Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2013-04-30 13:50:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Jack Harris",
        "fr": "M. Jack Harris"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"3300312\" data-originallang=\"en\"> No. I have been here five. I was here one time before, way back in the 33rd Parliament. I was 16 years in another legislature. Second reading meant the same thing in both places, which is approval in principle, so when the Liberals voted for this legislation at second reading, they voted for approval in principle. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300313\" data-originallang=\"en\">The principles that were there then are still there today. The Liberals offered no improvements, although there were a couple of substantial improvements, one of them about summary trials. Now that the bill has been improved, they do not like it and they are going to vote against it. I do not understand that. I will let the public and members of the military try to figure out why the Liberals have changed their minds on this bill.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300314\" data-originallang=\"en\">There have been some improvements, although the system for grievances needs to be tightened up and we need to have more civilians on the board. We moved amendments to that effect. We are pleased that the act has been reviewed. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300315\" data-originallang=\"en\">We also brought forward witnesses, probably some of the most eloquent witnesses that the committee has heard from, who talked about justice in general and military justice in particular. I am speaking of a retired justice of the Federal Court of Appeal who was the former commissioner of the Somalia commission. He has a great deal of knowledge about military justice in Canada and about the operation of the military. He had some very important things to say to the committee about what is really needed. He asked for a more comprehensive review of military justice, and we reiterated that in our request. That needs to be done. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300316\" data-originallang=\"en\">I will read the suggestion from his evidence:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3300317\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Hence, my first point is there is a need for a fundamental wall-to-wall review of the National Defence Act, a review that has to be conducted outside the control of the Department of National Defence so that Parliament can be provided with a legislative proposal that addresses not only the wishes of the military leadership but also, first and foremost, the expectations of our civil society, who demand that our soldiers who serve in uniform be afforded rights equal to those provided in the civilian penal system in Canada and other militaries abroad. This is currently not the case. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3300318\" data-originallang=\"en\">We knew that. We knew that going in. I suspect that if the Liberals had listened to our speeches during second reading, and God knows we made enough of them, they would have known it at second reading when they voted in favour of the legislation and when we voted against it. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300319\" data-originallang=\"en\">We brought forward excellent, erudite, eloquent, experienced witnesses to bring home the point that there was a problem that needs to be solved. We did not expect all of the problems to be solved by amendments to the legislation; a number of the amendments we brought forward were ruled out of order, inadmissible, beyond the scope of the bill. We knew that. We brought them forward because they had to be brought forward. These were changes that had to be made. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300320\" data-originallang=\"en\">We are committed to making changes to overhaul some of these problems when we form government, but that does not mean we are prepared to throw out the baby with the bath water when we have legislation before us that brings forward changes that we had a great deal of responsibility for in urging on the government back in 2010 when Bill <a data-HoCid=\"4620437\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-41/\" title=\"An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts\">C-41</a> was brought in. When those amendments were there, they were passed in committee; they did not get passed in the House because the bill was never called before the election took place.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300321\" data-originallang=\"en\">I am here because I have devoted several years of work trying to get to where we are today. I am not going to turn my back on that progress and say to the men and women in uniform that although we got this far, we cannot support this legislation. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300322\" data-originallang=\"en\">I talked about a backward step. I do not know how often it will be used, but we did not get convincing reasons for the Provost Marshal's investigations to be under the control of the VCDS. We are not satisfied with that. As I said, at the committee we had some very significant testimony from witnesses on the issue of making sure that our soldiers, sailors and airmen receive the same kind of standards of justice as exist elsewhere. This aspect has to be fixed and improved. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300323\" data-originallang=\"en\">I only have a minute before we go to statements by members, but I believe I will be able to come back for eight minutes afterward, when I will conclude. However, I wanted to explain, in brief at least, why we are supporting this legislation today and why we see some progress being made, and to make the commitment to our soldiers, sailors and airmen that when we form government, we will go the distance and do the full job.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"3300312\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Non, j'ai bel et bien cinq ann\u00e9es d'exp\u00e9rience \u00e0 la Chambre. J'ai d\u00e9j\u00e0 si\u00e9g\u00e9 ici auparavant, lors de la 33<sup>e</sup> l\u00e9gislature. J'ai aussi si\u00e9g\u00e9 16 ans \u00e0 titre de d\u00e9put\u00e9 provincial. La deuxi\u00e8me lecture signifie la m\u00eame chose aux deux endroits. Il s'agit d'une approbation de principe. Donc, lorsque les lib\u00e9raux ont vot\u00e9 en faveur de ce projet de loi \u00e0 l'\u00e9tape de la deuxi\u00e8me lecture, ils en ont approuv\u00e9 le principe.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300313\" data-originallang=\"en\">Les principes qui valaient \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque valent toujours aujourd'hui. Les lib\u00e9raux n'ont propos\u00e9 aucune am\u00e9lioration, m\u00eame s'il y a eu quelques am\u00e9liorations substantielles, au sujet des proc\u00e8s sommaires notamment. Maintenant que le projet de loi a \u00e9t\u00e9 am\u00e9lior\u00e9, ils ne l'aiment plus et ils pr\u00e9voient voter contre. Je ne comprends pas. Je vais laisser le public et les militaires essayer de comprendre pourquoi les lib\u00e9raux ont chang\u00e9 d'id\u00e9e au sujet de ce projet de loi.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300314\" data-originallang=\"en\">Il y a eu quelques am\u00e9liorations, m\u00eame s'il faudrait resserrer le syst\u00e8me des griefs et que davantage de civils devraient faire partie du comit\u00e9 d'examen. Nous avons pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 des amendements \u00e0 cet effet. Nous sommes heureux que la loi ait fait l'objet d'un examen.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300315\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous avons aussi convoqu\u00e9 des t\u00e9moins qui comptent probablement parmi les plus \u00e9loquents \u00e0 s'\u00eatre pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s devant le comit\u00e9. Ils ont parl\u00e9 de justice en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et de justice militaire en particulier. Je pense notamment \u00e0 un juge \u00e0 la retraite de la Cour d'appel f\u00e9d\u00e9rale qui a notamment si\u00e9g\u00e9 \u00e0 la commission d'enqu\u00eate sur la Somalie. Ce magistrat est tr\u00e8s vers\u00e9 en mati\u00e8re de justice militaire canadienne et de fonctionnement du secteur militaire. Il avait des choses tr\u00e8s importantes \u00e0 dire au comit\u00e9 au sujet de ce qui est vraiment n\u00e9cessaire. Il a demand\u00e9 qu'on proc\u00e8de \u00e0 un examen plus approfondi du syst\u00e8me de justice militaire, ce que nous avons r\u00e9p\u00e9t\u00e9 dans notre demande. Cela reste \u00e0 faire. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300316\" data-originallang=\"en\">Voici ce qu'il a propos\u00e9 dans le cadre de son t\u00e9moignage:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3300317\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Le premier point de mon expos\u00e9 porte donc sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d\u2019effectuer une \u00e9tude exhaustive fondamentale de la Loi sur la d\u00e9fense nationale, mais ind\u00e9pendamment du minist\u00e8re de la D\u00e9fense nationale, pour que le Parlement re\u00e7oive une proposition l\u00e9gislative qui ne fasse pas que r\u00e9pondre aux souhaits des chefs militaires, mais aussi, et surtout, aux attentes de notre soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile. En effet, celle-ci exige que nos soldats en uniforme jouissent des m\u00eames droits que ceux que garantit le syst\u00e8me p\u00e9nal civil au Canada et d\u2019autres syst\u00e8mes militaires \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tranger. \u00c0 l'heure actuelle, ce n'est pas le cas. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3300318\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous savions cela. Nous le savions d'entr\u00e9e de jeu. Je soup\u00e7onne que si les lib\u00e9raux avaient \u00e9cout\u00e9 nos discours \u00e0 l'\u00e9tape de la deuxi\u00e8me lecture \u2014 et Dieu sait que nous en avons prononc\u00e9s suffisamment \u2014, ils l'auraient su \u00e0 ce moment-l\u00e0, lorsqu'ils ont vot\u00e9 en faveur de la mesure et que nous avons vot\u00e9 contre.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300319\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous avons fait venir des t\u00e9moins excellents, \u00e9rudits, \u00e9loquents et exp\u00e9riment\u00e9s pour faire comprendre qu'il y avait un probl\u00e8me et qu'il fallait le r\u00e9soudre. Nous ne nous attendions pas \u00e0 ce que tout soit r\u00e9gl\u00e9 parle biais d'amendements \u00e0 la mesure. Un certain nombre des amendements que nous avons pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s ont \u00e9t\u00e9 jug\u00e9s irrecevables, inadmissibles, ou au-del\u00e0 de la port\u00e9e du projet de loi. Nous le savions. Nous les avons pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s parce que c'\u00e9tait n\u00e9cessaire. Il fallait que ces changements soient apport\u00e9s.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300320\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous nous sommes engag\u00e9s \u00e0 apporter des r\u00e9formes pour supprimer ces probl\u00e8mes lorsque nous formerons le gouvernement, mais cela ne veut pas dire que nous allons p\u00e9cher par exc\u00e8s de z\u00e8le face \u00e0 une mesure qui propose des changements que nous avons fait des pieds et des mains pour convaincre le gouvernement d'adopter en 2010 lorsque le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"4620437\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-41/\" title=\"An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts\">C-41</a> a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9. Les amendements en question ont \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9s en comit\u00e9; ils n'ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9s par la Chambre parce que le projet de loi n'y a jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 avant le d\u00e9clenchement des \u00e9lections.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300321\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je suis ici parce que j'ai consacr\u00e9 plusieurs ann\u00e9es de travail pour tenter d'aboutir l\u00e0 o\u00f9 nous en sommes aujourd'hui. Je n'ai pas l'intention de tourner le dos \u00e0 ce progr\u00e8s et de dire aux hommes et aux femmes en uniforme qu'en d\u00e9pit des avanc\u00e9es actuelles, nous ne pouvons pas appuyer la mesure.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300322\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'ai parl\u00e9 d'un recul. J'ignore \u00e0 quelle fr\u00e9quence on aura recours \u00e0 cette disposition, mais nous n'avons pas entendu de raisons qui justifieraient que les enqu\u00eates du grand pr\u00e9v\u00f4t rel\u00e8vent du vice-chef d'\u00e9tat-major. Nous ne sommes pas convaincus. Comme je l'ai dit, nous avons entendu au comit\u00e9 des t\u00e9moignages tr\u00e8s persuasifs sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de s'assurer que nos soldats, nos marins et nos pilotes b\u00e9n\u00e9ficient des m\u00eames normes de justice qui existent ailleurs. Cet aspect doit \u00eatre corrig\u00e9 et am\u00e9lior\u00e9.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3300323\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je n'ai qu'une minute avant que nous passions aux d\u00e9clarations de d\u00e9put\u00e9s, mais je crois que je pourrai reprendre la parole pendant huit minutes apr\u00e8s, pour conclure. Toutefois, je tiens \u00e0 expliquer, du moins bri\u00e8vement, pourquoi nous appuyons la mesure \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude aujourd'hui et pourquoi nous constatons certains progr\u00e8s. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 r\u00e9it\u00e9rer l'engagement que nous avons pris aupr\u00e8s des soldats, des marins et des pilotes, selon lequel lorsque nous formerons le gouvernement, nous irons jusqu'au bout et nous terminerons le travail.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2013/4/30/jack-harris-3/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/jack-harris/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1063/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "p3300312",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": "Initiatives minist\u00e9rielles"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Strenghtening military justice in the defence of Canada Act",
        "fr": "Loi visant \u00e0 renforcer la justice militaire pour la d\u00e9fence du Canada"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2013/4/30/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2013%2F4%2F30%2F"
    }
}