Bill C-71 (Historical)

Victims Rights in the Military Justice System Act

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system.
It adds a new Division entitled “Declaration of Victims Rights”, to the Code of Service Discipline, that specifies that victims of service offences have rights to information, protection, participation and restitution in respect of service offences. It adds or amends several definitions, including “victim” and “military justice system participant”, and specifies who may act on a victim’s behalf for the purposes of that Division.
It amends Part III of that Act to, among other things,
(a) specify the purpose of the Code of Service Discipline and the fundamental purpose of imposing sanctions at summary trials;
(b) protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences;
(c) specify factors that a military judge is to take into consideration when determining whether to make an exclusion order;
(d) make testimonial aids more accessible to vulnerable witnesses;
(e) allow witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in appropriate cases;
(f) make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 mandatory on application;
(g) require courts martial to inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to inform the victims of any plea agreement entered into by the accused and the prosecutor in certain circumstances;
(h) provide that the acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims and to the community is a sentencing objective;
(i) provide for different ways of presenting victim impact statements;
(j) allow for military impact statements and community impact statements to be considered for all service offences;
(k) provide for the creation, in regulations, of disciplinary infractions that can be tried by summary trial;
(l) provide for a scale of sanctions and principles applicable to sanctions in respect of disciplinary infractions;
(m) provide for a six-month limitation period in respect of summary trials; and
(n) provide superior commanders, commanding officers and delegated officers with jurisdiction to try a person charged with having committed a disciplinary infraction by summary trial if the person is at least one rank below the officer presiding at the summary trial.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to include military justice system participants in the class of persons against whom offences relating to intimidation of a justice system participant can be committed.

National Defence Act

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is much to like about Bill C-77, which will modernize Canada's military justice system through changes to the National Defence Act. Let me point out that much of Bill C-77 is actually a carbon copy of the former Conservative government's Bill C-71, which was introduced in June of 2015 and defeated here. It never made second reading.

As Canadians are well aware, Conservatives, more than any party, are committed to standing up for the victims of crime and to ensuring that victims have a strong voice in the criminal justice system. It is why we were the party that enacted the Victims Bill of Rights and why the concept of victims' rights was front and centre when we drafted Bill C-71 to ensure that victims also had rights within the military justice system.

As the government's Bill C-77 is based on so much of Bill C-71, I can say with confidence that it benefits from the years of work put in by the previous government to ensure that it was done right. There were hundreds of submissions and consultations held with victims and organizations dedicated to victims' rights in the preparation of that bill. Our legislation proposed that a victims liaison officer be appointed to help victims access information. New safety, security and privacy provisions were proposed to improve the protection of victims. Impact statements at sentencing were included to improve participation, and court martials would have been required to consider making a restitution order for losses. I am happy to see that the Liberals have kept these key points in the bill. Putting the rights of victims back at the heart of the justice system was a priority of our government. Bill C-71 was a serious piece of legislation that focused on modernizing the military justice system by enshrining victims' rights. I am pleased that Bill C-77 does the same.

Military justice is not something many Canadians are very familiar with, as it was and is used only by the Canadian Armed Forces. Most countries with effective armed forces use some kind of court martial or other military court system. Our system comes from the British and was virtually identical to that system until 1950, when new Canadian legislation, known as the National Defence Act, was enacted. Changes to the court martial system have happened steadily and incrementally over the years through legislative amendments by multiple Canadian governments.

In Canada, we have a two-tier tribunal structure in our military justice system. The summary trial is the most common. It allows less serious offences to be tried at the unit level. The other and more formal form of service tribunal is the court martial. The main purpose of a court martial is to support the government's ability to effectively employ its armed forces whenever and wherever necessary.

People ask what this actually means. Why is there a different system? The Supreme Court of Canada has supported the court martial system and its differences in operation versus civilian courts.

In R. v. Généreux, in 1992, the court ruled:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct.

Further, it found:

The existence of a parallel system of military law and tribunals, for the purpose of enforcing discipline in the military, is deeply entrenched in our history and is supported by the compelling principles....

Similarly, in 1980, in MacKay v. the Queen, the Supreme Court noted:

When the National Defence Act is considered as a whole it will be seen that it encompasses the rules of discipline necessary to the maintenance of morale and efficiency among troops in training and at the same time envisages conditions under which service offences may be committed outside of Canada by service personnel stationed abroad.... In my view these are some of the factors which make it apparent that a separate code of discipline administered within the services is an essential ingredient of service life.

The men and women in uniform are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. They maintain that standard with pride and professionalism. The men in my family who served in the armed forces are some of the most dedicated, proper and honourable individuals I have ever known. My grandfather Conway served in the Canadian Army, and my two great-uncles, Jim and Doug Johnson, served in the Royal Canadian Navy. All served in the Second World War. They carried themselves in life as they did in service, at the higher standard they learned in the services, and they would expect no less.

Serving as the member of Parliament for Simcoe—Grey since 2011, I have been honoured to represent some of the greatest Canadians there are: those serving at Canadian Forces Base Borden. CFB Borden has been a focal point in our region since it opened in July 1916. First known as Camp Borden, it was named after Sir Frederick Borden, Canada's minister of militia and defence, our first, from 1896 to 1911. It continues to play a critical role in Canada's military structure.

In 1917, Camp Borden was selected as the location for the Royal Flying Corps Canada, and an aerodrome for the RCAF was built, thereby becoming the birthplace of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Camp Borden's training area was expanded in 1938 and became home to the Canadian Tank School.

In 1940, several other wartime schools followed: the Canadian Infantry Training Centre, the Canadian Army Service Corps Training Centre, the Canadian Army Medical Corps Training Centre, and the Canadian Provost Corps Training Centre. The Cold War brought more schools to CAF Base Borden, including the Canadian Forces School of Administration and Logistics as well as the Canadian Forces Health Services Training Centre. In 1968, Camp Borden and RCAF Station Borden officially merged into CFB Borden.

As a physician, I am particularly pleased that the Canadian Forces Health Services Training Centre is located at CFB Borden. I have had many opportunities to meet the dedicated medical professionals who tend to those who keep us safe every day. In fact, one of the highlights of my public service was my 2010 trip to Afghanistan as part of a CIDA medical mission in which I worked with a number of the same soldiers who trained at Base Borden.

Also located at CFB Borden is the centre that has particular relevance to the bill we are discussing today, the Canadian Forces Military Police Academy. Much as our police forces across the country enforce the rules of law, the military police are responsible for doing the same under the military justice system.

The academy at CFB Borden trains military police, who then serve across the country and around the world as part of NATO and UN operations as well as at Canadian high commissions and embassies. I know that they will welcome the work that has gone into this bill.

It is really a privilege to represent the men and women of CFB Borden. It has been an honour to attend Remembrance Days and other ceremonies with them. I am also pleased to have played a part in securing investments at the base. I treasure the relationships I have developed with specific soldiers who serve there.

When we talk about our open democracy, these are the soldiers who protect it. They are the ones who ensure that we get to live in a kind and generous society. They are the ones who guard our freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedoms that individuals in other places around this globe may not enjoy.

I want to thank the men and women at Base Borden, those serving in the armed forces today and those who have served. I thank them for their service, their dedication, and their willingness to put their lives on the line to protect the lives of other Canadians as well as our Canadian democracy.

I am happy that the Liberals took so much of our work on Bill C-71, as we consulted extensively across the country with the military community. I am prepared to support this bill at second reading.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I will be sharing my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey.

Canada and its justice system are renowned around the world. The previous Conservative government continually showed its resolve to support victims of crime by steadfastly taking actions that ensured that those victims had a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. How did we do that?

I think the important point is that the previous Conservative government enacted the Victims Bill of Rights. It did so to assure victims of crime that they would be assured that their government had their backs. As Conservatives we chose to listen to our constituents when it came to keeping our streets safe, because the public's safety then and always will be our number one concern.

During that time we also recognized the importance of enshrining victims' rights in the military justice system, which is why we introduced Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament. I assume that as Conservatives we should be flattered that the Liberals are copying many of our initiatives with Bill C-77. After all, it is the right thing to do.

When it comes to military justice reform, the previous Conservative government focused on restoring victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system. That is why we introduced legislation that mirrored the Victims Bill of Rights and put it into military law. It was the result of several years of work, and took into account hundreds of submissions and consultations held with victims and groups concerned about victims' rights.

Standing up for victims means helping to ensure that they have a more effective voice in the justice system and are treated with the courtesy, compassion and respect they deserve at every stage of the criminal process. Conservative are committed to keeping our streets and communities safe for Canadians and their families. We took decisive, concrete steps to hold offenders accountable for their actions, which are sadly being slowly eroded by the actions of these Liberals. However, it also means that we need to have a fair system for the accused.

The intention of this bill is to make changes to the Canadian military justice system. This bill is similar in many respects to our previous Conservative government's military justice reform Bill C-71. The purpose of Bill C-71 was to align the military justice system of Canada with the Criminal Code of Canada. It would have enshrined victims' rights into the National Defence Act, as well as put a statute of limitations on summary trial cases and clarified what cases should be handled by summary trial. Bill C-77 will institute these changes as well.

However, there are other differences between Bill C-71 and Bill C-77. The first difference is the addition of the Gladue decision in relation to paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada, putting it into the National Defence Act. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces should not be discriminated against based on their race, gender, creed or culture. However, special consideration for indigenous members in the Gladue decision that would result in sentences that are less harsh for them than other Canadian Armed Forces members could undermine operational discipline, morale and anti-racism policies. It is important that we reflect on this issue by considering the global context of the engagement of our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Most countries with effective armed forces use some kind of court martial or other military court system. These court or military court systems can vary significantly from one country to another. However, they all tend to have one thing in common: They provide for trials of charges where there are allegations that military personnel have committed offences.

The Canadian military justice system was essentially identical to the British military justice system until the end of World War II. In 1950, new Canadian legislation known as the National Defence Act, or the NDA, was enacted, which provided for a single Code of Service Discipline. The NDA also provided for trials by two different types of service tribunals: court martials and summary trials.

Since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the courts martial system has evolved and now offers more protections for the charter rights of accused persons, particularly at court martials. However, court martials are distinctly military. The judge is a legally trained officer in the Canadian Armed Forces who is appointed by the Governor in Council. The prosecutor is a uniformed legal officer who acts on behalf of the DMP. The trial involves customary military formalities, such as saluting the military judge when he or she enters the court.

Court martials have jurisdiction to deal with military personnel for any offence under the Code of Service Discipline, including uniquely military offences such as desertion and insubordination, as well as other underlying federal offences such as theft under the Criminal Code and possession of a drug under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Even though members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to the highest standards of conduct, they do not give up the rights afforded to them under Canadian law, including under the Constitution. Nonetheless, an individual's rights can be limited where they are inconsistent with the basic obligations of military service.

The charter recognizes the existence of a separate system of military justice within the Canadian legal system. Section 11of the charter states:

Any person charged with an offence has the right

...(f) Except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.

Our Canadian Armed Forces, as they work shoulder to shoulder with our allies, must be consistent. Special consideration for indigenous members that could result in sentences that are less harsh versus for them versus for Canadian Armed Forces members could undermine operational discipline, morale, and anti-racism policies.

As we think of potential amendments, I hope there will be an opportunity at during committee stage to amend the language regarding the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act.

It should be stated that the Supreme Court of Canada has directly addressed the validity of a separate, distinct military justice system in three decisions wherein the requirement for a separate justice system for the Canadian Armed Forces has been upheld.

We support our Canadian justice system as defined by our charter and Constitution, and do not support a parallel justice system that would contravene our existing rights and freedoms and would have the potential of creating issues among our own Canadian Forces members and our allies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take offence to the member's suggestion that I passed shade and that we never got it done. We brought forward three different military justice bills to ensure the military justice system lined up with the decisions coming from the Supreme Court of Canada. We also incorporated other legislation. Therefore, three different pieces of legislation were passed with respect to military justice over our 10 years.

When I was the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of justice, I was involved in two of them. At the end of that was when we were trying to bring in changes to the Victims Bill of Rights, which had only been in place for a couple of years, to ensure we incorporated that. Those were written, tabled and brought forward just before the last election. That is why our bill, Bill C-71, did not happen.

However, It has been sitting on the minister's desk for the last three years and we are only dealing with it now. I take some leave in knowing that he had to deal with the issue of the Gladue decision and had to try to incorporate that into the language. However, that is a very small part of the bill.

Overall, we need to ensure that Bill C-77 respects victims' rights. We need to ensure that we have all of the resources there to uphold the military justice system. That is why I am very concerned about the Beaudry decision.

Finally, the provost marshal and the military police need to continue to get the resources they need to carry out the different investigations they have to undertake to ensure we have that code of conduct in good order within the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-77, an act to enhance victims' rights in the military justice system, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other related acts.

First and foremost I have to thank those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. The men and women in uniform who serve in the regular forces, the reserve force in all the disciplines and all the different trades take on an important task in keeping us safe here in Canada in dealing with our foes abroad. As long as we have adversaries who want to do harm to us here in Canada as well as to our allies, we need to have a standing force to protect Canada.

It is because of the skills required to be a soldier, an airman, an airwoman, a sailor in the Royal Canadian Navy, our air force and the army, the people that we need to do that job need the support of the Government of Canada, and it does that through the National Defence Act.

A lot of people who might be hearing this debate today for the first time may not understand why we have a separate military justice system within the National Defence Act for the Canadian Armed Forces versus the court system that we have for civil society across this country.

People need to understand that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the hallmark piece of legislation, our Constitution, that even the National Defence Act is subordinate to and has to follow the laws as are written under our rights in the charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated on numerous occasions, and most recently in the Moriarity decision, that the purpose of Canada's military justice system is “to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale in the military”.

By allowing commanding officers as well as non-commissioned officers to have the ability to have efficiency and discipline within the armed forces means stronger morale, a better-abled armed forces, so they can carry out the duties that are bestowed upon them from time to time in operations by the Government of Canada.

As I already mentioned to the minister, I am glad to see that the government has moved ahead with our old Bill C-71, which would put within the Code of Service Discipline a declaration of victims' rights, something that the previous Conservative government did, as constituted in law, and now is making sure that the military justice system and the Victims' Bill of Rights would be respected within the National Defence Act.

Some of those rights that we are talking about for victims are: the right to information, so that all victims would have general information about the military justice system; what types of victim services would be available through the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence; and what type of information they would need. They would be able to hear about the progress of the case as it moves forward and also get all of the information relating to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who did the harm.

I talked earlier about Operation Honour. That information is critical in making sure that we respect the victims of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. This legislation would make sure that the armed forces provides those services.

There is the right to protection, the same thing that we have in civil society. All victims would have the right to security and privacy considered at all times through the military justice process. The armed forces would take reasonable and necessary measures to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation. A victim's identity would not be disclosed to the public.

The right to participation comes down to the victim having the right to have a victim impact statement put into the proceedings and read at the time of sentencing. Military justice professionals would have to consider these at all stages of the proceedings.

Finally, there is the right to restitution. In the event that there is the ability to provide some financial assistance to cover losses from the criminal activity that took place, the victim would have the right to restitution.

One thing that we would now see in the Canadian Armed Forces is the addition of the victim's liaison officer. This individual would proactively work with victims in their choice of jurisdiction for sexual misconduct matters. The liaison officer would help victims with the investigation and trial process, keep them informed, listen to them and get their views to determine how public interest is moving forward on that prosecution.

Witness preparation will be improved through this process because of the addition of the victims rights officer. They will make sure that the comfort and security of the victim are always taken into consideration. They will look at everything from the type of effort that prosecutors need for all of the information regarding the victim impact statement, and during sentencing in particular, to looking at maintaining the consistency of prosecutors throughout the court process. It is critical to make sure that prosecutors are using the same type of parameters in moving forward. That has to be paramount. Finally, these sexual misconduct cases would be expedited ahead of other trials that might be ongoing.

As Conservatives, we have always stood up for victims' rights. We believe that victims must have an effective voice in the criminal justice, which includes the military justice system. As I said, it was the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper that brought forward the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and now we would be enshrining those rights into the military justice system through Bill C-77. That is why we introduced Bill C-71 last Parliament in the last session.

We are going to be supportive of this process with the government, but are wondering why the Liberals took so long. We know they are copying our bill because it is the right thing to do. Everyone wants to stand up for the victims of crime, and of course we will want to study this further once it gets to committee.

Putting the rights of victims at the heart of our criminal justice system is important to ensure that victims have a more effective voice within the justice system, and that they are treated with courtesy, compassion and respect at every stage of the military criminal justice process, as well as in the civilian criminal justice process. This is about reversing the trend of criminals always getting breaks. We want to make sure that we keep our streets and communities safe, and that families of victims have an effective voice.

As Conservatives, we are very proud of our record with respect to the criminal justice system. It speaks for itself. We enacted the Safe Streets and Communities Act and reformed the not criminally responsible legislation. We also brought in laws against sexual exploitation, cyber-bullying and cyber-intimidation.

We believe that victims should always be placed at the forefront in the criminal justice system because they deserve and should have the right to information, the right to protection, the right participation, and where possible, the right to restitution. That is why we passed the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It enshrines that in legislation. We are finally doing that through Bill C-77 in the military justice system.

Although we are all here talking about standing up for victims, I have been very disappointed over the last two weeks from seeing the government's response on the Tori Stafford case regarding Terri-Lynne McClintic. She has been put into a minimum-security healing lodge in Saskatchewan where there are other children. She is the child killer of Tori Stafford. If we really believed in supporting victims' rights, there is no way that Terri-Lynne McClintic should be in a healing lodge. She should be behind bars in at least a medium-security facility that has a fence, where she can be properly monitored and can receive the counselling she needs.

I will also note Chris Garnier, an individual who killed off-duty police officer Catherine Campbell, is sitting in prison and receiving Veterans Affairs benefits for PTSD that he got from killing Officer Campbell. There is no way that this individual should be given any veterans benefits, but the government refuses to rescind the services being offered to him. Garnier could get PTSD counselling through the Correctional Service of Canada. He does not need to be taking away benefits from veterans when he is not a veteran himself. He got ahead of the line of actual veterans trying to get help for their operational stress injuries.

Then of course we have Bill C-75, which I call the Liberal hug-a-thug bill. The Liberals have brought forward this legislation that reduces fines, penalties, and incarceration time for individuals for 26 different offences that right now are indictable and result in jail time, instead making them summary conviction offences. This could mean just getting a fine instead of jail time.

To get back to why we have a military justice system, I will read an old quote from Maurice de Saxe, who was a marshal general of France. He noted in a 1732 treatise he wrote on the science of warfare that “military discipline...is the soul of armies. If it is not established with wisdom and maintained with unshakeable resolution you will have no soldiers. Regiments and armies will only be contemptible, armed mobs, more dangerous to their own country than to the enemy.”

That is why we have a court martial system. It is also why we have summary hearings so that the chain of command is able to deal with disciplinary measures. We always have to remember that since the earliest of times, members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been given great responsibilities in exercising those duties to protect this country. When we go back to our British history and operations, they were always governed by articles of war that were proclaimed by the monarch. Articles about different military offences and punishments at that time included the death penalty, or someone would have their head shaven if they were not conducting themselves in a respectful manner. The military has that ethos and the code of service conduct that its members have to respect. It is critical that the military function under that very hard discipline. When people are going into battle, service members standing next to each other must be bound by that same code and conduct themselves in like manner and be able to trust each other with their lives.

It is because of that history, the operations we undertake, and the creation of the National Defence Act in 1950 that we have this two-tiered system.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are often required to risk injury or death in their daily performance of their duties inside and outside Canada. They often have to use lethal force in an operation. They are going to be commanded to be the aggressors at times and they all have to be responsible under the chain of command. Of course, those activities and operations are sanctioned by the Government of Canada. That is why there has to be a military justice system that is separate from the civilian system and that puts a premium on the necessity for discipline and cohesion of military units.

The operational reality of the military has specific implications holding military members to a higher standard than what is expected of civilians. That is why there are the summary hearings or summary trials, as they are currently called, that deal with those disciplinary matters. It builds morale within the Canadian Armed Forces when everyone is marching in the same direction.

The realities of military life were acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1992 decision in the Généreux case. It stated that:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Service Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs. In addition, special service tribunals, rather than the ordinary courts, have been given jurisdiction to punish breaches of the Code of Service Discipline. Recourse to the ordinary criminal courts would, as a general rule, be inadequate to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military. There is thus a need for separate tribunals to enforce special disciplinary standards in the military.

In light of that decision, I think it is key that a person must be punished severely, efficiently and with speed. In the current situation of civilian courts, that would not happen. We have murderers who are getting off from their crimes because their jurisprudence has not been respected under the courts and their cases have been thrown out because of the time it has taken to actually get them to a hearing.

The charter also recognizes the existence of the separate system of military justice within the Canadian legal system. If we look at section 11 of the charter that deals with the proceedings of criminal and penal matters, it talks extensively about the right to a fair trial. However, section 11(f) says:

Any person charged with an offence has the right...(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

Therefore, the charter specifically says that we have the right to have a separate and distinct military justice system. That has been upheld now in three separate decisions, most recently in 2015 in the Moriarity decision. In each case, the court has upheld the requirement for a separate justice system in the Canadian Armed Forces.

In Généreux, the Supreme Court found that the existence of a parallel system of military law and tribunals for the purpose of enforcement and discipline in the military “is deeply entrenched in our history and is supported by compelling principles.”

When we start looking at some of the decisions going forward, and of course the one just delivered by the Court Martial Appeal Court in the Beaudry case, I do not know if they have looked significantly at the decisions already made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The reality is that the Supreme of Court of Canada has decided that we need to have a separate military justice system, a court martial process, as well as a summary hearings proceedings to ensure that we have that discipline and that morale is there, so that we have an efficient armed forces that can deal with the threats of the day and that everyone is then working hand in hand.

In the MacKay case, there was a similar note when the National Defence Act was considered as a whole. it reads:

When the National Defence Act is considered as a whole it will be seen that it encompasses the rules of discipline necessary to the maintenance of morale and efficiency among troops in training and at the same time envisages conditions under which service offences may be committed outside of Canada by service personnel stationed abroad. […] In my view these are some of the factors which make it apparent that a separate code of discipline administered within the services is an essential ingredient of service life.

Again, that comes back to the fact that our troops are deployed in places like Iraq, Ukraine, Latvia, Mali, and in past in places like Korea and Afghanistan, and across Europe in World War I and World War II. The reason we have it is that if crimes are committed overseas, those military members will still be bound by the military processes and the military justice that we have under the National Defence Act.

Again, in the Moriarity decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of paragraph 131(1)(a) of the National Defence Act, which incorporates offences under the Criminal Code and other acts into the military justice system, because the court acknowledged that the behaviour of members of the military relates to discipline, efficiency and morale, even when they are not on duty, in uniform or on a military base. This comes back to Operation Honour, which we are engaged in right now and which has been carried out very effectively by the Canadian Armed Forces. It is not just when one is wearing the uniform and is on duty that it matters, but it is an ethos and code of conduct that Canadian Forces members have chosen to uphold at all times, whether on duty or off .The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that. Therefore, if there is any sexual misconduct, it can be dealt with.

In closing, I have to say that I am very concerned about the effect of the Beaudry ruling. I am glad that the government and the minister have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, because it contradicts two other recent rulings of the Court Martial Appeal Court. Essentially what they are trying to do is to wipe out the military's ability to prosecute any civilian offences within the Canadian Forces.

To close, I will read the dissenting opinion of the chief justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Hon. Richard Bell. He wrote that Parliament had intended to include the offences under paragraph 131(1)(a) of the National Defence Act as “offence[s] under military law tried before a military tribunal” when drafting subsection 11(f) of the charter. He noted that “Parliament was presumably aware of the legal consequences of the military exception set out in subsection 11(f) of the Charter, and there is every indication that it intended to exclude persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline from the right to a trial by jury when it conceived that exception”.

I have to agree with him. I hope we can put stronger language into Bill C-77 to respect that type of legal opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that the legislation was originally proposed at the end of the last Parliament, as Bill C-71. It has been three years, and we are only getting to it now, as Bill C-77.

After a review of the legislation, Bill C-77 versus the old Bill C-71, other than adding some language for the Gladue decision, as well as changing the terminology around summary hearings and summary trials, there was not a whole lot more there than what was there previously.

Why would it take three years for the government to introduce this legislation?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member would have heard, before I got sidelined with the heckling from his benches, that we would like to see this go to committee. I mentioned the three slight differences between Bill C-71 and Bill C-77.

I find this most interesting, and I hope Canadians who are watching do as well. The Prime Minister stood in the House and said that this was a treatment that should be available for Mr. Garnier. Whenever we hold the Liberals to account for that, they attack. I am sorry, but I am here as an opposition member to hold them to account. That is what Canadians want us to do. If they take that as an attack, it is a sign that they are failing.

In the case of Garnier, which I got into because of heckling from the Liberal benches, nothing shows a disconnect with what Canadians expect of their government more than allowing a murderer to jump ahead of veterans.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate and to follow my friend from Edmonton on Bill C-77. It is about military justice and some consequential amendments to other acts.

I want to say that the previous speaker from Edmonton is a huge supporter of our troops and we will be talking a lot about the Canadian Armed Forces one on one in the coming days because of that support within his family for our armed services. He answered a very simple question at the end in a way which certainly the Liberals would not recognize in the House that, yes, Bill C-77 is very similar to the Harper government's Bill C-71.

The Liberals only use the name “Harper” when they have to hide from their failures. They are trying to project that everything going wrong now with the pipelines, with their own abysmal record of putting a murderer ahead of veterans at veterans affairs, is somehow Harper's fault. They say that everything is Harper's fault. There is never accountability on that side of the House. I hope they go back to their ridings this weekend and reflect on that. They have been in government for three years pretty much and they should start taking ownership for their failures.

This bill is so similar to Bill C-71 that we certainly want to see it go forward. We want to see the impacts. There really are only a few small differences between Bill C-71 from the Conservative government and Bill C-77. I should explain to people who are following this debate why Bill C-71 did not pass. It was introduced late in the fourth year of the term and did not receive royal assent.

Essentially, there are only three changes. There are some changes with respect to the impact of the Gladue decision in respect to the sentencing of indigenous peoples. We will have to see how that application goes with military justice because certainly all Canadians, regardless of background, choose to join the Canadian Armed Forces and therefore adopt their ethos and code, the code of conduct expected in the military justice system and the National Defence Act.

I would like to also compliment the Canadian Armed Forces, which in the last 10 years through the aboriginal learning opportunity year, the ALOY, at the Royal Military College and a number of recruiting initiatives, are trying to make sure that first nations see themselves more in the Canadian Armed Forces and important institutions like that.

I am very proud of the fact that when I spoke in the U.S. Capitol building on the recognition of the First Special Service Force, the Devil's Brigade, the first special operations unit where Canadians and Americans served alongside each other, the only veteran I mentioned individually by name was aboriginal veteran Tommy Prince, the “prince of the regiment”, as he was known for unbelievable bravery and cunning while he was part of the Devil's Brigade.

While I am on that note, this is how we should approach the modern age. Rather than stripping names off buildings like the Langevin Block, let us put people up today. Let us highlight people like Tommy Prince. Our most accomplished sniper of the last war was an aboriginal Canadian from the Muskoka area in Ontario. The member from that area has talked about him quite a bit. We should highlight people that were overlooked in history rather than remove or erase people who are here from our history. However, that is a diversion.

The other two differences are some changes to absolute discharge provisions between the last bill and this bill and some terminology changes. Instead of a “summary trial” it will be a “summary hearing” and those sorts of things. That is why, as my friend from Edmonton said, of course we want to see this bill go through. This was one of the bills to really bring the military justice system and the National Defence Act in line with modern Criminal Code amendments. That was a huge accomplishment from the Conservative government. Once again, we will not hear the Liberals talking about this, but when it comes to putting victims at the front of our justice system and modernizing our Criminal Code to make sure that it addresses cyberbullying and changes in technology, we were always trying to do that to make sure that the victim was not forgotten in the criminal justice system.

While I am speaking on national defence, which everyone in this House knows is very personal for me, I think the most formative years of my life were the 12 years I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I left it having taken more from that experience than I had to give for my country. I left without any serious injury. I left before the Afghanistan war. I know people who were injured and killed in that conflict.

Therefore, I feel a sense of responsibility as a Canadian and as a parliamentarian to make sure that our Canadian Armed Forces and our veterans are supported. That is why we are talking justice and we are talking the military.

It is an affront to the military, to veterans and to our justice system that the Prime Minister of Canada stood in the House and defended a convicted murderer receiving treatment.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I decided to join my colleagues today in speaking to Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. Throughout the day we have heard some wonderful speeches explaining a lot of the great good that the bill would eventually do. We are very honoured to have a lot of veterans from our Armed Forces serving as MPs who have given some wonderful insight. I want to thank them for that and also for the general non-partisan discourse we have heard today.

I call the bill the “freaky Friday bill” because the government has basically swapped titles with a bill by the previous Conservative government. For those who are not followers of pop culture, Freaky Friday was a movie in which Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis played daughter-mom characters who switched bodies. It is quite interesting that the Liberal government has consistently labelled the opposition as Harper Conservatives, yet it does not hesitate to try to pass off Harper Conservative legislation as its own, as it is doing with Bill C-77. There is barely a sentence muttered by that side of the House that does not blame every problem under the sun on Harper Conservatives. It is kind of funny to be debating the Liberals' copy of the Harper Conservatives' legislation. It is too bad that the government does not copy the Harper Conservatives' commitment to victims of crime.

We are debating a bill that is almost a direct clone of a previous military justice reform bill, Bill C-71. It was introduced by the Harper government because it was simply the right thing to do. We believe that someone needed to stand up for victims of sexual misconduct and other forms of discrimination in the armed forces. It is the ultimate irony that we are debating victims' rights in this legislation on the day when question period was focused on the government giving military benefits to a murderer who never served a second in our military, but I digress.

The bill introduced today shows that the Liberals are following the good examples that our party set by keeping the items that we had in our bill, including enshrining the victims bill of rights into the National Defence Act, putting a statute of limitations of six months on summary hearing cases, and clarifying what cases should be handled by a summary hearing.

The fact that it took the Liberals three years to introduce the bill is disgraceful. It confirms the Liberals' position that victims' rights are secondary to basically everything else. It should come as no surprise, considering how long the government is taking to appoint judges to ensure that those arrested for horrific crimes are not set free due to judicial delays.

We had a gang member suspected of committing mass murder released in Calgary as a result of the government's refusal to appoint judges. This gang member, who is suspected by the Calgary police of murdering up to 20 people in Calgary, has been set free. Moreover, another accused murderer was set free in Edmonton due to the government's inability to appoint judges. A man in Nova Scotia who broke both of his infant child's legs with a baseball bat was set free due to delays because the government will not prioritize justice.

Here we have waited three years for this legislation to be brought to the House, legislation that is almost identical to Bill C-71 by the previous government. It is not as if the Liberals had to start from scratch, yet it took them three years to bring it to the floor.

I want to look at some of the legislation brought in by the Liberals that is apparently of higher priority than victims' rights. Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), was brought in to address their own unethical fundraising scams. They were caught selling access to ministers, so they brought in legislation to curtail their own unethical fundraising. Of course, they probably continue to allow lobbyists to pay for direct access to the ministers. Here is a thought: Why not just act ethically and not require legislation to address their cash for access scandals, and instead prioritize this legislation for victims?

Bill C-58 would amend the Access to Information Act, but the Liberals have still have not done anything with it. Access to information is very important, but the legislation introduced by the Liberal Party watered down access and transparency. The Liberals took the time to introduce legislation that would weaken Canadians' access to information and put it as a higher priority than legislation for victims.

Earlier, the government House leader, who introduced Bill C-24, was heckling me about government priorities. Bill C-24 aimed to pay ministers of state at the same rate as ministers and changed the official title of the public works department act. That ridiculous bill basically just changed the salary of certain ministers of state to match cabinet ministers' salaries.

Legislation already existed to allow the Liberals to do that, but they had to bring in new legislation for certain unnecessary reasons. They also spent time changing the official name of Public Works to Public Services and Procurement Canada. They spent days in the House debating that bill, days in committee studying it. How is this possibly more important or a greater priority than victims' rights? It is another example of poor leadership by the Prime Minister and how he is constantly failing our troops. It is just like the used jets, taking away tax relief for troops fighting ISIS, saying that veterans are asking for too much, and doing absolutely nothing to get our troops the equipment they need in the numbers they need. The government is failing our troops.

Our previous Conservative government focused on restoring victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71, which mirrored the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that was adopted by Parliament, to ensure that those same rights were incorporated into military law. It was the result of several years of work and took into account the hundreds of submissions and consultations held with victims and groups concerned with victims' rights.

We have seen what the Liberal government has done for our troops and veterans over the last three years, so we are not going to hold our breath that it is will actually move forward with the legislation here.

This can be seen from the Liberals' consistent commitment to progress on a variety of items. For example, they set-up studies and ignore the findings, introduce legislation and then wash their hands of the issue.

I would like to talk about the government's beloved wordplay exercise “what I say and what I mean”. The government specifically says “investment” rather than “spend”, so it can completely sidestep any responsibility for action because, technically, introducing a bill on an issue is an investment, an investment in time and news releases.

We note there are very few instances of the government actually putting spending in place for any given investment opportunity. In cases where legislation is introduced, we see few instances of achieved results. The government's “Strong, Secure, Engaged” plan for our troops is a prime example. It touts its record investments, but experts agree that the likelihood of its being executed is slim to none.

According to a report published by Dave Perry at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, there is a significant gap between spending allocations and capital spending. Perry writes:

As a percentage increase relative to 2016/2017, the capital projections in SSE would see spending increase by 98 per cent in the policy’s first year, 106 per cent in its second, 172 per cent in its sixth and by 315 per cent by 2024/2025.

These increases in spending are not comparable to any other time in Canadian history except the Korean War. We have pie in the sky ideas from the government on what it is going to do, but when it comes to actually doing it, our troops are left empty-handed. Suffice it to say, while the intentions behind this bill are sound, the likelihood of the government's actioning them is slim.

I would like to go through a couple of other things the government has on the go, things like “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, as I mentioned; Phoenix, and of course we know where that is; Trans Mountain, with billions of dollars being spend on a pipeline that is not getting built; and the veterans hiring act. We actually met in committee yesterday and discussed why the government was not moving on that. We just received a shrug from the Liberal members and witnesses. Other items include infrastructure and electoral reform. Again and again, we see the government making commitments it does not follow through on. There is also the issue of fighter jets, buying old jets from Australia so it does not have to take the political hit for buying the F-35 in an election year. It is going to take the government longer to procure sleeping bags for our troops than it takes our NATO allies to run open competitions for their new fighter jets.

While being similar in a number of ways with the Conservative government's previous bill, Bill C-77 is different in some key ways. That is why this side of the House would like to see it further discussed and debated at committee. As with any legislation, especially as it pertains to our troops, we should ensure that due diligence is done, that our concerns about certain areas are discussed, and that the bill is discussed with experts and officials at committee. Conservatives very much support enshrining victims' rights in the military justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament.

Victims' rights are important. This legislation is important. Here is to hoping it does not get added to the government's long list of items on its mandate tracker as “under way with challenges”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with our hon. colleague from Edmonton West.

It is an honour to stand and speak to Bill C-77.

Today we are talking about Bill C-77 and the military justice reforms from the government. Essentially in the eleventh hour and pre-writ for the most part, the government has chosen to table a bill which it has said is going to be absolutely transformative and is so important. The Liberals believe very strongly in it, yet there are so many other pieces of legislation that came before this bill, such as changing the words to our national anthem and the cannabis piece of legislation, and now we have Bill C-77 which talks about enshrining victims' rights into our military justice system.

I will say right at the outset that the Conservatives always err on the side of victims and believe that victims' rights should always be there. As a matter of fact, it was our previous Conservative government that enacted the Victims Bill of Rights Act. We support enshrining victims' rights into the military justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71.

People who are listening to this debate should not get that bill confused with the backdoor registry Bill C-71 that has been talked about in the last couple of weeks, which the Liberal government is trying to bring through this House and unfairly punish law-abiding gun owners. I am talking about Bill C-71 which was brought forward by the previous Conservative government. The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour actually thanked us. It will go down in Hansard that we actually had a Liberal thanking us for all the hard work that we did. We actually did the hard work on this file.

Bill C-71 and Bill C-77 are almost identical, with the exception of a couple of minor things. All the Liberals did was take the cover page off and change the name, which is what we see them do very often with a lot of the good pieces of legislation they have brought forward. They did change C-71 to C-77. They have to put their Liberal spin on it, and we will get into that in a bit.

Also, prior to getting into the depth of this, I will say that this is not my file. I do not profess to be proficient in all the legal terms and all the benefits that Bill C-77 would bring, but I will talk about victims' rights.

It is interesting that earlier during question period and throughout the week, we were talking about a gentleman who committed a heinous crime and through the course of committing that crime gave himself PTSD. He committed murder. He actually murdered an off-duty police officer, put her into a garbage bin and then rolled it out and like trash tossed her aside. Now he has actually stepped in line with veterans, stepped in line before the veterans, and is receiving mental health services.

I receive messages from veterans and first responders every day about mental health challenges. I also receive messages every day from victims of crime who felt that when the Liberal government came in and started its hug-a-thug programs, the process was rigged against them. I actually get calls and messages from law enforcement officers who say that the system is now rigged against them, that it is harder for them to do their job. We should be doing everything in our power to give those whom we trust to protect us, our silent sentinels, every tool to be able to do their job, to be able to do their mission and come home and remain healthy and productive.

We should be giving the victims every opportunity to be protected and to know that when their day in court comes, the focus will be on them and their rights and not on the person who committed the crime.

I sat through the debate on Bill C-75. This is a piece of legislation where the government is looking to speed up our judicial process. We should not be speeding up the process. We should be making it effective, making sure that those who come before the courts get the appropriate rights and freedoms that we all enjoy, but those who are found guilty, if they do the crime, they better do the time.

I will not get into that. I am not a lawyer, but there is a lawyer sitting in front of me. There are far too many lawyer jokes that I could insert here, but I will not do that.

It was interesting to sit through the debate on Bill C-75. I listened to the witnesses who came before committee. They were very articulate and they all said the same thing. They all had the same concerns. They said we should not weaken our system, that we should make sure that victims are not revictimized through the court process. They want to know that they will get their day in court, that every tool available will be there to make sure that the perpetrator of a crime, if found guilty, will serve the time.

Bill C-77 is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-71. There are a couple of changes which I will talk to right now.

The main difference between the two bills is the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act in Bill C-77. This addition would mean that aboriginal members of the Canadian Armed Forces who face charges under the National Defence Act may face lighter punishment if convicted. I will not say “will”. This document says “will”, but I would say “may”. I still believe in our judicial system. They may face lighter punishment if convicted.

It also would mean special consideration for indigenous members, taking in their background and perhaps what they went through. We have heard horrific stories over the years.

We need to make sure that there is a parallel system and the addition of special consideration for indigenous members that results in sentences that are perhaps less harsh versus their other CAF colleagues and comrades. The concern would be that perhaps that could undermine operational discipline, morale, and anti-racism policies. It may be well intended but it could have unintended negative consequences.

We support getting the bill to committee where we can study it further and hear from groups that come before us and offer their opinions. I look forward to that.

I want to go back to the couple of hours of discussions I sat through on Bill C-75. I am conscious of the short amount of time I have to speak, but I want to comment on this. My hon. colleague down the way mentioned this as well. First, we should do everything in our power to give those who are enforcing our laws every tool possible for them to complete their mission and to remain healthy. Second, we should be doing whatever we can to make sure that we institute mental health components within our legislation to make sure that they come home healthy. We should not be trying to speed up our judicial system. We should be finding ways to make it effective.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for his question.

The bill of rights received royal assent on April 23, 2015, and Bill C-71 was introduced around the same time. I do not know why it was not immediately incorporated at the time. It ran into some procedural issues. I think the bill of rights was mentioned in the previous Bill C-71, but since it had not yet received royal assent, it could not be incorporated then. A new government came to power after that, so that is all I can say.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this morning, on behalf of my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who could not be here today, to speak to Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act.

As members know, I served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 22 years, as have many of my colleagues on both sides of the House.

The national defence world is a very complicated one. To the average person, to civilians, this is a closed-off world. What happens in the forces stays in the forces. Civilians have no idea. We have our own Code of Service Discipline and we do things our own way.

Fortunately, things have changed. As society evolves, everyone must adapt. The function of the military remains the same; what we ask of our armed forces will not change. The purpose of the military is to prepare for a potential conflict. We cannot act in the same way as civilians.

It is not the norm for someone to learn to shoot because he or she may one day be called upon to use a weapon against an enemy; that is very specific and requires a whole different approach, which is why it is so important to have a strict and regulated military justice system.

When I was a unit commander, I was required to judge summary trials. I judged different cases at different levels during my command. There were some very trivial cases, involving someone who did not shave in the morning for example. That person might be subject to a trial and be fined. There were also much more serious cases, like the one involving a violent fight between soldiers in a military bar. The assaults and injuries made that a serious case.

Over the years, we realized that discipline was important and that people who were caught committing such offences were severely punished through fines and demotions. Sometimes they were even kicked out of the Canadian Armed Forces.

However, the victims were not the focus of these trials. Often military or civilian victims were not taken into consideration because the Canadian Forces were focused on punishing the people who committed the reprehensible acts. However, there was no concern for the surrounding situation. Luckily things have changed.

I want to point out that the Conservatives have always had the interests of victims at heart. The Conservative Party has always cared about victims. The previous Conservative government took major steps to protect Canadians and defend victims of crime. We know that the number one priority of any government is to keep citizens safe, and that is a responsibility that the previous Conservative government took very seriously.

We believe that our laws and discussions should always put victims' rights first. We want victims to have a strong voice, to be heard, to know that they are not just victims and that they are not alone. We want them to be able to speak up and be present throughout the judicial process.

The previous Conservative government made a commitment to make a change and ensure that our streets and communities are safe for Canadians and their families. We took concrete measures to hold criminals responsible for their actions.

The Conservatives are proud of their track record, which includes passing the Safe Streets and Communities Act, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, and laws against sexual exploitation and cyberbullying.

The Conservatives feel that the criminal justice system has prioritized criminals' rights for too long. We believe that victims should be the central focus of our criminal justice system. We believe that they have a right to information, protection, participation and, if possible, compensation.

That is why we introduced the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, a historic act that received royal assent on April 23, 2015.

Former prime minister Harper, former minister Peter MacKay, Senator Boisvenu, who became an ardent victims' advocate after his daughter was murdered, and the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis were involved in the development and implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

This charter is now the centrepiece of what we are doing to protect victims of crime in Canada. We commend the Canadian Forces for wanting to have a law for victims so that their rights are given the same recognition as the rights of alleged criminals. That is very important.

In addition to the four pillars that are the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to restitution, it is vital that the future law on the rights of Canadian Forces victims endeavour to recognize the right of victims of crime. The future law on the rights of Canadian Forces victims must require a military tribunal with gender parity for cases involving sexual assault. This right must be officially recognized in the law.

To protect the rights enshrined in the law on the rights of Canadian Forces victims, the position of ombudsman for victims must first be created to ensure victims that they will be heard and protected and that their rights will be duly respected. A permanent position at a rank higher than liaison officer, which could be abolished at any time, is vital to the enforcement and creation of the law on the rights of Canadian Forces victims.

Canada currently has a federal ombudsman for victims of crime, a position that was created in 2007, but this position is not protected. The ombudsman is not an officer of Parliament and operates at arm's length from the Department of Justice. The ombudsman position has been vacant since November 15, 2017, and the Minister of Justice refuses to fill it. She refuses to give victims of crime a voice and refuses to protect their rights under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and ensure that they are represented and protected, the way criminals' rights are.

By contrast, the position of correctional investigator, who looks after prisoners, was filled on January 2, 2018, two weeks after the last ombudsman left. That is totally unacceptable. It is an affront to victims.

I also want to point out that Bill C-343, introduced by my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, which would have made the ombudsman for victims of crime equal to the ombudsman for criminals, was shut down by the Liberals. The Liberals are being disingenuous when they claim to want to protect victims of crime, yet refuse to give them the same kind of official voice in Parliament that criminals have.

Creating a victims bill of rights to ease one's conscience is one thing, but failing to enforce that bill of rights because there is no voice to fight for victims, whether in the civilian or military courts, is quite another.

The Liberal government needs to have its two victims bills of rights and its two victims' ombudsman positions in order to properly enforce victims' rights. Otherwise, victims will be revictimized at our hands.

I have already told the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that Bill C-77, which we support, I might add, is largely based on a previous bill that the Conservative government introduced in 2015. I am referring to Bill C-71, which is not to be confused with the current Bill C-71. The bill I am referring to is from the previous Parliament.

When we introduced Bill C-71 to amend the National Defence Act, those reforms were important because we were focusing on restoring victims to their rightful place at the heart of the justice system. That is why we introduced a bill that reflected the Canadian Victims Bills of Rights and made it part of military law.

It was the result of many years of work and took into account hundreds of submissions and consultations. My colleague said that he held consultations all across Canada. Perhaps the Liberals consulted with regard to the part that they added, but I can safely say that most of the bill had already been developed by our former government. We held hundreds of consultations across the country. The bill proposes to give victims better access to information, greater protection, more opportunities to participate, and improved restitution.

Bill C-77 will be complicated to implement. The three parties support it, and we want to send it directly to committee so that it can be passed quickly.

I would hope that, in 2018, the Department of National Defence has a clear understanding of what victims go through. Victims in the civilian world still have a hard time being heard. As I mentioned, the government still has not appointed a successor for the ombudsman, and there is no protection system in place to help victims. I am worried that this is all just talk. If the government is having difficulty helping civilian victims, I do not see how it will be able to help those in the military world, which is very closed and discipline-oriented. This will be a challenge for the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces and for the government. The government needs bring back the ombudsman position, give the new ombudsman a clear mandate, and ensure that the new law is enforced. Changes must be made to many mechanisms and to the culture within the armed forces, but I think people are ready.

When I joined the Canadian Forces 30 years ago, the mentality was quite different. I see my colleague opposite, who reached the senior ranks of the Canadian Forces. He is very familiar with that reality. People who join the Canadian Forces today do so to serve in the profession of arms, of course. They want to serve their country to the best of their physical and intellectual capabilities. However, they have a better understanding of the reality facing victims today. I therefore expect the chain of command to accept this legislation at every level and ensure that it is enforced effectively.

In closing, the Conservatives are committed to defending victims of crime and ensuring that they have a stronger voice in the criminal justice system. It was our Conservative government that passed the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. We support enshrining in law victims' rights in the military justice system. That is why we introduced Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament. The Conservative Party will always stand up for victims of crime. The Conservatives support referring Bill C-77 to the Standing Committee on National Defence as soon as possible.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like to ask him a question. Bill C-77 replicates our Bill C-71, introduced in 2015.

I would like to know why it took the government three years to bring back this bill, which had already been introduced at the time. I think only one aspect has changed. Why did it take three years?