44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 18, 2024 02:00PM
- Sep/18/24 4:43:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for putting forward this important legislation. I want to give a shout-out to all of our veterans and those who have served and who continue to serve our country, especially those from Mississauga—Streetsville's Legion 139.
I think a few of us in this room were able to be on the veterans affairs committee, and while serving on that committee, we heard many different testimonies, especially when we did the women's study. It had testimony from those who experienced sexual misconduct on how traumatizing those experiences were.
My hon. colleague talked about trust and how vitally important trust is, so I would like him to share how the reforms he is putting forward will continue to build trust with those who serve our country.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 4:44:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her concern.
I believe that for every member of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, having trust in their workplace, that their rights will be protected and that they will be respected is absolutely essential. It is why, in this bill, we are trying to make very clear that all members of the military justice system will be independent in their actions so that they will not be taking direction from the chain of command. They need to know that they are going to be treated with fairness, respect and compassion. They also need to know that they are going to have access to services.
Our responsibility, all of us, is to show respect and that we have heard their concerns. We have a responsibility to every man and woman who serves in the Canadian Armed Forces to make sure that they have a respectful, supportive work environment and to treat them with the dignity and respect that each one of them deserves. This bill is going to help us with that, but we have a job to do to make sure that we explain exactly what our rationale is. There has been a great deal of consultation, but there is more work to do.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 4:45:49 p.m.
- Watch
Before going to the next speaker, I want to remind colleagues that we run our questions and answers through the Chair and we do not refer to individual members with the word “you”, which we are not supposed to use here but was used a bunch of times in the debate.
I know the hon. minister was thinking about me but was looking at someone else. I want to thank him for his presentation and for his comments.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this House and speak for the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. Conservatives are proud of our soldiers, sailors and aircrew, and we want to support all those in uniform who serve Canada.
Conservatives believe that sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment must be stomped out of the Canadian Armed Forces because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. It is hard enough to do the dangerous work that we call upon them to do. We know they face incredible danger in addressing the conflicts around the world and the domestic responses to natural disasters right here in Canada.
The previous Conservative government, and we are talking nine years ago, accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all sexual harassment from the Canadian Armed Forces. That report, as I already asked the minister about, sat on the desk of the 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 and the seatmate of the current Minister of National Defence. It sat on their desks and collected dust. Here we are, nine years later, and they are finally moving forward with legislative changes to the military justice system.
I would say that we cannot trust the Liberals to actually implement the policies needed to stop sexual assault and sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces when we look at the soft-on-crime policies they instituted in our Criminal Code and our criminal justice system in the civil courts from coast to coast to coast. After nine long years and two more reports from two more former superior court justices, the victims of sexual misconduct within the military still have no answers and they are not having their cases dealt with properly.
As I said earlier, Conservatives support Bill C-66. We want to get it to committee. We know it needs vigorous study. We know we need to hear from witnesses, both experts and academics, who are familiar with the National Defence Act and the military justice system, but we also have to hear from victims. We have to hear from those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and other stakeholders, including the legal community, provincial governments and municipal courts, that are going to be forced to handle the investigations, the collection of evidence and the prosecution within our court systems that are already overrun because of the soft-on-crime policies the Liberal government has brought forward.
We have these outstanding issues on whether there is capacity within the civilian court system to handle what is coming from the Canadian Armed Forces. The biggest problem is that they are overrun because of the soft-on-crime approach that is allowing people to get out on bail. Repeat offenders just keep going out and reoffending. That is why Conservatives always say, “Jail, not bail”. By doing that, not only are we taking dangerous and repeat offenders off our streets and making our communities safer, but we are going to be able to free up more resources within the court system to deal with things like sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces.
Conservatives are wondering about some of the logic within Bill C-66. It is proposing to take the investigation and prosecution of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces outside of the military itself for any offences that occur within Canada. They would be moved into the civilian system, whether it is municipal or provincial police departments, or even the federal police department, the RCMP, in some jurisdictions. We would see the skills and ability of our military police and criminal prosecutors within the Office of the Judge Advocate General atrophy and deteriorate.
Within Bill C-66, whenever our troops are deployed out of Canada, we are still going to be in a situation where they are going to be the lead investigators and lead prosecutors, as well as the defendants, as we know happens within the military justice system, which has both prosecutors and defenders in order to provide the balance of justice to those who are accused and those who are plaintiffs. However, if they are not good enough to prosecute and investigate sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces when it happens here in Canada, how do we know we can trust them for cases outside Canada? I know I do, but I wonder if the minister is at all concerned about the atrophy of those skills, at both the prosecutor level and the investigator level, for our military police if they are not getting the repetitions. It is just like exercise; one has to do it over and over again.
The other concern we have is about the new Governor in Council appointments. Currently, the Governor in Council, or the cabinet, the Prime Minister, the PMO, appoints the chief of the defence staff, the deputy minister, the national defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman and the judge advocate general. They are all done through an order in council and they all report to the Minister of National Defence. Now we would be adding more Governor in Council appointments: the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal.
That would increase independence, but there are questions around the terms and lengths of those appointments. There is no consistency with other Governor in Council appointments we have, both in the civil system, within the bureaucracy and other government appointments, and those appointed under the National Defence Act. There is also no clarification of how those individuals would be reappointed. There have even been questions raised about whether having these three new Governor in Council appointments, who right now report to the JAG, would make having the judge advocate general irrelevant and the position undermined because of directives that can come from the minister.
We are also very concerned that this would increase political interference, which we have already witnessed with the Liberal government. This is because it would be giving the power to the Minister of National Defence to not only have control over more individuals within the Canadian Armed Forces, but also to issue guidelines under Bill C-66 with respect to prosecutions, which would open the door to that political interference.
All we have to do is look at some of the cases the government has already politically put pressure on to have moved to the civilian system. There was the case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman; we can look at how that came about. Of course, those charges were all stayed and there was a legal settlement paid out by the Government of Canada to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for its witch hunt.
There was the case of Jonathan Vance, the former chief of the defence staff. In that situation, he was not charged for sexual misconduct but was actually charged for obstruction of justice.
The next case I want to touch on is that of Admiral Art McDonald. Again, this was a political appointment by the Liberal government, and he was chief of the defence staff. It then came to light that there was some misconduct in his background. When it came time to prosecute, those charges were all dropped by the military prosecution office.
Major-General Dany Fortin was acquitted by the Quebec judicial system. There is pressure coming from the Liberals on National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to move these to the civil system, so here he is getting off. All we are doing is destroying these people's reputations, and from the victim's standpoint, they are not getting any justice.
With respect to Lieutenant-General Trevor Cadieu, his cases were stayed by the Ontario justice department.
Vice-Admiral Haydn Edmundson was found not guilty in the Ontario justice system. That case was just ruled on earlier this week, and it was found that a CBC reporter actually tampered with a witness and all the testimony was thrown out.
The last one I have here is Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan, and again, the charges were dropped by military prosecutors, and Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan has filed a statement of claim. When we look at all of this, we know we have a situation where the political pressure on national defence from the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence to move these into the civilian court system does not automatically result in justice for the victims. It actually turns into situations where we have liability because of increased defamation of the characters of individuals who have served this country for long, hard years as military leaders.
We know General Jonathan Vance as a former chief of the defence staff. When we studied this at the national defence committee, for three months the Liberal chair kept adjourning the committee and refused to let us hear from witnesses and experts and victims about the cover-up that happened when the victims came forward about Jonathan Vance. The news stories broke and it came to light that the former minister of national defence, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, had gone to great lengths to block the investigation, to turn a blind eye. The Prime Minister was involved in that. Unfortunately, the only committee that was able to give any type of report was the status of women. The Conservatives said, in response to that report, that it was “abundantly clear that there has been a lack of leadership by [the defence minister] on the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.”
Of course, instead of finishing the report and getting to the bottom of this, an election was called, Parliament was prorogued and the report died. The Liberals had lots of opportunities to act earlier than 2024. They had lots of reports they could have relied on. I mentioned the 2015 Deschamps report. In 2018, the Auditor General released a report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces and then updated that report, the national defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman report on sexual misconduct, in 2021. We had the Justice Fish report, which was a very extensive report with hundreds of recommendations. There was, also from the status of women committee here in Parliament, the 2021 report “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces”. What did we have? Indecision, dithering, delays and punting this down the road to 2024.
Meanwhile, while all this was happening, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and sexual violence have escalated. As I have said before, we are trying to push out any sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces on base and here in Canada. Since 2015, over the last long nine years of the Liberal government, we have seen total sexual assaults at all three levels increase 74.83%. As for sexual violence in Canada, and this is all Canadians, sexual violence against children has increased 118.85%. Forcible confinement or kidnapping is up 10.6%. Indecent and harassing communications are up 86.41%. Non-consensual distribution of intimate images is up 801%. Trafficking in persons is up 83.7%.
These are huge numbers that are dominating the work of our civil judicial system, whether it is in defendants or prosecutors or municipal or provincial or federal police forces. We are now going to throw in there an increase in sexual misconduct that we are seeing at national defence.
Over the last five years, sexual misconduct reports have increased from 256 to 443. That is an increase of 73% under the watch of the Liberal government, which has turned a blind eye to this problem and failed to act in an appropriate manner.
However, I do not think we should be surprised by this at all, because this is a Liberal government that has failed our Canadian Armed Forces. It has failed our brave women and men, who are the best of the best that Canada has to offer. They go through some of the roughest training. They get screened from a medical and a health perspective before they are ever allowed to don the uniform, and the current government has allowed our Canadian Armed Forces to fall into complete disrepair for nine long years.
Our warships are rusting out, our fighter jets are worn out, the army has been hollowed out, and we are so short of soldiers, sailors and air crew that all our troops are burnt out. We have entire air squadrons now that have been shut down because we do not have enough personnel, whether pilots or maintenance personnel, to keep our fighter jets in the air. Our submarines are barely in the water. From all the Order Paper questions that we get back, we are lucky if we can put one submarine in the water for 100 days a year, and that is four submarines combined, which is embarrassing. How do we maintain skills if we do not have the opportunity to train and practise alongside our allies and protect our shorelines from other submarines?
When the Liberals announced their defence policy, SSE, back in 2017, I said that it was a book of empty promises. If we look at their track record, it is still a book of empty promises. The defence policy update was a year late and, again, fails to make a strong investment in the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, after the Liberals brought forward their defence policy update, they cut a billion dollars from the budget, which is affecting the operational readiness of our Canadian Armed Forces. Over $10 billion has gone unspent, uninvested in the Canadian Armed Forces. This means that the delivery of much-needed equipment is happening later, and our troops are getting tired of operating on old, worn-out equipment.
Our troops do not feel safe. They do not feel respected. They do not feel honoured by the government. That is why we are short 16,000 troops in the reserves and regular forces today; this is a shocking number to start with. However, because we are so short of troops, we are also short of the people, the ladies and gentlemen, who make up a kind of middle management. These are the corporals, the master corporals, the sergeants and sergeant majors, who go out there and train our forces.
Right now, we have over 10,000 undertrained and undeployable members who are in uniform. We do not dare send them out, because they do not have all the skill sets they need to do the job that we want them to. This is the government's own number. Our military has been so badly hollowed out that only 58% of our forces stand ready to deploy; again, that is a huge embarrassment.
One thing that has really undermined our troops is that, at home and abroad, they have literally been left out in the cold. We have a housing shortage of 6,700 units. The government has only budgeted $8 million to build homes over the next five years. Last year, it only built 20 homes for our Canadian Armed Forces members, and the year before that, it only built 18. Thirty-eight new homes will not make up for the 6,700-unit shortage we have right now, and that is why so many of our guys are living unhoused. They are living in tents; they are couch surfing and sometimes living in precarious situations.
I will close with this: The next Conservative government will rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces by cutting down on the bureaucracy and the wasteful spending on unnecessary consultants. We have people in the Canadian Armed Forces and within the Department of National Defence who can do that job. We will reduce that tail and invest it in the tooth of our military. We will take the taxpayer money that is going to foreign dictatorships and despots and reinvest that into the Canadian Armed Forces. We will spend more on the Canadian Armed Forces than the Liberals ever hoped to, and we will make the Canadian Armed Forces stronger and ensure they have the equipment they need. We will restore the honour and integrity of our military heroes so that Canadians can be proud of them. We will reverse all the woke Liberal culture, that experiment they have been carrying on; instead, we will support the war fighters of the Canadian Armed Forces so that they can proudly serve, proudly defend and proudly fight alongside our allies when they are called upon.
2787 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:06:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first, let me admire the hubris of the member opposite. When he sat in government and his then government reduced defence spending to less than 1% of GDP, he sat there and went along with it. Over the last eight years, as we have more than doubled defence spending in Canada, every single time, the member voted against the dollars for it. Even when we brought forward money for a well-deserved raise for our soldiers, he sat there on his hands and voted against it. Deeds speak; his actions and the actions of a Conservative government speak much louder than the empty talk we are hearing now.
I just want to comment on some of his remarks. I have been involved in the criminal justice system most of my adult life. I want to advise him that acquittal is not evidence of a dysfunctional justice system; in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is actually proof that the system can work. I also want to address another misconception in his words. When we are eliminating concurrent jurisdiction and moving these sexual offences into the civilian criminal justice system, we are not suggesting that our military police are not doing their job properly. They are excellent, and they do their work very ably.
The change is not about the military police. The change is about the victims; it is about the perception of victims, of women and men, who have been subject to sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. We want to make sure that they can trust that they do not have to go to their boss to report their victimization. They can seek justice and support in a way that is independent of their work environment. That is how we create a safe, supportive and respectful work environment for those people, not by invoking somebody's very strange version of warrior culture.
We are talking about treating all the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces decently, respectfully, which is the way they deserve to be treated.
353 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:08:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us just remind everyone that, if we actually look at what we bought and got delivered in a very short time for our Canadian Armed Forces when they were deployed and in theatre, there were five brand new C-17s and a whole fleet of new HERC-130Js. The Liberals had thrown away our Leopard tanks. Can members guess what we did? We bought a whole new fleet of Leopard tanks. We upgraded all our LAVs and our frigates, and everything was in perfect fighting condition.
Now we are in a situation where we do not have enough tanks to train with. We gave away all of our howitzers and did not replace them. We have a situation where we cannot actually deploy, because our individuals are stretched thin. This is outside the good work we are doing in the theatre of Latvia. We could not deploy anybody to go down to Haiti to help bring justice there under the government, because our troops are so poorly equipped and so poorly trained at this point in time that they cannot handle the workload coming at them. We are looking at a shortage of staff.
All we have to do is look at the track record on all the high-level cases that the Liberals have brought forward already. Where is the justice for the victims? Every court case was stayed or the defendant was found not guilty. In Jonathan Vance's case, he was not charged for sexual misconduct or even abuse of authority of his position as CDS. He was charged with obstruction of justice.
269 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and co-chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence for his speech.
At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned the importance of hearing from victims and getting their views on Bill C‑66. However, it takes a lot of courage for victims to come forward and testify publicly about this type of case.
I cannot help but recall what happened this summer at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on the topic of domestic violence. It turned into a shocking free-for-all amongst the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, right in front of the victims, who ended up leaving the room in tears. Only my Bloc Québécois colleague from Shefford rose above the fray and was respectful.
If I were a victim, I would be doubly afraid and reluctant to testify before a committee. I have an idea. If we were to hear from potential victims in camera, would my colleague agree to that?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as a father of three daughters, I want to make sure that any victim, male or female, who wants to come before our committee is treated with the utmost respect and that the political partisanship that we often play at would have no place in this study on Bill C-66.
We need to ensure that they have a safe place to help us do an analysis of Bill C-66. If we are in a situation where there are shortfalls within the legislation, or if there are situations that need to be amended, then we need to hear from those victims and we need to make sure they are feeling safe, welcome and respected. I encourage all members of our national defence committee to do so.
As vice-chair and former chair of that committee, I can commit today that members from the Conservative side will definitely respect all who appear. This is not about partisan one-upmanship, especially when we have those individuals in the room. This is about making sure that we get this right, that the military justice system is there to serve those who are already putting their lives on the line for this country and ensuring that they have a safe and respectful workplace where they do not have to worry about being mistreated and sexually assaulted by any of their cohorts.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:13:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to hear that the Conservatives are in support of this bill to move to committee.
When the sexual misconduct scandals first came out, the Conservatives were seemingly ready to talk about the real systemic cultural reforms that were needed, but we are seeing a change within the leadership of the Conservative Party. It is certainly under new management, and they have talked about it. Actually, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman said himself today that there needs to be an end to this idea of woke culture.
There was a keynote speaker at the Conservative Party convention who downplayed the existence of sexual misconduct itself, which I found shameful, so I want to hear today from the Conservative member whether he will commit to that continued talk and support, as opposed to just pushing it aside and calling it “woke culture” when we're talking about women and men coming forward in this place, in this institution, to make the real change that they need against sexual misconduct.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say that the code of service discipline, the very ethos of the Canadian Armed Forces, holds up the issues of honour and integrity. I think all of us would demand that all those who serve apply that to their daily lives. This situation of sexual misconduct only happens when those individuals are not following through on that ethos, and then they are going to be subjected to the code of service discipline and the Criminal Code.
When we are talking about sexual misconduct, that has nothing to do with wokeness. This is about behaviour that has to change, and that respect has to happen. I am talking about ending that woke culture and making sure that we get back to training war fighters. I think that the stereotyping that has happened about our Canadian Armed Forces members in general has been detrimental because everybody who dons a uniform deserves to be respected. For everyone who goes out there, there is an expectation that they have a certain standard to meet.
Bill C-66 is for those who refuse to follow the code, and then they have to be subjected to the Criminal Code. For that, we support it one hundred per cent. To my colleague from the NDP, I will just say that, as I said to my friend in the Bloc, we will be treating this with the utmost respect and balance this conversation deserves to ensure that those who come before committee feel safe and are going to be valued in their testimony, which we will take it into serious consideration as we go forward.
274 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I too will put an end to the suspense by announcing that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.
However, I will reiterate some of the comments I made about the timeline that led to the passage of the bill and the relevance of debating it now.
As has been mentioned, the issue of sexual misconduct in the armed forces was first brought to the forefront in March 2015 by the hon. Justice Deschamps. This took place around the same time as a series of other events that I will come back to a little later. In April 2021, Justice Fish also made some recommendations. In addition, Justice Arbour released a report on the subject in June 2022. When she was asked to look at potential reforms within the armed forces to put an end to certain issues related to misconduct, she replied that this had already been done and studied. However, hardly anything was put in place to bring about the changes recommended by her predecessors.
It was not until March 2024 that Bill C‑66 was finally introduced at first reading. Only now are we debating it at second reading. We know that it is not because the Standing Committee on National Defence has nothing to do right now. We are already working on a number of things. I am a little concerned that other matters no less important than this one could get delayed.
I am not trying to diminish the importance of any particular issue, but we have several files to deal with. We usually give priority to clause-by-clause consideration of bills so that reports can be produced. I am worried that we are going to get bogged down because, for one thing, military procurement is still an issue. Just about every week, the media reports on a new problem, whether it is sleeping bags or deliveries of light armoured vehicles. This is a recurring problem. We are likely to hear about it again.
There is also the matter of military spending. Although new funding was announced with the updated defence policy, some cuts that were announced last September are still in effect. That has led to a lack of resources in several areas. Canada is still not meeting the 2% target that it committed to at the Wales summit in 2014. That percentage used to be a minimum, but it is now a maximum. We still have capacity issues when it comes to international operations. There are problems with recruitment, retention and housing. Francophones in the armed forces are also having trouble getting services in their mother tongue.
We may end up talking about the Afghanistan evacuation in the summer of 2021, the evacuation of Kabul. During that evacuation, the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the member for Vancouver South, reportedly gave instructions to prioritize members of the Afghan Sikh community over Canadians and interpreters who had helped Canada. That is not the first blunder this minister made. I may come back to that later, because, on his watch, mistakes were also made regarding the then chief of defence staff, Jonathan Vance. That was likely the most high-profile case pertaining to sexual misconduct and the lack of separation between the chain of command and the military justice system. It was a case study of sorts for the many other cases that were not necessarily talked about in the media but that still plague the armed forces.
All this work that could have been accomplished might get pushed aside because we are going to have to work on Bill C‑66, which could have been introduced much sooner. On top of that, we may not be able to finish the study. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the news in recent days knows about the sword hanging over our heads and the possibility that an election could be called. This could jeopardize the bill, which is anxiously awaited by victims of sexual misconduct in our military and other observers.
I have a lot of empathy for these victims, but I am afraid that we will not be able to finish the study, as much as we want to, even if everything goes as smoothly as humanly possible in committee. The bill may not make it to third reading, pass through the Senate, or go on to receive royal assent. However, at the very least, we all agree on the principle of this bill.
Another point I would like to make is that a number of victims were consulted by Justice Arbour as part of a much broader study on changing the culture in the armed forces. However, those victims do not appear to have been contacted for the specific study of Bill C-66, to fine-tune the bill. As I mentioned in a question to my colleague earlier, it can be hard for victims to testify publicly, so I would like to issue an appeal to them while I have the opportunity. If any victims wish to contact committee members to make recommendations or suggestions or to submit questions that they should ask, that would be great. Personally, I promise to treat any submissions in complete confidence, if only to get the point of view of people who have unfortunately experienced the difficulties of the excessive proximity between the military justice system and those facing charges.
Let us come back to the bill, which makes several changes. The bill focuses primarily on changes related to sexual misconduct. The military has other grievances as well, but they are unfortunately not addressed in this bill, which is understandable because it would have been a massive bill. It would have been almost impossible to address it all at once. I wish we had already dealt with this issue so we could move on to other things, but oh well. Again, it goes back to the issue of timing and the proper use of the parliamentary calendar by the government. We could spend all day talking about that. I will refrain from doing so this time.
On the issue of misconduct, the main amendment made by the bill is the one that could only be made through legislation. It seeks to implement recommendation 5 from Justice Arbour's report, which proposes to completely remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences listed in the Criminal Code and committed in Canada. Previously, the only offences that could not be tried by the Armed Forces themselves were murder, manslaughter and cases related to kidnapping or human trafficking. The bill adds new offences that will no longer be dealt with within the armed forces, such as sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, bestiality, voyeurism and publication of child pornography.
These are all sex offences. They can no longer be judged internally. This is a major change that was long overdue and I think it could have been implemented a little sooner. It was the key recommendation emerging from Justice Arbour's report and, as I said, it was the only recommendation that required legislation. Some things will not change, however, and I think that is a good thing. Military personnel can continue to gather evidence while awaiting the arrival of civilian authorities in the event of wrongdoing.
The other recommendations being adopted include ones from Justice Fish's report. Justice Fish recommended modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, to make it a political, civilian process instead of relying on the military chain of command. These individuals would be selected by the government instead of military leadership. That way, they would be sheltered from any form of blackmail. I would just remind my colleagues about the case of the chief of defence staff, Jonathan Vance, who had sexual relations with a subordinate and subsequently bragged about having full control over the military investigations, ensuring that the victim could not file a complaint. His successor at the time, Art McDonald, had also stepped down a few weeks following allegations of a sexual nature. That is one of the recommendations from Justice Fish's report that is implemented by Bill C‑66.
This bill implements eight others as well. I will speak to them briefly. They are recommendations 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Recommendation 2 was that the National Defence Act be amended to allow the Governor in Council to appoint military judges, who can now be any officer or non-commissioned member who is a lawyer registered with the bar of their province and who has at least 10 years of experience as a lawyer and military member. This measure aims to exclude military judges from the summary hearing system. This evidently refers to summary hearings for service infractions or offences of a more disciplinary nature in general, such as being absent without leave, negligently discharging a firearm, wearing a uniform improperly or maintaining equipment poorly. Previously, service infractions like these could be tried before military judges. Now that the government is going to appoint military judges, they will no longer be able to decide matters that are subject to a summary hearing.
I understand the reasoning behind this, but I think it will still be useful to hear from people in committee to find out whether this exclusion is a good idea. The problem is that these summary hearings will always be presided over by unit commanders. This means it will always be a superior officer trying one of their subordinates, which generally results in a rather expeditious form of justice in which the person is guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around. This recommendation may need some improvement.
Recommendation 7 from Justice Fish's report will also be implemented. It calls for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services to be appointed, again on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, for terms of up to seven years.
Recommendation 8 will also be implemented, meaning that the judge advocate general will no longer be able to issue directives or instructions in respect of a particular prosecution. This power will be granted to the Minister of National Defence.
Recommendation 10 calls for the National Defence Act to be amended to enhance respect for the independence of military prosecutors, military defence counsel, and other actors in the military justice system. It will also clarify that the provost marshal, who is the head of the military police, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services are independent.
Recommendations 13 and 14 are for the provost marshal to be appointed by the government rather than by the military. Once again, appointments are being moved outside the military chain of command in favour of a more civilian process. An effort is made to create roles that are more self-sufficient, to avoid constantly ending up in a kind of closed circle or boys' club where judicial decisions are susceptible to outside control.
Finally, there is recommendation 16, which I mentioned earlier. It will allow any member of the military to file an interference complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada. Previously, only the victim could do so. A third party will be able to file a complaint against a military member or superior officer if they believe that the person interfered in the justice process. The purpose is to increase the number of people who can file a complaint, including the victim, for various offences.
Other recommendations being adopted include the recommendation that non‑commissioned members be allowed to become military judges. In the past, this position was reserved for more senior officers, but it did not necessarily reflect the current reality. Many non‑commissioned members, whose rank ranges from private to chief warrant officer, have a stronger academic background than some officers. In some cases, they are more academically qualified to fulfill this role.
Now the role of military judge could be open to a much larger pool that will better respect the current reality of the armed forces, which is not inappropriate in the circumstances. There will also be a much larger pool of potential candidates to select from for this role.
In the less substantial changes set out in Bill C‑66, there is the one that creates the victim's liaison officer position. It provides a representative for the victim, a sort of help in the complaints process. It also adds the possibility of a victim's representative being the spokesperson for the victim in dealing with this liaison officer. Some rather interesting recommendations were made, after all.
Finally, it harmonizes the National Defence Act with the Criminal Code regarding sex offender information and publication bans. There was a sort of code of silence for the general public on what could go on within the forces. Bill C‑66 will help modernize this.
As I was saying earlier, all of this is happening in the context of an issue that we have, unfortunately, been aware of for a long time, the issue of sexual misconduct. Members will recall that Justice Deschamps was commissioned to produce a report, which she submitted in March 2015. At that time, Jonathan Vance was also appointed as chief of the defence staff, even though allegations had already been made against him. Mr. Vance continued to commit indiscretions basically free from recrimination, mainly because the member for Vancouver South, the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness, more or less turned a blind eye to the complaints that he heard and everything surrounding Jonathan Vance's appointment. That likely gave victims the impression that nothing would change and that they would never get justice if the person who committed an offence against them was their superior. Unfortunately, that was true for many long years. We can hope that Bill C‑66 will have a positive impact and that it will give victims at least a little confidence in the system's ability to deliver justice when offences are committed.
Above all, the thing that I hope will change is the impression that no matter what happens in the armed forces, the boys' club will close ranks. Let us hope, once this dynamic changes, that recruitment and retention problems will become a thing of the past. It turns into a kind of vicious circle. The forces get a bad reputation, which has a ripple effect on recruitment and retention. We end up with a smaller pool of members in the forces and, unfortunately, fewer young recruits with a fresh outlook and possibly a much more assertive voice when it comes to speaking up and seeking justice. The fish, we are told, rots from the head. Often, we have to wait until the head is gone before things change. We cannot simply hope that things will change gradually as young people with different values join up. We need to speed up the process.
Bill C‑66 is a step in the right direction. I hope that we can move the bill forward quickly in committee. I somehow doubt it will happen. However, if any sand gets thrown in the gears, Bloc Québécois members will not be the ones to blame.
2609 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my very sincere appreciation for the Bloc's support in moving this bill through second reading and to committee. I also want to acknowledge the very thorough analysis of all the points that are in Bill C-66. The member did a very thorough job of articulating the important measures in this bill and the reasons behind them.
It is absolutely important that every single member of our Canadian Armed Forces, men and women, trusts that they will be treated fairly and respectfully. They should not be afraid to come forward. With the appointment of our chief professional conduct and culture in 2021 and our commitment to that position, with some of the very important work that has taken place over the last two years in implementing almost half of Justice Arbour's recommendations and with our clear commitment to doing the rest, I am hoping that we will encourage people to trust that they will be treated properly.
I also want to share that over 70,000 people applied to join the Canadian Armed Forces last year. There is no shortage of Canadians who want to serve their country. We just have to do a better job of getting them into training and deployed in the services. I believe that the introduction of this bill and the work that we will all do together in committee will make a real difference.
I do not have a question, but I look forward to working with all members on passing the bill through committee. I believe very sincerely that the committee has important work to do and can make this bill better.
278 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the minister may not have asked me a question, but he did raise a point that I failed to mention when I was listing other files that the committee could examine.
With respect to recruitment and retention, yes, 70,000 people applied. The problem is that so many applications remain in the queue for so long because the processing time for new recruits is so problematic that there is no way to make up for the backlog. This is just another example of how much work needs to be done in the armed forces to improve the system. This gives me an opportunity to reiterate that I wish Bill C-66 had passed already, so that we could continue to work on everything that still needs to be done, rather than doing it now, nearly 10 years after the first red flag was raised.
Nevertheless, I will work with the minister and my colleagues on this file, which is critically important, especially for the victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the armed forces.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:38:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when my colleague from the Bloc and I work together on the bill, we will be vigorous in our analysis and will ensure that we get it right.
The member mentioned the member of Parliament for Vancouver South, who is the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness and the former minister of national defence. Does she believe that his protection of his war buddy, his brother in arms, former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, was political interference, and that because of his unwillingness to address this back in 2015 and onward until 2021, after the last federal election, nothing was done on sexual misconduct? Was there a willingness to turn a blind eye to it to protect his friend?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:39:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think there is no need to describe the former minister's actions as political interference to know, to understand and to conclude that it was absolutely not the thing to do.
Unfortunately, what happened ended up slowing down the process, because it was not until 2021, if memory serves, that journalists shed light on the issue and the Standing Committee on National Defence looked into it. Ultimately, it was unable to get anything done for two years because of the Liberals' obstruction.
The former minister's actions aside, it is undeniable that this delayed the adoption of Bill C‑66 currently before us. That might have given us an extra two years to adopt this bill that, in the end, might never see the light of day.
It is shameful and the former minister's actions are partially to blame.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:40:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in addition to the criminal offences, it is crucial to reassess our support for victims of sexual trauma in the military.
We have heard the concerns about the lack of institutional points of contact for francophone members of the armed forces, reservists and cadets.
I know that the member represents a riding where there is a military college, so I would like to ask her whether she supports the committee's inquiry into additional types of support for the survivors.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:41:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for the question she asked in perfect French.
Unfortunately, that comes back to what I was saying earlier. There are so many important issues to examine. Unless I am mistaken, the issue that she raised is addressed in a motion, but there are so many motions that the Standing Committee on National Defence has to examine.
Generally speaking, the substance of these motions is worthwhile. The Standing Committee on National Defence has worked relatively well over the past two and a half years since I have been the critic for this file. The problem is not the quality of the files that we need to look at, but the fact that the workload is enormous and the number of issues continues to grow. I therefore agree with what my colleague is saying. Unfortunately, the problem is more about prioritizing all of the files that the Standing Committee on National Defence has to look at. We have more work than we have time for.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:42:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very informative speech. She clearly has a firm grasp of the file.
I also want to acknowledge the Minister of National Defence for listening carefully to the positions of each of the other parties. Unfortunately, the House seldom sees a minister so diligent about his legislation. We appreciate it. We support the bill in principle, although it should have been implemented and passed a long time ago.
My hon. colleague raised another issue. It concerns the testimony of victims in committee who may end up getting caught in partisan crossfire from various elected members sitting on the Standing Committee on National Defence. She apparently has some suggestions to ensure the comfort and well-being of these witnesses and ensure they are treated with respect, considering the kinds of stress they may be dealing with.
I would like to hear her thoughts on that.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I put the question to my colleague the co-chair, he may have mentioned that the issue of sexual misconduct is so non-partisan that we should ensure the safety of the witnesses who testify about it. However, the issue of domestic violence should not have been partisan either. That did not stop us from witnessing an unfortunate circus this summer at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Hence my suggestion to have these individuals testify in camera, if they request it. The goal is to give ourselves an opportunity not to engage in partisanship, which we may be a little more quick to do when the cameras are rolling. That is a solution I am proposing. Perhaps there will be others. I would be more than happy to discuss it with my colleagues. I think it is critical for this issue.
I will pick up where my hon. colleague from Joliette left off. It is true that the minister is very attentive and available. I appreciate that. We know that he cares deeply about all issues affecting the forces. We do not always agree on how to resolve them, but we are able to talk about them in a very courteous way and that is appreciated.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:45:23 p.m.
- Watch
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.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
