Debates of Oct. 6th, 2025

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say good morning to colleagues and to the Canadians who are watching today's debate. I am pleased to rise to open second reading debate on Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

As Canada's new government makes a generational investment in the Canadian Armed Forces, we know that any work to support our forces starts with our people. Simply put, this legislation is about the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is about ensuring their safety.

The people of the Canadian Armed Forces are central to our activities, whether they defend our sovereignty at home, support our allies abroad or serve in wings and bases across Canada. Since taking on this role earlier this year, I have had the great privilege of meeting with hundreds of Canadian Armed Forces members across the country and abroad.

They are among the finest individuals one could meet, and as I am sure all parliamentarians are, I am deeply grateful for their steadfast dedication to Canada and Canadians. It is our responsibility to foster an environment where they feel protected, respected and empowered to serve, free from all behaviours that harm our people, threaten morale and undermine team cohesion, including the reprehensible act of sexual misconduct. Eradicating these behaviours is essential to our operational effectiveness, to recruitment and to retention, and above all, it is the right thing to do.

Through Bill C-11, we are proposing a range of important changes to the National Defence Act, which are designed to support this essential work. Canada's military justice system must not only reflect the values of fairness, accountability and respect, but also uphold the trust Canadians place in the institutions that serve them. Through Bill C-11, we would fulfill the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish, and we are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces.

First, this bill would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. With this bill, civilian authorities would have the exclusive responsibility to investigate and prosecute these offences.

Second, Bill C-11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review. This includes establishing stronger, more transparent appointment processes for senior CAF members who play crucial roles in the military justice system. We are modifying the appointment process and the tenure for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services by, first, making them Governor in Council appointees and by, second, changing the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services' terms to a fixed non-renewable term of up to seven years. We are also modifying the process and authority for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, appointed by the Governor in Council, and, finally, changing the title from Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general to align with the title of other senior designations in the CAF, such as the surgeon general, the chaplain general and the judge advocate general.

Third, Bill C-11 builds on supports provided under the Declaration of Victims Rights by expanding access to victim liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of a victim.

Fourth, the bill harmonizes the military justice system's offender information and publication ban provisions with the amendments already made to the Criminal Code in 2023. These comprehensive recommendations that aim to reform our military justice system are only one part of a broader transformation of this institution.

Among other things, we are making critical changes to how we screen new recruits, how we manage Canada's two military colleges and how we collect, retain and use data on workplace harassment.

For example, we have instituted a probationary period for new recruits, which allows applicants to enrol and begin their training while the administrative work related to their application file is completed. During this probationary period, applicants must pass the required security clearance check, meet medical standards and show that they live by the CAF's ethics and values. We need to ensure that our military better reflects the country it serves, drawing from the very best people Canada has to offer.

We are starting to see our recruitment efforts pay off. Last fiscal year, we surpassed our recruitment goals, bringing in over 6,700 new regular force members. That is a 55% increase from the year before, but we still have work to do to build a culture that is truly rooted in dignity, inclusion and respect for everyone who serves.

We know we need to keep our foot on the gas and remain laser-focused on creating lasting change. As I previously mentioned, Bill C-11 would fulfill several recommendations put forward in the reviews conducted by former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish. We are also making important progress on many of their other recommendations to aid in our broader culture change efforts.

In the independent external comprehensive review, Justice Arbour detailed 48 recommendations on everything from recruitment to training to oversight.

As of July, DND had successfully implemented 36 of these recommendations, and we expect that the remaining 12 will be implemented by the end of the year, although some will take much longer than others to fully implement.

We are making progress on Madame Arbour's first and second recommendations, strengthening our approach to addressing sexual misconduct by clarifying the full spectrum of terms and definitions into three categories: conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature, sexual harassment and sexual assault. This will ensure that we are better able to address each form of inappropriate conduct through the proper legal, administrative and disciplinary means.

The CAF has also adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of “harassment” and “violence”. This change has made it so that the defence team has one single approach for dealing with harassment and violence in the workplace, applicable to both DND public service employees and CAF members. All incidents of harassment and violence on the defence team will be managed by the workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This addressed Madame Arbour's third recommendation.

We have also acted on recommendations 7 and 9 of Justice Arbour's report by allowing members of the CAF who experience sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, sexual offences or any other form of discrimination based on sex or gender in the performance of their duties to apply directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As many members know, the external monitor, Madame Jocelyne Therrien, provides regular public evaluations of our progress in implementing these recommendations, including by releasing biannual status reports.

She published her fifth progress report in early July. In that report, she highlights the sincere desire to improve working conditions for DND team members across our organization, as well as the concrete progress we have made, particularly with regard to integrating new recruits and promoting current staff to management positions.

Her final and sixth report is expected in the coming weeks. Madame Therrien's thorough and objective assessment of our progress has been critical in informing how we are implementing these recommendations, and we thank her for her commitment, her good guidance and her dedication.

In April 2021, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces launched a comprehensive initiative to align defence culture and the professional conduct of its staff with the fundamental values and ethical principles that we, as a national institution, aspire to uphold.

Since then, we have taken significant steps to shift our culture and bring about meaningful change, including taking action to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination. This work encompasses a wide range of responsibilities, such as developing programs and policies to address systemic misconduct, improving mechanisms for tracking and reporting misconduct and overseeing the creation of a framework for professional conduct and culture that combats discrimination, harmful behaviour, prejudice and systemic barriers.

To support these efforts, as we reaffirmed in budget 2024, we are investing nearly $1 billion over 20 years to support the changes to the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are introducing amendments to the National Defence Act to deliver key recommendations to advance culture change. Last year, we also launched a comprehensive implementation plan to guide efforts to address the various recommendations we have received.

We know culture change is incremental, we know it is a step-by-step process that takes time, and we know it requires a sustained and continuous effort, but we also know it is absolutely essential to the well-being and operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

We will continue to listen to members of the defence team, external stakeholders, communities and partners. We will continue to learn from them as we strive to create a safer and more inclusive work environment. We are making real and tangible progress, but we know that there is still a lot more work to be done.

While we work to modernize our military justice system and change our culture, we also need to ensure that people affected by sexual misconduct get the support, the care and the resources they need. Much of that work comes from the sexual misconduct support and resource centre.

This centre, which operates independently of the chain of command, recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. It delivers expert advice, guidance and recommendations to armed forces and national defence personnel on all matters related to sexual misconduct.

Among other things, it operates a 24-7 helpline offering confidential support to personnel, information about the options available, advice on helping others and referrals to care and services.

It also runs the response and support coordination program to provide individuals who have experienced sexual misconduct in a DND or CAF environment with a dedicated civilian counsellor who can help access health services, prepare for police interviews and more. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre also runs a grant program to fund community-based programs to broaden the range of support services available to the wider defence community, and it offers peer support programs in partnership with Veterans Affairs Canada.

I would also like to mention that the independent legal assistance program is another valuable support mechanism for victims. It provides free and confidential legal assistance, including legal information and advice on incidents of sexual misconduct in contexts involving the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces. It also provides legal representation for certain proceedings involving criminal offences of a sexual nature, service offences, victim safety and victim participation in the judicial process.

By offering this timely, independent and trauma-informed support, the program plays a critical role in expanding access to justice and choice for affected persons. This is all in line with Madam Justice Arbour's recommendation 14 of the independent external comprehensive review.

The work I have outlined today is comprehensive and meaningful. We believe, and I think all sides of the House would agree, that it is important. We are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces and confidence in our military justice system.

As the House begins debate at second reading of the important piece of legislation before us, I will close by saying this: The time has come for Bill C-11 to be moved swiftly through the House to committee, where it can undergo thorough study and perhaps, with the good will and good faith of all members on all sides of the House, be passed forthwith.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for bringing the bill forward. It was Bill C-66 in the last Parliament, and we never got it completed at second reading.

The minister talked about trust, and I want to ask him why Canadians and the people in the Canadian Armed Forces should trust him and trust the Liberals. We have to remember that one of his predecessors, Harjit Sajjan, was complicit in a cover-up of sexual misconduct of one of the very highest-ranking officers in Canada, the former chief of the defence staff, Jon Vance. When the minister at the time was presented with evidence of sexual misconduct by Jon Vance, former minister Sajjan refused to accept it.

Why should Canadians trust the minister, when his predecessor covered up that sexual misconduct for three long years and refused to accept evidence? The prime minister of the day, Justin Trudeau, was complicit in the cover-up for those three years. Finally, they also sat on the Justice Deschamps report that was commissioned under our previous government, and they never acted on any of those recommendations at that time.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for members of the House to trust a few things. The first thing they should trust is the incredibly important, probative and complete work done by Mr. Justice Fish and Madam Justice Arbour, and their recommendations for improvement.

The second thing they should trust is the judgment that has been exercised through the commissions of inquiry, which basically indicate that we need to take the question of Criminal Code sexual offences out of the situation where they are located now, which is inside the Canadian Armed Forces and subject to CAF investigation and CAF prosecution, and put them into the police of local jurisdiction. This is something that has received widespread support, including from all sides of the House, with the previous bill that my colleague mentioned.

I think we should really rely on the trust and the judgment of those two independent thinkers and, for that matter, of the victims groups that have spoken very clearly about this.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us just say right off the bat that this issue should have been resolved decades ago. When I hear people say that the government has not been proactive enough since the recommendation was made in 2021, I feel like answering that both parties need to look in the mirror. The Bloc Québécois obviously agrees that it is about time.

I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and I would say that we are dealing with something really important here, especially if the government plans to increase its national defence spending to 5%. I urge the minister to listen to the testimony of people who have attempted suicide because they feel abandoned by the system.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Now we must listen. I look forward to seeing what will happen in committee, and I would like to hear the personal stories of these witnesses. We are more than willing to see if we can improve the bill. There is work to be done.

Today, we are focused on the future and implementing change. I agree that it has taken too long. This bill was introduced in March 2024, and then there was an election. This is the third time the bill has been introduced in the House, and we hope to pass it as quickly as possible.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation for the minister's and the government's approach to the legislation and for taking very seriously what they have been hearing from citizens. The approach of taking it outside the CAF, as the minister explained, is a very reasonable one to ensure that there is transparency and consequences for unfortunate circumstances.

I recognize that the bill deals with CAF members on CAF members. Constituents within the riding of Waterloo have shared concerns regarding CAF members on civilians. I would like to hear the minister's comments as to whether the bill would address this or what the approach is on that situation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would catch both Canadian Armed Forces members and civilian employees at the Department of National Defence. It is important also for us to recall that recommendation 5 under Madam Justice Arbour's incredibly comprehensive work is the only recommendation that actually requires legislative change, which is why it finds itself in Bill C-11. That is why we have moved so quickly in implementing so many of the other recommendations. Recommendation 5 is the important recommendation that requires statutory change, as are a series of Mr. Justice Fish's recommendations when it comes to military justice actors.

We are looking forward to formally making those changes, but it is also important to remember that we are well down the path of implementing all 48 recommendations. We have more to do. Our plan is to have those done by the end of the current calendar year. We are moving forthwith. We could certainly use the support of all members of the House to have the bill move through the House with speedy passage.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging, after over 10 years since the Deschamps report, to see the adoption of the move to remove sexual assault cases to the civilian court. However, in theatre, the military police would still be responsible for this.

What training and dollars associated with this training would go into preserving the chain of evidence, investigation and rape kits? Are there going to be rape kits available, is there a protocol, what is the protocol and, most importantly, for military police here at home and deployed abroad, when is their pay increase coming?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the reminder. I should have reminded members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are watching that the pay increase is coming, of course, and it is predicated on years of service, as well as annual bonuses and retention bonuses for instructors and beyond. We are very pleased to be able to offer the most significant pay and pay package increase in a generation. We hope it will help with retention and recruitment. I think we are seeing it in the early numbers, as I mentioned in my speech.

The member raises some very important questions around the capacity of our military police overseas in particular, in theatre or on ships, for example. That is a very good question that I will take back. I will look into the question of rape kits and endeavour to get back to her with more detail.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is essentially about justice for victims of the military and its lack of transparency.

About 10 days ago, I attended the premiere of the film Out Standing, which is based on the life of Sandra Perron, Canada's first female infantry officer. It is an incredibly powerful film. She started an initiative called The Pepper Pod, which I would like to commend.

Considering the bill before us today, I would like the minister to tell us whether measures are being put in place to support victims in the short, medium and long terms, particularly by investing in initiatives like The Pepper Pod that are created by and for women.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting Sandra a few days ago at the National Arts Centre. What a film, what a story, what a woman, and what an inspiring person. She really helped iron out the details of this bill.

We hope that Sandra's voice, along with many others, will be heard and listened to in committee. If there is progress to be made and improvements to be made, we are here to listen.

For my colleague who asked a question a moment ago, I just checked my notes, and, yes, rape kits will be available both here and abroad.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the minister's presentation.

We know the legislation is sorely needed, and we have noted that the victim liaison officer's position would be appointed through the chain of command. I wonder if the minister would be amenable to making sure this appointment is outside the chain of command so that victims can truly be heard.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting suggestion, and I have taken due note of it.

I thank the member for her contribution.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the shadow minister for national defence, I am always honoured to stand in this place to talk about the great work of the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and how we can do more to support them, which is what Bill C-11 is trying to do.

The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect Canada, protect our citizens, as well as to protect those who serve us. There has been a rapid escalation of threats, and what we are facing in Canada is continuing to evolve. There is Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. There is the ongoing conflict we are seeing with Hamas first attacking Israel and now Israel's clearing operation to neutralize the terrorists in the Gaza Strip. There is the ongoing escalation we are experiencing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait as the People's Liberation Army Navy of China continues to escalate in that region, using air power, as well as resources and its coast guard to exercise its power in the region but ignoring international rules such as UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Those hostile powers want our resources, whether in the Arctic or our maritime domain, and they want to be within striking distance of our continent. We have to do more to protect ourselves here and invest in our military. This means supporting those who serve us. As Conservatives, we take our national security very seriously and want to make sure we always put that first and foremost. This is why we have to invest in the people, in their kit and in the training they need to undertake to deal with the hybrid warfare, the asymmetrical warfare, we are experiencing around the world.

First and foremost, Conservatives have always said and believed that those who serve, who proudly put on the uniform, are the best of the best Canada has to offer. They deserve to have a respectful workplace that is free of discrimination, racism, sexual misconduct, and abuse of authority and position. All members deserve to be respected. We also believe that the victims, those who are dealing with military sexual trauma, deserve justice. We hope this is going to culminate in the move from the military justice system to the civilian system, if the capacity is there and it would actually result in prosecutions and true justice for the victims of sexual trauma in the military.

It has been years: The Liberal government has been in power for 10 years. There have actually been three reports done. The first report came out in 2015, and it is interesting to note that the only time the current Minister of National Defence and I have had an interchange in the House on military sexual misconduct was when he was a member of the third party and the Liberals were sitting way down in that far corner. I was the parliamentary secretary for defence, and he asked a question about what steps we were taking. At that time, we had initiated the Madam Justice Deschamps report, and Justice Deschamps had made 10 recommendations.

Then of course there was an election, and that report sat on the corner of the desk of both former chief of the defence staff Jon Vance and former minister of defence Harjit Sajjan and collected dust. They did nothing during that time. There was then the Jon Vance scandal and all of that, and I will talk about that a bit later.

We know that through the process, the Liberals finally took action. There was the Arbour report and now the Fish report, which brought about some of the things that would happen with Bill C-11. However, it has taken 10 years to get to where we are today. For 10 long years, the Liberals sat on their hands and did nothing to actually change the National Defence Act and the military justice system under it.

When we look at Bill C-11, we are concerned that it would potentially open the door for more political interference. There would be an opportunity for partisan-style appointments, such as the Liberals' giving more power to the minister of national defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions. That would not happen in the normal system in Canada because it would be considered political interference. The Liberals would also be changing the appointment process in that the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal are all now going to be appointed by the Governor in Council rather than the minister. We know that when things go into the PMO and into cabinet, things become quite political and partisan.

Conservatives will continue to support those in the armed forces, and we are going to make sure that we are carefully studying Bill C-11 to ensure that concerns from all stakeholders, including those in the military justice system, those in the defence industry and, especially, those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as victims' rights groups, and that their voices are heard when we study this at committee.

As I said earlier, Bill C-11 is the former Bill C-66, with minor tweaks in language, translations and interpretation of certain clauses: 6, 67 and 68. It would amend the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of most offences of a sexual nature from the military justice system to civilian authorities, including the courts, municipal police, provincial police and the RCMP. This would depend on the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, with the exception of a sexual offence that takes place outside Canada when troops are deployed. In that case, those who are deployed would have access to the current regulations under the military justice system and the National Defence Act, and military police and the JAG, the judge advocate general's office, would still undertake those investigations with the national investigative service.

We know that section 273 of the National Defence Act provides for that. It has provided for the way that this has been dealt with historically, but there is concern about whether the civilian courts would have the capacity to take on extra cases in those jurisdictions, from the standpoint of both the court level and the police level. What are they going to do with historic cases? We already know of historic cases that have been transferred into the civilian court system that have not resulted in convictions. Instead, we have seen high-level flag officers and general officers who were found innocent or had their proceedings stayed; we have seen cases that the Crown rejected because of the way the evidence was collected by the military police and the national investigative service of the Canadian Armed Forces. We question whether that provides the justice that the victims were looking for. We definitely want to make sure that all are given a fair trial and that we support those who were erroneously charged in the first place.

What are we doing about the issue of capacity, as was previously asked by my colleague, within the military police and national investigative service when they have to do investigations outside Canada? How do they coordinate with provincial, municipal and RCMP police agencies when we are talking about things that happened on base and will require investigations done by local authorities?

Bill C-11 seeks to increase the independence within the military, one of the recommendations coming from Madam Arbour and Justice Fish, so we would avoid a situation like what happened with Jon Vance. Because he was chief of the defence staff and everybody reported to him, nobody was prepared to take on that investigation and prosecute, including the then minister of national defence, who actually had authority over the chief of the defence staff. Harjit Sajjan refused to accept evidence and walked away.

We know there are questions about how this would all work. The provost marshal, who has traditionally been a colonel, would be made a general, so we are seeing a creep of the number of flag officers again.

Conservatives question the term limits. There is an inconsistency here on how people are being appointed, now being done through order in council in the Prime Minister's Office, and we know there is going to be the ongoing issue of the length of terms: Some are for four years; some are going to be eligible for reappointment whereas some are not. Some are for seven years, and some are for 10 years. It just gets a little confusing in terms of how this is all going to work.

When we talk about the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, we just want to make sure there is a criterion as to what we want to see for qualifications for service in positions that normally would have reported to the vice-chief of the defence staff and/or the judge advocate general. Those things are going to give these guys their independence, so they report straight to the minister and to the government. There are questions about chain of command and how that is going to work. However, these are things we can look at in committee. The same is true for the director of defence counsel services.

Consistency is important here. Qualifications are important in these appointments. We want to make sure the partisanship that happens within the Prime Minister's Office does not percolate into the Canadian Armed Forces through those who serve the forces.

The minister talked about trust. As I suggested in my question for him, Liberals cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to talking about bad political appointments. If we look at 2022, the Liberals appointed Laith Marouf to do a project. It turned out he was an anti-Semite, but they were supposed to be working on diversity. The Liberals appointed Martine Richard as the Ethics Commissioner. She had to drop out because she was related to one of the cabinet ministers, who currently sits today. It was a complete conflict of interest. They appointed Birju Dattani as the human rights commissioner; he turned out to be anti-Semitic. Of course, it was another terrible appointment by the Liberals.

Justin Trudeau completely ignored the Ethics Commissioner's warning about appointing Annette Verschuren as the head of the green slush fund. This resulted in a huge scandal of over $2.1 billion that she and her cohorts were able to take from that Liberal slush fund and stuff into their own pockets. We should not forget the current Prime Minister recently appointed Doug Guzman as CEO to the defence investment agency. It turns out Doug Guzman is a former banking buddy of the Prime Minister's from Goldman Sachs.

I do not know if we need to have these close personal friends and partisan Liberal bagmen actually getting these types of appointments. I would hate to see this being the case when we look at appointments within the national defence apparatus, when we look at those who are going to be in charge of our military justice system. That would not be fair.

The Liberals also cannot be trusted when it comes to criminal justice. They have been soft on crime right from the beginning. Bill C-75 brought in the whole principle of restraint, which puts the least onerous conditions on those who are seeking bail. This is where we get bail, not jail and repeat violent offenders going back on the street. Now, potentially, those who are committing sexual assaults within the Canadian Armed Forces will have access to that same lax and soft-on-crime approach the Liberals have implemented.

Bill C-5 is another reason we should not trust the Liberals when it comes to reforming the military justice system. The bill reformed the criminal justice system by repealing mandatory jail time and allowing very serious violent offenders to serve their sentences at home. This includes getting house arrest, not jail time, if they commit sexual assault, sexual interference or sexual exploitation. Those conditions are now going to be transferred from the military justice system, or the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, to the civilian system, which the Liberals have almost completely destroyed.

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to dealing with sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces; our members know that. Again, it has been 10 years since Madam Justice Deschamps brought forward her recommendations in her report, and they did nothing, which could have stymied this whole problem.

Take Jon Vance, who was CDS at the time. He started up, after the Liberals formed government, Operation Honour, which turned into a complete fiasco and did nothing to support victims, did nothing to stop sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and did not live up to the code of service discipline and the ethics that those who serve should be living up to.

As I said, we know that Minister Sajjan, at that time in 2018, refused the evidence of the sexual misconduct charge against Jon Vance. We know there are memos that went back and forth between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office on how they could cover this up to protect Jonathan Vance and, later, also protect Minister Sajjan for not acting upon evidence that was given to somebody who reported directly to him.

Gary Walbourne, who was the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman at the time, tried to provide that evidence and was pushed away. He was completely in the right because the only person who could deal with it in the chain of command was the Minister of National Defence. We know this went back and forth. We did an in-depth study of this in the Standing Committee on National Defence. I was vice-chair at the time, as I am vice-chair right now.

That was covered up by the Prime Minister's Office through Justin Trudeau, Katie Telford and Zita Astravas. They continued to cover up that sexual misconduct and protect the minister and Jon Vance, which is beyond me. At the end of the day, when it came to charging him and prosecuting within the civilian court, the government accepted the lesser charge of obstruction of justice. It never prosecuted on sexual misconduct and sexual assault. That, again, does not live up to victims' rights in any way, shape or form. The victims of Jon Vance still feel that they were never properly served or got the justice they deserved.

This went on. The defence committee was suspended for months on end. The chair of the committee, Karen McCrimmon, refused to hear testimony and motions. She kept suspending meetings. We were in the same meeting for three months and could not do our work as the defence committee, and we could not do our work as parliamentarians. I firmly believe that our privileges as parliamentarians were violated through that process.

We did find out, through that study, that the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's Office, former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Katie Telford were all aware of this over the entire three-year investigation.

To make things even worse, at the end of the day, even though Harjit Sajjan, the minister of defence at the time, knew about the sexual misconduct and the gravity of the problem that was happening within the Canadian Armed Forces, the government still gave Jon Vance a raise as the chief of the defence staff. That, I think, was just adding insult to injury.

We know that when it comes to political interference, the Liberals cannot be trusted. We can look at the ongoing F-35 debacle and how they continue to politicize the procurement. Our Royal Canadian Air Force and our Canadian Armed Forces right up to the chief of the defence staff today have all said that this is the jet they need and that we should buy more of them. Of course, the Liberals continue to play political football and kick the can and delay that procurement, which is only undermining the ability of the Royal Canadian Air Force to protect us here at home and work alongside our allies.

We know about things like cash for access and the wealthy Chinese billionaires that Justin Trudeau was involved with. We know they tried to cover up the expensive holiday that the former prime minister took on his private island. The ethics commissioners found multiple breaches. We know about the witch hunt that went after former vice-admiral Mark Norman back in 2018, which was politically motivated.

We cannot trust the Liberals. They have failed our Canadian Armed Forces. They have failed our brave women and men. Our warships continue to rust out. Our jets are worn out. The army has been hollowed out and our troops no longer feel like they are respected and honoured by the government.

When we really dig in and look at Liberal policies, it is a book of empty promises, like the 2017 defence policy and the defence policy update, which are all irrelevant. The government has allowed money to lapse. Because of this lack of respect for our forces, we have a recruitment problem. We are short over 13,000 troops today. Over 10,000 are undertrained and undeployable. Our forces are short 6,700 houses.

Conservatives will rectify all the mismanagement and wrongs of the Liberal government and serve our Canadian Armed Forces.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues the member has raised that I take exception to, especially when he talks about support for the Canadian Forces. In fact, when he was a parliamentary secretary and his current leader was part of the Harper cabinet, Canada was most in danger of not financially supporting our Canadian Forces, to the degree where it came to 1% of Canada's GDP. In contrast, the Prime Minister's commitment is to achieve 2%. The Conservatives failed in comparison.

Having said that, I think it is important, when we look at the legislation, that the jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions and investigations for sexual offences be the essence and principle of this legislation. That is what Arbour's recommendation number five was all about.

Does the Conservative Party support it? Does the member have any specific amendments he would like to see advanced?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is always up here defending the government, including its own failures, especially in dealing with sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. The member was up here defending Minister Sajjan back when he was still the minister. I do not believe the member.

The Conservative government signed on to reach that NATO promise in 2015. We had 10 years to get there. I should remind everyone, before the Liberals started their creative accounting by adding things like veteran pensions and the Coast Guard to the calculation of what military spending is to meet the 2% matrix, that actual spending within the Department of National Defence was just over 1% last year. The Liberals have cut over $2.7 billion from operations over the last three years, and they also allowed over $12 billion to lapse.

They can talk the talk, but they have to start walking that talk.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague spoke at length about the Jonathan Vance case, but both the Conservatives and the Liberals looked the other way in that case and pretended there was nothing to see. There were already rumours about and allegations against Mr. Vance when the Conservatives appointed him as chief of staff and tasked him with taking on sexual misconduct in the military. The Canadian Armed Forces were the subject of allegations at the time and were being widely criticized for their handling of sexual misconduct cases.

Why did the Conservatives not appoint someone unimpeachable to the position? Why did they appoint Mr. Vance despite the rumours of sexual misconduct?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, Jon Vance was appointed in the end days of the Conservative government. I would also say that the Bloc helped the Liberals shut down the study, in 2021, into sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. It was particularly Minister Sajjan's mismanagement and refusal to deal with the sexual misconduct of Jon Vance. I do not think the Bloc can take much high ground on this.

I would remind everyone that we started the Madame Deschamps report looking into addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The government had a chance to act upon it but did not.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent speech.

Obviously, I agree with the Deschamps recommendations and the Arbour report about moving sexual misconduct allegations out of the military justice system and into the criminal justice system. However, the record of the Liberals and the criminal justice system, as we have seen, is this: Sexual assault is up 76%, and these repeat offenders are mostly let out on bail. My concern is that there will not be any justice in the criminal justice system.

Does my colleague share that concern?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 reduced the conditions on the principle of restraint, allowing those who commit sexual offences to be released on bail very easily. It allows them to be repeat offenders. That will now permeate the Canadian Armed Forces, as well, because of the soft-on-crime approach taken by the Liberals. With Bill C-5, they got rid of a lot of the mandatory minimums so that repeat sexual offenders can now serve their sentences at home. That includes sexual assault, sexual exploitation and sexual interference.

What is the purpose if those who are committing these crimes are allowed to continue to serve in the Canadian Forces at their leisure?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during my colleague's remarks today, he mentioned talking the talk.

Having worked with victims of crime for over 23 years before I became a parliamentarian, I have seen first-hand the impacts of sexual violence on many victims. Today, I was listening attentively and really hoping to hear comments about how important it is to have a trauma-informed response and rights for victims. Instead, we heard partisan garble. If there are any victims at home today listening to us, I think they would be extremely disappointed with the debate going on with respect to that.

I have a simple question: Does the member not agree that Bill C-11 is an important step forward if we want to make sure that victims have access to justice?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I said during my speech that victims deserve justice, and that military sexual trauma is one thing we have to eliminate. The support is needed. We support the sexual misconduct support and resource centre and the great work it is doing in providing counselling. As well, it is going to be providing some legal advice to those victims. Victims' rights have to be paramount. That is why we supported Bill C-77. It was to make sure we codified victims' rights in the Criminal Code and moved them into the National Defence Act as part of military justice.

We will continue to fight for victims because that is what this is all about. That is why I raised this flag. Can we trust the government, which has ignored victims' rights for too long by letting repeat offenders back onto our streets? This is now going to permeate the Canadian Armed Forces as well.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there was a culture of silence. There was the Fish report and the Arbour report. Time passes and the Liberals have not taken action.

What does the member think of the recommendations in this report? What should be put in place? I empathize with the victims who are waiting for answers from this Parliament that never come. What are we to do? The bill is interesting, but we need to go further. What commitments is the member taking?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the first place to start is accepting all 10 recommendations from Madame Deschamps' report, which was completely ignored by the government. I think we would be a lot further ahead today in supporting victims and stomping out misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces had this been acted upon 10 years ago. The Liberals refused to do it. They still do not even mention the report in their speeches. All they talk about are Fish and Arbour.

We need to make sure that we continue to address all the concerns that were raised. There are about 50 recommendations in the Arbour report. I think there are over 110 in the Fish report. We need to see which ones are doable and that we can act upon quickly.

This is just the first step, but there is much more that needs to be done.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has done a considerable amount of work on this.

I sat through a lot of testimony when I served on the national defence committee and the veterans committee. All of the testimony was absolutely horrific and hard to hear. Many of the victims are still in the CAF as we speak. They were when they brought their cases and complaints forward.

How do we ensure these victims are protected under the current CAF structure when they bring these accusations forward?