44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2024 10:00AM
- Sep/19/24 1:20:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the time I have left I would like to table a petition about Canadian identity and heritage, an issue that has not been discussed in this place for some time, but remains very important to many of my constituents.
The petitioners note how the Canadian passport has long had images significant to Canadian heritage, including the Fathers of Confederation, the Vimy Memorial and Terry Fox. The government made a series of outrageous changes to the images on the passport, erasing these images.
The undersigned petitioners call upon the government to reverse this plan that erased these symbols of national heritage and identity and to restore the celebration and appreciation that we should have for these great heroes of Canadian history and the reverence for these important monuments and memorials of our proud shared history.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:21:07 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today is an important day for many survivors. I want to begin by recognizing the women and men who are watching this debate on the bill today. There are generations of survivors of military sexual trauma who will be closely following the debate on the legislation. I have heard from many of them. They told me about how they felt invisible. Some have felt invisible to the institution they committed their lives to in the Canadian Armed Forces. Some have felt invisible to the senior leadership of the military they served. Some have felt invisible to the greater public, who do not know all the complex layers of their experiences. Some have felt invisible to us, the few hundred Canadians with the rare privilege to serve in the House of Commons, who hold a sacred obligation as decision-makers to protect those who protect us.
Every day these survivors are working for change. They build resilience by supporting and holding each other up when the institutions will not. They empower each other and assist with making claims when institutions will not. They organize and demand reforms to politicians when our priorities do not meet them where they are at. They come together to support each other when they choose to make the impossible decision to share and reshare their trauma to the media or to parliamentary committees.
Today is another chapter in their fight. I want to highlight this to the women and men watching, to those brave survivors. This piece of legislation is not the last chapter, but one step in a large list of changes that are needed, and I am with them. We will not stop until there is justice for survivors and until everyone who steps up to serve their country can do so in a safe environment. I want them to know they are not invisible. They are remarkable, and they are not alone.
Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act, which, among other things, is legislating Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation of the independent external review to remove criminal sexual offences from the military justice system. This will give exclusive jurisdiction to the civilian justice system.
This legislation also works to implement some of the recommendations by Justice Fish's third independent review of the National Defence Act, expanding the eligibility criteria to be appointed as a military judge to allow non-commissioned members to become judges, not just military officers. This legislation removes the minister's power of appointing and removing the director of military prosecutions—
435 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:24:02 p.m.
- Watch
Point of order. There seems to be a problem with interpretation. Is that the issue?
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:24:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the interpreters are saying that there is a phone on vibrate near a microphone, so they are having difficulty doing their job.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:24:17 p.m.
- Watch
Is it working now?
Sorry, I will put my earpiece in.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:24:37 p.m.
- Watch
The interpreter said that there was a phone on vibrate next to a microphone.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:24:44 p.m.
- Watch
This happened during presenting of petitions as well. I want to remind members to please put their telephones away from the mic, not even have them on the desk or put them on airplane mode, because it does interfere with interpretation. We want to make sure that the interpreters are able to interpret properly, and make sure that their health and safety is taken care of.
The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this legislation would remove the minister's power of appointing and removing the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. Instead, these would become Governor in Council appointments, with the minister having the power to request a public inquiry into potential remedial or disciplinary measures against these directors. It would remove the ability of the judge advocate general to issue instructions to the director of military prosecutions on individual cases. While the director would still be operating under the JAG and could get general instructions, the JAG would no longer be able to direct individual cases.
It would change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general, putting that individual on the same level as the judge advocate general and reporting directly to the minister instead of reporting to the vice chief of the defence staff. It would reverse a component of Harper-era Bill C-15, which gave the vice chief of the defence staff power to issue instructions to the provost marshal on particular cases. It would expand eligibility to submit an interference complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Currently, complaints of interference can only be made by a member of the military police. It would now allow a victim, an individual acting on behalf of a victim or any other person affected by the performance of the policing duty to make a complaint. It would codify some practices from Bill C-77, including that military judges cannot oversee summary hearings and that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction.
There would be some major changes to how Canada will treat criminal sexual offences in the military. Again, it is another chapter in Canada's ongoing military sexual trauma crisis, which has spanned decades. For many Canadians, this was first brought to their attention in 1998, when brave women spoke out to Maclean's magazine. There was a four-part series on the systemic sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces and it discussed how violence against women was covered up and how the chain of command looked the other way far too often. This coincided with a public trust crisis in the Canadian Armed Forces, driven by the Somalia affair. The two events spurred several reforms. This included the creation of a Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman, the Military Police Complaints Commission, a military grievance external review committee and the decision to move criminal sexual offences into the jurisdiction of the military police, the exact policy this legislation is looking to reverse.
This is the critical point I have heard from many service people. For decades, survivors have felt that while they deserve justice, they have not received that justice. Women, 2SLGBTQ+ and marginalized communities have felt that the Canadian Armed Forces and the federal government are not making the reforms to create space for them. Instead, they feel that the government is reacting to bad press, treating them like a problem to be managed instead of people to be valued. Decades after the government's decision to bring criminal sexual offences into the military police's jurisdiction, The Globe and Mail reported that those feelings were real. Through historic cabinet documents, they found that the then-minister of defence, Art Eggleton, made the transfer simply to end the media coverage of sexual assault in the military. The federal government did not make this change to protect women and men in the armed forces but instead did so to protect itself, hoping people would forget.
However, survivors have continued fighting for a change, and their organizing has brought the spotlight onto harmful military culture again and again. Their perseverance has led to multiple investigations into the military justice system. To date, this has included the 2015 report by Justice Deschamps, the 2021 report by Justice Fish, an Auditor General's report, two reports by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and, of course, Arbour's report. I want to also include the recent history-making report by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on women's health.
Supporting survivors of military sexual trauma is generational. Even before my time in the House of Commons, my mother, Irene Mathyssen, worked on this issue and spoke with many women about their experience. They have told me that, for so many, she was the first member of Parliament to believe them and to hear them. She saw the urgency of this crisis, and she fought for women in the military and victims of military sexual trauma. When I was elected, I joined the NDP team as the critic for the status of women. When the scandals broke, involving the most senior military officials being perpetrators and enablers of sexual misconduct, we saw the Standing Committee on National Defence get caught up in the partisan politics of this place. I saw parliamentarians weaponize the experience of these survivors to score political points against each other and I saw endless filibustering. However, women parliamentarians from across the political spectrum knew that survivors deserved better.
We brought this study to the status of women committee, and I heard the stories of these brave survivors. I promised them and myself that I would fight for them and I am honoured that they trusted me with their experiences and asked me to help them make the change. I can never forget that promise. I now serve as the critic for national defence, and I have used every opportunity to push for that change. I have challenged every minister, every departmental official and every senior CAF official to move on the long list of recommendations that can create meaningful culture change.
The Canadian Armed Forces has been criticized for being slow to enact recommendations from these reports. Justice Arbour emphasized the need for greater civilian input and oversight within the military to cut through the systemic resistance to change. When the current President of the Treasury Board was the minister of national defence, she announced, on December 13, 2022, that she would accept all of Justice Arbour's recommendations and bring forward a plan to enact these changes, including this legislation. The government announced an immediate transfer of all active criminal sexual investigations to civilian courts. However, this did not happen entirely. Approximately half of cases remained in the military justice system without a clear explanation as to why.
Of the cases that were transferred, the existing concurrent jurisdiction between the military police and civilian authorities caused major problems. Retired Corporal Arianna Nolet was one of the first military sexual trauma victims to have her case transferred to civilian courts. Last September, her case was stayed due to time delays in the back-and-forth between military and civilian police. The cause of the delays was twofold. First, civilian authorities were wary of taking over the case and, due to concurrent jurisdiction, they were not mandated to accept the case. Second, the transfer of the case files by the military police was significantly delayed. Military police dragged their feet every step of the way, leaving what the judge called an “albatross of nine months of delay under the military justice system clasped suddenly around [the case's] neck, [which] was irretrievably locked up in the civilian system”. That albatross meant a survivor was denied her day in court. The case was thrown out of court under timely-trial rules. When that case was thrown out, the minister of defence said it was a unique circumstance, but we have seen several cases have the same fate.
One of Canada's most prominent military law experts, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, said the law must be changed to end concurrent jurisdiction, and as long as we transfer cases between two jurisdictions, we will see more and more cases stayed. Drapeau, who wrote the main book on military law in Canada, said the government should have immediately brought forward a short bill, a page, to amend the National Defence Act and simply add criminal sexual offences to the list of crimes the military cannot handle. With that simple change, we could have prevented the cases that were transferred from being stayed.
That is why, last year, I brought forward my bill, Bill C-363, which would have done exactly that. Because of my place in the lottery for Private Members' Business, the bill was not debated. However, I wanted to send a message to the minister that we need urgency. We needed action as soon as possible to end the tug-of-war over jurisdiction and ensure that all survivors who have their cases transferred would have their day in court.
There are still many cases moving forward in this confusing tug-of-war, and there is no indication that the transfer is getting smoother because this is not about procedure and it is not about making technocratic deals with provinces; this is about power. This is about a system designed to cover up problems, to revictimize survivors and to maintain the status quo. That is why there is so much urgency to fix this problem and why the NDP is supporting bringing this bill to committee quickly.
However, let me be clear: With just this legislation, the government is not fully delivering the changes needed and this cannot be the last chapter in our fight. When the Minister of National Defence announced the legislation, I heard from countless women and men, survivors of military sexual trauma, about their frustration with the current government. They told me that they were never consulted by the government on the legislation. Much like they saw in 1998, they were seeing another checking-of-a-box exercise, so they once again felt invisible.
We cannot make legislation about survivors without survivors. We cannot treat survivors as a communications problem to be solved or a legal liability to be avoided. They are women and men who have stepped forward to protect our country, who are willing to put their lives on the line when the federal government deploys them. Parliamentarians have a moral, sacred obligation to do everything they can to protect them and not revictimize those who have faced institutional betrayal.
I have spent the summer in conversation with dozens of survivors with first-hand experience of reporting their cases in the military and civilian justice systems and they need to be consulted. That is why we need to get this legislation to committee quickly, where we can centre on the voices of survivors and, through amendment, give them a voice in this change.
I do not have enough time to speak about all of them, but some of the feelings and ideas I heard about need to make it to the committee study. I would like to provide a bit of context today.
First and foremost, we need to end the framing of this problem as a criminal justice issue alone. It is easy to say the sexual misconduct was carried out by a few bad apples, that it was the old boys' club covering up for their buddies, and by swapping people around, we could end it, or that this is about a handful of truly horrific random acts of violence. Criminal sexual offences do not come out of nowhere. This is a result of a permissive environment, a culture that encourages gendered and power dynamics, that allows powerful men to test and push boundaries over and over without anyone speaking up.
If we only focus on criminal justice reform and not on tough conversations around institutional culture change, we are not doing justice for survivors. It is not enough to hold perpetrators accountable. We must get to the roots of, and prevent, sexual violence. We cannot put all the resources and energy for change into a legal reform basket. We need a top-down review of the CAF, from recruitment and training to the health care system, promotions and so much more.
I also heard concerns that the Criminal Code focus of this bill is not addressing the escalatory nature of sexual misconduct and could create problems with drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. I heard that many survivors have lost faith in the justice system as a whole, and the divide between civilian and military justice does not address that loss of faith. The problems of the civilian justice system must be addressed.
I heard concerns that this legislation could continue the rotten-apple theory that the problem is a handful of powerful perpetrators who need to be stopped instead of a wider institutional and cultural driver. I heard that there need to be more options for survivors to get justice, not fewer. There need to be greater opportunities and supports toward pursuing human rights court cases and non-criminal cases, as well as opportunities for restorative justice. Survivors need more agency and more say in how their cases move forward.
I heard that survivors need greater supports and information, including legal services, prior to reporting to be fully informed on the process. I heard many conversations about whether the bill is protecting investigations from chain-of-command interference. There are concerns around civilian police gaining access to conduct new investigations, collect evidence and access necessary information for historical cases.
I heard concerns about the expertise and preparedness of the civilian system with regard to military cases. These included concerns about local police units' connections with current or former military personnel, resources of civilian police, jurisdictions between and across provinces, willingness to open complex cases, the ability to understand and access military records and spaces, and the need for a dedicated national team.
I heard concerns about the creation of new senior positions, changes to military judge appointments, and the need to ensure accountability, scrutiny of appointments and an openness to voices outside of the old guard. I heard concerns about pursuing aspects of a criminal case that are illegal under the National Defence Act but not currently codified in the Criminal Code of Canada. I heard of the need to ensure that this reform is not set in stone forever and that research and legislative reviews are proactively scheduled to ensure this legislative change is having the intended impact.
I heard strong concerns about international misconduct cases, including the collection and preservation of evidence and the ability of the military justice system to handle these cases. I heard strong concerns that the members of the cadets, the reserves and the navy, and civilian employees on base were not adequately considered in this legislation. I heard strong concerns that members who are not on base cannot access the same quality of services and supports and that new supports in this bill do not adequately address this gap.
I heard that the new rules on the victim's liaison officer positions need to be reconsidered and strengthened and that there is a need for a legal and policy advocate independent from the chain of command. I heard some talk about the importance of underlining that this is not only a women's issue and increasing outreach to all service members.
That is just a bit of what I heard. However, there was one unified message from everyone we spoke to: This bill is simply not enough. This cannot be the be-all and end-all. Survivors will not remain invisible. Culture change is not something that happens overnight, and I understand that, nor can it be fixed by one piece of legislation. This is an issue that the government and all of us in this place must be committed to.
I will conclude as I started. Generations of military sexual trauma survivors have felt invisible. They have fought every day to demand that we fulfill our responsibility to protect everyone who serves. When the bill gets to committee, we will hear from survivors. We will centre their voices and their proposals, because we cannot make this legislation about survivors without survivors.
2677 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:40:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my appreciation to the member opposite for her lifelong dedication to ensuring that every member of the Canadian Armed Forces and all employees of the Department of National Defence are treated with respect and compassion and are provided with the appropriate supports.
I agree wholeheartedly with the need for action, and we are taking that action, but first of all we need to listen. We need to hear the voices of survivors, victims and witnesses. To hear their lived experience, their advocacy and their testimony is important. I want to assure the member that in this process the Canadian Armed Forces has interviewed over 16,000 of those people and heard their voices. Madam Justice Arbour interviewed hundreds of witnesses and advocates in order to reach conclusions.
I believe that what we brought forward in this bill is helpful and has important steps—
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:41:52 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. minister might be able to get up for other questions after, but at this point it is time for the response from the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:42:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we can never do enough to hear, and it is true that we also have to listen. A lot of the people I heard from were referring to the fact that, specifically about this legislation, they were not consulted. It may have been in other formats, done by other people, but not by this government and not for this legislation.
I hope we can continue to work together to ensure they are brought to committee, but also to bring forward the recommendations we heard in the veterans committee study about women's health to be included in the work of the national defence committee.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:42:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the Liberal soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, would allow criminals convicted of sexual assault to serve their sentence at home in front of a television. Does the member believe survivors of military sexual trauma should have to endure their attacker serving out their sentence in the comfort of their house right down the street?
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:43:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is new to this place, and I congratulate him on his win. I certainly congratulate him on becoming a new member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. I look forward to working with him in the future.
I think the Conservatives have a long way to go to understanding what listening to the voices of survivors of sexual trauma and violence truly is. I would point out that at the Conservative Party convention in 2023, one of their main spokespeople said in his speech that “Canadian values are being destroyed due to a lack of leadership and a woke movement that panders to narrow special interests.” He continued on a Jordan Peterson podcast and openly questioned the existence of a sexual misconduct crisis.
I would ask the Conservative Party to look within as to who Conservatives are listening to regarding sexual misconduct and violence instead of taking the time to listen to survivors.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:44:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from London—Fanshawe, with whom I have worked on this file, notably as part of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
What strikes me about her speech—what strikes me again today—is that we are still talking about this in 2024, when in 2015, before the Liberals even came to power, the Conservatives knew things about the general. The things they knew were simply accepted and tolerated. There was a report by Justice Deschamps. Even Justice Arbour, when she was appointed, said that recommendations had already been made several years earlier, yet she was asked to produce another report.
Does my colleague agree that the real lack of political will to change the culture within the armed forces is why we are still talking about this today, in 2024?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:45:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her work. We worked very well together on the status of women committee. We were dedicated to hearing the women and the survivors who came forward, and I certainly am grateful for her continued work for women.
It is one of my concerns, and I addressed this in my speech, that there is just a shifting of responsibilities and not a true desire to shift the culture. It is absolutely true that in 2015, with the Justice Deschamps report, moving forward through the various reports and institutions, we heard the same thing and it was not acted upon. Even Justice Arbour said she feared her report would move into “the graveyard of recommendations”.
This is, again, one piece. There is a huge amount of work that we need to do, and listening to the victims is a huge part of that moving forward.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all those across Canada who are serving our country. I want to acknowledge the victims of sexual trauma and assault serving in the armed forces who have not received the justice they deserve or the reassurance that things will be different for those who choose to serve after them.
I am thankful for the work of my colleague from London—Fanshawe. I want to ask my colleague about a bill she has worked really hard on, Bill C-362, which is calling to make the national defence ombudsperson an officer of Parliament.
Can the member share how the bill she put forward relates to the bill we are talking about today?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 1:47:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that specific bill is one I brought forward at the same time I brought forward the changes moving sexual assault cases from the military system into the civilian system and to do it quickly.
I have met often with the national defence ombudsperson. He and his predecessor have asked that the role become one of an independent officer of Parliament in order to provide survivors with greater transparency, accountability and independence; to ensure their stories are heard; and to give the ombudsman the opportunity and ability to fully investigate in a safe and secure way, as opposed to having to go through chains of command within the military system.
That independence is really key, and it is something I will continue to fight for in collaboration with the new ombudsperson, who I want to congratulate today.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for London—Fanshawe and add my words to those of the members thanking her for her work. I also worked with her mother, and I would like to thank Irene Mathyssen for consistent leadership on the issue of justice for women who suffered sexual violence in the course of their military service.
Having studied the bill, does the member believe it is possible to make sufficient amendments in clause-by-clause in committee to make Bill C-66 ready for speedy passage?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
