexity. They have and there are treaties and agreements that deal with the complexities of who is responsible for prosecuting and whose jurisdictions prevail over which personnel.
This bill goes some distance in further clarifying when there is a prosecution under the National Defence Act. It provides a better statutory underpinning for the military police and the Canadian Forces provost marshal administration. This certainly helps those whose job it is to provide the policing and investigatory functions with a better focus and better statutory footing.
When prosecutions take place under the National Defence Act, the person who is accused of a disciplinary offence, if I could put it this way, can be tried and convicted by an officer. It has always been that way in the military. 
Fortunately now, though there did not used to be many years ago, there is an appeal process. People can appeal it up the chain of command if they think they have been dealt with too harshly. The bill makes it statutorily clear that the Chief of Defence Staff's powers are the final authority for such grievances. 
It is good to know there is a grievance system. As I recalled military history, there did not used to be a grievance system. Once a commanding officer issued a penalty, it had to be delivered on, that was the end of it and some of those penalties were quite harsh.
Other types of offences under the National Defence Act are dealt with by the highest-ranking officer. There is another category where someone is actually appointed as a judge under the National Defence Act. Most of the time these are highly-trained military personnel who are trained as lawyers and become military judges. The Judge Advocate General's department was the home of those military judges.
This statute provides for part-time military judges. It envisages, either because of a requirement for special expertise or a shortage of personnel, the bringing in of a judge from the civilian sector who would be a judge under the National Defence Act. That is a very positive thing. I am sure the core of judges with the Judge Advocate General do not mind that at all. It might help to lighten the workload.
The experience of the Judge Advocate General's department is very complex, keeping in mind all of the complexity I described before. I have mentioned the problem of someone in the forces being a prosecutor, someone else in the forces being a judge and decision maker and then another person in the forces being the person accused. There is an in-house set of relationships which seems to have worked reasonably well, but we can also envisage scenarios where there might have been problems in the relationships between the prosecutor and the judge, between the defence counsel, who is usually a military person, and the accused person who is a military person. 
Keep in mind that the military is a lot smaller than the rest of Canadian society, so there could be situations where there might have been some relationship anomalies between the parties that might have or could be seen to have an effect on the disposition of the military justice decision making.
In all fairness, the military has been fairly adjusting to this and avoiding these kind of problems. However, once in a while there can be a difficulty and the accused can feel quite aggrieved.
Again, I go back to the complexity. We can have scenarios where the military persons accused of bringing disrespect upon the forces here or abroad. We can have misuse of military equipment, and we know how much military equipment is out there. People do make mistakes. People in the forces are not allowed to make a mistake. They have to use equipment properly, whether it is a computer, a motor vehicle, a piece of armament, a ship or an aircraft. In those types of scenarios, while they are usually not criminal, they can be.
I recall a case many years ago involving the crash of a Canadian Forces helicopter. The circumstances lying behind it gave rise to suspicions of criminal negligence. Therefore, the matter was not just one of conduct, not just one of possible carelessness or poor planning, it actually became criminal. What looks like just an accident to many people, in the military justice system it can be levered up into something much more serious. It was so long ago that I cannot recall the disposition. However, I do recall the many competing values that were brought to bear on that incident. There was loss of life, loss of a valuable piece of equipment, damage and it was off a military base.
The bill would go a long distance to clarifying some of these relationships for the benefit of the military justice system. It would bring better security of tenure for military judges.
Recalling my comments about the complexity of the relationships, someone who, as a military officer, makes a decision about a disciplinary offence, even a Criminal Code offence, is still in the forces with the individual in relation to whom made the decision. It is not like in our civilian system where we really only get to see the judge during a trial. These men and women serve together in the forces. They can bump into someone for whom he or she may have made a military discipline decision or a Criminal Code summary conviction decision. They can bump into that person a year later on a military base somewhere else. 
It has been decided, quite properly, that just as we give security of tenure to our civilian judges who work to age 75, we will do the same for our military judges to ensure they have the independence from the forces, independence that they must have to do their job.
 The National Defence Act will import the principles of sentencing that currently exist in the Criminal Code. About 15 years ago we spent a lot of time developing those principles. They are in the code. As I say, the National Defence Act amendment has been delayed for so long that it has taken us now 10 or 15 years to put those principles into the National Defence Act. That is all for the better.
There are several other objectives. I am fairly confident that after the committee has a look at the bill, the House will want to give its approval.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, this will actually be in the form of a comment. I do have to clarify a couple of things that were previously brought up.
First, in response to the number of summary convictions, in the first example that was given, it was actually only for half a year, because that is when the legislation came into force. 
The Bloc member confused the role and identity of the Canadian Forces provost marshal when he was referring to the ability to renew appointments. The Canadian Forces provost marshal is not a judge; the Canadian Forces provost marshal is a police officer. So that is why there is a difference.
Second, with respect to the JAG report, the Bloc intimated that the Minister of National Defence was not performing his duties. In fact, the Minister of National Defence did table the JAG report in question on June 7, 2010. It is a public document and it is available to anybody who wishes it.
Third, with respect to the independent review, that is covered under clause 101, section 273(601)(1) of the new bill, and also under the next section of the bill it is specified very clearly that the minister shall cause the report of the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament.
I just wanted to clarify those points.
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for making the clarifications with respect to the earlier remarks of colleagues. I do not think he was referring to my comments.
I cannot disagree with anything the parliamentary secretary said. In the absence of a question, I will just repeat what I said earlier at the end of my remarks.
Jim Maloway: 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.
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, it is great to have these flashbacks on the remarks that took place previously.
The member asks a good question. I had personally thought that the sentencing guidelines and the provisions making reference to victims were already part of the military justice system. I was not aware that they were not. My recollection is that the whole Criminal Code was subsumed into the National Defence Act. Maybe it was just the offences under the Criminal Code that were subsumed into the National Defence Act and not all of the other procedural and sentencing portions.
The import of those is entirely appropriate. That is very consistent with modern-day sentencing principles used in Canada and around the world in all the developed countries. It is a very positive step forward. I kind of regret that those sentencing principles were not there before now. They are not there yet, of course, not until we pass the bill.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the member, very briefly, on why he felt it was important for him to take part in this debate.
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I try to be a contributor to the House. If everything I said did not fall perfectly within whatever everyone wanted to hear, it is not because I did not try.
My participation today, as I said, was partly related to my experience with the Judge Advocate General just a few years ago, and recognizing that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are entitled to a military justice system that is just as good as or better than the one we use for civilians.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-473, An Act to protect insignia of military orders, decorations and medals of cultural significance for future generations, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC):  moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 98, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until Wednesday, December 1, 2010, immediately before the time provided for private members business. 
It being 1:31 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.)