SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 338 - Sep/18/24

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:46:10 p.m.
Watch

If the House gives its consent, I move that the 68th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

24 words

Procedure

The Speaker

Sep/18/24 3:46:25 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Sep/18/24 3:46:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a petition in respect to the Lets'emot Regional Recreation and Aquatic Centre. Lets'emot means one heart, one mind in the Halq’eme’ylem language. Local first nations, the District of Kent and the village of Harrison Hot Springs are looking for more support from the federal government. Indigenous Services Canada has told local first nations that when it wants to partner with the community, it is not possible under our Treasury Board guidelines. Why can the Treasury Board not enact policies that respect first nations, that are working hand in hand with their partners and communities to build the infrastructure we need in Canada? The petitioners want to see some action.

123 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Sep/18/24 3:47:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition today that is signed by Canadians who are very concerned about a film that has come out, which was funded by the Government of Canada through the Canada Media Fund and by TVO, called Russians at War. The film paints a nice picture of the Russians fighting in Ukraine without laying out all of the war crimes that they are committing and the illegal invasion that they have started. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to get back all of the taxpayers' money, the $345,000, that went to the film's producer, Ms. Trofimova, who was employed by Russia Today in the past, which is sanctioned by the Government of Canada. She used those monies to bring out this misinformation campaign. The petitioners are calling on the government to audit all the programs that they have currently, like the Canada Media Fund, to see how taxpayer dollars were used to further the Russians' interest right here in Canada. They are requesting that both CSIS and the RCMP do an investigation on whether or not there was any international or Canadian law, or Ukrainian law for that matter, that was violated. Finally, they want the RCMP to seize all material so that it can be used to go forward with the investigation on any war crimes that she may have captured on film but did not actually put into the documentary. The documentary is being aired now at the Toronto International Film Festival and other places in Canada.

260 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:49:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that has been signed by 1,844 Canadians regarding crisis pregnancy centres. Over 150 anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centres in Canada work to dissuade those who are pregnant from having abortions via medical misinformation and emotional manipulation. This petition calls on the government to take action on these crisis pregnancy centres and to review their charitable status.

66 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Sep/18/24 3:49:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this petition that I am presenting has attracted the signatures of over 1,236 Canadians who are very concerned about an issue relating to the culture of South India, Sri Lanka and the Tamil diaspora here in Canada. They are finding that, due to the monopolistic behaviour of movie chains, South Indian movies are not available and that some movie theatres have been subjected to recurring acts of vandalism. Specifically, Cineplex and Landmark do not play South Indian movies in their cinemas, and in the absence of these two top chains, South Indian movie lovers are made to watch these movies in substandard theatres, paying higher ticket prices. The petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada direct law enforcement to get to the bottom of the vandalism that is occurring, which seems only to affect Cineplex and Landmark; direct the Competition Bureau to investigate this cartel-like behaviour; direct Cineplex and Landmark to start playing South Indian movies; and provide recourse with respect to law enforcement so that we fully embrace the whole tapestry of the wealth that is brought to Canada through multicultural, South Indian and Tamil diaspora here in Canada.

195 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/18/24 3:51:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today. The first petition is from constituents of mine; they signed it during the Auburn Bay Stampede breakfast. It is about the Auburn Bay Calgary Co-op. It is specifically about the single-use plastics ban introduced by the government in December 2023. In Calgary, we have a compostable green bag that is only used by the Calgary Co-op. These are the facts that constituents want to draw to the attention of the Government of Canada. First, there is no plastic in the bags. They are fully compostable in the City of Calgary's composting system. They have received information from the federal government saying they are forbidden from using the bags. Now they are being handed out only if someone purchases them at tills, as opposed to being given out when purchasing groceries at the store. This is done at a huge cost. The City of Calgary supports the Calgary Co-op's use of compostable bags, stating that they fully break down in their composting facilities. Further, the federal ban, as it stands now, allows for Calgary Co-op to sell its compostable bags on store shelves but prevents them from selling these same bags a few feet away at the checkout. This makes little sense and, they say, does very little to limit their actual use. They are asking for the Government of Canada to recognize that compostable bags do not constitute single-use plastic and, therefore, are worthy of an exemption to the upcoming ban.

258 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/18/24 3:52:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my next petition is from constituents of mine. While I was door knocking, this was being filled out, and they asked for the following: They would like the House of Commons to call for a vote of non-confidence and for a federal election 45 days after that successful vote.

52 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:53:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

24 words

Stand

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:53:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

29 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Sep/18/24 3:53:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on behalf of the Bloc Québécois regarding the question of privilege raised by the House leader of the official opposition. I will be brief. Everything has already been said more than once in the House. Parliament's authority to compel the production of government documents is very clearly established. The only limit to the House's ability to demand whatever information it deems necessary from the government is the good judgment of the House, not the goodwill of the government. Otherwise, the very principle of responsible government is meaningless. On June 10, the House made its position clear. It ordered the government to hand over a series of documents to the law clerk of the House so that he could forward them to law enforcement. The volume of documentation may have been huge, but the order was still clear. The government failed to comply, thereby breaching the privilege of the House. There may be a good reason for this, but it does not change anything. I invite you to find a prima facie breach of privilege, so that the House can then deal with it. As I was saying, the only limit to the House's ability to demand information is the House's good judgment, not the government's goodwill. Rest assured that the Bloc Québécois intends to use its good judgment as usual. The Conservative House leader stated that he intends to move a new motion to compel the production of these documents within eight days. Is eight days reasonable? I am not in a position to judge. If the government needs a few more days, we can talk about it. If the government has a good reason for not producing all the documents, it should say what it was. The House can then exercise its judgment. In his speech on September 16, the House leader of the official opposition blamed the Auditor General. Let me be clear: This is not about the Auditor General. She is a highly respected officer of Parliament. It is our duty to protect her from the government and the opposition, not to put her between a rock and a hard place. The documents she had access to for her own performance audit are government documents. The government's refusal to comply with an order from the House put her in a delicate position, but it is the government that is at fault. The government is the one required to produce what the House demands. The government is the one in breach of parliamentary privilege. It is a serious issue and I invite parliamentarians to work on it seriously. In particular, we need to avoid making sweeping accusations. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, may be appallingly mismanaged, but we have no evidence at present that the companies that received support did anything wrong. That is precisely why we want the RCMP to have access to all the information. Given the highly partisan nature of our work these days, we need to make sure we avoid tarnishing the reputations of people who may not have done anything wrong. However, if there has been corruption, if an investigation finds that the companies obtained money in a questionable manner, then they will need to pay it back. For that, the investigation would need to proceed. Obviously, it is possible that the RCMP does not want the documents. It is possible that evidence obtained in an unusual way may be harder to use in court. That is possible. If that is the case, then the RCMP can refuse the documents. It is as simple as that. This does not change the fact that the government has an obligation to comply with an order of the House. The motion does not compel the RCMP to accept the documents if it does not want them. It is not our style to do something harmful just to score political points. We in the Bloc Québécois are not like that. The Bloc Québécois will not employ a scorched-earth strategy for partisan purposes. We will not engage in a mudslinging exercise that would sabotage all environmental programs or undermine justice. For this to happen, the House would have to deal with the issue. That is why I invite you to find that the government has committed a prima facie breach of the privilege of Parliament. Then Parliament can do its job, I hope, responsibly and wisely.

763 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 3:58:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am also rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on September 16 by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, respecting the motion adopted by the House on June 10. I would like to start by stating that this does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege, as the House has overstepped its authority in this instance. The motion, as adopted by the House, does not order that the documents be provided to members of Parliament. It simply states that they be provided through the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to a third party. While the House has the right to order the production of documents for its own use, it does not have the right to do so for the exclusive use of a third party. This point is made clear in the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections from 1991, which states, “It is well established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information.” The key words here are “laid before it” and “necessary for its information”. For this reason alone, the Chair should not find that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. Having said that, I want to take this opportunity to provide the government's perspective on this motion. The government has grave concerns about potential charter violations that may result from turning over some of the information of the government, SDTC and the Auditor General to the RCMP, as outlined in the motion. The motion, as adopted, appears to be unprecedented and creates a troubling model that would enable the House of Commons to exempt law enforcement from the requirement to seek judicial permission to obtain a broad production of information free from charter constraints. As members will know well, section 8 of the charter protects persons against unreasonable government interference with their reasonable expectations of privacy. Government action that interferes with this expectation must be authorized by a law that satisfies section 8's reasonableness standard. Ordinarily, proceedings in Parliament, including responses to motions adopted by the House of Commons, would be protected by parliamentary privilege and would not be admissible in other proceedings. As I have indicated, in the circumstances, the House of Commons has not even asked for the documents to be provided to members of Parliament in the course of their work; rather, it has expressly referred the information to the RCMP. This goes beyond the authority of the House to order the production of documents. Even if one were to accept that the motion is within the authority of the House, which the government does not, the motion does not displace the legal obligations that would potentially inform the lawfulness of the RCMP's access to and use of materials received from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, including those under the charter. Should the RCMP wish to engage with the materials received, it will follow its own process and protocols to determine whether and how these materials may be used in a lawful way. As members well know, the RCMP requires lawful authority to invade privacy for the purpose of furthering any criminal investigation. In requiring that the information be turned over to the RCMP, the House of Commons appears to have appropriated the role of the judiciary in authorizing RCMP access to information, presumably to further a criminal investigation, but without replicating or observing any of the constitutional safeguards that normally constrain the police in such activities. This highly unusual approach may invite judicial scrutiny of both the use of any of the information by the RCMP and the legal underpinnings of how the information came to be in the RCMP's possession. It is not just the government that has this view; the RCMP itself has expressed this to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. In a July 25, 2024, letter from RCMP commissioner Mike Duheme to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, he stated: I am writing to you regarding the Opposition Motion that was passed in the House on June 10, 2024, which requires the production of documents from the government, the Auditor General, and Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel with the intention of providing these documents to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Subsequent to the motion, the RCMP undertook a review and examination of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) tabled report on SDTC, along with additional administrative reports by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and publicly available information. The RCMP has concluded that the available reports do not identify any criminal offences or evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this time, whether in relation to any specific individual or organization. The OAG and the RCMP are governed by well-established processes that consider their respective mandates. These processes ensure compliance with applicable legal standards in order to preserve the viability of any potential criminal investigation and prosecution. The OAG has broad powers to compel information in a manner that is not possible in a criminal investigation. There are therefore safeguards in place to ensure information obtained by the OAG is not used to circumvent the legal obligations required for criminal investigations. If the OAG finds evidence of criminality during an audit, they have the authority to advise the RCMP. To date, the RCMP has not received any referral from the Auditor General or her office in relation to the SDTC matter. The RCMP has also reviewed the implications of the Motion in a potential criminal investigation. Before taking any investigative steps to access documents that may give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, the RCMP must comply with applicable legal standards to preserve the viability of any potential criminal investigation or prosecution. The Parliamentary production order does not set aside these legal requirements. For the reasons set out above, the RCMP's ability to receive and use information obtained through this production order and under the compulsory powers afforded by the Auditor General Act in the course of a criminal investigation could give rise to concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP under the Motion where privacy interests exists could be used to support a criminal prosecution or further a criminal investigation. Given the risks associated with receiving information under the Motion or other compulsory authorities, practices need to be put in place to identify the nature and the source of information, with a view to determining whether it contains Charter-protected information. Any information obtained through the Motion or other compulsory authorities would need to be segregated from an RCMP investigation. There is significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections. The RCMP will continue its review of available information that does not give rise to concerns under the Charter to determine if sufficient evidence exists to launch a criminal investigation. I would like to emphasize as well that the RCMP is operationally independent and strictly adheres to the principle of police independence. In a free and democratic society, this ensures that the government cannot direct or influence the actions of law enforcement and that law enforcement decisions remain based on the information and evidence available to police. Yours sincerely, Mike Duheme Commissioner This letter speaks for itself. Personally, I do not want to live in a country where politicians can use their power to trample on the privacy rights of Canadians and bypass the legal protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide information to law enforcement without any due process or judicial oversight. Given the concerns expressed above, the government must take every care to ensure we are adequately protecting sensitive information that would be inappropriate to disclose, which prompts the necessity to review all records carefully and with restraint, redact information and then provide, in a staggered manner, that immense volume of material to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. I would like to raise the issue of the interpretation of the motion adopted on June 10, 2024. The motion states, in part: That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 30 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control.... The motion as adopted is silent on whether the documents requested should or should not be redacted. The practice in this place for document motions is that, if they are to be provided unredacted, this is stated in the motion. In this instance, this was not included in the motion. As members well know, the government, through its officials, is bound by certain statutes to protect certain information from disclosure. In fact, in the past when the House has insisted that documents be produced in unredacted form, governments of both stripes have worked constructively with other parties to establish appropriate mechanisms to protect the disclosure of information that would otherwise not have been disclosed due to their protections offered by statute. While the motion is unusual in that it does not require that the documents be produced to the House itself, rather to the RCMP through the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, the government interpreted that these documents could be redacted to abide by statutory protections. This is especially the case in this instance, and the government could not in good conscience interpret the meaning of this motion such that it would trample on the Charter rights of Canadians and exempt law enforcement from judicial oversight. This would be an extremely reckless and dangerous interpretation for the government to take, so while the government believes that the motion exceeds the authority of the House, it did try to comply in good faith in a way that respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, as I have stated, the order did not explicitly state that documents could not be redacted, and second, since these documents were being transmitted to the RCMP, the police force, should it wish to investigate this matter, could use its investigative powers to compel any information that had been redacted if it deemed it material to any potential investigation. Furthermore, the Auditor General of Canada, who is an independent officer of Parliament, appointed by Parliament, raised her own concerns about the production of documents in the motion adopted by the House. In her response to the request from the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, the Auditor General stated: I share the view that Commissioner Duheme expressed to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts (PACP) on June 18, 2024—the OAG has a strong working relationship with the RCMP that is grounded in a well-established process to access information in our audit files. This is important because of the rights established in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that apply to criminal proceedings, and because the courts play an important role in ensuring that information obtained by law enforcement respects those rights. In the past, the RCMP has obtained production orders to ensure that information from the OAG has been obtained legally and can be used when a criminal prosecution is launched. This is precisely the approach that is being taken by the government. If the government is of the view that activities may be of a criminal nature, the government has ensured and will always ensure that any information that may be material to criminal investigation is forwarded to the RCMP. That is how our system works. There are separate branches of government for very good reason. The Auditor General states this clearly with respect to its relationship with law enforcement: Where the OAG is of the view that activities may be of a criminal nature, we promptly inform the RCMP. As we did not reach this conclusion in our audit of SDTC, we did not engage with the RCMP about our audit findings before my report was presented to Parliament. Based on recent communications with the RCMP about this order, we confirmed that the RCMP would seek a production order before requesting any documents should they deem them necessary to any investigation. This would be consistent with well-established past practice. While the government understands that the Speaker does not rule on questions of law or on the appropriate functions of other branches of government, it is for the House to pronounce itself with restraint in such matters. Many members of the House have legal training and know the divisions of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. This is the bedrock upon which our democracy operates. To blur these boundaries is irresponsible and, quite frankly, reckless. We are in uncharted territory with this matter. I have made the case that the House has exceeded its authority in ordering the production of documents, not for its own use or the use of members of Parliament, but rather exclusive to and for the use of a third party. I hope the Speaker will consider this point very carefully. Should the Speaker agree that the proposition before the House does in fact exceed the authority of the House, I submit that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should undertake a study to determine the appropriateness of motions that order the production of documents that are not for the express purpose of informing the House and its members, but rather of being used as an instrument to refer documents to organizations that are outside the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of government. Procedural authorities clearly suggest the privileges of members and of the House relate to its own proceedings within the ambit of the legislative branch and cannot exceed the powers and jurisdiction of this branch of government. This principle is clearly articulated on page 190 of the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, which states: The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry should relate to a subject within the legislative competence of Parliament, particularly where witnesses and documents are required and the penal jurisdiction of Parliament is contemplated. This dovetails with the right of each House of Parliament to summon and compel the attendance of all persons within the limits of their jurisdictions. However, even if the motion were to be considered within the authority of the House, which I submit it is not, the appropriate course of action in the handling of this matter, if you find a prima facie question of privilege, would be to limit the motion proposed by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to refer this unusual matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for study. This would provide an opportunity for members of that committee, who are well versed in parliamentary privilege, to call witnesses and experts who may help shed light on this matter and report back to the House with its findings. This is entirely consistent with the approach that Speaker Milliken took in his decision on the Afghan detainee documents on April 27, 2010, where he provided the parties some time to discuss the issue and find a resolution. Sending the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee would do just that. Finally, I would like to table, in both official languages, the two letters I cited in my intervention: the letter from the RCMP commissioner to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, as well as the letter from the Auditor General to the Clerk of the House of Commons.

2645 words

The Speaker

Sep/18/24 4:16:33 p.m.
Watch

I thank the government House leader and the hon. member for La Prairie for their interventions on this question of privilege, which was raised first by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I appreciate that they both came back to the House in a relatively short order of time so the Chair can move quickly with an assessment as to whether there is a prima facie case. The Chair will take some time to review the material that has been brought forward by the hon. government House leader and by the hon. member for La Prairie and will try to get back to the House as soon as possible. I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Oxford, Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Taxation; the hon. member for Nunavut, Northern Affairs.

186 words

Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 4:19:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-66

moved that Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, as indicated, I have the privilege today to begin debate on the second reading of Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act. If I may, I would like to begin by first acknowledging and thanking the thousands of witnesses, advocates and survivors who have generously and courageously offered their advice and their experience on the important matters that are before us in the bill. I would also like to commend the important work and advice of Madam Justice Arbour and Justice Fish for the advice they have provided, which has so well informed this work. I also would like to take the opportunity to thank the dedicated members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Justice and my ministry for their tireless work on this important bill. Every single day in Canada and around the world, the Department of National Defence's public service employees and Canadian Armed Forces members come to work in service of their country and their fellow citizens. As the international rules that keep us all safe have come under increased threat, their task is crucial, and their ability to respond to global challenges is becoming even more important. To effectively do their jobs, DND's public service employees and CAF members must feel protected, respected and empowered to serve. In other words, changing the culture of DND and CAF is not just simply the right thing to do; it is also essential to the readiness and operational effectiveness of our institution. From the very first day I was appointed as Canada's Minister of National Defence, I have tried to make it very clear that my most important responsibility is to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces' members go to work in an environment that fosters and enables their excellence. They must be provided with a work environment where they feel safe and supported while they do the critical work of protecting our nation and its people. That includes that no one at National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces is subjected to harassment, misconduct or discrimination. It also includes ensuring that all of our members have access to justice. Our people, after all, must be always at the heart of everything we do. They protect Canadians here at home, defend our sovereignty and respond to natural disasters to keep Canadians safe. They stand on the eastern flank of NATO. They train Ukrainians with the skills they need to fight and win. They work with our partners to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific. It is our responsibility to protect our people in uniform and civilians, and support them. To do so, we need to modernize our military justice system in order to rebuild trust in it. That is precisely what Bill C-66 aims to do. It proposes a suite of amendments to the National Defence Act to bolster confidence in the military justice system for all of our people. Let me share some of the key changes the bill proposes. After months of work, hundreds of interviews and the review of thousands of documents, former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour provided the government with 48 recommendations to build a more inclusive military where all members are protected, respected and empowered to serve. We must and we will implement all of these recommendations. In December 2022, my predecessor, now the President of the Treasury Board, directed National Defence to move forward on all 48 of Justice Arbour's recommendations and issued a detailed plan on how we will take action in response to each of them. Since then, we have made some very important and tangible progress. To date, approximately 20 of these recommendations have been implemented, and we are currently on track to address all 48 recommendations by the end of next year. Recommendation 5 is the only recommendation from Justice Arbour that requires that it be implemented through legislation, so the legislation before us proposes to address recommendation 5 by removing the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. The legislation would give exclusive jurisdiction over these offences to the civilian justice system. Justice Arbour made this recommendation for a very clear reason. She stated that concurrent jurisdiction, jurisdiction that is both in the military and civilian justice system over such offences, “has had the opposite effect to that intended; it has not increased discipline, efficiency or morale, and it has not generated the confidence it would need....Rather, it has contributed to an erosion of public and CAF member confidence.” Madam Arbour went on to highlight the urgency of ending concurrent jurisdiction, to give clarity and certainty to all actors in the justice system and to ensure fairness and justice to survivors. Under the proposed legislation, the Canadian Armed Forces would no longer have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute any Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Instead, that jurisdiction would rest exclusively with civilian authorities. Bill C-66 also addresses eight of the recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Fish through an independent review. It proposes to modify the important process for key military justice authorities to remove any real or perceived influence from the chain of command. It also proposes to expand the eligibility criteria for military judges to include non-commissioned members so that we can help diversify the pool of potential candidates, and it proposes to expand the class of persons who can make an interference complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission. In addition to addressing the recommendations from Justice Arbour and Justice Fish, Bill C-66 would also take additional steps to ensure the confidence and integrity of our military justice system. It proposes to exclude military judges from the summary hearing system, and it proposes to provide additional supports for survivors by expanding access to victims' liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of the victim under the Declaration of Victims' Rights. These proposed amendments are comprehensive, as they are required to be, and they incorporate the feedback and the needs of those who have been directly affected by sexual misconduct. The chief professional conduct and culture has conducted engagements with over 16,000 national defence personnel and Canadian Armed Forces members, as well as external stakeholders, in order to listen and to learn from their experience. We have also consulted with current and former DND and CAF personnel, including those affected by conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature, harassment of a sexual nature, crimes of a sexual nature; victim advocacy groups; and military justice actors. In these consultations, we have heard overwhelmingly about the need for concrete and durable military justice reform in order to maintain trust in the system, and we have heard clear support for removing CAF jurisdiction of Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. We have heard the voices of our people loudly and clearly. We have listened and we have acted. We now know as well that there is much more work to do, but we are making concrete and measurable progress. Bill C-66, we believe, is an important step in a journey designed to achieve durable and lasting institutional reform. I hope that every member of the House will support this crucial legislation. Let me also address some of the other work that we are doing to better support our people and to give them procedural fairness and access to justice that they deserve. Since December 2021, 100 per cent of all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges have been laid in our civilian justice system. No new Criminal Code sexual offences are being adjudicated within the military justice system. In June 2022, Bill C-77 came into force, which established the Declaration of Victims' Rights. That includes the creation of victims' liaison officers to better assist victims in understanding and accessing their rights. We developed a military-wide online brief on victims rights and the summary hearing process in order to promote awareness of changes in the military justice system so that victims, witnesses and military justice actors know exactly what to do when an incident of misconduct occurs. In budget 2022, we allocated over $100 million over six years to support the modernization of the military justice system, as well as other cultural change efforts. We are also making progress in implementing the recommendations that have been made by Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces can now take their complaints for sexual harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This is precisely in line with recommendations 7 and 9 made by Justice Arbour. We have addressed recommendation 11 from Justice Arbour by repealing the duty-to-report regulations. We have addressed recommendation 14 by agreeing to reimburse eligible legal costs for those who have been affected by sexual misconduct. We are also implementing recommendation 20 from Justice Arbour's report. We announced in “Our North, Strong and Free” that we are going to establish a probationary period to enable faster enrolment of applicants, and where necessary, timely removal of those who do not adhere to our requirements of conduct. We have also strengthened the promotion process for senior leaders to better assess character, talent and competence. In response to recommendation 29, I have also appointed the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board. This board is focused on reviewing the current quality of education, socialization and military training that takes place at our colleges, and I have been sufficiently clear that their cultures need to change significantly. We have launched an online database to make our conduct and culture research and policies more open and accessible, which is also in line with recommendation 45 from Justice Arbour. As we deliver these meaningful reforms, we are committed to the highest standards of openness and accountability. That is precisely why we appointed Madam Jocelyne Therrien in the role of external monitor. Her role is critically important. She is overseeing the implementation of all of Justice Arbour's recommendations and providing Canadians with public progress reports on a regular basis. In fact, Madam Therrien released her third biennial report earlier this year in May. It notes our progress on bringing about the change that will re-establish trust in the Canadian Armed Forces as a professional, inclusive workplace. In addition, she identified that there is a lot more work to do and that we have to move faster. I want to express my gratitude for Madam Therrien's work and her honest assessment as we continue building a respectful and inclusive institution. In order to help drive these efforts, we have also developed the comprehensive implementation plan to prioritize and sequence our work right across the National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces portfolio to address the recommendations from Justice Arbour and Justice Fish, as well as the minister's advisory panel, the anti-racism report and the national apology advisory committee board, which was developed to provide recommendations for Canada's historic apology to the descendants of the No. 2 Construction Battalion. We will continue working on all fronts, because it is critical to the well-being of our people and for the CAF's operational effectiveness. As I said at the very outset of my remarks, we are committed to building a workplace culture where every member of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces feels protected, supported, respected and empowered to serve. Our commitment to building a better military culture is highlighted by our updated defence policy, “Our North, Strong and Free”. It is evident in our Canadian Armed Forces ethos, “Trusted to Serve”. In these documents, we have made it very clear that conduct deficiencies, harassment, discrimination and violence in any form must not be allowed to develop or remain within our institution because they cause deep harm to our people. They fundamentally undermine our mandate, our mission and our effectiveness, and they erode the trust that Canadians place in us. Therefore we are working hard to build a more modern and inclusive military culture in which Canadians from all walks of life can serve their country. That work is being led by the chief professional conduct and culture, the CPCC. This office was created in 2021. The CPCC serves as the single authority for professional conduct and culture at National Defence. The position was initially led by General Jennie Carignan. Of course now it is being led by Lieutenant-General Prévost, as General Carignan is our new chief of defence. It has consulted with 16,000 DND personnel, Canadian Forces members and external stakeholders, and those consultations have deeply informed our work. It has enabled us to better understand the lived experiences of our people. It has enabled us to proceed on our culture of change work from a place of knowledge, understanding, support and compassion. Culture change requires a systemic, sustained and continuing effort. It is not just the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing to do. It is essential to our operational effectiveness. We will continue to listen and learn from people across National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. We will continue to work with external stakeholders and partners as we work toward building a safer and more inclusive work environment. I believe we are making real and tangible progress, but there is always much more work to do. At the same time, as we modernize our military justice system and change our culture, we also need to ensure that the survivors of sexual assault and misconduct always get the support, care, respect, compassion and resources they need. Much of that work comes from the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre. This is a centre that is independent of the chain of command. It provides expert advice, guidance and recommendations to the military and National Defence on all matters relating to sexual misconduct. That includes a 24-7 support line where members can receive confidential support and information on options, and guidance on supporting others, as well as referrals to care and service operations. It also runs the response and support coordination program to provide individuals who have experience sexual misconduct in the DND and CAF environments with a dedicated civilian counsellor who can help them access health services, prepare for police interviews and very much more. The Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre also runs a grant program to fund community-based programs to broaden the range of support services that will be available to the wider defence community. It offers peer support programs and partnerships with Veterans Affairs Canada. We have more work to do to support those affected by misconduct. That is why last year we launched the independent legal assistance program, which will provide reimbursement of legal expenses incurred on or after April 1, 2019 as a result of sexual misconduct in the DND and CAF environments. That is in line with Justice Arbour's recommendation 14, and we have responded. The program is also working toward facilitating direct access to legal information, legal advice and legal representation. The work that I have outlined today is comprehensive in scope, but we need to do more and we will do more. A very important step in doing more is passing this legislation. Doing more is going to give exclusive jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences in Canada to the civilian justice system, exactly as Madam Arbour has recommended. We need to give clarity and certainty to victims and survivors, and we need to build a more modern military justice system that can maintain the confidence of the people it serves. By getting this done, I believe we will improve the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. Getting this done will help us attract and retain even more talented Canadians from right across the country. It will show them that as members of our military, they have access to a fair and modern justice system and reliable resources if they ever suffer harm. Above all else, this is the right thing to do for our people, for our military and for our country. I believe it will help us rebuild the trust that may have been lost. It will keep our people safer and better supported, and it will help to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces has the culture, the people, the institutions and all of the support and resources it needs to keep this country safe now and in the decades to come.

2798 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Sep/18/24 4:35:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-66

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's tabling Bill C-66 at second reading. The Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-66, but we want to send it to committee. We know that it needs to be thoroughly studied, and we want to make sure that it is going to work for victims. We want to hear from stakeholders, military justice experts and the CAF itself to ensure that the appropriate action is being taken. The government came to power nine long years ago, and here we are in the dying days of this Parliament and the government, and the Liberals are finally bringing forward something they knew was a problem. In 2015, former chief justice Deschamps brought forward a report that sat on the desk of former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, and on the desk of the former minister of national defence, who is now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, for years and they did nothing with it. The Liberals actually covered up the sexual misconduct by former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance. They even stalled a committee from doing an investigation into why there was a cover-up from the Prime Minister's Office by Katie Telford and by the former minister of national defence. Why did they allow that to happen and why did they not act then to address the problems we had in the Canadian Armed Forces in protecting the victims of sexual misconduct?

244 words

Hon. Bill Blair

Sep/18/24 4:36:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-66

Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified to hear that the member opposite, my critic in defence, and the Conservative Party will support the passage at second reading of Bill C-66. It is absolutely essential that we move forward with all speed. We all have a shared responsibility, and I believe every single member of this House cares about the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. I believe we all know that we have to work together to ensure that they have a safe, respectful and supportive work environment. I would very much like to get this bill to committee because I very much respect the work of the committee, and I am very gratified to hear of the member's support. I also feel a great sense of urgency. This is an important bill. As I said, on the very first day I was appointed to this position, I tried to explain to DND and to Canadians that it was among my greatest responsibilities to make sure that we find every possible way to support all of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. I believe that is a value that everybody shares. I will wait respectfully to hear from our friends from the other parties, but I believe it is very much in the best interests of Canadian Armed Forces members, members of DND and all Canadians that we move forward with all diligence and speed to get this bill passed. We have work to do. Let us do it together.

259 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Sep/18/24 4:38:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my question is going to be somewhat similar to the question from my colleague, the co-chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Since 2015, the issue of sexual misconduct has become common knowledge, so much so that Justice Deschamps, who reported on it at the time, served a guide for Justice Arbour, who also had to report on it. She wondered why she was being approached to do something that had already been done. This bill was introduced in March, but we had to wait until September for second reading. It took some time. The bill primarily focuses on sexual misconduct, although we know that military personnel are complaining about many other kinds of grievances too. If we had done the work on sexual misconduct a little sooner, would we have been able to move on to the next step by now and address other kinds of grievances that military personnel are complaining about? These grievances are adding fuel to an already serious fire, which explains why we are having problems with recruitment and retention.

179 words

Hon. Bill Blair

Sep/18/24 4:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I also feel a sense of urgency. We have to get this done. We have made very significant progress in response to all of Arbour's recommendations. We have also published a comprehensive implementation plan, which is available to all members of the House, to give a very clear outline of the work we are undertaking and will continue to do to get this done. There is only one recommendation contained in Arbour's recommendations that requires legislative changes, and as members know, we introduced legislation back in March. This is our first opportunity to debate it, and I believe absolutely that we have the ability to work on this important matter together and get it to committee. I believe the committee will add great value to this discussion. It will have an opportunity to hear from witnesses and move this forward. However, in the interests all of the men and women who have served or continue to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, and frankly in Canadians' interests as well, we are required to put our heads down together and get this job done.

193 words

Arbour
Serve

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Sep/18/24 4:40:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for bringing this legislation together. The New Democrats will be supporting it at second reading to get it to committee because we know how important it is. However, what I heard over the summer from many of the survivors of military sexual trauma, and the minister noted it, is that while the work of Louise Arbour was incredible and the consultation was very much needed, that was the work she had done. The work the government had done did not consult survivors. They were very concerned that they were left out of the consultation process for this piece of legislation. I would very much like to hear an explanation from the minister of the gap that seems to have occurred.

129 words

Hon. Bill Blair

Sep/18/24 4:41:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I give my personal thanks for your and your party's support, which will allow this bill to move forward. That is important and it will allow us to get some work done. With respect to consultation, as I have indicated and as Madam Justice Arbour reported, she did do fairly extensive consultation, during which she talked to hundreds of survivors, advocates and witnesses, who provided her with advice. I think her recommendations are a really clear road map of the path forward, and we have been well informed by them. I also want to assure you that our chief of the defence staff, in her previous role, conducted very extensive consultations. She advised me that she spoke to 16,000 people, and not just members of the Canadian Armed Forces, although there were many, and members of DND, but also advocates, survivors and witnesses. There was very extensive consultation. I also hear you, because I have heard the same thing. There are some people who do not yet feel they have been heard. We are presented with a real opportunity at committee to give those people another forum where they can come forward and share their experiences and opinions with the committee. I also hope that you engage with our chief of the defence staff, who oversaw the consultation with over 16,000 people, so that she can share with you the results of those consultations. I do not think we can ever do enough to listen to the lived experiences. People need to know that they have been heard, and we have tried very hard to hear them. I know there is no universal consensus on exactly the right way forward, but we have been informed by the excellent report of Justice Arbour and the excellent report of Justice Fish. We have listened to literally thousands of people who have come forward and offered their opinions, their lived experiences and their advice. Our work has been informed by that experience and that advice, but I would welcome the committee taking even further steps to continue in that consultation.

352 words