44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2024 10:00AM
- Sep/19/24 3:40:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is quite a normal practice for parties to listen attentively to arguments raised by other parties and to respond to them and provide information to the Speaker to consider that would rebut one of those points. This is a very normal course of action. I raised my original point of—
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 3:40:39 p.m.
- Watch
We agree that the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has the right to raise the question again.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 3:40:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are not talking about ordering the production of documents by the administration of a hospital or curriculum decisions of a school. Both areas are squarely within the provincial jurisdiction, so the Liberal House leader's concerns about jurisdiction simply do not carry water.
Second, on her view that the House may not exercise its power to send for papers that would be, in turn, provided to another body, I would draw the House's attention to the fact that this issue has been judicially considered.
In its 1989 decision, Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the matter of a previous auditor general being stonewalled by a previous Trudeau government. The court reconciled subsection 13(1) of the Auditor General Act, which entitles her to free access to government information, with paragraph 7(1)(b), which requires the Auditor General to report to the House, “on whether, in carrying on the work of [her] office, [she] received all the information and explanations [she] required.”
Chief Justice Dickson held, on behalf of a unanimous bench, at page 98, “The section refers to a duty to report of the Auditor General, but can, in my view, simultaneously be characterized as a reporting remedy.”
He went on to state:
There must be some purpose for conveying such information to the House of Commons and one must assume that Parliament intended the House of Commons to exercise its judgment as to whether to seek the information its servant had not been able to secure....
While it is irregular to cite court decisions as precedent for procedural debates here, it is worth reflecting on the fact that this country's highest court has clearly contemplated the concept of the House exercising its right to send for papers in aid of a third party holding the government to account. However, it is not just a hypothetical exercise. There is, in fact, at least one practical example which I know the Speaker would be familiar with.
On July 22, 2020, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, on which the Speaker then sat, voted to compel the production of documents related to Margaret and Sacha Trudeau's speaking contracts and to provide a copy to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Parliament was, of course, cynically prorogued one day before those documents were to be turned over.
In the new session of Parliament, when the ethics committee debated readopting the production order, the Speaker told the committee, on October 9, 2020, at page 10 of the evidence:
When that decision was made at the time, I told my colleagues around this table that if they wanted to do that, we could do that, but that we would have to take all the necessary steps to ensure that this information would go directly to the Ethics Commissioner, through the clerk.
However, if the Speaker's views on compelling the production of documents to be passed through the hands of the clerks have changed, then I would invite the Chair to consider this aspect of the motion to be an exercise of the House's privilege to publish papers. That privilege traces its origins to the United Kingdom's Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, the preamble to which begins:
Whereas it is essential to the due and effectual Exercise and Discharge of the Functions and Duties of Parliament, and to the Promotion of wise Legislation, that no Obstructions or Impediments should exist to the Publication of such of the Reports, Papers, Votes, or Proceedings of either House of Parliament as such House of Parliament may deem fit or necessary to be published:
While we normally think of a publication as referring to making something known far and wide to the public, that is not the only such meaning. Page 1250 of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines the verb to publish as, among other things, to “communicate...to a third party.”
Third, another one of the privileges of the House is the right to regulate its internal affairs, sometimes also known as having exclusive cognizance of its proceedings. Paragraph 11.16 of Erskine May, 25th edition, explains:
Both Houses retain the right to be sole judge of the lawfulness of their own proceedings, and to settle—or depart from—their own codes of procedure. This is equally the case where the House in question is dealing with a matter which is finally decided by its sole authority, such as an order or resolution, or where (like a bill) it is the joint concern of both Houses.
This principle has been favourably cited by your predecessors at, for example, page 1940 of the Debates for March 1, 1966; page 2039 of the Debates for April 27, 2010; page 10004 of the Debates for September 17, 2012; and page 18550 of the Debates for June 18, 2013.
The procedure and house affairs committee, for its part, wrote in a report, which the House concurred in on December 2, 2013, “Parliament is the sole judge of the appropriateness of the exercise of any of its privileges.”
On parliamentary privilege, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes at page 81, “This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.”
It is, I would submit, no barrier for the House to consider exercising a novel approach to a document production order, nor does disobedience to that order fall outside the ambit of contempt. Indeed, it may be worth recalling that many of the House's powers were not neatly distilled, but evolved over centuries of struggle and fight, which built up the body of precedence.
Fourth, I would argue that the time for challenging the order's admissibility was back in June, when the House considered the Conservative opposition day motion. Bosc and Gagnon note, at page 565 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:
Before reading a motion to the House, it is the Speaker’s duty to ensure that it is procedurally in order. This is done by verifying that the notice requirement, if any, has been met, that the wording of the motion corresponds to that of the notice, and that the motion contains no objectionable or irregular wording. Any part of a motion found out of order will render the whole motion out of order. If the Chair finds the form of the motion to be irregular, he or she has the authority to modify it in order to ensure that it conforms to the usage of the House....
If the motion is found to be in order, and has been moved and seconded, the Speaker proposes it to the House.
When the House considered the Conservative opposition motion on June 6, this is exactly what happened. Indeed, the Liberals put forward no challenge at all to the motion's admissibility. The opposition motion was placed on notice 48 hours ahead of debate, as required by the Standing Orders, debated for a full sitting day, and then a vote was deferred to the fourth calendar day following the debate. The motion was placed on the Notice Paper on a Tuesday afternoon. It was voted on the following Monday afternoon. At no point in between did anyone object to the motion's admissibility. Only now are we hearing someone make any argument to that effect. This reminds me of a situation with which I have some personal familiarity.
On March 27, 2014, the House adopted an order requiring Tom Mulcair, the then leader of the New Democratic Party, to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which he did on May 15 of that year. The following day, the NDP House leader rose on a point of order to argue that the motion and resulting order were inadmissible. The Chair ruled on June 12, 2014, at page 6719 of the Debates:
I would have been inclined to rule the motion out of order had this matter been raised within a reasonable delay. To be clear, the Chair did not readily deem the motion to be procedurally admissible, as the [NDP] House leader suggested. Instead, in the absence of any objection at the time that the motion was moved, the matter went forward and the motion was adopted.
To argue inadmissibility more than 14 weeks after the House adopted the order, as the Liberal House leader now attempts, simply cannot be allowed. Of course, I would argue that the ruling that the motion was admissible would be the same today as it would have been on June 6.
Fifth, as to whether redactions were authorized, I would recall the law clerk and parliamentary counsel's own words, on page 2 of his July 17 report to you on compliance with the order: “I also note that the order did not contemplate that redactions be made to documents or that information be withheld.”
The Maingot passage which the government House Leader cited reads, crucially, “The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed”. No limitation in the House's June 10 order to allow for redactions was self-imposed. As I mentioned in my original arguments, it is always for the House itself to determine the scope of its document production orders and to judge the government's reasons for refusing to provide information. It does that through the course of debate, amendment and voting. Regardless, should you disagree with me on this point about redactions, it still does not excuse those government institutions which have failed to provide all the required documents by the deadline imposed in the House's order.
Sixth, with respect to the government House leader's concern about the charter rights of anyone who might have defrauded the government or otherwise participated in government corruption, I would recall for you her own acknowledgement that the Chair does not decide questions of law. In any event, it is also important to recall that the law of parliamentary privilege is a body of constitutional law on equal footing with the Charter. As for a policy-based argument about charter concerns, that is one which I would submit would be more properly made in the course of debate on the June 6 opposition motion or, should you find a prima facie contempt, on the subsequent privilege motion the House would debate.
These views certainly were not advanced during the June 6 debate. During that debate, Liberals were much more focused on speaking about a machinery of government announcement about the Liberals coming up with a new way to deliver its green slush fund. My counterpart suggested that perhaps a procedure and House affairs committee study might be appropriate. To that, allow me to quote from paragraphs 84 and 86 of the 2019 report of the U.K. House of Commons procedure committee on document production, which I cited in my original arguments.
It states:
Ministers are responsible for putting before the House their arguments against the disclosure of information which they believe requires protection. If they then cannot persuade the House to endorse those arguments by the process of decision and vote—or do not attempt to do so—they must determine how far they should comply with the resulting resolution or order of the House. It is not for the House to put in place procedures and practices which shield Ministers from the exercise of this responsibility....
The House alone determines the scope of its power to call for papers. In its consideration of each motion it is able to discern whether an inappropriate or irresponsible use of the power is sought, and whether it is being asked to require the production of information from Ministers on a scale disproportionate to the matter under debate. We expect that in each such case the House will continue to exercise its judgment in favour of a responsible use of the power.
Seventh, as for the Liberal House leader's concerns about it appearing as if the House is directing law enforcement, I would recall the comments of the Bloc Québécois House leader, who said it is up to the RCMP to decide what to do with the documents. The House order solely required the law clerk and parliamentary counsel to transmit the documents. It has not obliged the RCMP to open the envelope or insert the USB key into a computer.
In any event, I would take note of paragraph 11.29 of Erskine May, 25th edition, which states:
In cases of breach of privilege which are also offences at law, where the punishment which the Commons has power to inflict would not be adequate to the offence, or where for any other cause the House has thought a proceeding at law necessary, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, its own proceedings, the Attorney General has been directed to prosecute the offender.
Lee expands upon this issue at pages 211 to 213 of his book for those who are interested in reading more.
Students of the U.K. Parliament will recall that its House of Commons used to have, until recently, an annual practice of adopting, on the opening day of each session, a sessional order directed to the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to keep streets leading to the Palace of Westminster free and open. I am not suggesting that we direct the police or prosecution here, but it is a point that is important in understanding the authority of the House of Commons.
Finally, as for the Liberal House leader's argument that the only appropriate motion would be to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee, I disagree. When her deputy tried to advance the same argument in respect of the proposed motion to address the question of privilege concerning the ArriveCAN contractor Kristian Firth's refusal to answer committee questions, the Speaker ruled, on March 22, 2024, at page 21946 of the Debates, the following, “I am of the view that it is procedurally in order. As with the case cited from June 2021, the motion provides for...a specific remedy to the offence.”
My motion would do just that, provide a remedy to reorder the production of the documents. Bosc and Gagnon describe, at pages 986 and 987, the options available to a committee that is meeting resistance to its document production order: to accept the refusal, to seek a compromise or to insist on its position by upholding its original order. My proposed motion, effectively, is that third option. I would submit that, for this purpose, there is no distinction between the House or one of its committees.
In any event, Bosc and Gagnon discuss, at pages 138 and 987, the scenario where a committee report to the House on a case of disobedience to a document production order, which I note would be a contempt, may be addressed by the House adopting its own order for the production of documents. Indeed, the 2021 case mentioned saw the House order the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada attend the bar of the House for, among other things, the purpose of turning over the documents which had not been provided. That was, in turn, modelled on precedent cases, which Bosc and Gagnon describe at pages 131 and 132.
In conclusion, the arguments of the government House leader simply do not add up. The government failed to respect the validly expressed and lawful will of the House of Commons. That is a contempt of Parliament. If the Speaker agrees, Conservatives will give the Liberal Prime Minister one more chance to respect Parliament and turn over the green slush fund documents within one week.
Simply put, all the arguments that the government House leader made would more properly be not for the Chair's consideration but for members' consideration during debate on the privilege motion itself. The Chair is not supposed to accept new restrictions on the power of the House's authority to send for papers. That is something that only the House can do itself.
The Speaker's role in this case is to simply judge, almost as though it were a simple mathematical formula. A production order was tabled, debated and voted on. It passed. That checks that box. Was the production order respected? No. There is only one conclusion. If the production order is not respected, the Speaker must put that issue to the House, and then the House can decide what the most appropriate remedy is.
2803 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 3:55:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, very briefly, I want to contribute to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East concerning the special report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.
The hon. member is right to be worried about foreign interference, and especially about the Liberal government's abject failure to do anything about it. Indeed, several Conservatives, such as the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, as well as our former colleague Kenny Chiu, have also been targeted by the Beijing Communist regime's tactics.
This committee's special report made a lot of sensational revelations about the extent of foreign interference in the federal political scene, many of which the hon. member cited in her intervention. In fact, all Canadians were shocked by the special report.
There is one more revelation from the special report, which speaks to the very heart of why we should be worried about the Liberal Prime Minister's inexcusable failures to defend Canadian democracy from outside interference. The special report revealed in paragraph 126:
In December 2019, the Clerk of the Privy Council sought the Prime Minister’s authorization to implement the Committee’s recommendations by having CSIS brief parliamentarians in the early weeks of the 43rd Parliament. The Prime Minister’s Office never replied formally to the recommendation. In December 2020, the NSIA returned to the Prime Minister to seek authorization for CSIS to brief parliamentarians.... The package for the Prime Minister included draft instruction letters to the Ministers of Public Safety and Defence to coordinate the briefings....
The Conservatives have recently come to learn that this project was not advice that was closely held to the Prime Minister and his most immediate advisers. The Privy Council Office has released, under the Access to Information Act, an unredacted version of the government House leader's 2019 transition briefing book, which also discusses the parliamentary briefing proposal.
In November 2019, the Prime Minister's recently resigned Quebec lieutenant was informed, at page 27 of his briefing book:
Pending a decision by the Prime Minister, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and PCO have prepared an unclassified, introductory briefing on foreign interference risks faced by parliamentarians. The briefing could be delivered to MPs and senators in sessions offered by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Government House Leader) and the Government Representative in the Senate in the early weeks of the 43rd Parliament.
Now we know that the public service was pushing at all corners of the Liberal government to make sure parliamentarians were alert to the threats around us, but those briefings were never held nor were they ever offered.
NSICOP tells us that when he was asked why he never took action, “The prime minister responded that he thought that the Parliamentary Protective Service already briefs new parliamentarians about foreign interference.” If that is to be believed, that answer is dripping in ignorance, and it is ignorance in which the Prime Minister would prefer to keep Canadians about the threats posed by foreign interference in Canada's Parliament.
Under subsection 21(5) of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, the Prime Minister directed the committee to provide him with a revised report, revised to redact the names of the individuals involved. It is, frankly, unacceptable that any parliamentarian would wittingly aid a hostile foreign power to undermine our democratic process and elections, which every member of Parliament is sworn to protect.
Canadians deserve to know if federal parliamentarians have knowingly engaged in activities on behalf of foreign governments that have undermined Canada's national interests. NSICOP's findings cannot be ignored, and we cannot trust the Prime Minister on this critical issue.
That is why the Conservatives have been calling since June for the parliamentarians who have betrayed Canada's interests to be named. If Canadians are to continue to have faith in their federal democratic institutions, they need to know who has broken their oath and betrayed their trust. This is what Canadians deserve. Anything less risks fuelling public suspicion about a cover-up of information known to the Liberal government about members of Parliament working for foreign states against the interests of Canada.
720 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 3:59:59 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for the comments.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:00:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on one level, this is a relatively simple bill that would transfer the issues of sexual offences from the military's jurisdiction to civilian jurisdiction so that military personnel are treated in the same fashion that civilians are. This flows from a rather lengthy response.
No bill nor change in culture happens quickly, whether it is in the military or otherwise, but in the “House Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN), MND Update to Parliament on Arbour Recommendations”, from December 13, 2022, on the last page of the 50- or 60-page document, is recommendation number five, which is that the Government of Canada proceed with this bill. It goes into some detail, which is not necessary, but I am happy to table it. It also outlines the implications of the efforts the government has made to complete this recommendation, including consultations with territories and provinces, and ministers, such as the national defence minister, public safety minister and justice minister, meeting with all the provinces and territories.
I will not detail all of the work that has gone into responding to this recommendation. It may well appear that it is a simple thing to take the jurisdiction from the military courts and put it into the civilian courts, but it is a lot of work, and I want to commend the ministers who have worked diligently on bringing us to this point today.
I understand that this bill will gain a lot of support in the House, and so it should. It is in some respects symbolic of what has been a slow and painful culture change in the military. It is a very symbolic bill, in that it is a particular marker of response by the military.
Canada's military today is not our fathers' military and it is certainly not our grandfathers' military. It is a far more sophisticated organization, and it calls upon a range of talents and abilities that probably could not have been dreamed of even 10 or 20 years ago. Therefore, Canada's military needs to be a welcoming and inviting organization for all of Canada's citizens to participate in.
I will point members to the first recommendation of the defence committee, from June 2022: “That the Government of Canada take decisive steps to transform the institutional culture within the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure an inclusive, safe and respectful workplace for all Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence personnel.” That is the core reason this bill is in front of the House. It is because we need to change.
The threat environment, even in the last two years, has dramatically changed. We can think of Ukraine. We can think of the South China Sea. We can think of Palestine. This morning we had a threat briefing from three very able individuals, and I must admit that all of my colleagues on the committee came up to me afterwards and said that it was really excellent.
Because the threat environment has changed and we need a whole-of-society response to this change in culture, this bill needs to be passed, as it is essentially treating these kinds of offences in the same manner that offences would be treated in a civilian court. There should be no difference. There are difficulties with the military justice system. If there is an incident of some kind with two uniformed personnel, somebody is saluting somebody, and after the incident takes place, people still have to carry on their regular business of the day. It is extremely awkward and difficult. While we properly focus on the victim, we also need to keep in mind that there is justice on both sides.
In the Canadian military, we need a wide diversity of skills. I want everyone to think for a moment of a young woman or man contemplating a career in the Canadian military. In the past, and I hope no longer, there was a perception that over the course of a career, there was a high percent chance that a sexual incident would happen. Think of a young woman or man being invited into an organization where there is a significant chance that something will happen and, if something happens, there is a significant chance that the resolution will be unsatisfactory. They are not going into the same justice system as they would if the exact incident happened on the street, for want of a better term. That is going to affect their career, and the discharge arrangements for their career will not be as satisfactory as they otherwise could be. We should ask ourselves how that works for a military that is trying to recruit people. If we think of it from the standpoint of a young woman or man, that aspect of a career in the Canadian military is not attractive, but we need their skills.
In some respects, this bill would deal with one of the more egregious aspects of recruitment and retention. The Canadian military is significantly undermanned, somewhere in the order of 16,000 people. When I asked General Allen how many people were applying, she said 70,000 people. I then asked how many we are processing and she said about 4,000 or 5,000 a year. That is not a great outcome.
We need to up our game. The threat environment has changed dramatically. This bill would be a symbolic and real response to the need for culture change. We need skills available to the Canadian military, and I am rather hoping that with the co-operation of our friends and colleagues, we will move on this legislation so that we can demonstrate that we are serious about making this cultural change and reflecting it.
964 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:10:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was on the status of women committee when it studied sexual assault in the military, and the heartbreaking stories of the trauma that had been experienced demanded urgent action. However, here we are two and a bit more years later with nothing much done by the Liberal government. It is bringing forward a bill that may not even make it through the Senate by the time the next election happens.
In the bill, I am specifically concerned about the increase in ministerial powers to get involved in individual cases. We saw in the past the same members and ministers of defence obstructing in the General Vance case and in several other cases. Could the member comment on what protections will be in place to ensure that ministers do not intervene in a way that is detrimental to survivors?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:11:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a proper reading of the bill deals with the concern raised by the member. There is a concerted effort to simply treat this kind of incident in the same fashion as a civilian incident, period; end of sentence. I encourage the hon. member to read the response of the defence department in the final paragraph. The ministers and the governments have made efforts to make what appears to us to be a simple change, but it actually turns out to be fairly complicated and with some resistance on the part of civilian courts and the various governments they represent.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:12:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood. He is a wise man.
When he says that the example has to come from the top, I would remind him that former chief of the defence staff Vance was appointed in 2015 by the Conservatives and then protected by the Liberals. He was never charged during his entire tenure, but matters of sexual misconduct in his file shadowed him the entire time.
My question is this. The first report in 2015, the Deschamps report, covered essentially the same sexual misconduct information. In 2022, Ms. Arbour was asked to prepare a report. Her report said exactly the same thing. Ms. Arbour also said that she failed to understand why another report on this matter was even necessary when one had already been released.
Can my colleague explain why we are dealing with this issue today, after such a long time, and in such an important file?
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:13:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we would all wish to move more rapidly; that is a given. Even Madam Justice Arbour, who is very familiar with how legislation gets created and implemented, recognized this was going to take time. I am rather pleased that during the interim, the government has, in many instances, responded quite significantly to the other recommendations that Madam Justice Arbour put forward and that have been in various stages of implementation. It is legitimate on the part of the hon. member to continue to call the government to account for the recommendations she has made.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:14:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP has been fighting for meaningful legislation to be brought forward since government first announced the transferring of cases, but the government's delay in bringing this legislation forward has had the tragic consequence of survivors being robbed of justice by concurrent jurisdictions causing cases to be stayed. We want this legislation to reach committee quickly, we are hearing that around here, so we can strengthen the bill and ensure more cases are not stayed. We also know this bill needs to pass to protect future cases from potentially being stayed by undue delays in the transfer of evidence. Many survivors have expressed their frustration that this bill was created by Ottawa lawyers without their input.
How can the government protect survivors when the minister is not actually consulting them?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:14:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am as interested in getting this bill to committee as the hon. member is. I chair that committee. Insofar as I have any authority in that committee, it will move as quickly as we can move it. I am looking forward to the co-operation of my colleagues.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is good to be back after the summer break and have my first speech in the House and represent the good people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I would like to start off by saying that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.
I am happy to have been given the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-66, a bill to introduce changes to national defence aimed at modernizing the military justice system, and responding to the recommendations made by two former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the government's long-overdue legislation to try and finally apply recommendations made in numerous reports regarding sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
We must continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. The previous Conservative government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment from the Canadian Armed Forces. This important report was ignored by the government, and it is disappointing that the Liberal government has failed to act on this important report. Liberals cannot be trusted to stop sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces because of their soft-on-crime policies. After nine long years of the Liberal government and two more reports from former Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly.
I support Bill C-66, but let me make this perfectly clear: it needs to be carefully studied at committee to ensure concerns from all stakeholders are taken into consideration and amended appropriately. There are also outstanding concerns about the ability of the civilian judicial system to handle these particular cases, given that the court system and courtrooms are already backlogged due to the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies and repeat offenders getting out of jail on bail and committing more crimes. It is a continual cycle that the Liberal government has created. Its present catch-and-release system is failing the people of Canada and, if implemented in the military, will fail both the military and the people of Canada.
The Liberals have had many reports that they could have already acted on, but instead we are in the last year of a parliamentary session, and only now are they taking any legislative action. The reports that I am speaking of include the 2015 Deschamps report, which I mentioned earlier; the 2018 Auditor General report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces; the 2021 Justice Fish report; the 2021 DND Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman report on sexual misconduct; and the 2021 “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces” report from the status of women committee. There would also have been a report by the Standing Committee on National Defence, but the Liberals instead chose to filibuster and keep the committee in the same meeting for three months, then prorogue Parliament for the Prime Minister's impromptu election in 2021. Instead of taking action, they asked for another report by another former justice and got the 2022 Arbour report.
I will add here that according to Statistics Canada data reported since 2015, disappointingly, total sexual assaults in Canada were up 74.83% and increased an additional 71% last year. These are horrific to hear. These are stats that we do not want to hear but we cannot ignore.
We did our own study in veterans affairs committee on women veterans, and spent a lot of time speaking with survivors of military sexual trauma. This study took the better part of a year. We heard several difficult stories, dating back to when women were first admitted into the Canadian Armed Forces. For me, personally, these were horrific to hear and have left a lasting impression on me that we need to act correctly and do better.
One of the issues we heard about was the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to investigate these claims. Jennifer Smith said in her testimony:
I've spoken about it in Federal Court. I've given this information to many, many high-ranking officials. I've even provided the names of some of my attackers as well as pictures. Again, I've never been offered the opportunity [to file a complaint]. I still don't know what avenue I have to go forward with this. I've been told to write it down on a claim form. I feel that this goes beyond that. This is criminal activity. I know who did it. I know some of the people who did it. I'm just wondering why no one has come to me or reached out to me. I've given the information. I haven't been asked if I want to go forward with that or been presented with some options. That has not happened.
Clearly, there is a need to have civilian courts investigate these cases outside the chain of command of military. Our committee made that recommendation. However, this same recommendation has been made several times before, going back to the Deschamps report of 2015, nearly a decade ago.
Just now, a year away from the next scheduled federal election, the government is finally going forward with legislation on this. It is instances like this that make it so difficult to take the Liberal government seriously, to reconcile horror stories I hear first-hand of pain and suffering and not acting.
On top of that, the Liberal government has spent the last decade pushing our courts to the breaking point. The Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, have led to a skyrocketing crime rate in Canada. Statistics Canada lists total sexual assaults as increasing by 75% since 2015.
The Prime Minister has continuously shown that he does not take the safety and security of Canadians seriously. His Liberal government is watering down serious offences. These offences include date rape, drugs and human trafficking, which is on the rise. They once again prioritize the rights of criminals over the rights of victims. At a time when our courts are overworked and understaffed, this legislation aims to add more cases to their dockets. This is one of the serious issues that needs to be examined in committee.
I want to share that I have seen the military justice system work while I served. Whether it was summary trial, court martial, or dismissal of military personnel, I have seen it work. However, there has to be another level of oversight.
The next Conservative government would rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces by cutting down the bureaucracy and the consultants. We would make sure that the money is going to the Canadian Armed Forces. We would restore the honour and integrity of our military heroes that Canadians can be proud of. Finally, we would reverse the left-wing Liberal woke culture and return the war-fighting capabilities of the brave women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces.
1187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is talking about a previous government that allegedly did all sorts of great things for military justice reform. His party did nothing. It did nothing at all during the nine years it was in power, and yet my colleague comes here to criticize.
We all agreed that this bill is important. A number of measures have been taken in recent years. Twenty of Ms. Arbour's 48 recommendations have been implemented. We are going to keeping working until 2025 to implement them all.
However, today, we are here to talk about Bill C-66, because recommendation 5 provides for a change to the National Defence Act.
Will my colleague agree to send this bill to committee so it can be studied and moved forward?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:26:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I pointed out, under the Conservative government we did initiate reports, and they were delayed by the Liberal government. As I also stated, we believe not everybody has been heard on this, and because of the way this report is written, we want the bill to go to committee so we can make some adjustments and have input.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:27:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech, which was very sensible. There is still important work to do. We must continue to do it in order to protect people and especially our soldiers. Sending this bill to committee is a first step. We also need to leave enough time so that the bill can get to the Senate and then be given royal assent. That is part of our responsibility.
My colleague does not have confidence in this government, and we cannot blame him. That being said, does he have confidence in all of the opposition parties?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:27:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my answer is no. I have no confidence in the other parties in the House. I have full confidence in the Conservative Party, and I am grateful to represent the Conservative Party in my riding.
I want to see this report go to committee so we can have input and so some of the reports we have dealt with in the past can reflect this.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:28:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am on the veterans affairs committee with the member. I was one of the lead people who put forward the study on women veterans. A focused study on women veterans had never been done in Parliament before.
One of the things we heard from those women was that because they were serving federally and moving from one province to another, sometimes where the incident happened was not where they were moved to, so cases got dropped. We need to figure this out in the civilian world so that does not happen.
I am wondering if the member is going to work seriously in this committee. I hope to see the committee move rapidly, because it is a big issue that needs to be addressed immediately. I hope the Conservatives will be dealing with real issues that matter to women veterans and, of course, not playing the games the Conservatives like to play.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 4:29:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work on the veterans affairs committee.
As the member has heard during committee, when I served with the Canadian Armed Forces, we always wanted to protect everybody in our platoon. We always protected them, and it did not matter what race or sex a person was. Obviously, I want to make sure that everybody is protected.
Conservatives would like the bill to be expedited as quickly as possible, but we also have to take the time to make sure that there is input and that people are truly protected and looked after. It does not matter what province or country a person is in when serving.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House.
On behalf of the wonderful people of Calgary Midnapore, whom I continue to be so proud to represent, I am here today speaking to Bill C-66.
I will start by saying that as a Conservative and as a woman here in the House of Commons, I believe and Conservatives believe we need to continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. I believe this as the shadow minister for the Treasury Board as well. I will also say, with a lot of pride, that Conservatives are proud of and support all of our men and women in uniform who serve Canada. Let us give a round of applause in the House of Commons right now for all the men and women who serve Canada.
The principle of this bill is to be respected and appreciated. However, we need to really consider two major factors when we consider Bill C-66. Number one is the results we have seen from the Liberal government so far. Is its money where its mouth is? Second is what is really important in our military and what is really going on with our armed forces at this time.
The Liberal government has had several reports it could have acted on, but instead, here we are in the last year of a parliamentary session for the current government and only now is it taking action. These reports include the 2015 Deschamps report; the 2018 Auditor General report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces; the 2021 Justice Fish report; the 2021 DND-CAF ombudsman report on sexual misconduct; and the 2021 “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces” report from the status of women committee, which my colleague the member for Sarnia—Lambton alluded to in her question to the previous Liberal speaker. There also would have been a report by the Standing Committee on National Defence, but the government instead chose to filibuster and keep the committee in the same meeting for three months and then prorogue Parliament for the Prime Minister's impromptu election. Instead of taking action, the Liberals asked for another report by another former justice and got the 2022 Arbour report.
Meanwhile, according to Statistics Canada, since 2015, total sexual assaults at all three levels were up 74.83% and increased 71% last year alone.
My point is that the current government has had the opportunity through several reports to take action and it has deferred taking action. Most insulting, which my colleague referred to, is how the government handled the sexual misconduct cases in 2021. For over six months, the Prime Minister and the then defence minister, now Minister of Emergency Preparedness, continually covered up information on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are not surprised on this side of the House to see that these concerns, pleas and issues of great importance would only be spoken to, be given platitudes, with no real action taken.
The Liberals then went to great lengths to block investigations and hide the truth from Canadians. Again, this is not only with regard to harm within the Canadian Armed Forces. As a result of soft-on-crime bills, like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, Statistics Canada data since 2015 states that total sexual violations against children are up 118.85%, forcible confinement and kidnapping is up 10.63%, indecent harassing communications are up 86.41%, incidents of non-consensual distribution of intimate images are up 801.17% and trafficking in persons is up 83.68%. This is what we are seeing as a result of the inaction of the current government.
The Liberals put forward bills like Bill C-66, but they have done nothing. All of their previous platitudes and grandstanding were fake efforts to make real change, not only within Canadian society but within the Canadian Armed Forces. The annual number of reported incidents of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces was 256 in 2018-19; it went up to 356 in 2019-20, to 431 in 2020-21, to 444 in 2021-22, and was 443 in 2022-23.
The Liberals talk a lot about things they want to do, reports they are doing and announcements they make, but the results speak for themselves. Nothing has changed. Nothing has improved in the Canadian Armed Forces. Our first point is that we are not seeing the results for the Liberals' efforts, because frankly, the Liberals are not doing anything.
The second is that we need to admit to the serious status of our Canadian Armed Forces, and after nine years of the Liberal government, our military is in a state of disrepair. The government has failed our Canadian Armed Forces and the men and women who serve. Our troops are hurting at home and abroad. They have been sent overseas and forced to pay for their own meals and buy their own equipment. Military families are turning to charity because they cannot afford the basic necessities.
In 2017, the Prime Minister promised to invest more in our forces, but has instead let $10 billion lapse and is now cutting the defence budget by another billion dollars. This cut affects operational spending. This means the situation facing our troops is not getting better. It is getting worse after nine years of Liberal neglect. The Liberals have overspent in every department except our military. They have shown that they do not care about our troops or the Canadian Forces.
This is being noticed internationally. It is being noticed at NATO. It is being noticed by what is historically our greatest neighbour and ally to the south, the United States of America. It is the reason Canada was excluded from AUKUS, the Australia-U.K.-U.S. arrangement, as well as the quadrilateral security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. There are even discussions to exclude Canada from the G7, if members can believe it, as a result of our lack of commitment. We do not put our money where our mouth is.
Then again, this is not a surprise coming from a Prime Minister who told our heroes they are asking for more than we can give. We are not taken seriously abroad as a result of the constant lack of judgment, whether the Prime Minister is praising the Cuban regime or siding with Hamas over Israel and refusing to support the U.S. in moving its embassy to Israel. It is just a constant lack of making the decision to stand with our allies.
As I said on funding, the Prime Minister and the defence minister are cutting $1 billion per year over the next three years and allowed $10 billion to lapse in the defence budget over the last several years. In fact, according to the most recent public accounts, $1.2 billion lapsed in defence spending in 2021 alone.
In conclusion, the Liberals can say that they care, that they are doing these nice things. They have had the opportunity to do much. They have constantly kicked the ball down the field and not done anything. The results speak for themselves. The numbers show that crime and acts of violence have not improved in society with their legislation, nor within the Canadian Armed Forces. Most humiliating is the standing we have lost with our allies around the world, as kicking us out of the G7 is being considered. The numbers and the spending show it.
A Conservative government would commit the spending, stand with our allies and show our men and women in uniform that it supports them. I look forward to doing that along with the member for Carleton.
1317 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
