Bill C-77 (Historical)

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

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 a right 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 hearings;
(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) on application, make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 mandatory;
(g) in certain circumstances, require a military judge 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;
(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, as a principle of sentencing, that particular attention should be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders;
(l) provide for the creation, in regulations, of service infractions that can be dealt with by summary hearing;
(m) provide for a scale of sanctions in respect of service infractions and for the principles applicable to those sanctions;
(n) provide for a six-month limitation period in respect of summary hearings; and
(o) provide superior commanders, commanding officers and delegated officers with jurisdiction to conduct a summary hearing in respect of a person charged with having committed a service infraction if the person is at least one rank below the officer conducting the summary hearing.
Finally, the enactment makes related and consequential amendments to certain Acts. Most notably, it 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.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, this legislation would remove the minister's power of appointing and removing the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. Instead, these would become Governor in Council appointments, with the minister having the power to request a public inquiry into potential remedial or disciplinary measures against these directors. It would remove the ability of the judge advocate general to issue instructions to the director of military prosecutions on individual cases. While the director would still be operating under the JAG and could get general instructions, the JAG would no longer be able to direct individual cases.

It would change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general, putting that individual on the same level as the judge advocate general and reporting directly to the minister instead of reporting to the vice chief of the defence staff. It would reverse a component of Harper-era Bill C-15, which gave the vice chief of the defence staff power to issue instructions to the provost marshal on particular cases. It would expand eligibility to submit an interference complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Currently, complaints of interference can only be made by a member of the military police. It would now allow a victim, an individual acting on behalf of a victim or any other person affected by the performance of the policing duty to make a complaint. It would codify some practices from Bill C-77, including that military judges cannot oversee summary hearings and that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction.

There would be some major changes to how Canada will treat criminal sexual offences in the military. Again, it is another chapter in Canada's ongoing military sexual trauma crisis, which has spanned decades. For many Canadians, this was first brought to their attention in 1998, when brave women spoke out to Maclean's magazine. There was a four-part series on the systemic sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces and it discussed how violence against women was covered up and how the chain of command looked the other way far too often. This coincided with a public trust crisis in the Canadian Armed Forces, driven by the Somalia affair. The two events spurred several reforms. This included the creation of a Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman, the Military Police Complaints Commission, a military grievance external review committee and the decision to move criminal sexual offences into the jurisdiction of the military police, the exact policy this legislation is looking to reverse.

This is the critical point I have heard from many service people. For decades, survivors have felt that while they deserve justice, they have not received that justice. Women, 2SLGBTQ+ and marginalized communities have felt that the Canadian Armed Forces and the federal government are not making the reforms to create space for them. Instead, they feel that the government is reacting to bad press, treating them like a problem to be managed instead of people to be valued. Decades after the government's decision to bring criminal sexual offences into the military police's jurisdiction, The Globe and Mail reported that those feelings were real. Through historic cabinet documents, they found that the then-minister of defence, Art Eggleton, made the transfer simply to end the media coverage of sexual assault in the military. The federal government did not make this change to protect women and men in the armed forces but instead did so to protect itself, hoping people would forget.

However, survivors have continued fighting for a change, and their organizing has brought the spotlight onto harmful military culture again and again. Their perseverance has led to multiple investigations into the military justice system. To date, this has included the 2015 report by Justice Deschamps, the 2021 report by Justice Fish, an Auditor General's report, two reports by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and, of course, Arbour's report. I want to also include the recent history-making report by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on women's health.

Supporting survivors of military sexual trauma is generational. Even before my time in the House of Commons, my mother, Irene Mathyssen, worked on this issue and spoke with many women about their experience. They have told me that, for so many, she was the first member of Parliament to believe them and to hear them. She saw the urgency of this crisis, and she fought for women in the military and victims of military sexual trauma. When I was elected, I joined the NDP team as the critic for the status of women. When the scandals broke, involving the most senior military officials being perpetrators and enablers of sexual misconduct, we saw the Standing Committee on National Defence get caught up in the partisan politics of this place. I saw parliamentarians weaponize the experience of these survivors to score political points against each other and I saw endless filibustering. However, women parliamentarians from across the political spectrum knew that survivors deserved better.

We brought this study to the status of women committee, and I heard the stories of these brave survivors. I promised them and myself that I would fight for them and I am honoured that they trusted me with their experiences and asked me to help them make the change. I can never forget that promise. I now serve as the critic for national defence, and I have used every opportunity to push for that change. I have challenged every minister, every departmental official and every senior CAF official to move on the long list of recommendations that can create meaningful culture change.

The Canadian Armed Forces has been criticized for being slow to enact recommendations from these reports. Justice Arbour emphasized the need for greater civilian input and oversight within the military to cut through the systemic resistance to change. When the current President of the Treasury Board was the minister of national defence, she announced, on December 13, 2022, that she would accept all of Justice Arbour's recommendations and bring forward a plan to enact these changes, including this legislation. The government announced an immediate transfer of all active criminal sexual investigations to civilian courts. However, this did not happen entirely. Approximately half of cases remained in the military justice system without a clear explanation as to why.

Of the cases that were transferred, the existing concurrent jurisdiction between the military police and civilian authorities caused major problems. Retired Corporal Arianna Nolet was one of the first military sexual trauma victims to have her case transferred to civilian courts. Last September, her case was stayed due to time delays in the back-and-forth between military and civilian police. The cause of the delays was twofold. First, civilian authorities were wary of taking over the case and, due to concurrent jurisdiction, they were not mandated to accept the case. Second, the transfer of the case files by the military police was significantly delayed. Military police dragged their feet every step of the way, leaving what the judge called an “albatross of nine months of delay under the military justice system clasped suddenly around [the case's] neck, [which] was irretrievably locked up in the civilian system”. That albatross meant a survivor was denied her day in court. The case was thrown out of court under timely-trial rules. When that case was thrown out, the minister of defence said it was a unique circumstance, but we have seen several cases have the same fate.

One of Canada's most prominent military law experts, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, said the law must be changed to end concurrent jurisdiction, and as long as we transfer cases between two jurisdictions, we will see more and more cases stayed. Drapeau, who wrote the main book on military law in Canada, said the government should have immediately brought forward a short bill, a page, to amend the National Defence Act and simply add criminal sexual offences to the list of crimes the military cannot handle. With that simple change, we could have prevented the cases that were transferred from being stayed.

That is why, last year, I brought forward my bill, Bill C-363, which would have done exactly that. Because of my place in the lottery for Private Members' Business, the bill was not debated. However, I wanted to send a message to the minister that we need urgency. We needed action as soon as possible to end the tug-of-war over jurisdiction and ensure that all survivors who have their cases transferred would have their day in court.

There are still many cases moving forward in this confusing tug-of-war, and there is no indication that the transfer is getting smoother because this is not about procedure and it is not about making technocratic deals with provinces; this is about power. This is about a system designed to cover up problems, to revictimize survivors and to maintain the status quo. That is why there is so much urgency to fix this problem and why the NDP is supporting bringing this bill to committee quickly.

However, let me be clear: With just this legislation, the government is not fully delivering the changes needed and this cannot be the last chapter in our fight. When the Minister of National Defence announced the legislation, I heard from countless women and men, survivors of military sexual trauma, about their frustration with the current government. They told me that they were never consulted by the government on the legislation. Much like they saw in 1998, they were seeing another checking-of-a-box exercise, so they once again felt invisible.

We cannot make legislation about survivors without survivors. We cannot treat survivors as a communications problem to be solved or a legal liability to be avoided. They are women and men who have stepped forward to protect our country, who are willing to put their lives on the line when the federal government deploys them. Parliamentarians have a moral, sacred obligation to do everything they can to protect them and not revictimize those who have faced institutional betrayal.

I have spent the summer in conversation with dozens of survivors with first-hand experience of reporting their cases in the military and civilian justice systems and they need to be consulted. That is why we need to get this legislation to committee quickly, where we can centre on the voices of survivors and, through amendment, give them a voice in this change.

I do not have enough time to speak about all of them, but some of the feelings and ideas I heard about need to make it to the committee study. I would like to provide a bit of context today.

First and foremost, we need to end the framing of this problem as a criminal justice issue alone. It is easy to say the sexual misconduct was carried out by a few bad apples, that it was the old boys' club covering up for their buddies, and by swapping people around, we could end it, or that this is about a handful of truly horrific random acts of violence. Criminal sexual offences do not come out of nowhere. This is a result of a permissive environment, a culture that encourages gendered and power dynamics, that allows powerful men to test and push boundaries over and over without anyone speaking up.

If we only focus on criminal justice reform and not on tough conversations around institutional culture change, we are not doing justice for survivors. It is not enough to hold perpetrators accountable. We must get to the roots of, and prevent, sexual violence. We cannot put all the resources and energy for change into a legal reform basket. We need a top-down review of the CAF, from recruitment and training to the health care system, promotions and so much more.

I also heard concerns that the Criminal Code focus of this bill is not addressing the escalatory nature of sexual misconduct and could create problems with drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. I heard that many survivors have lost faith in the justice system as a whole, and the divide between civilian and military justice does not address that loss of faith. The problems of the civilian justice system must be addressed.

I heard concerns that this legislation could continue the rotten-apple theory that the problem is a handful of powerful perpetrators who need to be stopped instead of a wider institutional and cultural driver. I heard that there need to be more options for survivors to get justice, not fewer. There need to be greater opportunities and supports toward pursuing human rights court cases and non-criminal cases, as well as opportunities for restorative justice. Survivors need more agency and more say in how their cases move forward.

I heard that survivors need greater supports and information, including legal services, prior to reporting to be fully informed on the process. I heard many conversations about whether the bill is protecting investigations from chain-of-command interference. There are concerns around civilian police gaining access to conduct new investigations, collect evidence and access necessary information for historical cases.

I heard concerns about the expertise and preparedness of the civilian system with regard to military cases. These included concerns about local police units' connections with current or former military personnel, resources of civilian police, jurisdictions between and across provinces, willingness to open complex cases, the ability to understand and access military records and spaces, and the need for a dedicated national team.

I heard concerns about the creation of new senior positions, changes to military judge appointments, and the need to ensure accountability, scrutiny of appointments and an openness to voices outside of the old guard. I heard concerns about pursuing aspects of a criminal case that are illegal under the National Defence Act but not currently codified in the Criminal Code of Canada. I heard of the need to ensure that this reform is not set in stone forever and that research and legislative reviews are proactively scheduled to ensure this legislative change is having the intended impact.

I heard strong concerns about international misconduct cases, including the collection and preservation of evidence and the ability of the military justice system to handle these cases. I heard strong concerns that the members of the cadets, the reserves and the navy, and civilian employees on base were not adequately considered in this legislation. I heard strong concerns that members who are not on base cannot access the same quality of services and supports and that new supports in this bill do not adequately address this gap.

I heard that the new rules on the victim's liaison officer positions need to be reconsidered and strengthened and that there is a need for a legal and policy advocate independent from the chain of command. I heard some talk about the importance of underlining that this is not only a women's issue and increasing outreach to all service members.

That is just a bit of what I heard. However, there was one unified message from everyone we spoke to: This bill is simply not enough. This cannot be the be-all and end-all. Survivors will not remain invisible. Culture change is not something that happens overnight, and I understand that, nor can it be fixed by one piece of legislation. This is an issue that the government and all of us in this place must be committed to.

I will conclude as I started. Generations of military sexual trauma survivors have felt invisible. They have fought every day to demand that we fulfill our responsibility to protect everyone who serves. When the bill gets to committee, we will hear from survivors. We will centre their voices and their proposals, because we cannot make this legislation about survivors without survivors.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

moved that Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated, I have the privilege today to begin debate on the second reading of Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act.

If I may, I would like to begin by first acknowledging and thanking the thousands of witnesses, advocates and survivors who have generously and courageously offered their advice and their experience on the important matters that are before us in the bill.

I would also like to commend the important work and advice of Madam Justice Arbour and Justice Fish for the advice they have provided, which has so well informed this work.

I also would like to take the opportunity to thank the dedicated members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Justice and my ministry for their tireless work on this important bill.

Every single day in Canada and around the world, the Department of National Defence's public service employees and Canadian Armed Forces members come to work in service of their country and their fellow citizens. As the international rules that keep us all safe have come under increased threat, their task is crucial, and their ability to respond to global challenges is becoming even more important.

To effectively do their jobs, DND's public service employees and CAF members must feel protected, respected and empowered to serve. In other words, changing the culture of DND and CAF is not just simply the right thing to do; it is also essential to the readiness and operational effectiveness of our institution.

From the very first day I was appointed as Canada's Minister of National Defence, I have tried to make it very clear that my most important responsibility is to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces' members go to work in an environment that fosters and enables their excellence. They must be provided with a work environment where they feel safe and supported while they do the critical work of protecting our nation and its people. That includes that no one at National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces is subjected to harassment, misconduct or discrimination.

It also includes ensuring that all of our members have access to justice. Our people, after all, must be always at the heart of everything we do. They protect Canadians here at home, defend our sovereignty and respond to natural disasters to keep Canadians safe. They stand on the eastern flank of NATO. They train Ukrainians with the skills they need to fight and win. They work with our partners to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific.

It is our responsibility to protect our people in uniform and civilians, and support them. To do so, we need to modernize our military justice system in order to rebuild trust in it. That is precisely what Bill C-66 aims to do. It proposes a suite of amendments to the National Defence Act to bolster confidence in the military justice system for all of our people.

Let me share some of the key changes the bill proposes. After months of work, hundreds of interviews and the review of thousands of documents, former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour provided the government with 48 recommendations to build a more inclusive military where all members are protected, respected and empowered to serve. We must and we will implement all of these recommendations.

In December 2022, my predecessor, now the President of the Treasury Board, directed National Defence to move forward on all 48 of Justice Arbour's recommendations and issued a detailed plan on how we will take action in response to each of them. Since then, we have made some very important and tangible progress. To date, approximately 20 of these recommendations have been implemented, and we are currently on track to address all 48 recommendations by the end of next year.

Recommendation 5 is the only recommendation from Justice Arbour that requires that it be implemented through legislation, so the legislation before us proposes to address recommendation 5 by removing the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada.

The legislation would give exclusive jurisdiction over these offences to the civilian justice system. Justice Arbour made this recommendation for a very clear reason. She stated that concurrent jurisdiction, jurisdiction that is both in the military and civilian justice system over such offences, “has had the opposite effect to that intended; it has not increased discipline, efficiency or morale, and it has not generated the confidence it would need....Rather, it has contributed to an erosion of public and CAF member confidence.” Madam Arbour went on to highlight the urgency of ending concurrent jurisdiction, to give clarity and certainty to all actors in the justice system and to ensure fairness and justice to survivors.

Under the proposed legislation, the Canadian Armed Forces would no longer have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute any Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Instead, that jurisdiction would rest exclusively with civilian authorities.

Bill C-66 also addresses eight of the recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Fish through an independent review. It proposes to modify the important process for key military justice authorities to remove any real or perceived influence from the chain of command. It also proposes to expand the eligibility criteria for military judges to include non-commissioned members so that we can help diversify the pool of potential candidates, and it proposes to expand the class of persons who can make an interference complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

In addition to addressing the recommendations from Justice Arbour and Justice Fish, Bill C-66 would also take additional steps to ensure the confidence and integrity of our military justice system. It proposes to exclude military judges from the summary hearing system, and it proposes to provide additional supports for survivors by expanding access to victims' liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of the victim under the Declaration of Victims' Rights.

These proposed amendments are comprehensive, as they are required to be, and they incorporate the feedback and the needs of those who have been directly affected by sexual misconduct. The chief professional conduct and culture has conducted engagements with over 16,000 national defence personnel and Canadian Armed Forces members, as well as external stakeholders, in order to listen and to learn from their experience.

We have also consulted with current and former DND and CAF personnel, including those affected by conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature, harassment of a sexual nature, crimes of a sexual nature; victim advocacy groups; and military justice actors. In these consultations, we have heard overwhelmingly about the need for concrete and durable military justice reform in order to maintain trust in the system, and we have heard clear support for removing CAF jurisdiction of Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada.

We have heard the voices of our people loudly and clearly. We have listened and we have acted. We now know as well that there is much more work to do, but we are making concrete and measurable progress. Bill C-66, we believe, is an important step in a journey designed to achieve durable and lasting institutional reform. I hope that every member of the House will support this crucial legislation.

Let me also address some of the other work that we are doing to better support our people and to give them procedural fairness and access to justice that they deserve.

Since December 2021, 100 per cent of all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges have been laid in our civilian justice system. No new Criminal Code sexual offences are being adjudicated within the military justice system. In June 2022, Bill C-77 came into force, which established the Declaration of Victims' Rights. That includes the creation of victims' liaison officers to better assist victims in understanding and accessing their rights.

We developed a military-wide online brief on victims rights and the summary hearing process in order to promote awareness of changes in the military justice system so that victims, witnesses and military justice actors know exactly what to do when an incident of misconduct occurs. In budget 2022, we allocated over $100 million over six years to support the modernization of the military justice system, as well as other cultural change efforts.

We are also making progress in implementing the recommendations that have been made by Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces can now take their complaints for sexual harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This is precisely in line with recommendations 7 and 9 made by Justice Arbour.

We have addressed recommendation 11 from Justice Arbour by repealing the duty-to-report regulations. We have addressed recommendation 14 by agreeing to reimburse eligible legal costs for those who have been affected by sexual misconduct. We are also implementing recommendation 20 from Justice Arbour's report.

We announced in “Our North, Strong and Free” that we are going to establish a probationary period to enable faster enrolment of applicants, and where necessary, timely removal of those who do not adhere to our requirements of conduct. We have also strengthened the promotion process for senior leaders to better assess character, talent and competence.

In response to recommendation 29, I have also appointed the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board. This board is focused on reviewing the current quality of education, socialization and military training that takes place at our colleges, and I have been sufficiently clear that their cultures need to change significantly. We have launched an online database to make our conduct and culture research and policies more open and accessible, which is also in line with recommendation 45 from Justice Arbour.

As we deliver these meaningful reforms, we are committed to the highest standards of openness and accountability. That is precisely why we appointed Madam Jocelyne Therrien in the role of external monitor. Her role is critically important. She is overseeing the implementation of all of Justice Arbour's recommendations and providing Canadians with public progress reports on a regular basis.

In fact, Madam Therrien released her third biennial report earlier this year in May. It notes our progress on bringing about the change that will re-establish trust in the Canadian Armed Forces as a professional, inclusive workplace. In addition, she identified that there is a lot more work to do and that we have to move faster. I want to express my gratitude for Madam Therrien's work and her honest assessment as we continue building a respectful and inclusive institution.

In order to help drive these efforts, we have also developed the comprehensive implementation plan to prioritize and sequence our work right across the National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces portfolio to address the recommendations from Justice Arbour and Justice Fish, as well as the minister's advisory panel, the anti-racism report and the national apology advisory committee board, which was developed to provide recommendations for Canada's historic apology to the descendants of the No. 2 Construction Battalion.

We will continue working on all fronts, because it is critical to the well-being of our people and for the CAF's operational effectiveness.

As I said at the very outset of my remarks, we are committed to building a workplace culture where every member of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces feels protected, supported, respected and empowered to serve. Our commitment to building a better military culture is highlighted by our updated defence policy, “Our North, Strong and Free”. It is evident in our Canadian Armed Forces ethos, “Trusted to Serve”.

In these documents, we have made it very clear that conduct deficiencies, harassment, discrimination and violence in any form must not be allowed to develop or remain within our institution because they cause deep harm to our people. They fundamentally undermine our mandate, our mission and our effectiveness, and they erode the trust that Canadians place in us.

Therefore we are working hard to build a more modern and inclusive military culture in which Canadians from all walks of life can serve their country. That work is being led by the chief professional conduct and culture, the CPCC. This office was created in 2021. The CPCC serves as the single authority for professional conduct and culture at National Defence. The position was initially led by General Jennie Carignan. Of course now it is being led by Lieutenant-General Prévost, as General Carignan is our new chief of defence.

It has consulted with 16,000 DND personnel, Canadian Forces members and external stakeholders, and those consultations have deeply informed our work. It has enabled us to better understand the lived experiences of our people. It has enabled us to proceed on our culture of change work from a place of knowledge, understanding, support and compassion. Culture change requires a systemic, sustained and continuing effort. It is not just the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing to do. It is essential to our operational effectiveness.

We will continue to listen and learn from people across National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. We will continue to work with external stakeholders and partners as we work toward building a safer and more inclusive work environment. I believe we are making real and tangible progress, but there is always much more work to do.

At the same time, as we modernize our military justice system and change our culture, we also need to ensure that the survivors of sexual assault and misconduct always get the support, care, respect, compassion and resources they need. Much of that work comes from the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre. This is a centre that is independent of the chain of command.

It provides expert advice, guidance and recommendations to the military and National Defence on all matters relating to sexual misconduct. That includes a 24-7 support line where members can receive confidential support and information on options, and guidance on supporting others, as well as referrals to care and service operations. It also runs the response and support coordination program to provide individuals who have experience sexual misconduct in the DND and CAF environments with a dedicated civilian counsellor who can help them access health services, prepare for police interviews and very much 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 that will be available to the wider defence community. It offers peer support programs and partnerships with Veterans Affairs Canada.

We have more work to do to support those affected by misconduct. That is why last year we launched the independent legal assistance program, which will provide reimbursement of legal expenses incurred on or after April 1, 2019 as a result of sexual misconduct in the DND and CAF environments. That is in line with Justice Arbour's recommendation 14, and we have responded. The program is also working toward facilitating direct access to legal information, legal advice and legal representation.

The work that I have outlined today is comprehensive in scope, but we need to do more and we will do more. A very important step in doing more is passing this legislation. Doing more is going to give exclusive jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences in Canada to the civilian justice system, exactly as Madam Arbour has recommended.

We need to give clarity and certainty to victims and survivors, and we need to build a more modern military justice system that can maintain the confidence of the people it serves. By getting this done, I believe we will improve the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. Getting this done will help us attract and retain even more talented Canadians from right across the country. It will show them that as members of our military, they have access to a fair and modern justice system and reliable resources if they ever suffer harm.

Above all else, this is the right thing to do for our people, for our military and for our country. I believe it will help us rebuild the trust that may have been lost. It will keep our people safer and better supported, and it will help to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces has the culture, the people, the institutions and all of the support and resources it needs to keep this country safe now and in the decades to come.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

It's important to remember that we are moving as quickly as possible, from National Defence's standpoint, to implement the interim recommendation. We have stood up a federal, provincial and territorial committee in order to address some of the concerns we are hearing from the provinces.

As well, we will continue to move forward with Bill C-77, the declaration of victims' rights, which came into force earlier this year, to give rights to victims of service offences.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

To Minister Anand and everyone from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, first of all, thank you for the response to the report. It's the first time we've seen this done. Your predecessor sat on the Deschamps report for seven years and let it collect dust on his desk, so this is a very positive step forward.

To follow up on my colleague Ms. Mathyssen's comments, we did just have Justice Arbour here, and she was critical of the response to recommendation 5. We know that, in this place, we can get legislation done fast, although Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights in the military, took seven years to finally get brought into force.

What's your timeline on getting this before us in an expedited manner? All parliamentarians want to see this moved from the military justice system to civilian courts. What's your timeline for changes to the National Defence Act and whether or not we need to make changes to the Criminal Code?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Yes, it sounds quite onerous, actually.

In 2019, a declaration of victims' rights was incorporated into the military justice system, through Bill C-77 amending the National Defence Act. Can one of you tell the committee when victims in the military justice system may expect to benefit from the declaration of victims' rights? My understanding is it's been almost three years since royal assent, and that declaration is still not in force.

National Defence

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes the issues raised by the member opposite very seriously. That is why on November 4, I moved, as minister, to accept the interim recommendations of Madame Arbour. That is why we offered an apology today. That is why we are going to be moving very quickly after we receive the final recommendations of Madame Arbour. That why we are implementing Bill C-77.

Our government takes the issues raised in the question very seriously and we will work very hard to regain the confidence of Canadians in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we will stay focused on supporting survivors. We know that we have considerable work to do, but we also have started a lot of work. We passed Bill C-77, whereas the previous government let it die on the Order Paper. We have also committed $236 million in budget 2021 to end sexual misconduct. We will get it done.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the work of the committee, it makes its own decisions, but I look forward to the recommendations on which the members have been working. I know our members of the committee are absolutely committed to supporting survivors. The antics that the opposition continues to make are to prevent that work.

Our government has worked since we formed a government on providing support to survivors, with the passing of Bill C-77. We know that we have a lot more work to do and we will continue to do it.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for all the thoughtful interventions before me in today's meeting, and particularly Mr. Bagnell's. I noted at the very end that he explained well, I think, how complex and complicated the solutions are to these issues that we are facing in the Canadian Armed Forces right now and how cynical the motion is, both the not wanting to have a government response to our committee report and the limitation of the two minutes per person to be able to debate issues that really require a lot more thoughtfulness.

It's not obvious what the correct answers are. I think we have done a very good job of outlining what the problem is, and we know that there is a very significant problem. However, the answers differ depending on who you speak to, on what perspective they bring. We know from history that very often you can put in place solutions, that you can put in place programs, like Operation Honour, that look like they will solve the problem and that then have unintended consequences and don't achieve the results we're looking for.

Just in terms of the motion itself, I do believe it is very cynical, Madam Chair. I have referred to it, in fact, as a “poison pill” motion. I don't believe there is good will on the opposition side to actually really want to work together in good faith to get these reports done. The fact that we are now sitting here half an hour before the end of the last scheduled meeting before the summer break really disappoints me.

The opposition members know, both in private and in this committee—and other members of this committee, Mr. Bagnell and others—that we have made many overtures to try to find a solution to this impasse. I'm certainly not going to speak publicly about those overtures, but they were done very much in good faith.

I think we all want to see this report, this and the other reports. Given that we are now at this eleventh hour, I think all of us feel a little bit deflated about the fact that we're unlikely to see some of these recommendations, especially the ones that matter to the survivors.

I just have to say, Madam Chair, that there have been arguments that all the committee needs to do is talk about the finger pointing and who did what right and when, and talk about the politicians. If it had been three meetings, if we had stuck to the original title of the motion, done the three meetings, had the minister here and then reported on that, that would have been different. However, the fact is that we then continued as a committee to call witnesses, including survivors, professors, experts, people from the Canadian Armed Forces, officials and others who have been working on this throughout their lives. There are people who came for whom this is their life's work. They have been putting forward solutions for decades. To have those people come to this committee and give that testimony and to then turn around and say that we don't need to include any of that in the report, I think, is unfair. It's unfair to the witnesses. It's unfair to the survivors. It's unfair to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is really too bad because I think Mr. Bagnell's proposal that he's made several times now, that we at least go through and find the things we all agree on.... I thought that we did all agree on at least those proposals that help us move forward for the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces, and it's becoming very evident to me now here that we don't.

Putting these very cynical motions, knowing that these are motions that we would not be able to support, such as not having a government report.... I think it could have been different, Madam Chair. It could very easily have been different.

The word “filibuster” has been thrown out a lot. I would just like to remind particularly those who might be listening that the opposition holds all the cards right now. You've heard me say many times, and you've heard others say on this committee, both privately and publicly, that if we were to have adjourned the debate at any moment in the last month, we would have gone to the next item of business immediately, which is the study of the report. Madam Chair, you'll recall that not only could we go to the study of the report but we were doing the study of the report.

Without saying what happens in camera, we were actually advancing quite well, I think. We were actually talking to each other. Somewhere along the way, the opposition has been putting these what are known as 106(4) motions, which immediately ended the topic that we had been talking about. Then they came in with another meeting and another new motion. It's been one after another after another. I can't remember how many hours this meeting has been going on. Over the last month there has already been 26 hours of overtime in addition to the times that we were scheduled to sit.

Each time, in good faith, we've debated it and then we have agreed. Each time we have agreed and we have had somebody else come in, another witness, whether it was Elder Marques or Katie Telford or the minister for six hours. Each time they came back with something else, until it became readily apparent that it wasn't about trying to get a report done; it was really about just dragging it on. No matter what we agreed to, they were going to keep coming up with more motions.

That became even more evident when we as a committee agreed to a certain timeline. We spoke with the clerk and analysts to see how long they would need to be able to translate and format the report, get it out and table it in the House. We agreed to a timeline in this committee that would have allowed us to get all three reports tabled. The opposition just blew through that timeline, again with motion after motion, with 106(4) after 106(4), with all the procedural tactics.

I would remind everyone again that when somebody is filibustering, it generally means that they have control of the meeting. But the opposition could have said at literally any moment that it moved to adjourn debate. We would have adjourned the debate. We would have gone directly to a study of those reports without these unreasonable limits of two minutes to speak. Then there would have been no back and forth, no dialogue. If they really want dialogue about this and want these reports done, the opposition holds all the cards here. They have the majority on the committee. They have been holding all the cards from the beginning. Should this report unfortunately not be able to be tabled before the summer recess—which is looking more likely—I don't want there to be any doubt about who held the cards in terms of deciding whether or not that would happen, as well as about the level of effort by me personally in conversations in this committee, and by Mr. Bagnell, who has proposed different ways to move beyond the impasse to build consensus. Again, I just want to express my disappointment before I go into some of my remarks today.

Given that it looks as though we're going to continue to debate this motion and Mr. Bagnell's amendment to try to ask for a government response—and frankly the least we should be doing is asking the government to respond to our recommendations. Barring that, we have heard a lot of very good recommendations, which, at a minimum, I want to make sure are on the record. I want to make sure they're right here on the record in a format that at least can be picked up by the CAF, by DND, by the government, by the minister, and by Parliament so that we actually have these here today at least.

With regard to these recommendations, I'll remind everyone—and I've been reading through them for some time now—that they are coming from the survivors. They are coming from the stakeholders, the experts, the academics, the people who have come as witnesses before this committee and other committees and who have reached out to each one of us. I know there are many people who have reached out personally to all of us.

Given that we are short on time, what I would like to do is to read the remaining ones that I haven't yet gotten too. I'll read them all and then comment on some of them.

Again, these are not in my voice. These are in the voices of the survivors. These recommendations were brought to us. These are the ones specifically on culture change. This is a summary of those recommendations. The reason, again, Madam Chair, I'm putting these forward is that I think it is important that in speaking to Mr. Bagnell's amendment we have a government response, and if it's not going to be a response to a committee report, at least we can put this on the record so that the government can look at these.

First of all, it recommends updating the path to dignity and respect to identify and reflect factors that increase the risk of workplace harassment.

Madam Chair, we've heard a little bit about the path to dignity and respect, and Mr. Bagnell actually cited some of our witness testimony that said that it doesn't really go far enough. I know that when it was put forward, it was put forward as an evergreen document. It was really intended to be the beginning of the discussion.

I'd note, actually, that this path to dignity and respect was put forward in October. It was done based on, at that point, some significant work recognizing that after four or five years Operation Honour wasn't having the intended result. Again, I believe that those who worked hard on Operation Honour did so believing—to simplify it—that by simply ordering this to happen that could work; but there were some very good aspects to Operation Honour as well, and there were some successes, which we haven't talked about. But, by and large, I think all the survivors we heard from have said that it didn't work. It didn't achieve the intended goal.

Recognizing that last year, a year ago, long before the crisis, long before any of our committee studies or any of the events that have unfolded since February, the department and the Canadian Armed Forces, the minister, had already started working on how to achieve culture change, because the recognition was that the reason Operation Honour wasn't working was that you couldn't just put in place what needed to be done. You had to also change the underlying culture. That's what we've all been talking about in this committee.

I think that updating the path to dignity and respect is very important, because the underlying intent on culture is very important. I know there have been survivors who have come back with recommendations about it, who would like to see it expanded and would like to see other things included. The fact that we now have Lieutenant-General Carignan and Madam Arbour working in this area is actually going to be very helpful in terms of what we do on the culture change and where we take the path to dignity and respect.

To state again, this was done last October, and I think that those who are saying that nothing was done until February or March.... We were already working on this. In fact, we were working not just on this. The minister is the one who commissioned the Fish report to look at the military justice system. In December, the minister actually created an advisory panel and a secretariat on racism and discrimination in the Canadian Armed Forces, which again is another piece of the culture change that has to happen. These things that have been in the works for many years, on top of Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights, on top of creating the SMRCs and doing a review of all the unfounded cases, and a lot of the other things that have been done over the years.... This has been an iterative process that has been going on since 2015, since our government came into power, and I think that needs to be recognized.

It has not achieved the results, and that's why we're here. That's why we need these recommendations and that's why we need a government response to these recommendations.

That's the path to dignity and respect.

The next one recommends addressing the social factors that inhibit sexual violence reporting and challenge central tenets of the CAF. There are three things that are mentioned: obedience to authority, normative conformity and group loyalty. I noted in Mr. Bagnell's intervention that he actually was citing I think it was Dr. Okros, or one of the witnesses we heard, where he talks about things like “obedience to authority” and “normative conformity”. I think this issue of group loyalty is actually something we should delve into.

These are not bad things in the military. I think what we need to realize is that there are parts of the military culture that are actually needed—this group loyalty. And again, I use a non-gendered term—what's often been referred to as the band of brothers, the brotherhood, which, again, in itself shows that it is not inclusive. But it's that concept of being part of something bigger than you and having each other's back.

I recently spoke to a veteran about when you go into battle with someone and the lifelong loyalty and the lifelong bond that comes from that. No matter what, 50 years later you still have that bond of having been through that battle and having each other's back. You never forget. It was a very powerful thing to hear.

I have not been in the military, but I've worked in Bosnia and Kosovo and other places I worked alongside and witnessed a lot of that culture—the strength of that kind of bond, the loyalty and the unit. I don't think anybody wants to lose that. The problem is the flip side of that, which is that sometimes that loyalty can be twisted into protecting someone even though they have conducted behaviour that is harmful to that group, that unit and that team.

When we talk about the complexities, I think that's what we're talking about. I know that people have been saying to me and to others to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. When you talk about culture change, it can be frightening for some people because there are aspects of the culture that have worked and have worked for decades and generations. We don't want to lose that.

Then you look at the other words here, like “normative conformity”. What has to be recognized is you can't have group loyalty if certain members of the group are not part of it and if the loyalty is only to some and not to others. You can't have obedience to authority if that authority is excluding and is perpetuating behaviour that is harmful.

The normative conformity that we've heard about from the witnesses is very harmful to people—and not just to women, racialized Canadians, indigenous Canadians or LGBTQ2. It's harmful to men who do not conform to that particular normative.

We know that within every gender there are completely different ways in which people engage one another and behave and learn. To only put one forward.... I think it was Mr. Bagnell, or it might have been Mr. Baker, who talked about the warrior culture. To only take one form—almost a stereotype or a very flat idea of behaviour—and say that is what is accepted and all the other behaviour isn't.... What that means, to be honest, is that the men who don't actually naturally conform to that very aggressive warrior culture and that masculinity will also be excluded.

When we talk about the exclusion, the group and the unit, it isn't just about women. We know and we've seen throughout this that the sexual harassment, sexual violence, assault and all of the ways in which gender is used to minimize, diminish and exclude from this group has a particular harm that is unique to those who have experienced sexual violence, whether they be men, women, trans or LGBTQ. We talk about exclusion from that group and we talk about harm, but then you add the sexualized nature of it.

I just want to be clear again that what we've heard from all the witnesses and what I've heard in a lot of the stakeholder engagements I've done and from those who I've spoken with recently, is that it isn't about sex. It's about power. It's about abuse of power. This is why in the military.... A little bit later we have another recommendation, which I might skip down to, actually.

The next recommendation talks about examining how sexual misconduct interacts with consent in asymmetric professional relations. This is the key.

The first time I read this I had to think a little bit about what this meant, because not having been in the Canadian Armed Forces myself, not having been in a military, this is something unique, these asymmetric professional relations. This is why there are certain things that are considered sexual misconduct in a military environment that wouldn't necessarily be considered criminal or even be punished outside of the military. It's because of the power. It's because of the asymmetric professional relations where, particularly—again, I've not lived it, but I'm echoing what I've heard—you have people who have so much authority.

I remember one woman saying to me that it was somebody who had the authority to tell her when she could go to the bathroom, when she could go to sleep and what she could wear. When you have someone with that much authority over your day-to-day life.... There's such a hierarchy. When something like this happens, it's a betrayal, and it's an abuse. It is an absolute abuse, because even if the person in authority believes that they have consent and that the person wants to receive this attention, it's not possible because of this asymmetric relationship.

This is where I think there are a few—and I don't know if I'll get to all of them in this intervention—of these recommendations that talk about that kind of relationship and whether or not somebody not saying no, or not reporting something means that they consented to it. It is very clear that there are occasions where, because of the authority that exists, there is fear of retribution, fear of career reprisals.

Some of the people I have spoken to were very young when these things happened to them. I spoke to some people and it happened 30 or 40 years ago, when they were 19 or 20 years old. When your commanding officer asks you to go to their barracks—or tent, in the case of the person who called me—and you're 19 years old and there's this power differential, can you say no? Often people will laugh along with the joke, or go along with the behaviour and pretend that they're okay with it, not because they're okay with it, but because they are afraid. I'll go back to the wording that there is this asymmetric professional relation. I think it's very important that three or four of the recommendations here refer to those words, “asymmetric professional relations”. It's why, when we look at military justice, the code of discipline and what is an offence in the military as opposed to in other day-to-day civilian life, we have to look at it differently.

We have to make sure that those in authority understand the power they have. I have spoken with some men who have said that they really didn't realize that the person may or may not have been willingly receiving the attention, because of the way the person may have interacted. They didn't realize their power. I think training is needed on these power differentials that exist. We need to make sure that there is training on how to understand your power and not use it in a way that is going to harm others.

The level of harm, I think, has been underestimated. This has done significant harm. As I said, I have spoken to people who have carried this for 30 years. This has been with them for 30 years. That level of harm that happens.... We need to make sure that people in authority understand the power that they have to do harm and the impact their behaviour can have on people.

To go back to the group loyalty that's been mentioned here, it has an impact on the group. It's not just because you're losing talent or you're losing people who could have contributed in enormous ways.

Again, some of the survivors I've spoken to have said, “I think I could have served my country well. I think I could have been good at this.” There's a loss of the potential of what that person wanted to do to serve, and there's a loss to our country of what they could have done if they had been given the kind of environment that would have allowed them to contribute fully, so I think this is one of the most important recommendations.

The next recommendation here talks about providing clarity on which aspects of CAF culture must change and which are allowed to remain the same. Again, you know, it's very easy for us to say the culture is terrible and everything is bad, and it's a little bit dangerous because, as in the previous recommendation here, I think that—

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to address Mr. Garrison, but before I do, I want to first of all say thank you to Mr. Baker. He always has such moving testimony on the people who were really affected and why we're all here. I think it brings us back to thinking about how serious it is and how we should be trying to find solutions. There are people who, through no fault of their own, have had such terrible situations when they've entered to protect our country in such an honourable profession.

I'd like to thank Mr. Spengemann. Who would have thought that our study could have so much added intellectual wealth from other militaries, which had the same issues and came up with suggestions that we can think about? Because it's all in the testimony, Madam Arbour certainly will be able to look at, in great detail, all of the things we've put on record in our committee as she goes through her important work.

Also to his point, which I hadn't thought about, how powerful it would be.... I mean, we're the first committee doing this. We're going to try to continue but how powerful it would be to have two sets of similar recommendations go to the government, to Madam Arbour, to really try to get action to an intractable problem.

I want to talk to Mr. Garrison. Sincerely, he moved me. His personal story...that took some courage, so a huge commendation for that.

I think he made a very good point about not impugning motives. I think that's the way Parliament should operate. I've thought about that throughout this committee. It's very hard sometimes in a partisan environment...and I've tried not to.

Mr. Garrison, if I have at any particular time done it, I certainly apologize for that. I've certainly tried not to do that. I'm sure he would support that right across the board.

I'm sure that our members have been impugned at certain times in these committees. Mr. Garrison, Elizabeth May and I should maybe do an analysis of question period for a few days, to see if we can see, both in questions and answers, impugned motives. Elizabeth May has made some great input on trying to improve the decorum and what happens in Parliament. Certainly what Mr. Garrison said, I think is not confined to this committee, but should be a widespread concept that's spread more often.

I just think that we have a bit of a different opinion, Mr. Garrison. I'm going to go into something later to show you my sincerity. I wrote it a week ago, actually, to say that I believe in your sincerity. On the lack of progress, which he said is very important, both of us have mentioned numerous times the many instances, the hundreds of instances, that continue to occur and have been for decades.

In the committee in the last couple of weeks, I've mentioned a couple of times how complex this is. I've explained, and I will explain—not in this intervention but in my next one, on culture, which is fairly lengthy, which I worked on at home—how, just because you make rules, for instance, a training rule, or this and that, it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. It doesn't stop the problem. That's why this is so complex.

I think where we differ is on the aspect that nothing has been done. It would be a lot worse, actually, if nothing had been done. The point that he and I have made about the ongoing cases shows the complexity of the problem and why we have to.... As I've said several times in committee: To a complex problem, there's no simple solution.

However, since this minister has come in, we have made efforts to ensure that victims feel supported through the process. There's a case management system to ensure cases are investigated and resolved in a timely manner. There's increased training from experts that is victim-centric and accessible to all CAF members no matter where they work. There's ongoing work on a review of unfounded cases.

As all members know, there was the passing of Bill C‑77, with a declaration of victims' rights that puts victims at the core of the military justice system. There's the launching of “The Path to Dignity and Respect”, a strategy for long-term culture change. On Bill C‑77, for victims, we're going to consult the victims. We're working on consulting the victims to draft regulations for this bill. We've consulted federal partners, including the SMRC, which we've talked about at length in previous meetings, and are developing an online survey to consult as many victims as possible.

I'm sure everyone on this committee and the minister, numerous times, have said any type of inappropriate sexual behaviour is totally unacceptable.

I went through close to an hour of things that have been done. I think it's disingenuous not to acknowledge those facts. Obviously, as Mr. Garrison and I have said, there are numerous things still to be done. That's why we should be dealing with these serious types of issues that we've been talking about for the last couple of weeks.

Mr. Garrison, are you able to hear me? Okay. It's just to show you that the words I'm saying now are not in response to what you just said but I wrote them, I think, a week ago Sunday night or something last week on this.

I was saying at the last meeting that Mr. Garrison convinced me more of his sincerity by acknowledging the questions around General Vance's appointment. Our study is about sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, including issues related to General Vance. Mr. Garrison is the only member of the committee who has made it clear that General Vance's related issues are most important for him, and he has every right to do so. I think he sincerely believes that. As I mentioned in a previous meeting, he did some of the best questioning of one of the witnesses related to that.

I have some lengthy input, but for the moment, rather than giving my lengthy input on culture, which I'll do in another intervention, I'll just talk about Mr. Garrison's choice. We each have our priority of what's most important in our study, so in respect to Mr. Garrison's sincerity, I would like to make my case, too, while respecting him.

I'm not the least bit expert in this major problem in the CAF, which is why I base my views on the testimony of victims and the experts. When I get to my lengthy input on culture, I'll actually refer to the experts again—to an expert referring to experts.

From what I understand from the experts and victims we've heard from, this problem goes back decades, far into the previous century. The culture in this and other militaries is one of the biggest, if not the biggest issue, but it's probably the biggest. In another intervention I'll explain how it supports what I've been saying earlier, that you can make technical changes, but that doesn't, in itself, solve the problem. One of the experts will say that.

A tiny fraction of all incidents are actually reported, and the two major causes of hesitancy to report are the location in the chain of command of reporting and dealing with an incident, and the fear of reprisals, both emotional and to someone's career, in which they've invested their life.

From my perspective, if these are the major issues, why would they not be what we're coming to grips with and designing recommendations about—to restore the military to a safe workplace and to honour the courage of the victims who have come forward?

Now I'll turn to my views on Mr. Garrison's view, which he has every right to have, as I said. I think he sincerely believes, and I appreciate his thoughtfulness, that the issues related to General Vance are the most important part of the study. In response, I would suggest the following.

There are hundreds of perpetrators, a number at the senior level. Why would we base our entire study and weeks and weeks of testimony from witness after witness on an anonymous email related to General Vance that no one was allowed to know what was in? When we know of or suspect an offence, it is turned over to investigative authorities. That was done within about 24 hours. General Vance is retired so he's not going to have any role in solving the pressing issues we're trying to solve. He's already under investigation. We don't have to do that and we shouldn't be doing that.

I've tried to put myself into those shoes. If I were told there was an anonymous complaint about any member of this committee and I wasn't allowed to know what it was about, and it had been immediately turned over to the investigators, who went as far as they could because they were refused the evidence, what would I do? Would I ask that they be kicked out of caucus or some other type of penalty? I definitely could not have mounted a campaign. I'd have to give credit to months of meetings with witnesses to such an email, which I didn't know what was in it.

I've heard Mr. Garrison's view. I appreciate it, but for all the reasons we have heard from the experts and the survivors, they have outlined the major causes of this sexual misconduct in the military. For the sake of the men and women in the military and to honour the survivors, I think we should return to thoughtful discussion of their solutions to the complex problems.

I just want to comment on the other reports. The draft reports on mental health in the Canadian Armed Forces and the impact of COVID‑19 on the armed forces are sitting unreviewed, because we have had all these emergency meetings and motions to expand our particular report. As you know, we had a meeting on April 26 to start considering the report on COVID‑19 in the CAF, and I believe we made some good progress. Despite this, there was a 106(4) request that forced us to further delay this report. We haven't gone back to the review since. There's nothing that requires us to finish this report we're working on now before we could proceed to those reports. I know Mr. Garrison is particularly passionate about one of them.

I think our committee's priority should be the report on sexual misconduct. Opposition members know that they could move to proceed to any of our three outstanding reports and they would have our support to do it. We can't do that while they're pursuing a motion to limit our ability to properly debate and amend this crucial report. That is their choice. We're not blocking them if they want to take that step and go to those important reports.

I hope Mr. Garrison knows that I'm sincere in my thoughts on where he's coming from and my technical disagreement on some of the points.

I'm happy to put that forward, Madam Chair.

Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the question. I believe that the Minister of National Defence has tremendous respect and has, in fact, made sure that the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces are front and centre in everything we do.

Colleagues can see that through a number of the things he has done. We have put the SMRC in place. We have put in legislation, through Bill C-77, to create a victims' bill of rights. We have done a review of all unfounded cases. We have created the path to dignity and respect. He commissioned the Fish report on the military justice system. We have settled the Heyder Beattie case instead of dragging it out in court. We have created Seamless Canada to make sure that the families of people in our military are taken care of.

This is a minister who has spent his career serving and protecting, and he has always put the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces first.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate, and I must say that I am very disappointed. Instead of working together in the House and at committee, where Liberal members have been trying to work in good faith, we are debating this motion today. We should be working together across the aisle to address survivors and their needs, and to change the culture of toxic masculinity that exists in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Both at committee and in the House, Liberal members have tried in good faith to put forward concrete suggestions that will really make a difference for the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am very disappointed with the opposition. The Conservatives have chosen to take an entire day of debate to make personal and baseless attacks against the minister.

The Minister of National Defence is one of the most honourable individuals I have ever met. He has served this country, both in uniform and in the House. He has broken down barriers as the first Sikh commander of a regiment, and I have personally seen his commitment to inclusion and equality as an ally. The aspersions that we are hearing today against him in the House are based on half-truths and blatant partisanship. The Minister of National Defence deserves our thanks and our respect.

Today in my remarks, I would like to focus on the achievements since 2015, under this minister's leadership, to build a modern, agile and inclusive Canadian Armed Forces.

Since 2015, we have worked hard to provide defence team members with everything they need to succeed both here at home and around the world. We have significantly invested in important procurement projects for our brave women and men serving in the army, navy and air force. We have ensured that everything we do is carried out with an eye toward environmental sustainability, and we have made progress building a more inclusive, safe and welcoming environment for all members.

In each of these lines of effort, we are guided by a robust and comprehensive defence policy: “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. It is a policy that puts our people first. In fact, it is the very first chapter. It makes sure that we are accountable to Canadians.

However, at the same time, the Minister of National Defence and I recognize that we need to do more. It is clear that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are in need of significant institutional culture change. It is clear that there are those who have been harmed by the remnants of an outdated, exclusionary and toxic military culture.

As the minister said earlier, we are dealing with issues such as inequality, racism, systemic discrimination, sexual misconduct and abuse of power. These challenges are undermining the capacity of the armed forces to keep Canadians safe. They are eroding trust in the institution and, more importantly, they are hurting the people who chose to serve our country.

We are taking important steps to address all of these challenges as we continue with our other important work.

I want to take some time today to give an overview of the important work going on across the entire department. First, I want to talk about the work we are doing to support our people and drive culture change.

When we launched the defence policy in 2017, our goal was to ensure that our people are at the heart of everything we do. We launched important new initiatives to support their health and well-being at all stages of their careers, and we committed to taking care of their loved ones as well.

These programs have helped thousands of CAF members over the last four years, but at the same time, we know that we have to do more for them, because we know that investing in the well-being of those tasked with our protection is and should always be our top priority. We need to create a culture of dignity, respect and inclusion for all members at all levels, military or civilian.

We are committed to making comprehensive and lasting change and to addressing the systemic challenges that foster sexual misconduct and other inappropriate behaviours, including abuses of power, discrimination, biases and harmful stereotypes. That is why we asked former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour to undertake an external, independent, comprehensive review earlier this year.

Within the defence team, we have also created a new organization, Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture, under the leadership of Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan. Its goal is ultimately to ensure that our actions, behaviours and institutional policies reflect the very best parts of our organization and Canadian society. That work is already under way.

These efforts will build on our previous work done to modernize policies and processes and to promote true diversity and inclusion across the ranks. This includes integrating gender-based analysis plus in all of our policies, programs and services to remove barriers to inclusion and better support our personnel, and launching a new advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination and the Anti-Racism Secretariat.

At the same time, we are also working hard to ensure that our military justice system is modern, fair and responsive to the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. Through Bill C-77, we are implementing several significant changes to the military justice system, including incorporating a victims’ bill of rights to ensure that victims are supported and their voices are heard when interacting with the system.

Earlier this month, we tabled the third independent review by Justice Morris Fish. We accepted all 107 of his recommendations in principle and have already begun to implement 36 of them immediately to better serve our people.

Moreover, through budget 2021 we are committing $236 million to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces. This includes expanding the reach of the sexual misconduct response centre and providing online and in-person peer-to-peer support.

All options to create a safer future for women and men serving in the Canadian Armed Forces are being considered to change the culture of toxic masculinity that creates an unacceptable workplace.

Supporting our members means ensuring that they have the equipment they need to do the incredible work we ask of them.

That is why, in our “Strong, Secure, Engaged” policy, we identified hundreds of new investments we will have to make to ensure that our armed forces have access to modern, agile and customized equipment.

I am pleased to say that, in spite of the challenges presented by COVID‑19, 37% of these 342 projects are either completed or in progress. That is incredible progress, especially in light of the challenges the global pandemic has brought.

Our efforts to build a well-supported and well-equipped military have prepared and positioned us to respond to threats here in Canada and to support our allies and partners abroad.

Domestically, Canadian Armed Forces members are called upon to take part in search and rescue operations and to offer support in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation where their expert knowledge is invaluable in supporting Canadians.

Since the global pandemic hit, members of the Canadian forces have been helping out in communities across the country. They include the approximately 1,700 members who helped protect vulnerable Canadians in 54 long-term care facilities in Quebec and Ontario, and countless first nations and remote communities.

Internationally, our CAF members are engaged in Europe through both NATO and non-NATO missions, as well as in the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. Closer to home, we participate in U.S.-led counternarcotics operations through Operation Caribbe, and we work closely with the United States at NORAD and on other issues pertaining to continental defence. In missions like these across the globe, CAF members make vital contributions to safety and stability. They serve with excellence alongside our friends and allies, and when needed, they help out in our communities.

We ask CAF members to do critical, life-saving work every single day, but we know that for them to accomplish these extraordinary tasks, we need to build an environment where they are both well supported and well equipped at all times. We need to listen to survivors of sexual harassment, assault and abuse of power, and put the well-being of the brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces front and centre. We must end impunity and restore trust.

We encourage those who have experienced misconduct to come forward. We are committed to making the institutional change necessary to ensure that we prevent sexual misconduct from happening in the first place. We are focused on providing not only a safe workplace, but one where all members of the defence team can truly belong and thrive. That is our priority on this side of the House.

National Defence

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member opposite. When it comes to that, we need to do more. We have started, from 2015, making the changes that have been necessary, but we know they have not gone far enough, and we are willing to do more. We are willing to take in any further recommendations.

On the recommendations that were provided by Justice Fish, we have accepted. The work that Madame Deschamps brought on highlighted the problem that is facing the Canadian Armed Forces, as will the work that Madame Arbour will be doing.

We will be taking action. We continue the work on passing Bill C-77 and also ensuring we continue to create an inclusive environment for all in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work very hard to look after our women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. The horrible allegations that have come forward are extremely alarming and we must work harder. The work we have done in passing Bill C-77 is one of the first steps, also SMRC and the work that is being done there, plus the work that Madam Arbour will also do. We will get this done.

Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to serving our Canadian Armed Forces members, the women and men who have served, I have always been there to support them. Through the lived experience, I will never cut and run; I will always be there to support them.

I was given the tremendous privilege of becoming Minister of National Defence. I fought to become the member of Parliament for Vancouver South, but I was given this privilege. From the lived experience, from day one, my focus has always been to serve our members. Even though I served and have a microcosm of experience, it is my responsibility to serve them.

When it comes to the culture change, something that is very important, actions have been taken, whether by SMRC, or doing the gender-based analysis plus or putting support where it is needed to ensure our victims are supported through Bill C-77.

I admit that when it comes to doing more, we should do more, and we will.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the motion the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. He presents this motion in an attempt to wage personal and partisan attacks rather than focusing on our members who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is a veteran. I am a veteran, and I expect better.

I will not, and I repeat, will not gloss over the fact the defence team is going through a very difficult time right now, particularly those who are survivors of sexual harassment, assault and abuse of power. As the largest and most diverse employer in Canada, the defence team is a microcosm of our Canadian society. We see the same problems reflected in our organizations that we see play out in other areas of our society.

We have had to reckon with inequality, systemic racism, sexual misconduct and abuse of power. It is uncomfortable. It is painful, and it is inconsistent with our ideals as Canadians and as human beings.

The experiences we have heard over the past few months from those who have experienced sexual harassment and assault in the Canadian Armed Forces is appalling. To every member of the Canadian Armed Forces, and to every person in the Department of National Defence who has been affected by sexual harassment and violence, I am truly sorry. Whether it was recently, 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago, we were not there to support them.

As somebody who has put on the uniform, I know the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence need to do better. We all need to do better. I know our current reporting systems are not enough. Too often, people do not feel able to report misconduct our of fear of reprisal and retribution. This has to change, and this will change.

It is why I asked Madam Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice, to lead an independent external comprehensive review of our institutional policies and culture. Over the coming months, we expect Madam Arbour to provide concrete recommendations on how the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence can set up an independent external reporting system for defence team members that meets the needs of those who have been impacted by sexual misconduct.

We know we have a lot more to do to regain our members' trust. We are committed to making a lasting change, one that sheds the toxic and outdated values, practices and policies that harmed our people.

This motion from the Leader of the Opposition is not about supporting our members. In fact, the opposition had the opportunity time and time again in this very Parliament to be part of the solution. Instead, opposition members have consistently chosen to obstruct the progress.

In the past weeks, the Leader of the Opposition and his party voted against almost a quarter of a billion dollars to help eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces in budget 2021. They voted against supporting peer-to-peer services. They voted against increasing access to the sexual misconduct response centre for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, the leader of the official opposition and his party voted against our commitment to implement new external oversight mechanisms to bring greater independence to the processes of reporting and adjudicating sexual misconduct within the military.

This is staggering hypocrisy from the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party, which should not be unexpected from the Conservatives. They have done this at every turn. If the Conservatives want to talk about fighter jets, let us talk about the Conservative record on fighter jets.

After years of cuts from the Conservatives, our air force could not generate enough aircraft to answer our NATO and NORAD commitments at the same time. We are committed to procuring 88 advanced fighter jets to show our friends and allies we will be there for them when we are called upon, and we have stepped up. How they chose the number of 65, I do not know, but I am going to guess they needed to cut. They needed to balance their budget.

When it comes to our contribution in the fight against Daesh, our work alongside our coalition partners has reached success. I will not be apologetic for our government's stance and the operations we have conducted with our allies. By increasing our ground presence, along with that of our partners and allies, the coalitions worked to reduce Daesh's territorial control by over 98% on the ground.

When the Conservatives sat back, Liberals stepped forward. We worked with the U.S., NATO, regional partners and allies to increase peace and stability in the region. Just a few months ago, we announced that we would extend our work in the Middle East by deploying up to 850 Canadian Armed Forces personnel to support the global coalition, the NATO mission in Iraq and capacity-building activities in Jordan and Lebanon because we know this is a regional issue. Canada will remain a reliable partner in multinational operations around the world.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to claim a cover-up, he should look no further than himself. We want to talk about preventing things from happening. We learned from media reports that the leader of the official opposition himself was aware of allegations of sexual misconduct regarding General Vance prior to his appointment as chief of the defence staff, an allegation from the general's time in Gagetown, as it was reported. It was an allegation that the leader of the official opposition said that he had investigated.

The former national security advisor, Richard Fadden, said to a parliamentary committee that this is not true. Let me quote Mr. Fadden. Speaking of when General Vance was stationed in Naples, he said, “I did a bit of an inquiry into what was happening with a lady who subsequently became his wife. That was the extent of the involvement.”

After this non-investigation, it seems that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service received political pressure to stop its investigation into Vance, an investigation that just happen to end right before his swearing in as chief of the defence staff under the Conservative government.

The Leader of the Opposition continues to say that he passed along sexual misconduct allegations by General Vance in July 15. He continues to claim that those were looked into, despite evidence to the contrary. I ask this House, how can the Leader of the Opposition's story be credible if General Vance was appointed after no investigation of the knowledge that the leader had? Almost immediately after the allegations were made, pressure was brought to bear and the investigation was suddenly dropped.

Unlike the Conservatives, I know how important our people in the Canadian Armed Forces are. That is why they are at the very centre of our defence policy. Chapter number one states that.

Women are working tirelessly to create a culture of dignity, respect and inclusion for all members, to ensure that the organization is truly as diverse as the Canada it serves, and to be the employer of choice for Canadians of every background, not just for the few that some members want. Our defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, commits to promoting diversity and inclusion as core institutional values.

We have taken a number of steps to increase representation of women and other unrepresented populations at all levels of the organization. Right now, Lieutenant-General Carignan is the chief of professional conduct and culture at the organization. She and her team will unify and coordinate the ongoing and evolving efforts to create positive and lasting change across the defence team.

At NATO's Allied Joint Forces Command Naples, we have Lieutenant-General Joe Paul, a member of the Huron-Wendat First Nation as deputy command. While he is there, he will help to prepare, plan and conduct military operations in order to preserve the peace, security, and territorial integrity of all NATO alliance members. This sends a powerful message to the indigenous community of our alliance.

Over the coming weeks, Lieutenant-General Fran Allen will become Canada's first female vice-chief of the defence staff. All these members are deserving of these important roles, and they help build a senior leadership that is more representative of the Canadians they serve each and every day.

We have also integrated gender-based analysis plus across all our policies, programs and services to remove barriers to inclusion and better support our personnel. We are addressing all forms of hateful conduct in our organizations with anti-racism and anti-harassment efforts. This is why last year I created an advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination with Captain Door Gibson, Sergeant Derek Montour, Major Sandra Perron and Major-General Ed Fitch, who are all retired.

They have lived experiences of facing discrimination, anti-Semitism and anti-indigenous prejudice, and they are working to help build a Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence that are more welcoming and inclusive for our members. Their recommendations will make sure that people within the military, including instructors, are better supported and free from discrimination, racism and harmful behaviour, whether they are women; Black, indigenous and people of colour; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer, two-spirited, LGBTQ members of the community; or part of a religious minority.

Along with the anti-racism secretariat, this work will help the defence team eliminate all forms of racism, prejudice, bias, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and white supremacy from within our organization.

Where the previous government did little to improve things for those who wear the uniform, and removed the training, the sharp training that was there, we have taken action. In 2019, we received royal assent for Bill C-77, historic legislation to evolve the military justice system by aligning it with the civilian justice system in important ways, while remaining responsive to the unique needs of our Canadian Armed Forces. The act enshrines victims' rights into the code of service discipline. We are working with our members so the regulations for that bill meet the needs of the survivors, rather than the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.

Earlier this month, we tabled a third independent review of the National Defence Act by former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish. This is one of the most comprehensive independent reviews of the military justice system in a decade. Justice Fish's recommendations provide one of the largest overhauls of the National Defence Act and the Canadian military justice system in recent memory.

I have accepted the 107 recommendations in principle. As we speak, we have already begun to implement 36 of those recommendations to further improve the military justice system to bring greater confidence to our members, who wear the maple leaf on their shoulder.

All this work is in addition to the independent external comprehensive review that former Justice Louise Arbour is leading to help us build on and refine our efforts to address and prevent sexual misconduct in our organizations. Over the coming months, Madam Arbour will provide concrete recommendations for how the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence could set up an independent external reporting system for defence team members that meets the needs of those who have been impacted by sexual misconduct.

This system needs to be focused on those who have been impacted by misconduct, be responsive to their needs and be outside the chain of command and the Department of National Defence. Any less cannot be accepted, and any less will not be accepted.

Madam Arbour and her team will provide significant direction on how we must evolve to support affected people, and how we can ensure that every incident is handled appropriately. Part of this work also includes looking into the current structures in the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence and the sexual misconduct response centre to see how we could strengthen them to provide greater confidence to those who need support.

We will also examine the performance evaluation promotion system in the Canadian Armed Forces with a focus on how leaders are selected and trained. This review will also look at the military justice system's policies, procedures and practices to see how we could make this system more responsive to the needs of those who have experienced misconduct while holding perpetrators accountable. As Madam Arbour does this important work, she will be able to provide interim recommendations to the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, and we commit to acting upon it immediately.

As we continue our work with the defence team, we have created a new organization of professional conduct and culture under the leadership of its chief, General Carignan. This will be responsible for carrying out and creating the conditions for cultural transformation by unifying, integrating, and coordinating the ongoing efforts across the Department of National Defence.

Their goal is to ensure that our actions and behaviour reflect the very best parts of our organizations of Canadian society. Their efforts will closely align with the work being carried out by the external review and will be informed by best practices, as well as experts, advocates and those who have lived experiences, inside and outside our institutions, at all levels.

We are dedicated to creating lasting cultural change across the defence team, change that is enduring and that meets the needs of those who have experienced sexual harassment and violence. The motion that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward does nothing to help those in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is more focused on personal attacks and petty games, something that I have unfortunately been far too accustomed to. That is okay.

It is disappointing, though, but it comes as no surprise from a party that is focused more on fanning the flames of division, a party that refused to acknowledge structural racism, like the Leader of the Opposition did in September of last year, or in the midst of a pandemic when Dr. Theresa Tam, who is Canada's chief public health officer, had her loyalty to our country questioned, because of her name and the colour of her skin, by a Conservative MP. It is a party that voted against a motion to condemn Islamophobia.

The Leader of the Opposition based his entire leadership campaign around the slogan “Take Back Canada”. From whom?

This motion is below the dignity of the House, but it is clear that is exactly the type of divisive and dog-whistle politics on which the Conservative opposition depends.

[Carole Morency]

I will try to briefly respond.

Since the development of what became the CVBR in Bill C-32, Justice Canada has worked closely with the Department of National Defence in developing what has become the “civilian VBR”. They weren't in a position to bring forward similar amendments on their part because it's a much more complicated regime. As you know, Bill C-77 is still to come into force.

We do continue to work with them on various Criminal Code reforms, including on victim support and, over the last few years, in supporting particular interests on how to support victims of sexual assault through the process.

On a go-forward basis, I think the government has indicated that it will work to address that. We, in the Department of Justice, will do our best to support the government, moving forward, in addressing the issues.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to the Justice officials.

This week Justice Fish released his report on military justice. It's a 400-page report; I don't expect everyone in the country to have read it. I have only managed to make it through one read.

One of the things he talks about is the fact that victims in the military justice system do not have the same rights as they do in the public justice system. Bill C-77 hasn't been fully proclaimed, even though it was passed two years ago. He suggests that there should be some kind of joint working group between Justice and Defence to try to harmonize or make sure that the National Defence Act provides the same victims' rights and protections that are provided in our civilian system.

Are either of you aware of any work that's gone on with the Department of Defence on trying to make sure that victims' rights are fully implemented in the military justice system?

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, that is all talk and no action.

Justice Fish explicitly calls on the government to implement the Victims Bill of Rights provisions in Bill C-77. It is a bill that was passed by this Parliament two years ago this month and still has not been brought into force. He states that until those victims' rights are put in place, “sexual assaults should not be investigated or prosecuted under the National Defence Act”.

Why has the Prime Minister dragged his feet for years and failed to implement the rights for victims of sexual assault so they can finally get justice in our armed forces?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's nice to be here to participate in this committee meeting. I'm here as a substitute, of course, for Mr. Baker, and I expect that if Mr. Baker was here you'd have a much more eloquent intervention with someone as knowledgeable as he is. I do bring a bit of an outsider's perspective to the specific topic at hand and some experience in terms of matters of procedure. There are a few things that kind of sink in after 10 years in this place.

I know that Mr. Bezan is quite preoccupied with making sure that we're speaking to the amendment and to the motion and that the bounds of relevance be kept fairly tight, so I'm actually going to start with the amendment that has been proposed.

The amendment indicates that the scope of the study will likely lead to new facts, and in the second subparagraph, it indicates that the committee believes that a report is urgently needed to put an end to the culture that has existed within the Canadian Armed Forces. It then calls for the presentation of an interim report, which will allow for some action to be taken as the more fulsome report is delivered.

The first thing that strikes me on this is the inconsistency, quite frankly, between the amendment and the main motion. The amendment talks about urgency, but the main motion is to prolong the witness list. I would think that if we adopt the amendment and adopt the theory that this is urgent, we wouldn't be extending the witness list four months into a report.

I guess the other thing that I would offer is, again, based on 10 years of experience in parliamentary committees. It has been my experience that at the outset of a study, witnesses are suggested by each of the parties. They're prioritized, and they are then ranked in a manner that is consistent with the parties' standings in the House or in the committee. This is, I think, a tradition that goes across all 22 standing committees of Parliament. It's one that I've certainly seen, observed and respected on the committees I've served on over the years, including the one that I chair now, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities.

There's good logic behind this. If the witnesses can be identified and prioritized at the outset, a work plan can be developed. As they say, you plan the work and then you work the plan. When you're four months into a study and there are additional witnesses demanded who presumably didn't go through that original process, once again it's hard to understand that there is a true appreciation for the urgency of the issue when it continues in this fashion.

The amendment talks about and talks to the culture. Certainly, in recent months, Canadians have heard the heart-wrenching accounts of Canadian Armed Forces members and civilian colleagues who have been the subjects of behaviours and treatment experiences that are completely unacceptable. Also, as the amendment points out, their accounts have been ignored for far too long. For instance, the opposition knew of rumours against General Vance in 2015 but still appointed him.

They appointed him when there was an active Canadian Forces national investigation service investigation into him and appointed him to the most senior position within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current leader of the official opposition says he passed along sexual misconduct rumours about General Vance in 2015 and claimed those were looked into. I think that begs the question: How is it possible that General Vance was appointed at the same time and the investigation was suddenly dropped?

There's no question that what members have endured is wrong. The Canadian Armed Forces is entrusted to keep Canadians safe both at home and abroad. The organization owes survivors more. Every Canadian Armed Forces member makes enormous personal sacrifices to protect Canadians, and regardless of rank or gender identity, they have an undeniable right to serve in safety. The urgency of this issue, the urgency of the need for culture change, is identified in the amendment, and properly so.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have to live up to this expectation. The minister has always followed the processes put in place. We've heard that repeatedly. He has always followed the processes put in place when allegations were brought to his attention. This is something he has always done and that he will continue to do.

Our government is taking important steps. Unlike the allegation that nothing has been done, that no steps have been taken, to build on the points made by my friend from the Yukon, we're taking important steps to address systemic misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and to bring about the culture change that is referenced in the amendment and the culture change that is needed in the organization. The need to change the military's culture is born of the reality that the lived experiences of many defence team members are completely out of line with the values professed by the organization. These are values of integrity, inclusion and accountability. That needs to change, and we, as a government, are committed to bringing about this change.

If we want that change to be significant, meaningful and to last, then we need to reflect honestly on what's been happening. Where we find failings and fault, we must accept responsibility.

Like in the case of the current leader of the official opposition, by the opposition's logic, should he be fired for hearing a rumour of misconduct against General Vance? As we know, just days after the former government appointed General Vance, the investigation was closed. According to the access to information request, the commanding officer said he was under “pressure”. Who do they think applied that pressure?

Where we're able to learn lessons, we must seize the opportunity to build a better organization. Where members of the defence team share their accounts and experiences, we must listen and listen carefully. This also brings me to the main motion and the inconsistency with the urgency of the need to have a culture change.

The main motion calls for the presentation of a report without a request for a response from government. Is this seriously a motion that respects the urgency or that respects the need to ensure there are no further victims when there is no response requested from government, or is it something else?

The end goal should be simple. Where we hope to get to is to ensure that every member of the defence team is valued and respected. Defence culture and professional conduct must reflect the core values and ethical principles our military aspires to uphold as a national institution. That's what Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, recruits, public servants and Canadians expect and deserve of the organization.

Recently, the Minister of National Defence announced the creation of a new organization to lead us there. We heard Mr. Bagnell refer to this. Among other initiatives, the Department of National Defence appointed Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as the Department of National Defence new chief of professional conduct and culture.

It's hard to imagine a better person to lead this important initiative. Under her leadership, the professional conduct and culture organization will unify, integrate and coordinate all of the policies, programs and activities that address systemic misconduct and support culture change within the forces. This new organization will include a new assistant deputy minister, who will directly support her. The team will bring together members from all ranks and classifications, reflecting the diversity that Canadians expect.

Make no mistake: This is not a generic prepackaged solution to a long-standing problem. Before any future steps are taken, those working to bring about change will actively listen to the accounts of people affected—people at every rank, people at every level and people in every installation across all regions of the country.

Members of the professional conduct and culture organization will honour each person's experiences, respect each persons's individuality and will neither judge nor assume. They will listen, so that people's lived experiences guide the road to eliminating discrimination, biases, harmful stereotypes and systemic barriers.

As so many members of the defence team have already shared their experiences and recommendations, we don't need to wait before implementing a number of much-needed changes. Lieutenant-General Carignan will take a number of steps to bring about that change now.

To start, they'll wrap up Operation Honour. Much has already been said about drawing this initiative to a close, but it bears repeating.

Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team will review all of the research conducted under Operation Honour, so that its findings can inform renewed culture change efforts. This new team will develop mechanisms to implement the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations under Bill C-65, which was also mentioned by Mr. Bagnell, and will support the ongoing efforts to bring the remaining provisions of Bill C-77 into force. That will include bringing the declaration of victims rights into the National Defence Act.

The next order of business will be for the team to establish a framework that will help achieve a number of longer-term goals. They will realign responsibilities, policies and programs that address elements of systemic misconduct across National Defence and the forces. They will also simplify and enhance misconduct reporting mechanisms, including for people outside of the chain of command. They will give greater agency to and strengthen support mechanisms for those who have experienced misconduct. They will enhance tracking mechanisms from initial reports of misconduct to case closures, and they'll integrate additional data points, such as intersectionality, reprisals, member satisfaction and retention. Finally, they will lead institutional efforts to develop a professional conduct and culture framework that tackles all types of harmful behaviour, biases and systemic barriers.

Much work to build healthy, safe and inclusive workplaces is already being done within the department. Many organizations are focused on developing programs and policies that move us in the right direction. Among them, there's the GBA+, the integrated conflict and complaint management program, the anti-racism secretariat, the Canadian Armed Forces diversity strategy, Canada's anti-racism strategy and Canada's national action plan for women, peace and security. The professional conduct and culture team will work with the people leading each of those efforts to further their good work, and they will make the most of ongoing consultations, conversations, external and independent reviews and analysis to inform the way ahead.

The professional conduct and culture organization is being established with the clear understanding that previous culture change efforts have fallen far short of what was needed, and this, of course, is acknowledged in the amendment that is the subject of this discussion today.

As Lieutenant-General Carignan has said, those efforts were fractured, which resulted in segmented efforts and piecemeal changes. With the standing up of this new organization, the defence team is taking a fundamentally different approach. As Lieutenant-General Carignan also said, the new approach will be a more holistic and coherent way to address the complex challenges faced by the Canadian Armed Forces.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge Canada's good fortune at having such a decorated leader as Lieutenant-General Carignan leading this vital initiative. With 30 years of military experience, she has served in operations around the world and most recently took on a tremendous leadership role as the commander of the NATO mission in Iraq from November 2019 to November 2020. She's been invested as a Commander of the Order of Military Merit and is a recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal, earned as a result of her exceptional commitment to our Canadian Armed Forces, its missions and our country.

Reading her professional biography is an exercise in humility. In addition to an exceptional work ethic, she brings a profound understanding of military best practices to this role, and she has already shown herself to be a truly gifted leader.

I would like to reiterate our deepest concern for the well-being of every member of the defence team. The standing up of the professional conduct and culture organization is a testament to our government's genuine commitment to the defence team. We have shown that we are dedicated to creating a lasting culture change across the defence team. We will do just that, and I trust that these remarks were of some value to these deliberations.

Thank you for the time, Madam Chair.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

—related to this motion.

To give credit where credit is due on the things we've done, to supplement the employee assistance program, the WHVP centre of expertise is establishing additional assistance for employees affected by harassment or workplace violence.

While CAF is not subject to the Canada Labour Code, CAF is working on a harassment prevention modernization initiative to further align and integrate accountability and prevention components of the WHVP with the CAF system.

Stage one of the CAF harassment prevention modernization initiative is nearing completion, including through the issuance by the VCDS of an initiating directive, development of tools and supporting documents for the relevant DAOD on harassment prevention and the establishment of a governance structure and working group.

In stage two, the focus is on a CAF harassment prevention, a vision statement and the development of additional tools, guides, consultation and options. Analysis is being finalized. This work will take into consideration and align with the work of Bill C‑65, Bill C‑77, negotiations on policy measures and class actions [Technical difficulty—Editor] and the evolution of the chief of the professional conduct and culture organization.

I will now go on to military sexual trauma. Also, in relation to Mr. Bezan's last comment, I wonder why he won't change his motion to bring forward the real witnesses to the serious problems that have now arisen since the motion was designed, which have been brought forward by the press along with this serious potential cover-up related to the investigations during the time of the appointment of General Vance.

On military sexual trauma, MST, we've constantly heard from stakeholders and those affected by sexual misconduct that they want sexual trauma connected with military service to be acknowledged and recognized as such, and that they want to be supported accordingly. Along with Veterans Affairs Canada, the SMRC and external stakeholders, we're working on developing a definition of sexual trauma connected with military service. This work is being done in full consultation with survivor groups as well as with members of the SMRC external advisory council and others. While it is not a critical term, we acknowledge that the injury is associated with sexual trauma connected to military service. We are working with VAC to ensure that there continues to be policy alignment between the two departments particularly in the delivery of supports and benefits to those affected.

I want to talk about peer support now. This committee has heard from witnesses that our focus should be on the survivors and on helping them. They've asked for peer support. Work is under way. I hope we have recommendations. When we get to the main motion, I will go a lot into the recommendations, because the motion allows for a cut-off on debate on those recommendations.

As announced, DND, CAF and Veterans Affairs Canada are working on developing a professionally co-facilitated peer support program. This is another initiative that is a high priority for stakeholders, as we heard from witnesses. This is funded through budget 2021.

Because of our present situation and the direction of the world, we need to do more things online. SMRC, the CAF transition group and VAC are working to adapt an existing online peer support mobile application that was developed for Canadian Public Safety personnel. The process of adaptation, modification and implementation of the app is expected to take several months. Of course, this is very important because our military are stationed around the world.

There's also support for individual people, which CAF and DND have worked so hard on. Our government, as I've said, is not done. We have a lot more to do. As I've said at every meeting, that's what we should be working on, recommendations on those procedures. Some progress has been made. As we know, we need a lot more.

We're going to continue to consult with the experts, some of whom we had before our committee, and those who have been affected by sexual misconduct.

I want to highlight some of the measures that are already in place and accessible to the DND and CAF members. The SMRC, as I mentioned earlier, offers members confidential support 24-7 and anywhere in the world. I'm happy to say that budget 2021 has increased support for that. We heard from a number of witnesses how that wasn't the be-all and end-all, but it was certainly providing helpful services. It operates outside the military chain of command. Reporting directly to the deputy minister, it allows affected persons to access support in a confidential manner.

SMRC offers many programs and services to help affected members. One of them is the response and support coordination program, which helps CAF members navigate systems from the moment they make contact with SMRC until they decide they no longer require support. At every step of the way, SMRC personnel accompany those affected by sexual violence, providing whatever support may be necessary.

CAF members seeking information about the reporting process can contact the SMRC to explore their options while remaining anonymous. Civilian members of the defence team can also access support through SMRC, as well as the employee assistance program. Though SMRC is an important tool, we haven't got this right yet. That's why the defence team is in the midst of a top-to-bottom change of its institutional culture.

This is the right thing to do. It is not just a moral imperative. It is also vital to the success of the Canadian Armed Forces now and into the future. We've heard that time and time again. I think every committee member knows this a critical problem that we have to deal with to come up with solutions. A number of things are being done already, but obviously much needs to be done.

It was great to hear the acting chief of defence staff—I think it was yesterday or the day before—so open to hearing outside expertise to make sure this is done right. The culture change that's been so hard to do.... I mean, this isn't new. It's been there for decades upon decades. It's not easy to change quickly. Just making paper changes is not enough. That's why we have all these initiatives and why we should be discussing the complexity of that culture change and how we do it.

That's why the Madam Arbour announcement will be helpful. Culture change is mentioned right in the amendment to this motion, which is why this is an important discussion as well.

The initial independent external comprehensive review led by the former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour is very important. Obviously, all the recommendations from the previous Deschamps report haven't been implemented. Much more needs to be done, but Madam Arbour will provide the road map and a suggested way to actually achieve the things that Madam Deschamps said needed to be done. It will look into harassment and sexual misconduct in both DND and CAF and will examine the policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture within National Defence and make recommendations for improvement. From that, we'll learn what did not work from all these things that I'm talking about today of the processes that are in place. We can build on what did work, see what did not work and why it did not work.

It's been noted and, as I said in previous meetings, a number of things are very puzzling. There were a number of good things in place. Why were they not working? Why did they still lead to the hundreds of cases that Mr. Garrison and I referred to in previous meetings.

It's noted in the terms of reference that Madam Arbour will be delivering a “work plan within 30 days to the effective date of” her contract.

I just wanted to mention that one other thing about the peer support program is that budget 2021 also includes funding to enhance other support services including access to free independent legal advice that will help enable CAF members to access support without making a formal complaint.

Another step forward, once again to give credit where credit is due for things that are being done and have to be acknowledged, it has been announced that Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan will begin a new role as the chief of professional conduct and culture, which will unify, integrate and coordinate all policies, programs and activities that currently address systemic misconduct across culture change.

She's moved quickly in her new role and is actively working on building a core team around her. She's already begun to turn her attention to key issues including developing an outreach and consultation plan to continue hearing from defence team members, veterans and stakeholders, and mapping resources and reporting processes to get a clearer sense of what currently exists to inform future efforts to streamline.

Another step is that in addition to these steps, our government is following through on its commitment to consult with victims of service offences, which will inform the development of the regulations needed to implement the declaration of victim rights from Bill C‑77.

The Department of National Defence has engaged directly with victims groups and will soon be launching an online questionnaire to collect anonymous feedback from DND employees and CAF members. Certainly we've heard from victims from both of those groups, and it will be really good to get that anonymous feedback for which they will have no fear of retribution or reprisal. That, we have heard, is one of the top three things on which this committee should be coming up with recommendations to help the minister, a minister who is open to making major changes at this critical time when we could actually make improvements.

Our government has heard from the victims groups who have generously devoted their time and energy to sharing lived experiences and feedback with us and also with committees. We have heard them and we are taking action. This is what the survivors and experts who have testified at this committee and the committee on the status of women have been advocating for.

There are some other sources available to CAF members to access counselling, advice and other support services, and this may be one of the things that the report of Madam Arbour comes up with. Members aren't aware of all of these supports and maybe that's one reason they haven't been as effective as they should be. There are the CAF medical centres, military chaplains, the CF members assistance program, military family resource centres and family information centre.

There are also complaint management centres. These are another avenue for members to bring forward concerns or incidents through one of the 16 complaint management centres located across the country under the integrated conflict and complaint management program. This service combines harassment, grievance and alternative dispute resolution approaches in a streamlined fashion, and they report tracking and resolved complaints of inappropriate behaviour like sexual harassment. If the nature of the sexual misconduct requires involvement of the military police and justice system, there are supports for CAF members during this process as well.

Another support is the sexual offence response teams. The military police have established six sexual offence response teams trained to handle sexual misconduct cases appropriately and with empathy. These teams are sensitive to survivors and help them connect with other resources and support systems they need. I'm certainly looking forward to survivors and complainants getting much better treatment than some of the witnesses we heard from did and hopefully these new centres and the training will have far more appropriate support and training for survivors.

In addition, the director of military prosecutions has established a sexual misconduct action response team made up of specially trained prosecutors. Their role again is to make sure survivors are treated with compassion and understanding and that they receive information and the support they need through the military justice proceedings.

Supporting survivors of sexual misconduct is essential, and that's why steps have been taken to ensure support is available and is provided from the moment a person seeks advice or counsel through to investigation and prosecution. Along with the future changes, these steps will help to build a safe and inclusive workplace where all people are supported and treated with respect.

We're creating a defence workplace where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, and we hope all our colleagues will join us in this effort. We'll build the right system, so that when an incident occurs, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence have access to a process that is sensitive, fair and compassionate.

CAF and DND are listening. They're learning. They're taking action to create an environment where sexual misconduct is never minimized, excused or ignored. We owe it to the men and women in uniform—as I think all committee members have said—to all members of the defence team and to Canadians to get this right, and we'll continue working hard to do just that on top of all these initiatives.

There has also been Bill C‑65, with new regulations on preventing harassment and violence in the workplace. Harassment and violence in the workplace in any form, of course, will not be tolerated. Amendments to the Canada Labour Code contained in the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations came into effect on January 1, 2021, and will expand the existing prevention-of-violence framework known as Bill C‑65.

These amendments will strengthen the provisions of the Canada Labour Code by putting in place one comprehensive approach that takes all forms of harassment and violence into consideration. This will help departments to better prevent this and to respond to and provide support to those affected by harassment and violence in the federal public service. This new regulation will affect all DND public service employees and the Canadian Armed Forces members who supervise them. The coordination and implementation of this new regulation is assigned to the ADM of civilian human resources as the functional authority for the health and well-being of the public service employees within the department. Committee members have heard about harassment or sexual misconduct related to those employees—not just CAF members.

In short, this means that, along with all Government of Canada departments and agencies, our obligations with respect to harassment and violence in the workplace will increase. While we'll see more details in the coming weeks, some examples of what we will do under this new legislation include ensuring that a resolution process is in place and that issues are resolved in a timely and transparent manner; identifying the risk factors that contribute to harassment and violence in the workplace and developing and implementing preventive measures to mitigate these risks; and developing harassment and violence training and ensuring that all parties in the workplace, including employers, participate in this training.

In parallel, the VCDS has been tasked with addressing potential changes to the CAF policies and programs. For now, DAOD 5012‑0, “Harassment Prevention and Resolution”, and the harassment prevention and resolution instructions, accessible only on the National Defence network, will continue to apply to the CAF. Early in the new year, a working group will be be stood up to conduct—that's this year—a holistic review of the CAF harassment framework in order to modernize and align it, where possible, with the Canadian Labour Code. The working group will also be tasked with looking at opportunities to streamline and align existing interrelated mechanisms and programs, so that, as much as possible, the employees at DND and the CAF members will have very similar treatment and help.

Existing programs, preventive measures and support will remain in place to keep our defence team free as much as possible from physical and psychological harm. However, when harassment or violence does occur, we must work together to identify it, root it out and take action to prevent reoccurence. With this new legislation, Bill C‑65 will help to strengthen all our efforts on all fronts.

The other bill that we brought in—again, to be fair, things have been done and have been moving forward—is Bill C‑77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act—the declaration of victims rights.

The summary of the bill states:

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 a right 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.

I know that the Conservatives are very sensitive and supportive of victims rights.

It continues:

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 hearings;

(b) protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings [which involve] 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 [the] vulnerable witnesses;

(e) allow witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in appropriate cases;

We've all heard about potential retribution.

It continues:

(f) on application, make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 mandatory; (g) in certain circumstances, require a military judge 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; (h) provide that the acknowledgement 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 [assessments] to be considered for all service offences; (k) provide, as a principle of sentencing, that particular attention should be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders;

As you know, there are provisions in the Criminal Code for that as well.

It continues:

(l) provide for the creation, in regulations, of service infractions that can be dealt with by summary hearing;

That's so more cases can go forward—

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would agree. I would implore that we stop this waste of time by debating motion after motion and witness after witness, which is unnecessary and is delaying the study. I implore Mr. Bezan to remove the motion, which, as he probably knows, has a number of problems with it. It doesn't bring forward the witnesses we need if we want to go further into the who, how, where and when, which I'll go into in great depth when we get to the main motion.

For the exact reason that people expect a report to come out, stop doing motions that recall witnesses who have been here for hours and who have nothing to add to the debate. Stop calling a witness whose potential testimony has already been dealt with and then a motion that wouldn't allow us to put a stop to looking at each recommendation, debating them and coming out with a serious report.

We had an anonymous email and no one knew what was in it because the person wanted their privacy, and they were allowed their privacy. It's incredible that, instead of dealing with the major problems to help the people in the military, Mr. Bezan would keep calling witnesses related to that email and not all the great testimony we've had from experts and victims.

If you want to go back.... I don't. I want to get on to dealing with those serious issues, but if you want to go back to the who, why and where, and then, as Mr. Garrison said, the serious issues related to the appointment of General Vance, as Mr. Garrison said, when people should have acted and failed to act.... There were potential investigations, one, apparently, there was pressure to stop on the day General Vance was appointed, and another one, a quote from someone.... The vice-chief of the defence staff said it was a mystery who investigated, seeing as it didn't occur.

Those are the serious questions that people want to go back to. I don't want to go back to that. I want to get on to the issues of helping the people in the military. As Mr. Barsalou-Duval said, why are members acting the way they are by bringing witness after witness, trying to recall witnesses and extending on this one email that's already been fully investigated as far as it could go, because the person didn't want to let any of the details forward.

We only have so much time in government. As everyone knows who's been in government, there are a huge number of federal departments, agencies and things that have to be dealt with, so there are rare points in time when you can get to the item that you want to make progress on. I think this is one of those points in time when we have a minister who's supportive of dealing with this, and all the committee members are supportive of dealing with sexual misconduct in the military. That's what we should be dealing with.

I could, in the future, if need be, explain or outline all the times and the quotes from the minister over the last several months as to how he says over and over again that much more needs to be done and that there's no tolerance.

Unfortunately, it's also been said in this debate that nothing has been done, or that nothing of consequence has been done. In fairness to the members of CAF and DND, they have been working hard to try to address this serious issue.

I think we have to dispose of that misinformation because some things have been done. There has to be a lot more, obviously, as Mr. Garrison outlined, and I've outlined in a number of committees the hundreds of complaints that have occurred. Much more needs to be done, but it's also not fair to suggest that nothing's been done. I'm going to go through some of those things, to give credit where credit's due.

The government has announced an external review, the creation of the chief of professional conduct and culture position, as well as initiatives around peer support, the extension of the SMRCs' reach across Canada and work on implementation of Bill C-77.

DND and CAF also released a joint CDS-DM initiating directive, which has provided our defence team members, veterans, observers and all Canadians much-needed clarity on DND and CAF's vision for Lieutenant-General Carignan's position and what she'll be empowered to do. Going forward, one of General Carignan's first areas of focus is developing a plan for engagement and consultation, including targeted focus groups in coordination with our colleagues in public affairs, to ensure that we keep up the momentum on listening.

In the budget that we're now debating in the House, $232.2 million over five years has been set aside, plus $33.5 million per year ongoing to address sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the military and to support survivors. These funds will be used for gender-based violence prevention, fully funded at $33.9 million over two years; internal support to victims, including access to legal advice; expanding the contribution program to support community-based sexual assault service providers; and a peer support pilot, online and in-person. I'll speak to that a bit later.

There are additional conduct items that are fully funded at $33 million over two years to support $15 million for increased investment in the SMRC—which I'll talk about later as well—$15 million for external oversight and $3 million for external assistance with training.

Then there are investments from existing reference levels of $158.5 million, and this includes the implementation of Bill C-65 and the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations, which I'll talk a bit about later; support for development of character assessment and training; additional support to enhance the military justice system; personnel support to base commanders; development of the departmental litigation oversight capability, which we've talked about a lot in this committee; and upgrading data management and tracking into a single system, which we've talked about having as a recommendation.

Additionally, DND and CAF are going to respond to the government with suggestions related to the CAF child care program and the clinical occupation and deployment health needs of women in uniform.

I also said I was going to get back to the work, and the deputy minister mentioned that a lot had to be done, but she also mentioned that there were good things being done. She mentioned the advancing initiatives related to the SMRC; the gender-based violence national action plan initiatives; the regional expansion of SMRC services, including a response and support coordination program; the expansion of support services to include service to DND public service employees and veterans; and the increasing need for virtual training options and targeted prevention training. The staffing of positions for that is also under way. I'll get back SMRC a little bit later and also the next time that I get to speak.

C-65's implementation is under way, which is another item of progress, so it's not fair to say that nothing has been done or accomplished.

In the departmental approach, there's work on the implementation of the workplace harassment and violence prevention, WHVP, legislation, which continues to progress. Direction and guidance on the WHVP workplace assessment is to be released by August 2021. A service-level agreement to provide access to WHVP training for CAF members is being finalized. Training will be available online by June 2021.

Mandatory training for public service employees is progressing well. As of March 31 this year, 40% of employees and 13% of members—

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Perfect.

I know we're debating an amendment that.... I'll be honest. I appreciate very much that Mr. Barsalou-Duval has put forward this particular amendment. I know we had some conversations about perhaps being able to go through that very long draft report—over 60 pages, I believe—and choose the things we know we all agree on. As I've said before, I believe firmly that every member of this committee wants what's best for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. I have no doubt about that.

I think we have some differences in terms of how best to do that, and that's legitimate. I think the idea of being able to pull out the recommendations that we agree on, to put out an interim report, to have that conversation, and then to continue with the ones that perhaps there isn't agreement for, is a really good idea. The problem is that it's in a motion, the main motion, which has a time limit on when that can happen. If you look at the calendar right now, by my calculation, it leaves about an hour and 45 minutes to actually debate that 60-plus page report, to go through it and to find consensus on each one. I'm a bit concerned about that. Perhaps that's something the committee might be capable of doing. I hope very much that we are.

What I'd really appreciate would be if Mr. Bezan could withdraw this motion. I know that our next meeting is planned to study the draft report. If there seems to be a willingness of members of the committee to pull those things that really matter to finding solutions to this, those areas where we can find consensus, I think that's a good idea.

My problem is that it's amending a motion that doesn't allow any time for us to be able to have that discussion to reach that consensus. I would not want members of the committee to just vote—boom, boom, boom—without any debate on these, and not have the kind of thoughtful report that we would need.

I'm still not entirely certain. What I do agree on 100% with Mr. Barsalou-Duval is the part of the amendment that says we need to end the culture that has persisted for too long in the Canadian Armed Forces. I absolutely agree with him. I know that's something all members of this committee believe in and want to do.

We have now spent four months hearing from witnesses, and each time we think we're at the point where we can actually start looking at the draft of the report so we can put recommendations forward, there are emergency meetings and motions to bring new witnesses. Each time, with thoughtfulness, the committee has said, “Okay, let's call those witnesses.” We called Mr. Marques and we called Ms. Telford, but as soon as we're ready to start, there's always another motion.

I'll be honest. I don't believe that if we pass this motion or even the amendment, there wouldn't be yet another. Honestly, I think the best solution would be to withdraw the motion and allow the chair to call the meeting on Friday, at our next planned sitting, to be able to actually start going through these draft reports.

Having said that, I want to discuss some of the pieces of this amendment that talk about the culture. I would take exception to members of this committee who suggest that anybody's speaking for survivors because, throughout this process, I have been reading recommendations that came from survivors. They were either written by survivors, or spoken in testimony, whether it's testimony in our committee or testimony in the status of women committee. This is not necessarily what I think should happen. These are recommendations that have been presented by survivors.

We know that survivors are not a homogeneous group. We know there are many different views. In fact, there are many different views about what the solutions are. I have heard people suggest that Madame Arbour's review is not necessary because there's already a review from six years ago. We saw, with the Deschamps report that there was, I believe, a goodwill intent to try to implement those recommendations.

We created the SMRCs, the sexual misconduct response centres, and gave them specialized ability, external support and additional resources to be a point of contact and to assist survivors.

The SMRCs are doing a wonderful job. What we didn't realize at the time, and what is becoming very apparent now, is that taking it out of the Canadian Armed Forces but still putting it under the Department of National Defence, the civilian side, was not what survivors consider to be complete independence. What we're realizing now is that we need to go beyond that, but it's very intertwined.

We have as many solutions being proposed as there are problems.

Madame Deschamps made it clear that there needs to be an external independent body, but did not say how or what it's going to look like. The details of it were not there. For those who are saying, well, just do it, we've already seen a number of different people—different survivors, advocates, academics—who have come up with very different perceptions of what the how is. For many, the how is, as we've even heard, that perhaps it would be the ombudsperson reporting to Parliament. We've heard people say it has to be the SMRC, because they're the ones with specialized knowledge about sexual misconduct and we need to have something that's not about all issues where you might call an ombudsperson, but about sexual misconduct.

Then you have some who say no, if it's within the SMRC, then you have perpetrators and the people who are impacted in the same institution, and you need a firewall between them. Many have called for something like an inspector general, completely outside the chain of command. Then what would that be? What would that role be?

We know that the military justice system is something many survivors have asked us to take a look at. We know there have been many survivors whose experience with that system and experience with the military police system and with their chain of command has been very harmful to them. We need to look at that as well.

When those people are saying that Madame Deschamps had all of the road map, identified the problem, identified what the general solutions had to be.... By the way, we've implemented many of those solutions. We had a piece of legislation, Bill C-77, that was specifically about a victim's declaration of rights.

Looking at the military justice system, we know right now that former Justice Morris Fish is finalizing a report about that system. This is a result of a mandatory review of the National Defence Act. I would hope this committee would be interested in that report when it is tabled with this committee, and will take the time to call Justice Fish and talk about that.

In fact, our next study after this is about military justice. We know that military justice is core to making sure there is support for survivors to be able to get the just outcome they're looking for.

There are so many proposals around this, even in our committee. We heard many different solutions, and we're having Madame Arbour look at all of this and be able to give the road map and give the how—how are we going to achieve this, taking all the different viewpoints about what it should look like and putting them together and actually creating a system based on the lived experience of survivors and on preventing that there be more survivors, which by the way, this amendment says? I'm very appreciative to my colleague from the Bloc for putting that in this amendment, because that's precisely what we have to do when we're looking at the solutions.

If the committee were to find consensus around some of these points and present that as an interim report, I think those points of consensus would carry a lot of weight because, instead of a committee report where you have four parties saying completely different things and different supplemental or dissenting reports, you would have a report that has the thoughtfulness of all parties together focused on the women and men.

That would be a wonderful idea. To be honest, I'm a little concerned. Given the discussions that have happened, I don't know if we'll get there, but I hope we do. I appreciate that Mr. Barsalou-Duval is trying, at least. He's putting forward something that might actually give us a path to where we could find that consensus.

However, regardless of that, we know that right now we have General Carignan, who is assigned to take all the different pieces of this across CAF, across the Department of National Defence, and pull it all together and not wait a year for a report.

I think this is also a little cynical when people say, well, we're taking Madame Arbour and just doing another review so we can wait. We've said very clearly—and at some point I would like to read the speech I gave when we announced Madame Arbour and General Carignan—that we're going to be implementing....

First of all, the minister has said that Madame Arbour's recommendations will be binding, that we are going to act on them, but also that we will be implementing them as the interim measures come forward.

That means that as General Carignan is set up, when Madame Arbour suggests we need to act quickly on this particular piece, she's already in place and she'll already be able to start implementing those measures right now. We're talking within weeks. For those survivors who are listening, I know that time is urgent and that we have to do something now.

I have heard you and I've had conversations, and I know this is a really difficult time for survivors. It's a difficult time for those people in the Canadian Armed Forces who have experienced this horrendous and intolerable behaviour, who haven't yet come forward. I want to say to you that I don't blame you. I know we talk about courage with people who come forward. There is no lack of courage if you're at a point where you're not ready to come forward. However, our job, our accountability as legislators, is to make sure we create a system where you can, where you feel safe, where you feel comfortable, where you know that if you come forward you will be able to have empowerment over how that process unfolds, and that you yourself will be able to control how you can advance that.

If what you want is that the person who perpetrated comes to justice, we have a system in place that will make sure that happens. If what you need is peer support, if what you need is counselling, if what you need is just to put forward ideas, solutions or proposals to fix the system so the next person doesn't go through what you went through, that has to be an avenue for you as well.

It isn't one thing. We know that for survivors there are many steps and often it's difficult being the first. What we're seeing in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I can speak from personal experience, is that often you don't want to be the first one to speak up. You want to see if somebody else has gone through the same thing and then speak up. I think that is what's happening. When people feel that they see consequences, that there is no impunity, at that point we will start seeing more people feel comfortable and safe coming forward.

Our goal and our objective right now is to create a process that makes it safe, where you do not have to fear reprisal, where you have control over how the process unfolds, where you have advocates, where you have information about what your options are and what each of them looks like, that if you decide to do this, it's not going to lead to a process over which you no longer feel you have control; it also needs to be a process that makes sure this doesn't happen again. Doing that means that in regard to the people who are doing this behaviour—and we've seen it, criminal behaviour—but also the behaviours that minimize and diminish and make people feel small and unwelcome, everything along that spectrum has a process where it can be dealt with and people at a certain point can see a just outcome.

What we're seeing in the Canadian Armed Forces right now is very hard, but it's something we have to go through. Once the high profile cases came forward, once people started to speak their truth and once you had people saying, “This happened to me,” and doing so in a public forum, which is incredibly difficult and frankly shouldn't have to be the way to do it....

There have been ways to do this both confidentially and also through a military justice process, and publicly if that's what the person wishes to do, but once people started to do that, we started to see consequences. We have actual military police investigations happening right now. We have an entire Canadian Armed Forces that is looking at this issue of changing the culture. We have a number of people who have had to step aside because of these investigations, and seeing that is going to make others feel empowered that they too can speak out.

I believe we are going to see more of this, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, because it's something we have to go through in order to get to the other side of this, which is having a culture within the Canadian Armed Forces that allows people to thrive. It is not enough to stop this behaviour. It is not enough to stop the harm. It's not enough to stop the diminishing remarks.

We heard Professor Okros talk about how power is defined, with this idea of a normative masculine warrior culture that is really based in a World War I, in-the-trenches kind of concept of what a military is.

The Canadian Armed Forces is going through a tremendous shift, as are armed forces around the world. There are so many occupations, and so much of it is based on intelligence. So much of it is different from the toxic masculinity that there is currently in the Canadian Armed Forces. This is not to say that all members or that individual members in the Canadian Armed Forces are somehow not good. This is about a systemic culture that frankly hurts women, but it also hurts men because it creates this kind of normative.

As soon as you don't fit into that, as soon as you're a bit different—and we see this with all kinds of identity factors—you feel unwelcome. I've heard it. I've heard it from so many people who feel that it isn't even the really overt criminal activities; it's every step along the way that escalates until it gets to that point.

That's what we need to focus on. I'm so glad this amendment talks specifically about the culture. I have a lot more to say about the culture. I know that some of my colleagues have their hands up, so I'll make sure they get a chance to speak.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, by focusing on the culture but also focusing on the survivors, is doing a great service here. I'm still not convinced that it gets us beyond the impasse, but I hope that the members of the committee can think about what he has said here so that perhaps we find a way forward. We can still have a report that is going to provide recommendations and that perhaps we can say has the support of all members of this committee from all parties, because this is not a partisan issue. This is something I think all Canadians share. We are in a very difficult time right now in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to get through this time in such a way that we can come out of it stronger, with better processes and better procedures, so that this doesn't happen again.

At the end of the day, as I said, it's not enough to stop harm; we need to create a Canadian Armed Forces in which people thrive, in which everybody is appreciated for what they bring, and in which diversity brings strength. This is where we want to get.

This is only the first step. I very much look forward to the work of Ms. Arbour and General Carignan on this. I really hope members of the committee can set aside politics and really try to have some recommendations on which we can build constructively so we can find a way forward to build a better institution at the end of this.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, our government takes allegations of sexual misconduct extremely seriously, and no one should feel unsafe at work. That is why we passed Bill C-77, a declaration of victims rights that puts victims at the core of the military justice system, which reviews unfounded cases.

We also created a sexual misconduct response centre. We know that we have a lot more work to do, and we are going to get it done.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Walbourne brought the information forward, I reached out immediately to the Privy Council Office. Privy Council Office officials then reached out to Mr. Walbourne the very next day. That is immediate action.

However, we know that we have a lot more work to do. Our government takes allegations of sexual misconduct very seriously. No one should feel unsafe to work. Some of the work we have been doing includes passing Bill C-77, a declaration of victims rights, to put victims at the core of the military justice system. It also reviews unfounded cases. We have more work to do, and we will get it done.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I very much appreciate your recognition that the victims, the survivors, those impacted, that their needs are not always met in reality and your efforts to try to make sure that we improve those processes.

You used the term “victim-centric”, which, of course, is also a big part of Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights. Can you talk a little bit more about how you are modifying and adapting the way in which you do investigations based on the survivor testimony, based on looking at it so that your focus really is victim-centric?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have been taking action since we formed government. As I stated, we passed Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights, which puts victims first, at the core of the military justice system. We created the sexual misconduct response centre and “The Path to Dignity and Respect”. We also put in place a response and support coordination program for CAF members who experience sexual misconduct.

A lot of work has been done, but at the end of day, more work needs to move forward to make sure that women in the Canadian Armed Forces have the confidence to come forward when misconduct is done. Our goal at the end of the day is to prevent this from happening in the first place, and we will get this done.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes the allegations of sexual misconduct very seriously. No one should feel unsafe at work. That is why we passed Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights. It puts victims at the core of the military justice system, which reviews unfounded cases. We created the sexual misconduct response centre, which provides confidential 24-7 support to CAF members anywhere in the world.

We know that we have a lot more work to do, and that is the work that we are going to get done. We are going to listen to survivors, and we are going to make sure that a zero-tolerance policy is enforced and that we give confidence to women in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as we said, we have a lot more work to do, when it comes to supporting the women in the Canadian Armed Forces. There is work that we have done, when it comes to passing Bill C-77, and with the sexual misconduct response centre. We have been taking important steps, but clearly we have a lot more work to do to make sure we have an absolutely harassment-free workplace in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is the work Madam Arbour is doing. The work, when it comes to military justice reforms, will also be presented. We have a lot more work to do. We are going to get this done.

Opposition Motion—Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in the Military

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Peterborough—Kawartha.

I rise today to discuss an important issue for the women and men who serve our country, and indeed for all Canadians: how we can best ensure that members of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are guaranteed a safe, respectful and harassment-free work environment.

All members of this House know that Canadians deserve nothing less, and our government will accept nothing less. Our government has always taken allegations of sexual misconduct extremely seriously. Whenever any allegations against anyone in the Canadian Armed Forces have been raised to him, regardless of rank or position, the Minister of National Defence has acted diligently and referred them to the relevant authorities.

When the Minister of National Defence was made aware of the allegations against the then chief of the defence staff in 2018, he acted immediately and they were referred to the Privy Council, which manages order in council appointments. This is the exact same process followed by the previous Conservative government, including the now Leader of the Opposition.

However, we know we need to do more and we need to create better systems. The minister and our entire government continue to take this issue extremely seriously. Though our work is nowhere near done, we have made progress. Our government established the sexual misconduct response centre, or SMRC, which offers members confidential support 24-7 anywhere in the world. I am happy to say that budget 2021 increases our investment in the SMRC.

Since the SMRC operates outside the military chain of command, reporting directly to the deputy minister, it allows affected persons to access support in a confidential manner. The SMRC offers many programs and services to help affected members. One of them is the response and support coordination program, which helps Canadian Armed Forces members navigate systems from the moment they make contact with the SMRC until they decide they no longer require support. At every step of the way, SMRC personnel accompany those affected by sexual violence, providing whatever support may be necessary.

Canadian Armed Forces members seeking information about the reporting process can contact the SMRC to explore their options while remaining anonymous. Civilian members of the defence team can also access support through the SMRC, as well as through the employee assistance program.

Though the SMRC is an important tool, we have not gotten this right yet and our work is far from over. That is why Canada’s defence team is in the midst of a top-to-bottom change of its institutional culture. This is the right thing to do. It is not just a moral imperative; it is also vital to the success of the Canadian Armed Forces now and into the future. Only when members have complete trust in one another can they perform at the highest levels as a team.

Our goal is to create a defence team where all members feel valued, included and supported by their peers and leaders, an organization where sexual misconduct is never ignored, minimized or excused. To achieve this transformation, we must make sure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence who have been affected by sexual misconduct are supported every step of the way.

Last week, we announced some steps to get us there. First of all, the Government of Canada has initiated an independent external comprehensive review led by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour. This review will look into harassment and sexual misconduct in DND and the Canadian Armed Forces and will examine policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture within national defence and make recommendations for improvement. We will learn from what did not work and build on what did.

Second, the Department of National Defence will work with Veterans Affairs Canada to develop a professionally co-facilitated peer support program to assist Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who have suffered harm as a result of experiencing sexual misconduct in connection with their military service. This peer support program will be available online and in person and is fully resourced through funding included in budget 2021. Budget 2021 also includes funding to enhance other support services, including access to free, independent legal advice, and will help enable Canadian Armed Forces members to access support without making a formal complaint.

Third, we announced that Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan will begin a new role as the chief of professional conduct and culture, which will unify, integrate and coordinate all policies, programs and activities that currently address systemic misconduct across culture change.

In addition to these steps, our government is following through on its commitment to consult with victims of service offences, which will inform the development of the regulations needed to implement the declaration of victims rights from Bill C-77. National Defence has engaged directly with victims groups and will soon be launching an online questionnaire to collect anonymous feedback from DND employees and Canadian Armed Forces members. To the victims groups that have generously devoted their time and energy to sharing lived experiences and feedback with the government, I want to say this: We have heard everyone; we are taking action and there is much more to come.

Today, I want to highlight some of the resources available to Canadian Armed Forces members to access counselling, advice and other support services. The resources include Canadian Armed Forces medical centres, military chaplains, the Canadian Forces member assistance program, military family resource centres, and the family information line.

Another avenue for members to bring forward concerns or incidents is through one of the 16 complaint management centres, located across the country, under the integrated conflict and complaint management program. This service combines harassment, grievance and alternate dispute resolution approaches in a streamlined fashion. They report, track and resolve complaints of inappropriate behaviour like sexual harassment.

If the nature of the sexual misconduct requires the involvement of the military police and justice system, there are supports for Canadian Armed Forces members during this process as well. The military police have established six sexual offence response teams trained to handle sexual misconduct cases appropriately and with empathy. These teams are sensitive to survivors and help them connect with other resources and support systems they may need.

In addition, the director of military prosecutions has established the sexual misconduct action response team, made up of specially trained prosecutors. Their role, again, is to make sure survivors are treated with compassion and understanding, and that they receive the information and support they need throughout military justice proceedings.

We know that supporting survivors of sexual misconduct is essential, and that is why the military has taken steps to ensure that support is available and provided from the moment a person seeks advice or counsel through investigation and prosecution. Along with future changes, these steps will help build a healthy, safe and inclusive workplace where all people are supported and treated with respect.

We know that there is much more work to be done, and our government will continue consulting with experts and those who have been affected by sexual misconduct.

I know that together we will create a defence workplace where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. We will build the right systems so that when an incident occurs, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence have access to a process that is sensitive, fair and compassionate. We are listening—

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the member of Parliament for Oakville North—Burlington, whom I have the privilege of working alongside on so many issues, including in committee on public safety.

Once again, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today to address the House on a subject that concerns all of us: the well-being of the members of our Canadian Armed Forces and those who support them.

In recent months, Canadians have heard the heart-wrenching accounts of Canadian Armed Forces members and civilian colleagues who have been subjected to behaviours, treatment and experiences that are completely unacceptable. For far too long, their accounts have been ignored.

For instance, opposition members knew of the rumours against General Vance in 2015, yet still appointed him. They appointed him while there was an active Canadian Forces national investigation service investigation into him, and appointed him to the most senior position within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current leader of the official opposition said that he passed along sexual misconduct rumours about General Vance in 2015, claiming those were looked into. I ask my fellow Conservative members, how is this possible, if General Vance was appointed at the same time and the investigation was suddenly dropped?

What our members have endured is wrong. The Canadian Armed Forces is entrusted to keep Canadians safe at home and abroad. The organization owes survivors more. Every Canadian Armed Forces member makes enormous personal sacrifices to protect Canadians and, regardless of rank or gender identity, has an undeniable right to serve in safety. We must and we will live up to that expectation.

The Minister of National Defence has always followed the processes that were put in place when allegations were brought to his attention. This is something he has said publicly, in this House, and it is something he will continue to do. However, as members have no doubt heard from my hon. colleagues, our government is taking important steps to address systemic misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces to bring about cultural change within the organization.

The need to change the military's culture is born of the reality that the lived experiences of many defence team members are completely out of line with the values professed within the organization and by the organization, which are values of integrity, inclusion and accountability. That needs to change, and we are committed to bringing about that change.

If we want that change to be significant, if we want it to be meaningful and if we want it to last, then we need to reflect honestly on what has been happening. Where we find failings and fault, we must accept responsibility. Where we are able to learn lessons, we must seize the opportunity to build a better organization. Where members of the defence team share their accounts and experiences, we must listen and we must listen very carefully.

The end goal is simple. It is to ensure that every member of the defence team, every member of the Canadian Armed Forces is valued and respected. Defence culture and professional conduct must reflect the core values and ethical principles our military aspires to uphold as a national institution, which is what Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, recruits, public servants and Canadians deserve and expect of the organization.

It is clear that the measures we have taken already since forming government have not gone far enough and have not moved fast enough. This is why we announced last week that Madame Arbour will conduct an independent review into the Canadian Armed Forces, including the creation of an external reporting system that is independent from the chain of command and meets the needs of those impacted by sexual misconduct and violence. It is also why, in budget 2021, we committed over $236 million to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces, including expanding the reach of the sexual misconduct response centre and providing online and in-person peer-to-peer support. All options to create a safer future for women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces are going to be considered to change the culture of toxic masculinity that exists in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Last Thursday, the Minister of National Defence announced the creation of a new organization to lead us there. Among the many other initiatives I just talked about, the Department of National Defence appointed Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as DND's new chief of professional conduct and culture. Under her leadership, the professional conduct and culture organization will unify, integrate and coordinate all of the policies, programs and activities that address systemic misconduct and support culture change within the forces. The organization will include a new assistant deputy minister who will directly support Lieutenant-General Carignan. The team will bring together members from all ranks and classifications, reflecting the diversity that Canadians expect. Make no mistake. This is not a generic prepackaged solution to a long-standing problem. Before any future steps are taken, those working to bring about change will actively listen to the accounts of people affected, people at every rank, every level and across all regions of this country.

As so many members of the defence team have already shared experiences and recommendations, we do not have to wait before implementing a number of much-needed changes. Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team will take a number of steps to bring about change right away. To start, they will wrap up Operation Honour. Much has already been said about drawing this initiative to a close, but it bears repeating. Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team will review all of the research conducted under Operation Honour so its findings can inform renewed culture change efforts.

This new team will also develop mechanisms to implement the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations of Bill C-65. It will also support ongoing efforts to bring the remaining provisions of Bill C-77 into force. This includes introducing the declaration of victims rights into the National Defence Act.

The next order of business will be to form a team to establish a framework that will help achieve a number of longer-term goals. It will realign responsibilities, policies and programs that address elements of systemic misconduct across National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. It will also simplify and enhance misconduct reporting mechanisms, including for people outside of the chain of command. It will give greater agency to, and strengthen support mechanisms for, those who have experienced misconduct. It will enhance tracking mechanisms, from initial reports of the misconduct to case closures. It will also integrate additional data points, such as intersectionality, reprisals, member satisfaction and retention. Finally, it will lead institutional efforts to develop a professional conduct and culture framework that tackles all types of harmful behaviour, biases and systemic barriers.

So much work has already been done within the department to build healthy, safe and inclusive workplaces. So many organizations are focused on developing programs and policies to move us in the right direction, whether it is the gender-based analysis plus, the integrated conflict and complaint management program, the anti-racism secretariat, the Canadian Armed Forces diversity strategy, Canada's anti-racism strategy or Canada's national action plan on women, peace and security.

The professional conduct and culture organization is being established with the clear understanding that previous culture change efforts have fallen short of what was needed. With the standing up of this new organization, the defence team is taking a fundamentally different approach, an approach that will be more holistic and coherent in addressing the complex challenges faced by the Canadian Armed Forces.

In closing, I would like to reiterate our deepest concern for the well-being of every member of the Canadian defence team. The standing up of the professional conduct and culture organization is a testament to our genuine commitment to protect members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Our government has shown that we are dedicated and committed to creating a lasting culture change across the defence team. That is the goal, and we will do just that.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said it very well. We really need to make sure that we end the toxic, partisan finger-pointing, and all parties get together and focus on what we can do to provide the right supports to survivors. We are not going to get it right every time. In Operation Honour, we did not get it right but we tried certain things. We keep on trying things. We put in legislation to change the justice system, such as Bill C-77. We have put in a whole new institution, which is the SMRC.

We have to build on the things that were done right and then make the changes survivors are asking for. We really need to be listening to survivors and I think that is being lost in this debate today. This is not about the politicians, the men, and who said what or who did what. This is about the people, men and women, who need us right now. They need Parliament to be focused on solutions, on fixing the problem and on doing right by them.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address this opposition day motion by discussing our efforts to prevent and address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and the department of National Defence.

I want to talk about the efforts that were highlighted during last week's announcement about a new independent external comprehensive review and a new organization dedicated to creating the conditions for enduring cultural reform throughout the armed forces.

We recognize that our past efforts have failed. Serious allegations against senior military officers have cast a pall over the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence as a whole. We recognize that our efforts have not fully resolved the problems identified by survivors or delivered the results they deserved.

We have a responsibility to ensure that our people work in an environment where they are treated with dignity and respect. It is a responsibility that we take very seriously. With that in mind, I would like to take a moment to address recent accusations concerning the Minister of National Defence and the allegations against the former chief of defence staff, General Vance.

When the minister met with the then Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman on March 1, 2018, at the very end of the meeting, Mr. Walbourne raised a non-specific allegation against General Vance. Mr. Walbourne did not go into details. Out of respect for the integrity and independence of the investigative process, the minister directed the ombudsman to share the allegations with the appropriate authorities. The matter was shared with the Privy Council Office, which is directly responsible for Governor in Council appointments, including the chief of defence staff.

The fair and unbiased investigation into allegations of wrongdoing is fundamental to our system of justice. It is fundamental to our concept of democracy. Such investigations must never be or even appear to be tainted by political influence. The actions that the minister took were the same as the previous Conservative government. They are the same actions, in fact, that the leader of the opposition took when he received rumours of sexual misconduct regarding General Vance prior to his appointment as chief of the defence staff.

Over the past months, we have heard harrowing accounts from others who have faced sexual misconduct in the line of duty, pointing to serious problems with our institutional culture, and we highlighted the need for comprehensive and lasting change. I have personally heard from many survivors, many of those impacted, and I want to thank them for coming forward and sharing their accounts. It is making a difference. We have listened, and we are taking action.

As the minister announced last Thursday, former justice of the Supreme Court, Madame Louise Arbour, has agreed to lead a new, independent, external, comprehensive review of our institutional policies and culture. This review will build on previous efforts to date, including the Deschamps report.

Through this review, Madame Arbour will provide crucial, tangible recommendations on how we can better protect our people and set the conditions for a lasting culture change. Most notably, we will look to her for guidance and recommendations on how we can set up an independent external reporting system outside of the chain of command for defence team members that meets the needs of those who have experienced sexual misconduct. We will also look to her to help us to ensure that our military justice system can properly respond to incidents and put survivors at the centre of it.

We will strengthen our existing structures on both the military and civilian sides, including the sexual misconduct response centre, to provide greater confidence to those who need support, and to help us review our evaluation and promotion system in the Canadian Armed Forces with a focus on how our organization selects and trains its leaders.

This leadership piece is very important. In fact, this is critical. As we have seen from media reports, the previous Conservative government decided to appoint General Vance as chief of the defence staff, even though he was under active investigation into sexual misconduct by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the current leader of the opposition was personally aware of rumours of sexual misconduct.

Just as the Conservatives were about to appoint their hand-picked choice to lead the Canadian Armed Forces, the commanding officer leading the investigation into General Vance said he was under pressure to drop the investigation. Pressure from whom? Who was behind this pressure? Did the Conservative government push the investigation to be closed, to clear the way for General Vance? These are important questions that I hope my colleagues will address, but I digress.

I mentioned Madame Arbour earlier. Her work will provide crucial, tangible recommendations on how we can better protect our people and set the conditions for lasting culture change. She will carry out this work transparently and independently from the chain of command, with input from appropriate stakeholders inside and outside of the defence team. She will assess our progress in applying the recommendations of the Deschamps report and help us build on those efforts. Throughout the process, she will be able to provide any interim recommendations, which we will act upon as they come in.

In addition to the review by Madame Arbour, we have launched a new organization within the defence team, tasked with setting the conditions for cultural transformation across the institution. That is beginning right now. We know that there are problematic aspects of military culture that can foster sexual misconduct and other harmful behaviours. These are values, beliefs and behaviours that prioritize toughness and aggression over emotional intelligence and cooperation.

These parts of our culture are completely unacceptable. They make us less effective and reliable as an organization. They erode the confidence people have in our institution and, most importantly, they harm those who have chosen to wear the uniform and devoted their lives to keeping us safe.

Under the leadership of Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, serving as the chief of professional conduct and culture, this new organization will examine how we can address these toxic parts of our military culture, informed by best practices, as well as experts, advocates and those with lived experience, inside and outside of our military. This organization will unify, integrate and coordinate our existing efforts, including ensuring the interim steps Madame Arbour recommends are addressed immediately and fully. Ultimately, they will provide concrete steps that we can take to prevent sexual misconduct and other harmful behaviours from happening in the first place.

The work that this new organization has been tasked with, and Madame Arbour’s efforts, both take into account the fact that sexual misconduct does not happen in a bubble, nor is it the only harmful behaviour that can leave lasting trauma. To create lasting change, we have to look at the full spectrum of the problem.

We have to examine systemic challenges such as abuses of power, discrimination, biases and negative stereotypes, and address each of them appropriately. We have to shed ourselves of the outdated and toxic notions of what it means to be a warrior, an attitude that can foster these harmful behaviours and values. We have to transform the culture of our military from top to bottom, and we must have the right reporting and investigative structures in place to handle incidents when they occur.

We are deeply committed to building a culture of inclusion across the defence team. With these new initiatives, we are taking active steps to prevent sexual misconduct and other harmful behaviours by looking at our existing structures, and the values and behaviours of our institution.

We are ensuring that every member of our team is treated with dignity and respect at all times. At the same time, we also know that we need to do more to support people when they have been harmed. That is why, through budget 2021, our government is providing over $236 million in funding to expand our support systems to ensure the independence of sexual misconduct allegations and to improve our capacity to handle harassment and gender-based violence through the military justice system. As part of this, we are expanding the reach of our sexual misconduct response centres across the country. This is an important step to ensure that members and veterans who have been affected by military sexual trauma can access the resources and the supports they need.

We have heard from people affected by military sexual trauma and we know that they face different challenges than survivors of other forms of conflict-based trauma. That is why the work that our sexual misconduct response centres do is so important. They have been a key resource for those in our organization affected by sexual misconduct since 2015. They offer 24/7 confidential support and counselling services to anyone who reaches out and, crucially, their work is carried out independently from the military chain of command.

Dr. Denise Preston and her team help members navigate the various support services available to them, both inside and outside the department. They can help members access the right mechanisms to report incidents of sexual misconduct, including a military liaison team made up of a Military Police liaison officer, a special military adviser and a military liaison officer. This team is dedicated to the work of the SMRC and they are experts in their field. They can give members advice about how to make a complaint or about what is involved in an investigative process and they can facilitate reporting if the member chooses to do so.

The SMRC can also assign a dedicated counsellor to support members through the process, including advocating for them, accompanying them to appointments and assisting with workplace accommodations. However, this is just one piece of the work they do.

The SMRC is also working with affected members to develop new programs and create a national survivor-supported strategy and it provides crucial, expert guidance and recommendations that shape the policies and programs we have in place across the defence team.

To support its efforts, budget 2021 also provides funding to develop a new peer-to-peer support program. In the coming weeks and months, we will work with Veterans Affairs Canada, professionals, mental health professionals and those with lived experience to launch this program. It will include both online and in-person support informed by best practices and available to any Canadian Armed Forces member or veteran who has been harmed.

Finally, this funding also ensures that we will continue our efforts to implement the declaration of victims rights in our military justice system.

We have worked extensively with victims groups and we will soon launch an online questionnaire to solicit anonymous feedback from DND employees and Canadian Armed Forces members. Through these efforts, we will make the changes needed to modernize our military justice system in line with the commitments we put forth in Bill C-77. We are dedicated to building a military justice system that takes a victim-centric approach and truly gives victims and survivors a voice. We have already made some important progress implementing Bill C-77 and we will keep doing this critical work.

We want to ensure that we have the best support available when people have been harmed. Through the funding provided in budget 2021, we are doing just that. We know that gaps in our institutional policies led us to fail our fellow team members. We have not lived up to our responsibility to protect our people. We have seen that the values we proclaim to hold dear do not always match people’s lived experiences.

Every defence team member, every Canadian, deserves to work in an environment free from harassment and discrimination, an environment where they are treated with dignity and respect, an environment where they are valued for their skills. However, the past weeks and months have shown us we still have a lot of work to do to make this environment a reality.

For those who have been harmed, I am very truly sorry. We have listened; we are still listening. Our efforts must deal with the issues at the root of the problem. We cannot just treat sexual misconduct on a case-by-case basis. We have also learned that culture change on this scale cannot simply be ordered. It requires active effort from all of us and a strong understanding of the parts of our culture that have caused harm. Our efforts must be comprehensive. They must be lasting. They must address the systemic changes that keep us from moving forward.

I know that many people are skeptical of our efforts, and with good reason. Too much damage has been done. Too many people have been affected.

However, I promise that we will do whatever it takes to transform the culture within our Canadian Armed Forces and get to the root of sexual misconduct and other toxic behaviours.

I also want to make it clear that the measures the minister announced last week are just the first steps based on the conclusions of the independent external comprehensive review.

Under the leadership of the chief of professional conduct and culture, and following the recommendations of other experts dedicated to cultural transformation, we will continue to make progress.

We will do whatever it takes to restore confidence, and we will keep working to ensure a genuine culture of dignity and respect for all those serving in the forces.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

I want to start by talking about some of the things that are out there that are actually not accurate about what's going on here at the committee.

I know that there have been mentions by some of the opposition members of a shutdown of this committee. I think it should be clear to those who are watching that we had a motion, and the motion was simply to get recommendations in on time so that we could actually have a report. Those recommendations have already gone in for this particular study.

I would also note that there are ongoing military police investigations into the subjects of this study. This is not an investigation. We are not shutting down any investigation. That is the job of the military police. It is not the job of politicians to conduct investigations.

This particular study not only has gone well beyond the initially envisaged two to three days but has gone on almost three months at this point, Madam Chair. We have sat the regular hours of this committee. We've also sat 15 hours of extraordinary, extra meetings on this particular study. There has been a tremendous amount.... We've put forward witnesses who have given us very, very good recommendations, recommendations that I very much hope are going to have the possibility of being tabled in the House so that the government can take action on them.

I would also note that on Monday, we had an in camera meeting where we studied a draft report that has been sitting since pretty much right after Christmas. I think it is important that we get some of the important work of this committee done. We all submitted the names of witnesses at the beginning of this study, as is always done, and those witnesses have been heard from. I think that at this point to continue adding by motion, one by one, extra witnesses just to drag on this study is not doing anything for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would also point out that in addition to the draft report we were looking at on the CAF and COVID, we also have a draft report sitting on mental health. We heard witnesses who gave incredibly difficult and very compelling testimony about their experiences in mental health. It would not be doing them justice if we end up continuing to drag on this particular study well past the point where we have actually put in the recommendations for this study and not get the study out on mental health, and I know that all members have some very powerful recommendations on that.

Also, Madam Chair, we have our next planned study, which I would very much like to start right away. It is our study on military justice. We've heard from survivors. We have heard from academics and from members of the CAF. We have heard that the military justice system is very much the key to trying to reform the experiences that women and men have when they come forward. We even heard testimony in the status of women committee, which, by the way, also studied this and also heard from all of the witnesses that were put forward by all parties. Frankly, there was some incredibly powerful testimony in that status of women committee, and I hope that this committee will also be putting forward recommendations.

Even Major Kellie Brennan at the status of women committee said in her remarks that her “third truth is that the military justice system needs reform. It needs reform in how we conduct military investigations and how we often revictimize the women who have the courage to come forward. My focus would be on education, and making sure that the person who investigates can lay the charge, can bring that evidence to court and not just refer the charge, meaning that the people who are entrusted with an investigation are the people who can effect the change. We also have to know what that looks like to women. What is justice for women?”

Madam Chair, my feeling at this point is that we really need to get on and start with that vitally important military justice study so that we can get the kind of information, testimony and recommendations that we need to move forward.

I would also note, Madam Chair, that we have now heard in this study from all of the relevant players. We have now heard from the Clerk of the Privy Council, who said that the PCO took carriage of this matter and that everybody acted in good faith. We have heard from Janine Sherman, the secretary to the cabinet, who said that she tried very hard to get the kind of evidence she needed so that she could continue an investigation, but that evidence wasn't there.

I think what we need to do is this. Throughout all of this process, we now know pretty much what has happened here. In 2018, there was an email. We know this now through the media and through other sources, but we know that there was an email in 2018. That email had a sexually suggestive comment and was couched as a joke, but I think the members of our committee and those who are present today understand very well that a sexually suggestive comment that is couched as some kind of a joke is not funny. It is not something that you can just brush off. It is intended to cause harm. It is intended to diminish. It is intended to demean. When it's done in front of others, it is extremely harmful because it is about power and it is not funny. I do believe the members who are present in the committee today understand this very well.

I'm not diminishing the seriousness of that kind of allegation. However, what we know is that the woman who received that email did not want to pursue an investigation. There are members of this committee who have accused me of victim-blaming just because I stood up for the right of the survivor and the person coming forward who's impacted to have the right to give their consent. That is not victim-blaming; that is respect for consent.

This particular person did not give permission to the ombudsperson to give that email to the appropriate authorities who wanted to investigate. That is in the Privy Council Office. The highest public servant in the land was given carriage of this and concluded that there was not a threshold of evidence.

Again, I would like to quote some testimony that was heard in the status of women committee from Brigadier-General Simon Trudeau, who is the provost marshal of the Canadian Armed Forces. He said that when a complaint is referred to the CFNIS, first they have to determine whether it meets the threshold to trigger a police investigation. There has to be a threshold. Everybody knows that you can want to investigate and you can want to hold people to account, but if there is no threshold....

Let's look at what all of our testimony has shown here: that PCO, which is the authority, should never be a political office. What we've seen throughout is that all of the political staff and the political elected people have, all throughout this, made sure that it was not a political office that actually investigated this situation. That is vitally important, because politicians can make mistakes. We are not investigators.

One mistake I would point to is that one of the opposition members said in question period that somehow they should have gone to General Vance and asked him about this confidential complaint. The last thing you do when you have a victim who wants to remain confidential is go and tip off the person they're complaining about. That person could probably fairly easily figure out who it is, and that opens up the vulnerability for the person who wanted to remain confidential. It's the last thing you do. That's why politicians should not be the ones who conduct these investigations. We might be well intentioned, but we are not trained and we are not the appropriate place.

It went to the Privy Council Office, and at that point there was not a name of a person. They didn't have the name of the person who received the email. They did not have the nature of it. They did not have any evidence. Therefore, at that point, in the words of Mr. Wernick, there was an impasse. That's what we know. We know exactly what happened.

Mr. Wernick said, and I believe this, that everybody acted in good faith. The key issue here is why the person didn't feel safe to come forward. That has been the focus.

That has been what I have been working on, what the minister has been working on, what the government has been working on and what this committee and other committees have been working on. How do we create an environment where women, men, transgender and non-binary serving members, as well as members of the civilian staff of DND, feel they can safely come forward and feel, when they come forward, they will get a just outcome and not face the kind of impunity that we have seen or that many people have said they have experienced?

Our committee is at a crossroads right now. We have some very important work we could do.

By the way, with regard to Mr. Garrison's comment that we could start comparing comparative failures, we could do that. We could. We know that in 2018 there was a confidential complaint. We didn't know exactly what it was. However, we do know that in 2015, when the previous Conservative government was in power, before General Vance was sworn in and the change of command ceremony happened for him to become the chief of the defence staff and while he was being vetted, there was knowledge of different complaints. They had to do with Gagetown and with a relationship he had with a subordinate. We know there were rumours at that time and we know that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. O'Toole, knew of those rumours and that his chief of staff knew of those rumours. We know this from Mr. Novak's testimony.

They brought this information to the Privy Council Office, which was very similar to the process we followed in 2018. In the testimony we heard from Mr. Novak, he said there was an investigation and that if the investigation had shown there was any wrongdoing, they were prepared to cancel General Vance's appointment as chief of the defence staff. We just found out this week, from a news article—and I find this very disturbing because, remember, this is before he was appointed—that just days after the Conservatives appointed General Vance, the investigation was suddenly dropped. An access to information request came out this week saying that the commanding officer of the military police felt they were under pressure. We don't know who put them under pressure, but we do know that suddenly, on the day of the change of command ceremony for General Vance, there was.... He was under active investigation. It was a CFNIS investigation, a military police investigation. After the change of command ceremony, it took another four days before the investigation was suddenly ended.

I may be incorrect, but I believe that to end a military police investigation by CFNIS, the chief of the defence staff has to sign off on it. I may be incorrect on that, but he was then, at that point, the chief of the defence staff.

I think we could, if we wanted to, bring Mr. Novak back. He said that this was investigated before General Vance was appointed and that he wouldn't have been appointed if there had been any kind of bad outcome in the investigation. However, we know now that it was going on at the time that he was appointed.

There is another thing I find really difficult about this. I've been talking to survivors. Last weekend, on Saturday, I had a conversation with a survivor. I've had a lot of conversations and we've had a lot of round tables, so I've heard from many people over the course of this process. However, this particular conversation has stuck with me. It has shaken me. The person knows who they are, if they're listening to this testimony. One of the worst parts of what this individual told me was that when this person's attacker, the alleged rapist in this case, was under investigation, that person was promoted while the investigation was open, to get them out.

One of the first things that this individual said to me was that there needs to be a blanket policy that if somebody is under current investigation, they can't be promoted.

As we now see in the media—and we could spend a lot of time in this committee trying to get to the bottom of this—that is exactly what happened with the Harper government when Jonathan Vance was promoted while an open investigation was ongoing. The people who experienced this kind of misconduct deserve a lot better than that.

I'm hearing what survivors have said, and I'm hearing what Mr. Garrison has said as well about the fact that we all failed. All governments, for many years, have failed the women and men and transgender and non-binary and racialized and LGBTQ2 members of our Canadian Armed Forces. We have failed them, and the last thing I want to do is to have this committee descending into finger-pointing and politics.

I do believe that we have important recommendations to get out. We have two important reports. Mental health is very intricately related to this, and I do think we need to get that mental health report out. I also think that we need to get on to the study on military justice so that we can participate in the other studies that are ongoing.

Justice Fish is working right now on a review of the military justice system, and we have a number of others, including the announcement that we made yesterday about Madam Arbour. Some of her terms of reference include looking at the military justice system—and may I add, Madam Arbour is a personal hero of mine.

I was working over 20 years ago in the former Yugoslavia. I worked in Bosnia for six months. I worked in Kosovo for a year. I did a lot of work travelling back and forth to the region, and I met a lot of the survivors there. It is because of Madam Arbour's work—we all know her as a former Supreme Court Justice in Canada, but in fact, her work at The Hague in the criminal tribunal on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda was a seminal turning point—that rape was allowed to be defined under international law as a war crime. She is the person who made sure that there was no impunity for the atrocities that occurred in those regions of the world, and that the perpetrators were held to account. Now she is the one we have entrusted to define how we are going to move ahead and get this right.

I know there's been a lot of criticism that, “Well, it's just another review.” I know that Madame Deschamps' report was six years ago and we didn't do enough fast enough to implement that.

We have done many things. We put forward legislation, Bill C-77, which was also in yesterday's announcement. We are now going to be moving ahead on making sure that it will be possible for people to provide their input anonymously on how we can get those regulations right on the declaration of victims' rights, which we passed in the previous Parliament.

We have also established a whole new institution, the SMRCs, the sexual misconduct response centres, and have put that under the Department of Defence. It's not in the chain of command. It's under the department, and yes, there were probably well-intentioned individuals in the department and in ministry who thought that was enough, and we now know that it wasn't. We know now, as we've heard from all of the testimony, that it has to be outside the chain of command.

We assigned the external comprehensive review to Madam Arbour, who is going to be looking into an independent, external reporting system outside of the chain of command. She's going to review policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture. She's going to review systemic issues and culture change, the military justice system and the system of rewards and promotions. Again, this is something that is very important. We saw, when Mr. O'Toole was aware of some rumours on this, that when it went to the NIS, General Vance was promoted while that investigation was still open. This is one thing we need to look at. How do we promote and reward, making sure that people who display these behaviours and do this kind of thing do not get rewarded and promoted?

I would also like to note that Madame Deschamps herself yesterday made a statement. I'd like to read for you the statement she made about the appointment of Madam Arbour. She said: “I welcome the appointment of Madam Arbour. From what I read, her mandate appears to be broader than the one that I was given. This would not be a mere repetition of what I did.”

Yes, we know that all governments, all of us, for 40 years.... I had somebody phone me and tell me about something that had happened to her 40 years ago in the military. This has been decades-long....

I think we need to move on to our study on military justice. I think we need to focus on the mental health study that is already drafted and that we just need to come to a consensus on and table in the House. I think we need to focus on the survivors. I think that after three months, after all of the testimony we've heard, I.... We could continue down this road and we could call witness after witness. We have a list; of course we have one. We could call the person who said in 2015 that he felt he was under “pressure”. We could call all of these people, but you know what? We're rising above it, because it is time that we focus on the survivors. It is time that we move ahead with the good work of this committee. I believe that is exactly what we need to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I really appreciate Ms. Romanado's being here. She comes from a military family and could have a lot more input than I would have knowledge of. I really appreciate that. She said passionately that we should get on with doing the recommendations. Mr. Baker and I said that at the beginning. That's what I'm going to spend most of my comments on today.

As we know, there was a complaint. An investigation was done as far as any information was available. That was carried out. As several members have mentioned already, information came out this week that's changed the whole focus of the General Vance situation, if you want to follow that. The victims want us to get on with and do the report and make the changes, so that's what I'm going to mostly concentrate on.

There are hundreds of victims and hundreds of perpetrators. We've already spent more than enough time on Mr. Vance, on one of those hundreds, and that is being investigated in the proper channels anyway, and the investigation of the one complaint was completed at the time as far as it could be done. As the member said, the focus has changed. If we were going to pursue that, which I'm not suggesting at this time, the much more serious news that's come out is that Mr. Vance was appointed while he was still under investigation. That could lead to all sorts of witnesses regarding that situation, but, as I've said before, that's not my focus right now. I want to carry on like I did before, talking about things that will help the witnesses.

The minister has made some very major steps this week, and Mr. Baker touched on those. There's a lot more to be done. I will go into those at great depth, but not right now. I want to get back to the second part of what I was doing the last time when we were making the case that there's enough information available, both from victims and reports, to do a really good job of helping the victims now, who must be thinking of a pox on all our houses if we don't move forward and suggest to the minister.... He's already taking steps, but we could give him more authority to take more steps if we had our recommendations done.

Before I get on to that, what I want to do is what I did in the second half of the last meeting, and comment on what has been done so far. There were suggestions about trust and confidence at the top. I think that's important. I think the minister has done so much. With parliamentary timelines, you have to act quickly to get things done. I think, with the present minister, the number of things he has done gives that confidence and trust. If we're going to get something done, he's going to do as much as he can.

I'll just remind some of the people who may not be too familiar with this subject, including some of the great national media, who I really appreciate.... They do some excellent research. I haven't noticed as much on the steps to date and, obviously, we have to do more, which has always been the focus of my discussion— some of the steps.

The present minister, long before any of this came up, said he was ensuring that our support and approach was victim-centric. It meant that victims are to be supported throughout the process. It meant the establishment of a case management system to ensure that cases are investigated and resolved in a timely manner.

He also said it involves increased training that is both victim-centric and accessible to all CAF members no matter where they work. It builds on some of the important work already under way, including a review of the unfounded cases, which is important both inside and outside the military, and the passing of C-77 that includes a declaration of victim rights that puts the victims at the core of the military justice system. He made it clear long ago that we owe it to our women and men in uniform to get this right on the sexual misconduct.

I appreciate Mr. Garrison's comments on the wording. The government took the allegations seriously and the minister said that no one should feel unsafe at work. He also said there's a lot of work to do, as I think all committee members agree today. That's why he launched the path to dignity and respect, a strategy for long-term cultural change to eliminate sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. He made a very strong statement that the mission here is nothing less than cultural change and that we should not stop until our members are able to perform their duties in an environment free from harassment and discrimination.

On C-77, he said that that the government takes the allegations very seriously and that “No one should feel unsafe at work.” That's why Bill C-77 was passed. It's a declaration of victim rights that puts the victim at the core of the military justice system. The minister said that the government had also promised to consult victims as it drafted the regulations for the bill, and that's exactly what is being done.

So far, he has consulted federal partners, including the sexual misconduct response centre—the SMRC—and is developing an online survey to consult as many victims as possible. As you know, some of the feedback has shown—as I said at the beginning—there are hundreds of perpetrators and victims.

We owe it to our men and women to get it right. The minister has said time and time again before this started that inappropriate sexual behaviour of any kind is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated. For every person who willingly serves their country, despite the many dangers and sacrifices, the military service deserves a professional environment in which they are treated with respect and dignity.

The Canadian Forces continues to take definitive action to address and eliminate sexual misconduct, but obviously we need to do more work. We heard from the victims at great length. I think they said that we've gotten the information from them and the steps we can take. Frankly, that's what we should be discussing now. Some of them have expressed their appreciation for us getting some more of that on the record.

The last time I was speaking, I talked about the Deschamps report. There are two parts on sexual misconduct. First there was a section on sexual harassment, which I covered the last time I spoke. The second part is on sexual assault.

To continue on our position that we have enough information, there's a lot we could be working on right now that's very important to the victims. I'm going to continue with that information to make sure it's on the record and to make sure that victims know that we're thinking about them and about the things that have been found out so far and the actions that need to be taken forward.

The report says:

As a preliminary matter, the ERA note[s] that as part of its mandate, it has been requested to consider and make recommendations concerning the following:

“the adequacy of the definition of sexual misconduct as provided for in DAOD 5019-5...;

I discussed at length at a previous meeting how the directives have made some very good, very comprehensive changes, but I'm not sure why those aren't working. That's what we have to be discussing.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak to what Mr. Bezan just said. He spoke about doing the right thing by the members of the armed forces. I'd like to speak to that a little bit.

Every day, Canadian Armed Forces members across the globe risk their lives to support us and our allies, partners and friends to uphold values that we hold dear as Canadians: peace, freedom and respect for the dignity of all people.

Our government is aware that it has not lived up to its responsibility to protect members from misconduct. Over the past months, we have heard from Canadian Armed Forces members affected by sexual trauma and sexual misconduct. We have heard from them at this very committee. They have shared their heart-wrenching accounts, and we have carefully listened to them. Now they believe in us to take action as a committee.

Canadian Armed Forces members make enormous sacrifices to protect Canadians, and regardless of rank or gender, have an undeniable right to serve in safety. When allegations of misconduct are brought forward, proper processes have to be followed.

As the minister has always stated, he has always followed those processes when allegations were brought to his attention. This is something he will continue to do. In fact, when it comes to the General Vance allegations, the minister followed the same steps that the previous government took when they heard of such allegations in 2015.

Then we learned of troubling news a couple days ago. We learned from reporting by Global News that Prime Minister Harper appointed General Vance in July of 2015 even though he was still under active investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. Just days after the former government appointed him, the investigation was suddenly dropped. According to an ATIP response, the commanding officer said he was under "pressure". This is extremely concerning.

Investigations conducted by the CFNIS need to be free from any sort of political influence or pressure. This raises substantial questions as to who was behind the pressure, if the Conservative government pushed the investigation to be ended on the very day Vance was appointed, and if the investigation was done appropriately.

The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr. O'Toole, says he passed along sexual misconduct allegations about General Vance in July 2015, claiming those were looked into. I ask my fellow members how that is possible, if General Vance was appointed at that time and the investigation was suddenly dropped? Additionally, the order in council for the appointment was signed months earlier, on April 25, 2015. These are things that are well worth the time of this committee and that Mr. O'Toole himself should come clean on. I wonder if this is something my colleagues would like to address.

Regardless of the opposition's petty political games and actions, the government has shown that we are dedicated to creating lasting culture change across the defence team. In fact, throughout this process, including the work that we have been doing at this committee, the Department of National Defence has continuously heard from organizations and individuals that we must do more to support people when they've been harmed. The minister was clear that we are truly sorry to every person in the Department of National Defence who has been affected by sexual harassment and violence and felt that they weren't supported.

We also, through the testimonies that we have heard, know that the current reporting systems do not meet the survivors' needs, and too often they do not feel able to report misconduct out of a fear of reprisal or retribution. This has been mentioned time and time again by both experts and by survivors. Our government recognizes that we must transform the culture of the defence team to one of dignity and respect and that we need to put in place an external reporting system outside of the chain of command to begin rebuilding confidence. These changes have to be comprehensive. Most importantly, they have to be lasting. The changes must also address the systemic challenges at the root of the problem, which are abuses of power, discrimination, biases and harmful stereotypes.

That's why yesterday the Minister of National Defence announced that Madame Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice, has agreed to lead an independent external comprehensive review of our institutional policies and culture. Over the coming months, the minister expects Ms. Arbour to provide concrete recommendations on how the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence can set up an independent external reporting system for defence team members that meets the needs of those who have been impacted by sexual misconduct.

As mentioned during yesterday's announcement, this system needs to be focused on those who have been impacted by misconduct, be responsive to their needs and be outside the chain of command and the Department of National Defence. Unlike the opposition, which is busy playing political games, we are taking robust action, something survivors not only asked us to do but expect us to do.

Madam Arbour and her team will provide significant direction on how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces must evolve to support affected people and how we can ensure that every incident is handled appropriately. This is something that has been called for, for a while now, and we're making it happen.

Part of this work also includes looking at the current structures of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence and the sexual misconduct response centre to see how they can be strengthened so that they can provide greater confidence to those who need support.

Madam Arbour will also examine a performance evaluation and a promotion system in the Canadian Armed Forces, with a focus on how leaders are selected and trained. As the minister stated yesterday, this review will also look at the military justice system's policies, procedures and practices to see how we can make the system more responsive to the needs of those who have experienced misconduct, while holding perpetrators accountable. As Madam Arbour works, she'll be able to provide interim recommendations that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to acting upon.

Meanwhile, the department will continue to work with the defence team to create a new organization and a chief of professional conduct and culture. Under the leadership of Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, this team will be responsible for creating the conditions for cultural transformation by unifying, integrating and coordinating our government's ongoing efforts across the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Their goal is ensuring that the actions and behaviours of all defence members reflect the very best parts of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team's efforts will closely align with the work being carried out by the external review. They will be informed by best practices, as well as experts, advocates and those with lived experience inside and outside the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, and at all levels. This is something that will bring clarity to all our defence team members.

We have taken a step in the recognition of members and veterans who have military sexual trauma, and with the $236 million in funding that was in the last budget introduced, budget 2021, our government will work with Veterans Affairs Canada to develop a peer support network for Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans affected by sexual assault or sexual harassment during their service. This is something that we have heard survivors asking about, and we're delivering on it.

During yesterday's announcement, the minister stated that our government is funding peer-to-peer support online and in person, as well as expanding the reach of the sexual misconduct response centre across the country, as noted in budget 2021. This program will include both online and in-person group support, as well as an app that will connect members to confidential peer support 24-7 anywhere across the globe. It will be designed and facilitated by professionals, clinicians and people with lived experience, ensuring the very best support is available for all defence team members.

Throughout the past months we have been hard at work, and yesterday's announcement shows just that. We have spent countless hours at this committee on the study, and I truly hope that this committee too can contribute to making things better for all Canadian Armed Forces members. I'm looking forward to getting to the reporting stage to share this committee's recommendations and share the substantial work we've been doing.

Going back to the funding in budget 2021, it will also ensure that our government will continue our efforts to implement the Declaration of Victims Rights in our military justice system. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are currently consulting with victim groups and will soon launch an online questionnaire to solicit anonymous feedback so we can implement the regulations needed for Bill C-77.

Taken together, I think everyone can agree that these initiatives are critical to building a true culture of inclusion, one in which everyone is treated with dignity and with respect.

As the Minister of National Defence stated yesterday, these are just the first steps. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to a lasting change, one that sheds the toxic and outdated values, practices and policies that have harmed our brave women and men in uniform.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Okros, I'm very glad you talked about the kinds of conversations that are happening right now—the consultations, the advisory groups and the consultations with survivors and those impacted at the highest levels. I know that, from the beginning, Operation Honour was just a starting point. It's a constantly evolving series of things, including recently “The Path to Dignity and Respect”, on culture change.

We heard earlier today about Bill C-77, which implements a victim's declaration of rights. We also heard about a review of all of the unfounded sexual misconduct cases that have gone forward and a number of different things, not the least of which, of course, is the advisory panel that the minister has just put together to look at racism, discrimination, sexism and any other form of discrimination and bias.

Dr. Okros, how important is it that this is a constantly evolving way of finding solutions? I know we've heard that the minister is completely open to finding other solutions and other processes, and in fact to the recommendations from this committee, from the more than 30 witnesses and 25 hours we had in the study, and the defence committee. How important is it that this is a constantly evolving process?

[BGen Simon Trudeau]

On Bill C-77, as it's being implemented, I don't know the status of where it is in implementation, but what I can say is that we've proactively included in our policies, orders and SOPs aspects of the Victims Bill of Rights.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Yes. It was about how Bill C-77 is being implemented.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here as a witness and for answering our questions.

You mentioned Bill C-77 in some of your testimony. I know some are saying it hasn't come into force yet, but many elements are already in place. You referred to some of them, including of course, Bill C-77's primary objective, which is the declaration of victims rights.

I was wondering if you could tell us a little about how Bill C-77 is being implemented and rolled out, and what changes are being made accordingly.

[BGen Simon Trudeau]

Certainly my priority, from a police perspective, when a complaint is made is to offer victims support, to ensure the integrity of the investigation and then to ensure due process for all involved.

We have our own victim services program. As I indicated, we're staffing it with full-time civilian positions. We're going to work on standards and policies. We'll develop and get better at those, because we care about victim support and we know it's an important part of our process.

From a victim perspective, one of the roles of the victim services is to keep them informed of the investigation process and even court processes.

Also, when we look at our orders, we have proactively embedded in our orders the provisions of Bill C-77 and some of the elements of the Victims Bill of Rights. It's in our new orders for the victim services program. We have entered those obligations that come with Bill C-77 into our orders, from a proactive perspective. Those obligations are to keep victims informed of the process so that victims have a voice throughout the process and they understand each step of the process, from the time a complaint is lodged to the time of the court processes.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Let me make it very clear. From the day I became Minister of National Defence, my number one priority has always been to focus on our people and to make sure we have an inclusive environment regardless of the colour of someone's skin or someone's sexual orientation or gender. I joined in 1989, when women were being allowed into combat. I've seen some of the challenges they have faced directly. That's why, when we started the consultations for a defence policy, we made it very clear that we wanted to be focused on our people. That's exactly what we did. The changes we have made are part of that progress. We knew we couldn't get everything right. We knew at that time, and we discussed it many years back, that there were survivors who had not come forward. We said that we wanted them to come forward and that they would be looked after.

As Dr. Preston has stated, we want to make sure we empower them. That's why we passed Bill C-77, which the previous government let die on the order paper. That's why we put resources and made policy changes to make sure—

National Defence

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to learn that far too many military members who have experienced sexual assault and misconduct remain trapped in a culture where their voices go unheard. Bill C-77 protects in law the anonymity and security of victims and witnesses in these cases, but failure to implement this critical charter has allowed serious allegations to be ignored, investigations to be shut down and charges to be dropped.

Why has the defence minister, for two years, failed to ensure that the charter of victims in the armed forces is enforced?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all military members need to be able to report abuse of power and sexual misconduct, confident in the knowledge that they will not suffer further abuse or reprisal. The passing of Bill C-77 in 2019 ensured that the privacy and security of victims within the Canadian Armed Forces was protected in law. However, this key legislation has not been implemented or enforced. Those who come forward still suffer. Why has the defence minister failed to implement the charter of victims in the armed forces?

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

Absolutely. There's always a balance. The institution, even through best efforts, wants to support victims. However, at times, victims might not want that. They might not want their unit or folks they're working with to understand it until a public court appearance.

Part of what we're doing to make sure that it's known is following the spirit of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, even though it doesn't apply to defence, and in doing so, being ready to follow the same spirit for Bill C-77 when it comes into force.

My unit specifically over the last two years has been working towards civilianizing our victim service delivery program, bringing in civilians where we can assign them on a certain level of training to be able to deliver that forward.

On top of that, we've added an additional victim services program manager who will be hired in the coming months. That person will work with and seek some secondment training through the SMRC, and in Ontario, through VWAP, which is the provincial court system victim services program, so that we can really leverage the best of what's out there and move towards achieving greater standards of services.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are all talk and no action. A case in point is that in 2018, we passed Bill C-77, which would have brought a victims bill of rights to National Defence, and protected the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences.

Three years after the fact, the Liberals have not even brought that bill into force, and they did nothing to General Vance. For three years they knew there were sexual misconduct allegations against him and evidence of it. Again, the Liberals failed. They failed the women in the Canadian Armed Forces more than anyone else.

It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to get to the bottom of this and shed light on what actually happened to ensure it never happens again.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Lieutenant-General Eyre and Lieutenant-General Allen once again for joining us today.

Yes, Mr. Eyre, I was referring to Bill C-65. I know that you're looking at workplace harassment and Bill C-77, which amends the National Defence Act and makes related changes. I gather that work will be done once the bills have been implemented. If you want to add anything, you can do so.

When I was talking about an external oversight committee, I was referring to a recommendation in Marie Deschamps' report, which dates back to 2015 and which recommended the creation of an independent body to handle reports of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

According to a March 9, 2021, article in the Globe and Mail, the Government of Canada was looking at creating an independent body to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, racism and discrimination. The article talked about current cases of sexual misconduct that affected various communities, including indigenous and LGBTQ+ communities, along with racialized women.

What structure is currently in place to handle reports of sexual misconduct and what's the reporting relationship between this structure and the Canadian Armed Forces?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

As General Eyre identified, we have to take a look at those opportunities. We spoke about restorative engagement, which is going to be part of the Heyder and Beattie class action lawsuit, and what Bill C-77 will provide as part of that. However, we need to look also at the opportunity for people simply to speak outside the structured format of an administrative action or a disciplinary action, to share and have conversations and discuss how certain sets of circumstances either affect them directly or affect them as leaders within the organization. Then we can have a more robust conversation around the impacts of these types of activities, because that becomes the learning process. That becomes the discussion process in which we normalize conversations and differing perspectives on issues that take you down the avenue and down the road of cultural change.

[LGen Wayne D. Eyre]

Madam Chair, I think we're talking about Bill C-65 and Bill C-77. I can tell you right now that we're putting much effort into their implementation within the Canadian Armed Forces and DND in terms of victims' rights, workplace harassment and violence.... That all plays a part in the wider efforts to change our culture.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay.

You also spoke about Bill C-65 and Bill C-77 and the implementation of certain measures.

Can you reiterate what you feel is most important in this area?

[LGen Wayne D. Eyre]

We have to learn why previous approaches did not work, learn from that and incorporate those lessons into our plan going forward.

As we go forward, I see us moving forward on two streams. The first stream is that any external review that looks at our organization we have to embrace and fully support with the realization that we don't have all the answers. Then we have to look at and embrace any recommendations that come out of that, including, if necessary, an independent reporting chain to give all our members the confidence—or to restore the confidence—that their allegations will be properly looked into.

Second, and of more urgency, are the internal actions we need to take. I have talked about listening and learning. Ensuring that victim support is in place is an immediate priority. We have to respect due process for the ongoing investigations.

With regard to Op Honour in particular, I believe—and I have heard from many—that perhaps this operation has culminated and that we need to harvest what has worked from there, learn from what hasn't, and go forward with a deliberate change plan, a deliberate plan that includes not only members of the Canadian Armed Forces but also our public servant colleagues as well.

We need to align our internal organizations, because we have disparate pockets that are focused on this problem, and perhaps better alignment is required amongst the different organizations.

We have to continue to implement the provisions of Bill C-65 and then Bill C-77 and, along with that, the restorative engagement that comes with the final settlement.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, first of all, I want to thank you very much for the very topical question. This is something I have not only taken very seriously from day one but also had the experience inside the Canadian Armed Forces showing why that culture change is absolutely needed. This is why, from day one, when I came in, we've been looking at how we're going to create that type of culture change. Passing Bill C-77 was so important to victims because—

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, we have to continue to work to make sure we allow everybody in the Canadian Armed Forces to have a safe, inclusive environment to work in, so that they can reach their true potential. This is something we're not going to stop. This is something we were committed to in 2015. We're continually putting in the work, whether it's Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights, the changes we made in policy or the support we're providing for SMRC.

We also know we have a lot more work to do, and I look forward to the recommendations you provide, because it is all our responsibility to make sure the Canadian Armed Forces have that safe environment.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You said that you read the 2015 Deschamps report and that you tabled Bill C-77 to address the issue.

Also, in your opening remarks, you said that sexual misconduct must never be ignored. So you have never ignored information about any allegations. Is that right?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, this was one of my top priorities as a minister when I took office in 2015. In fact, from the early reporting, Madame Deschamps' report that came out in 2015 was extremely important to us for the work that we started: the work that the SMRC does, the passing of Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights, making policy—

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Being the last one up on our side, I just want to say that I am incredibly disappointed with the tone from the minister today, as well as his statement. I just want to say that there were a few things he said he'd like to talk about in Bill C-77, the victims of crime bill and the Victims Bill of Rights in that. That passed a couple of years ago and here we are. It has still not been brought into force. That's a failure on his behalf not to have made sure that happened.

I want the minister to produce some documents. One is the order in council approved by cabinet that gave the change in remuneration to General Vance, on May 2019. I'd also ask that he provide any written directive to the ombudsman that instructed him to go out and do an investigation following the March 1, 2018, meeting.

You know, Minister, you looked the other way for three years. You knew there were allegations against General Vance and you never once took action other than to pass it off to your chief of staff, who took it to the Privy Council. We know how you acted when there were allegations against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. You called an RCMP investigation and he was suspended.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for your quick action on the same day or the next day. Thank you also for your sensitivity in making sure that you don't get technically involved and a perpetrator can't get off on a technicality.

The big study, the big problem we're looking at here—and I think all the committee members agree—is that we want women in the military to be comfortable, be able to come forward, be treated fairly, have the appropriate sentence for the perpetrator and not have it affect their careers.

I want you to speak to your passion about this in a minute, but I know that you've already done a lot—perhaps more than in history—with Bill C-77, the creation of the SMRC, the path to dignity and respect strategy and the response and support coordination for CAF members. All that had been done before we even started our hearings over the year, but obviously, for everyone on the committee and for yourself—and you've stated this—it's not enough.

We need new answers. I think members from all parties have brought this up. The procedures need to be clarified, and most importantly—as all the experts have said—the culture needs to be changed.

I would like you to speak about your passion. I know the members of the committee from all parties have that passion. They can't imagine a woman having something terrible happen in her career and for her not to be comfortable to come forward under our present system, as we've seen in a lot of the documentation before this committee and in this committee.

Speak to your passion about getting this problem solved or moving it forward as much as we can. It is a passion that I know committee members share.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, thank you very much for that question.

This is something we have taken to heart from day one: making sure that everybody who joins the Canadian Armed Forces, especially women, can have an inclusive environment to serve, to reach their full potential and ultimately to give that potential to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Through our conversations we have been having about processing stuff, what we haven't been discussing much are the women who have actually come forward and the courage that has taken. More work needs to be done.

What we have done is change the policies in place to make sure that people will be held to account. The military police have a special unit now that's designed to investigate situations of sexual misconduct such as this. We've also passed the declaration of victims rights bill, Bill C-77, to make sure they have appropriate support.

Madam Chair, I think the most important thing coming out of this is that we need greater representation at all senior levels. Something I've been focused on from day one is creating a pipeline where more women can come to the senior levels. When I became Minister of National Defence, we had six female generals. Today we have 14. We need to grow that number still, because we know that once we have more women and increase our numbers, and more importantly, they're in senior, meaningful positions, culture change will happen because women will be at the table.

National Defence

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely obvious that more needs to be done and quicker. There is no question about that. Every woman and man who serves in our armed forces deserves to work in a safe environment and have resources and support if they have allegations or experience unwanted behaviours.

However, it is not true that, as the member says, we have not done anything. We passed Bill C-77, a declaration of victims rights that puts victims at the core of the military justice system and reviews unfounded cases. We created the sexual misconduct response centre, which provides confidential, 24/7 support services to CAF members. We implemented the path to dignity and respect, a strategy for long-term culture change. We also put in place the response and support coordination program for CAF members. However, there is more to do, and we will do it.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to testifying at committee, but one thing we can agree on is that we do need to do more to make sure that we create an inclusive environment for all in the Canadian Armed Forces, especially when it comes to sexual misconduct.

We have passed Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights. We have an independent justice review that is ongoing. We also have an independent panel looking at systemic racism and gender bias. We have a lot more work to do, and we are going to continue with that progress.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we want all survivors to have the confidence to come forward so they can be heard and protected and to make sure their allegations can be investigated.

When it comes to the actions of our government, we will take no lessons from the previous government. Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights, died on the Order Paper in the previous government, but we passed it. Plus, SMRC currently provides 24/7 support to anyone for these types of matters anywhere in the world.

We will continue this work. We know we have a lot more work to do, but we will not stop or rest until we have zero tolerance.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you very much.

A lot of action has been taken. Dr. Preston's team and many members of the defence team have worked very hard to break down those barriers.

In terms of the work that we need in terms of legislation, Bill C-77 was passed. Now our JAG is working very diligently with the tiger team to get the legislation and the processes in place to be able to put those support mechanisms in.

We have a lot more work to do here. As I stated, our mission here is to make sure that we can actually prevent these types of situations from happening and to make sure that we give confidence to the people that they can come forward.

We're going to be looking at the current systems we have in place and at what other barriers we need to break down.

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

Admiral, could I just stop you there? We had a hearing back in November 2018 where we were looking at this section under Bill C-77. Colonel Strickey said at that point that they were going to look at that issue of self-harm and other areas. That was two years ago. I would have hoped that you had time during the past 25 month to actually pull together that analysis.

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

While I'm talking to both of you, as judge advocate generals in the JAG office, one of your former colleagues, Lieutenant Colonel Jean-Guy Perron, testified when we were studying Bill C-77 back in November 2018. We were looking at whether paragraph 98(c) was a necessary under the National Defence Act, or whether there were other ways to deal with those who malinger. We heard from Professor Rotunda that they have found other avenues by which to do that in the United States

Under what other sections of the National Defence Act would we be able to charge those who use self-harm to avoid service, without paragraph 98(c)?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I wish these regulations could be done almost immediately, but we also committed to consulting with the victims so that the regulations are done appropriately. This is actually something we committed to and we need to make sure that we do that well.

But when it comes to Bill C-77, it's important to note that even though the law was just passed, we actually started taking those measures even before the law was passed. And now that the law has been passed, we will continue to improve upon everything we have passed so that the appropriate support and mechanisms are there even while we are looking at drafting the regulations.

We are working, I can assure you, as quickly as possible. I've spoken to the JAG many times about this, but it's probably the most critical piece to this and it has to be done.

We just can't make a regulation saying the regulations are complete. The regulations have to be written in a way that actually creates the impact, and that impact can only happen if we continually consult the victims themselves so we get this right.

When it comes to the timeline piece, I can't give you an exact answer on this, but one thing I can assure you is that we are going to get this right.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Minister, time is short here, and I would just ask one specific thing. We passed Bill C-77, a major part of which would put victims' rights as a primary focus in the Canadian military justice system.

That was proclaimed in June 2019. We still don't have the regulations in place to implement victims' rights in the military justice system.

Can you tell us when those regulations will be done, and “soon” is not a good enough answer. We've been waiting a year for these regulations, so what is the holdup?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the supplementary estimates (B) for the Department of National Defence and the Communications Security Establishment.

Our allies and partners, and Canadians, know that the defence team is always here for them, ready to answer the call at any given moment.

Our Canadian Armed Forces assisted with record snowfalls in Newfoundland as well as responded to wildfires all the way into Australia. They helped bring Canadians home safely from China and elsewhere, as they mobilized to establish a safe and comfortable quarantine space at CFB Trenton in the face of COVID-19.

That is just in the first two months of this year. As you know, it has been extremely busy for us.

These events all underscore the need for a strong and agile defence team. It is our job to make sure that the team has the support they need to be effective. That is why my number one priority has always been to look after the women and men of our defence team in the Canadian Armed Forces and also their families.

Two and a half years into Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, we are moving forward with our plan to support our people so that they can do the challenging jobs that we ask of them. Through these estimates, we are requesting approximately $796.9 million to continue implementing SSE. The majority of that funding relates directly to the care of our people.

We take our responsibility to take care of our members and their families very seriously. That is why we stood up the Canadian Armed Forces transition group to support ill and injured Canadian Armed Forces members and to ease transition for our members, our veterans and their families.

We also enhanced tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members deployed on international operations, to recognize them for their hard work and to ease some of the stress for them and their families.

Our reservists also form a very critical part of our defence team. They help with flood relief efforts and also in fighting fires. They do all of this often while maintaining a career outside the military. They too deserve our full support. That is why we made sure that reservists take home the same day's pay for the same day's work as their regular force colleagues.

We also recognize how challenging it can be for the families that serve alongside our members. It is one of the reasons that we are working through Seamless Canada with provinces and territories to make relocation easier. We are helping to give military spouses dedicated access to jobs with national employers in the private and public sectors through the Military Spousal Employment Network.

All the while, we are focused on changing the defence team culture to make sure that the organization is more welcoming, equitable and reflective of the Canadians that we serve. That is why we apply a gender-based analysis plus lens during the development of our programs and policies, to enhance our capabilities to make us more responsive to the needs of our workforce and the people who are also called upon to protect. It is why we are working hard to recruit more women into our forces.

Since 2015, we've doubled women's enrolment in the reserve force and increased enrolment by 72% in the regular force. Women now make up 15.9% of the Canadian Armed Forces membership.

In NATO, where the average of the active duty women across NATO nations is at 11%, Canadian women are also taking on very important leadership roles as well. There is more work to be done but we will not waver in our commitment to our success.

Part of that work also means recognizing that the Canadian Armed Forces has not always been a welcoming and safe environment for everyone. These estimates include $148.6 million for defence team members who were victims of sexual assault, harassment and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. We hope that this settlement will help bring the survivors closure and healing.

We continue to work towards a respectful work culture that is free from harassment and discrimination. The department is also working with our government partners to implement the final settlement agreement of the LGBT purge class action lawsuit. We have evolved our military justice system to better deal with harmful behaviours through Bill C-77, which received royal assent last summer. We will not stop until all of our members feel valued, cared for and supported.

Taking care of our people also means equipping them to do their jobs. SSE provides a road map and carves the funding out of our fiscal framework to allow us to do this.

We have already completed or started more than two-thirds of the projects that were outlined in our defence policy. These projects not only ensure that the defence team is ready to meet modern security demands, but they also have a significant impact on the Canadian economy. Taking the joint support ships, for example, to date under that project, we have awarded contracts that contribute close to $950 million to Canada's GDP. This maintains close to 740 jobs annually. We have selected the design of our new Canadian surface combatants, modernizing our current Halifax class frigates. We also launched the second of six new Arctic and offshore patrol ships for our navy.

Through these estimates, we are requesting $490.8 million to advance many more capital projects, such as upgrading capabilities on our helicopters, ships, planes and submarines; procuring new surveillance capabilities through satellite and space-based technologies; and modernizing equipment, facilities and our infrastructure.

Our government is committed to reducing our emissions to help reduce the impact of climate change. It is why all of our defence infrastructure projects are done with an eye towards greening defence. We have built LEED silver standard or equivalent armouries in Halifax, Saint-Hubert and Sainte-Foy. Investments like these have helped to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 32% from 2005 levels.

Our investments also produce economic benefits for communities across Canada. These are investments like the Nanisivik naval facility, and upgrades to runways in Inuvik and Goose Bay, which increase access into these communities and bring economic opportunity.

Just as we partnered with Treaty 1 first nations to transfer the Kapyong lands, we are working closely with indigenous partners as we look to enhance our ability to operate in the north. We have collaborated with more than 25 indigenous partners on the new whole-of-government Arctic and northern policy framework. We are also advancing research and development, investing in innovation to help solve key challenges that will benefit all, including our northern and indigenous communities.

The Canadian Rangers are a direct link to these communities. As Canada's eyes and ears in the north, they are instrumental in both Arctic sovereignty and search and rescue operations. The Canadian Armed Forces will continue to work with the Canadian Rangers to defend Canada's rights and sovereignty, to keep the north safe and well defended and to ensure that the Arctic remains a region of peace and stability.

In this ever-evolving security environment, we need every advantage to help us identify, prepare for and defend against threats to our country. That is why our government is committed to building on the successes of the Communications Security Establishment and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. Through these estimates, we are requesting a funding transfer so that CSE will keep pace with advancement in quantum technology and exercise new authorities to conduct cyber operations to support national defence.

Even with all the right people, all the right resources and all the right technology, Canada cannot tackle modern defence challenges alone. We cannot be on an island of stability in an ocean of turmoil. Eventually, the negative ripples will reach our shores. That is why we are committed to being a reliable partner and a good global citizen.

We continue to collaborate with our closest partner, the United States, on continental defence, and we are modernizing NORAD.

We are pleased that the Iraqi government has also reaffirmed its support for NATO's continued presence and its training mission, which Canadian Major-General Jennie Carignan proudly leads.

Through these estimates, we are requesting $132.5 million to continue supporting NATO assurance and deterrence measures.

Canada leads a battle group in Latvia and supports NATO air policing in Romania. We also contribute to the standing NATO maritime group and NATO's high-readiness force. We have rejoined the NATO airborne early warning and control force, known as AWACS.

We also play a very important role with the United Nations. Last summer, we completed the air task force deployment to the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali. We continue to maintain staff officers in support of that mission. We also began providing cross-mission tactical airlift support to two other UN missions as part of Operation Presence in Uganda.

The funding we are requesting today will also allow us to keep our people at the centre of everything we do. Every day they represent Canada with professionalism, leadership and excellence. For that we owe them the right tools to get the job done as well as our unwavering support and our most profound gratitude.

Madam Chair, the defence team is here to answer the questions that you and the committee members may have. We are ready to answer these questions, but if we happen to not have all the facts at hand, we will make sure that we provide them to you at the earliest convenience.

Thank you.

National Defence Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an act to amend the National Defence Act (maiming or injuring self or another).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that I had sincerely hoped to see adopted in the last Parliament.

The bill aims to remove a significant barrier to members of the Canadian Forces receiving the mental health assistance they need. It would do so by repealing subsection (c) of section 98 of the National Defence Act. This is the archaic section of the National Defence Act that makes self-harm a disciplinary offence in the military code of conduct.

The problem of death by suicide of Canadian Forces members is not going away. We are still losing more than one serving member per month to death by suicide, 17 in 2019 alone. We have lost 212 regular members over the last 15 years and of course the number is much higher when we include reservists and veterans.

Again, I am arguing that removing this section would send a strong message that self-harm is a mental health issue and not something to be addressed by discipline.

This is a matter I first brought forward in the last Parliament as an amendment to Bill C-77, the military justice bill. When that amendment was ruled out of order, I offered this private member's bill as an alternative way of taking the actions necessary to send a positive message to Canadian Forces members struggling with mental health issues. Despite support for my bill by opposition parties in the last Parliament, the Liberals blocked it from moving forward.

Today, I am introducing the bill in a minority Parliament, once again hoping MPs will now listen to the voices of the hundreds of families that have lost loved ones to death by suicide, that MPs will join together in this Parliament to tackle the ongoing challenge of death by suicide in the Canadian Forces and that MPs begin by passing this legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, first of all, the mental health and well-being of our women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces is an absolute priority for us, along with putting in the right investments when it comes to research on PTSD, mental health support and the joint suicide prevention strategy that we launched with Veterans Affairs.

On the exact topic the member is talking about, Bill C-77 was not the place to make those changes. As I have said, we will continue to work with all colleagues in the House and the Senate to address those direct concerns, because there is a much wider discussion to be had on this. I can assure the member that it is something we are taking very seriously.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Chair, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about an issue of great importance to all MPs and to all Canadians: the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. I would like to thank the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces for the excellent work they do every day for this country.

Today I would like to talk about how our government is taking care of Canadian Armed Forces members and their families. As I said before, the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families are a priority for our government. Our people in uniform are the forces' most valuable asset. Our troops keep Canada safe and contribute to multilateral efforts to make the world safer, more prosperous and more sustainable.

We can have the most modern equipment in the world, work in the greenest facilities, offer the best possible services and have the best possible policies, but none of that matters as much as taking good care of our women and men in uniform. That is why our government and the Minister of National Defence built Canada's defence policy around our people, our troops, our civilian employees and our military families.

Our “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defence policy guarantees that the Canadian Armed Forces will employ more people, that they will be properly prepared to tackle the task at hand and to encourage them to stay on once they have enlisted. In addition, giving our military personnel our full support guarantees that they will have the tools needed to answer the call of duty anytime and anywhere to the best of their ability, so that they may continue to properly defend our country and preserve our values, helping keep Canadians safe. That is why our government promptly introduced initiatives to improve the care provided to our military personnel and their families.

I would like to outline some of those initiatives. Let me begin with those intended for military family members, since they are the strength behind the uniform. Military family members provide ongoing support and step up when their loved ones have to be elsewhere. We recognize the immense contribution they make and we are extremely grateful to them for that. That is why the defence team updated the military family services program. We are providing an additional $6 million a year to military family resource centres.

Through the seamless Canada initiative, we are working with the provinces and territories to facilitate relocation. We also put in place virtual mental health consultation services for the families and deployed support staff abroad to support soldiers anywhere, at any time. We also launched the military spousal employment network to give military spouses access to jobs offered by employers across the country in the public or private sectors.

Another aspect is transition support. Sometimes, as we know, military families continue to deal with some unique challenges when they leave the forces. That is why our commitment to their well-being goes beyond their years of active service. A year ago, we officially established the Canadian Armed Forces transition group. This group, as promised in our policy, provides support to sick and injured members of the Canadian Forces and facilitates the transition for all members, veterans and their families. This is an important first step in improving the care provided to our troops when they transition to a new post or life outside the forces.

A third very important aspect is compensation and benefits. To ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces feel supported throughout their career, the government is also ensuring that they receive adequate compensation. We have launched several initiatives to ensure that our military members are well compensated. For example, we have enhanced tax breaks for members who participate in international missions. We have also altered the compensation structure for the reserves so that reservists are paid the same as members of the regular forces for equal work.

A very important issue that we are also tackling is changing the culture of the defence team. We are doing nothing less than changing the way in which we support our troops and their families. Just as important is the fact that we are focusing on changing the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why we are striving to implement the recommendations concerning the equal treatment of the sexes in all of our programs and policies.

According to “Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada's Defence Policy”, diversity and inclusion must be prioritized for effective operations and decision-making in the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that diverse and inclusive armed forces are more agile and more effective. This is why we are committed to increasing the proportion of women in the Canadian Armed Forces to 25% by 2026.

We know that the Canadian Armed Forces have not always been welcoming to members from all backgrounds, in particular to LGBTQ2 and visible minority members. We are committed to correcting these mistakes.

In November 2017, the Prime Minister formally apologized to Canadians who had endured discrimination based on their sexual orientation. It never should have happened, and we are committed to eradicating intolerance within the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are currently working with other government partners to follow through on the results of the class action lawsuit over the LGBT purge. Up to $110 million will be set aside to compensate all those who were subjected to these discriminatory practices, including federal public servants, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of the RCMP.

We have also implemented reconciliation and commemoration measures. There is the Canada pride citation, which will be awarded to eligible applicants in recognition of their service to Canada and the hardships they endured.

We have learned from the past. Our government will continue to make every effort to ensure that the workplace is welcoming and free from harassment and discrimination. Hateful behaviour, in any form, will not be tolerated. Furthermore, tougher sentences for crimes motivated by prejudice or hate were proposed in our Bill C-77, which received Royal Assent this summer.

This was a defining moment for the military justice system, giving more rights to victims of service offences.

We will also continue to move forward with Operation Honour, the mission of which is to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Two weeks ago, the Federal Court approved a $900-million settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit over sexual misconduct in the CAF and DND. We hope this settlement will serve as recognition of the harm done to victims of sexual misconduct and enable them to turn the page and begin the healing process.

We are proud of the care we provide to members of our Canadian Armed Forces. From the time they first don the uniform to the day they hang it up for good and beyond, we will be there for them and their families. They deserve to be taken care of, and they deserve to be respected. Our government will make sure it does both.

Once again, I commend the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for the work they do for us every day.

In my speech I talked about the services we are offering to families. The minister and I had an opportunity to visit the base in Gagetown when I was the parliamentary secretary. I would like to ask him a question about family resource centres and the transition that some men and women have to make when moving from one base to another.

How can those programs make the journey or transition within the Canadian Armed Forces a little easier for members?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Congratulations once again, Mr. Chair. I think this is our fourth time in committee of the whole together.

It has been an absolute privilege and an honour to be reappointed as the Minister of National Defence to serve our women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. As I stated to many members, I welcome input from all members of Parliament in the House when it comes to serving our Canadian Armed Forces members.

I am eager to continue to implement Canada's defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged.

Strong, Secure, Engaged is a rigorously costed and funded transparent vision for the next 20 years of our Canadian Armed Forces. We are increasing our spending by 70% to ensure that our women and men in uniform have what they need to do the important job that we ask of them.

Our work is not just about defence. It is about positioning Canada for success in an uncertain world. Canadians know that we cannot be an island of stability in an ocean of turmoil. Eventually those negative ripples of conflict will reach our shores. It is about promoting the values and interests that are core to Canada's prosperity and security. It is about standing with our partners and allies as we put Canada's expertise to work on a global scale.

Today, through our supplementary estimates, I am requesting $463.6 million for national defence so the Canadian Armed Forces can continue their work. I make this request confident in the benefits and flexibility of the defence funding model. We only ask for funds when we need them. We make adjustments as requirements evolve. Savings are reallocated and earmarked funding is protected until we are ready to spend it. We do not leave money on the table. These supplementary funds will allow us to continue implementing Canada's defence policy, directly supporting our people and their families, expanding our capabilities and equipping our defence team to address the threats of the modern security environment.

First, we must invest in our people and their families. A resilient, inclusive and diverse defence team is critical to Canada's security and we are proud of our progress to support our people.

Just this summer, Bill C-77 received royal assent, marking a historic evolution of the military justice system and enshrining rights for victims into that system. We are working to right past wrongs as well.

The Canada pride citations are a tangible way to recognize the contributions of former LGBTQ2 members whose service careers were cut short due to discriminatory policies.

Two weeks ago, the Federal Court approved the final settlement agreement of the Canadian Armed Forces DND sexual misconduct class action lawsuit. We hope this settlement will bring closure, healing and acknowledgement to our members who were harmed by sexual misconduct in the workplace.

These are just a few of our efforts to ensure a safe, welcoming and inclusive workplace.

We also recognize the critical jobs our reservists play, which is why we restructured reserve pay to better align with the regular force, ensuring the same pay for the same day's work.

Last year, we reintroduced the veteran's service card and set up the Canadian Armed Forces transition group to better support armed forces members and their families alongside their journey.

We will be building on these initiatives. We are requesting just over $179 million in voting and statutory appropriations to fund recruitment, retention and other initiatives to support our people and their families, including competitive salaries and benefits, training and expanded transition resources. Investing in our people is not only the right thing to do, but it is necessary to grow our defence team to the size it needs to be to face the challenges of tomorrow, something we promised in SSE.

Taking care of people also means equipping them to do their jobs. This summer I was pleased to announce $250 million to upgrade reserve infrastructures across Canada over the next five years.

So far in 2019-20, we have invested over $440 million in major construction and maintenance and repair projects. All infrastructure projects are done with an eye toward greening defence.

While some parties continue to ignore the science on climate change and offer no plan to tackle this global challenge, our government is taking action against climate change. Our innovate energy performance contracts at wings and bases across the country are helping us to meet our climate objectives, while producing economic benefits for communities and creating significant long-term cost savings for Canadians.

Our efforts to minimize our carbon footprint have put us on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030. These estimates also include $27.7 million for our ongoing project to replace the jetties at CFB Esquimalt so that our navy's infrastructure will be ready to accommodate existing and future ships.

As climate change contributes to a more accessible Arctic, we are also investing in the north, and that is why we are helping upgrade the Inuvik airport runway and why we have built the Nanisivik refuelling facility. These investments do more than help us defend our sovereignty and contribute to continental defence. These investments build relationships with our indigenous peoples who live in the north. They help us create jobs and economic opportunities and maintain access for all Canadians who live and work in those communities.

Our new Arctic and offshore patrol ships and projects like over-the-horizon radar technology will enhance our operating and surveillance capabilities in that vast and challenging environment. These estimates include $8.3 million for remotely piloted aircraft systems to further enable long-range intelligence and surveillance in Canada and on deployments. We are requesting $26.4 million to ensure that our CF-18s remain operational and interoperable with our allies until our new fighter fleet is ready. We are requesting $3.2 million to advance the Canadian surface combatant project, along with $177 million to support and upgrade the armoured combat support vehicle fleet.

The latter highlights the flexibility of the defence policy's funding model, which would allow us to begin this project five years sooner than anticipated. This would save us money that would have been spent maintaining an aging fleet. The project would benefit Canadians, supporting over 10,000 well-paying middle-class jobs across Canada.

Even with all the right people and all the right resources, Canada cannot tackle modern defence challenges alone. Global instability is heightened by the effects of climate change and scarcity. Rapid advances in technology bring both opportunity and risk. We face threats to democracy and challenges to the rules-based international order. In this environment, we must be innovative and collaborative, working across departments, across disciplines and across borders. That is why we are committed to being a reliable partner and a responsible global citizen.

These estimates include roughly $42 million as Canada's contribution to support the NATO common services, like military equipment and infrastructure. Our current contributions to NATO are significant. Commodore Kurtz is currently leading the Standing NATO Maritime Group Two. Major-General Jennie Carignan is leading the training mission in Iraq. Our contributions to NATO will be leading a battle group in Latvia and supporting our air policing in Romania. We are rejoining the NATO AWACS program that the previous government pulled out of.

This summer, we completed our United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali and began providing tactical airlift support to other United Nations missions as part of Operation Presence in Uganda. We continue to advance the Vancouver principles and the women, peace and security agenda. As part of the Elsie initiative, Canadian Armed Forces has partnered with Ghana Armed Forces to find innovative solutions to overcome barriers to women's participation in peace operations.

To grow representation of women in peacekeeping, it means increasing the number of women who serve in our armed forces. That is why we will focus on growing the representation of women in the Canadian military to at least 25% of the total force by 2026.

I have barely scratched the surface of all the great work and collaboration happening across the security defence community as part of our SSE implementation. There is much more work to be done. The security challenges we face today are diverse, complex and far-reaching. They pose serious threats to our collective security and prosperity, so it is imperative that we invest in the right equipment, capabilities and initiatives to enable our women and men in uniform to do the difficult jobs that we ask of them. The additional $463.6 million is necessary to deliver on our commitment to support our people so they can continue to protect Canadians and advance peace and security at home and abroad.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Chair, thank you very much. I'm going to be fairly brief but I'll be making four main points.

The first is really a point that is in the context of the current environment that we're in. We're in an election year. It's symptomatic of the fact that we are in an election year that we have seen an increase in partisan attacks from the official opposition and that's the case because they have no substance on policy. Andrew Scheer's party offers Canadians no leadership on important issues like climate change, growing our economy or social justice. I'm going to be fairly precise here. His caucus is instructed to consistently vote against important investments in Canadian families, innovation and entrepreneurship, our seniors and Canadian workers.

Secondly, and this is disturbing because it is a pattern, Andrew Scheer's party deeply mistrusts our public institutions. Those are the very institutions that create solutions, solve problems and serve the public interest.

Let me highlight some of the symptoms of that. These are aimed not only at Canadian judicial officials or institutions but also at the Canadian Forces, even Parliament itself. Also symptomatic, as my colleague Mr. Gerretsen pointed out, is the inability to distinguish the bureaucracy, PCO, from the political level. First of these and foremost is Stephen Harper's very infamous and public attack on the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin. She is the first woman to have held this post and she's the highest legal officer, or was at the time, of our country. Today, Andrew Scheer's caucus flatly refuses to accept that the judicial process in the Mark Norman case was by all accounts fully independent.

A more surprising symptom came from last night's session of the committee of the whole, where Leona Alleslev, who is the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and a veteran of the Canadian Forces, insinuated that Canada's armed forces could somehow, and this is her language, go “rogue” if they weren't subjected to strong ministerial control. This is a bizarre statement and it reflects the very same level of mistrust by Andrew Scheer's party in our public institutions and sadly reflects the centralized secretive ways that were carried over from the former Harper regime.

The women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces are known here and around the world for their professionalism, their commitment and their excellence. I wonder how they feel today after being told that there is a risk that they will go rogue.

Conservative mistrust of Parliament also runs deep. In contrast to today's meeting, when Stephen Harper's defence committee held a Standing Order 106(4) session, it was held in camera and secret. Stephen Harper also hid an unprecedented number of cabinet decisions from public view, with Parliament and the Canadian public kept unaware of the existence of two dozen orders in council.

However, the consequences of this endemic mistrust of public institutions tend to fall back on Andrew Scheer's party and that's certainly true in this case. Let me get to the point of why that is the case in my third point.

The Conservatives really have no evidence of political interference. In fact, it is the opposite. There is clear positive evidence that there was no interference. Murray Brewster, CBC News, on May 13, wrote that Vice-Admiral Norman was directed by Stephen Harper's cabinet to talk to Davie, the shipyard, about the leasing deal. The vast majority of the 12 alleged cabinet leaks that are in question took place under the former Conservative government. The Conservative members across and former ministers of that government know this. As was pointed out earlier, they've known this for some time, for a number of years, and decided not to take action until now.

John Ibbitson wrote last week that there is no evidence that Liberals interfered with Mark Norman's prosecution. In other words, there is no evidence that the government in any way pushed the office of the director of public prosecutions to lay the charge. That is fundamental. It is still misunderstood by the Conservative caucus or deliberately misconstrued.

My final point is that to launch their partisan attacks, Andrew Scheer's party is quite willing to misuse Parliamentary resources including this committee's session today. Let me take a few moments to go through some of the work, Mr. Chair, that you have led and that this committee has done over the course of the last three years.

Back in September 2016, we studied Canada and the defence of North America, NORAD and aerial readiness. In April 2017, we studied the protection of our miliary personnel. We studied the Canada-U.S. relationship and perspectives on defence, security and trade. We studied, in June of 2017, the readiness of Canada's naval forces.

We went on to look at the extremely important issue of suicide mortality in the Canadian Armed Forces, in February 2017. We studied Canada's support to Ukraine in crisis and in armed conflict, in December 2017. Last year, the committee took a look at Canada and NATO. In December, we looked at Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. And then going into this year, Mr. Chair, we just completed an important report on Canada's task force in Mali, our support to MINUSMA, the UN integrated stabilization mission in Mali.

These are the things, Mr. Chair, that matter to Canadians.

I agree with my colleague opposite, Mr. Garrison, that Tuesday's apology in the House to Vice-Admiral Norman was important. I'm calling on colleagues opposite to acknowledge there simply is no evidence by any account, other than their own construction, of any political interference for this committee to examine. We should therefore return to the business before the committee that actually serves the interests of Canadians. That includes our current study of diversity and inclusion in Canada's Armed Forces.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Department of National Defence—Main Estimates, 2019-20

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, I will begin with some brief remarks, but I want to spend the majority of my time on questions to the minister.

We all know that we ask the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces to do difficult and dangerous work on our behalf each and every day, at home and abroad. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to make sure that they receive the training, equipment and support they need, both while they are serving and as veterans. Therefore, tonight, whether we are talking about actual dollars of spending, procurement or deployment, we have to make sure that we keep the serving members and their families central to what we are talking about here tonight.

The Canadian Armed Forces faces many challenges, as we all know, with recruitment and retention. Meeting those challenges is essential to make sure that the Canadian Armed Forces reflects the faces of our nation. Certainly the Canadian Armed Forces and DND have much work to do when it comes to dealing with some key issues, such as sexual assault within the military and mental health issues. This is both a matter of justice and a matter of how we are investing in those who serve their country, and it is a necessity if we are ever to meet those diversity goals.

As members will know, one of my concerns has been how the Canadian Armed Forces has been dealing with mental health issues. I acknowledge that there has been some progress made. However, I still have a large concern about death by suicide within the Canadian Armed Forces. We are still losing one serving member a month to death by suicide. That is over 160 members since 2005. It is a tragedy for all those families, and it is a tragedy for our country. That number does not even include reservists, because, unfortunately, we do not even keep good statistics on death by suicide of reservists, and of course, it does not count veterans who may be suffering from PTSD.

While there has been progress in acknowledging that not all injuries within the military are visible, we still have much more to do. We had one very big opportunity to do something in this area earlier this year. When we were talking about Bill C-77, the military justice reform bill, I proposed an amendment to remove self-harm as a disciplinary offence in the Canadian military code of conduct.

We held hearings and we heard from witnesses, such as Sheila Fynes, who lost a son to death by suicide while he was serving. We heard from experts on mental health. We heard from senior members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We had indications from a majority of committee members that they would support my amendment. I want to thank the Conservatives for their early support in trying to remove this barrier to treatment of mental health issues that is both symbolic and practical.

However, 30 minutes before we were to vote in committee on my amendment to remove self-harm as a disciplinary offence, the minister sent an email to every member of the committee asking us not to do this. The Liberals then voted against my amendment, saying it was out of order in a military justice reform bill, which is passing strange, since this is a bill that was already amending the code of conduct in several other places.

I have a very direct question for the minister. Why did the minister ask the committee not to remove this barrier to the treatment of mental health issues and to this very severe problem we have with death by suicide in the military? Why did the minister ask committee members not to remove paragraph 98(c) of the military code of conduct?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Chair, I see that nothing changes from question period to a committee of the whole, but that is okay. I will continue.

I am pleased to be here alongside the members of our defence team to update everyone on the important work that the Department of National Defence is doing for our women and men in uniform.

Throughout the evening, members will hear about how we are taking care of our people, how we are getting them the equipment they need and how we are supporting a rules-based international order as committed and engaged partners in the world.

Through our yearly departmental funding, we are able to deliver on the commitments we made in our defence policy, strong, secure and engaged, which we launched two years ago. “Strong, Secure, Engaged“ is a rigorously costed and funded transparent vision for the next 20 years of our defence policy.

After the Conservatives spent a decade cutting defence spending, we are increasing it by 70% to ensure that our women and men in uniform have what they need to do the important job we ask of them.

This policy guides how we support our nearly 67,500 regular force members, 29,000 reserve force members and 24,000 civilians. Our Canadian Armed Forces members operate across Canada and around the world. They stand ready to be deployed internationally in the name of Canada's safety and security, and they are always ready to assist Canadians here at home when disaster strikes in their communities, as we have seen this spring. More than 2,500 women and men in uniform answered the call to help those in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick hold back the flood waters and protect their homes. I would ask members to please join me in thanking each and every one of our members, our regular force members and our reserve force members, who help to keep our communities safe.

Our Canadian Armed Forces members contribute so much to our country, and they deserve policies and initiatives that support them through all stages of their careers. Initiatives like seamless Canada, the military spousal employment initiative and tax relief for our members who are deployed on named international operations, will all help to ease the stress on our military families.

Our full-time summer employment for reservists will allow them to gain unique and relevant work experience while learning valuable life and leadership skills that will help them find jobs. ln 2018, 7,200 army reservists from the country participated, and we hope to see that number grow every single year.

Bill C-77 is modernizing the military justice system by expanding the rights of victims to ensure that all voices are heard. I am proud to say that it is being studied at committee in the other chamber. Our sexual assault review program and Operation Honour are two of many efforts to address and eliminate sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are building a military that looks like Canada and making sure that all members feel safe and welcome as they defend our rights and freedoms at home and around the world. We have launched the Elsie initiative, which aims to increase the number of women in United Nations peacekeeping operations. We have made recruiting more women into our Canadian Armed Forces a priority, because we want a military that represents Canada. By 2026, we are aiming for 25% of our members to be women. That is not an end goal; it is just a guidepost for us to go to.

We are making progress. ln fact, right now, as part of our air task force in Mali, women make up 14% of Canada's deployed personnel. We will continue these efforts until our Canadian Armed Forces fully reflect Canada's diversity.

Our government is investing in the innovation and procurement that will better equip our women and men in uniform.

Unlike the previous government, which muzzled scientists and cut crucial research funding, we are supporting our people by investing $1.6 billion in innovation through our innovation for defence excellence and security program, or IDEaS, and also the mobilizing insights in defence and security program, which we call MINDS.

Both were created to tap into Canada's best and brightest minds, from individuals and small businesses to those at our world-class colleges and universities. They are helping to support defence innovation, and I am excited to see what comes from them next.

We have also made important progress on many of our capital projects, including our Arctic and offshore patrol ships. The first of our six ships, HMCS Harry DeWolf, is scheduled for delivery this summer. Just last month, I was in Halifax to mark the construction of our fourth ship, HMCS William Hall.

This winter, we announced the official winning design bidder for the biggest defence procurement project in Canadian history, the purchase of 15 Canadian surface combatants. Our future fighter capability project was also launched. The request for proposals will be issued in the coming months.

When we formed government, we recognized that years of underinvestment by the previous Conservative government meant that our air force could not generate enough aircraft to answer our NATO and NORAD obligations at the same time. We laid out a plan to deal with the shortfall, which included securing interim fighter aircraft to supplement our existing fleet of CF-18s, because we have missions to fly. The first two jets arrived in Cold Lake earlier this year, and they will be proudly flying in the Canadian colours soon.

As we work on each of these projects, we are following through on our commitment to greening defence. Regrettably, we are feeling the impacts of climate change, with an unprecedented number of floods and fires both here in Canada and around the world. While the Conservatives continue to ignore the science on climate change and offer no plan to tackle this global challenge, our government is taking action. That is why we have invested more than $165 million in green infrastructure projects since 2017. This investment will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% over the next decade. With each of these initiatives and projects, we are building a modern military that will be flexible enough to address current and future threats.

We are also stepping up on the world stage and equipping our Canadian Armed Forces with what they need to uphold our international commitments and be a valuable partner to our allies. In collaboration with our international partners, we are leading on efforts to prevent the use and recruitment of child soldiers. We launched the Vancouver principles at the United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in 2017, and 84 member states have signed on since.

Right now, there are 250 women and men in uniform deployed in Mali as part of the United Nations' stabilization effort, providing life-saving aeromedical evacuations of injured soldiers and civilians, and critical air transport. Up to 780 of our members are involved in Operation Neon, Canada's contribution to a multinational surveillance initiative to counter North Korea's evasion of maritime sanctions. There are 540 Canadian Armed Forces members in Latvia on Operation Reassurance, where Canada leads a multinational battle group as part of NATO's deterrence and defence measures across central and eastern Europe. Two hundred of our Canadian Armed Forces members are helping to demonstrate our unwavering support to Ukraine through Operation Unifier, and upwards of 850 members are stationed in the Middle East on Operation Impact. They include Major-General Dany Fortin, who is commanding the NATO training mission in Iraq. The funds we are requesting in these main estimates would enable us to carry on this vital work and continue to build on our successes.

Beyond this funding, we are requesting $733 million for the Communications Security Establishment, to keep our institutions and Canadian citizens safe.

The $21.9 billion requested in these estimates is a $1.5-billion increase, or 7.4% over the amount we requested last year. It also includes new measures announced in budget 2019, including $18.9 million to help our Canadian Armed Forces members transition out of the military and into post-service life, and $2 million for National Defence to support our government's effort to counter economics-based national security threats. This funding will allow us to continue to pursue ambitious capital projects to provide our members with the best equipment available, and to make sure our infrastructure serves both their needs and the ongoing efforts to operate in an environmentally conscious way.

Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments with the same transparency and care we have demonstrated over the last four years. We take that responsibility seriously, as we take seriously our responsibility to support our people as they defend this country.

Before I finish, I would like to thank the women and men of our Canadian Armed Forces. They ensure we are strong at home, secure in North America and engaged in the world.

[Marie-Claude Gagnon]

On the first question, no, we don't provide that but we do have some people with a legal background who do, and links to people who can provide it if people are willing to pay for it. Absolutely, you should get a legal counsel. The U.S. went that way. When the bill, which is the equivalent of Bill C-77, came to them, they said that the liaison was not enough and they actually had to give full-blown counselling because of the way the process was done. There are so many policies that are old and so on. They need additional help to just reach the same level as what civilians get as a service.

I would say also that the fact that we have a duty to report makes it that even more important because if you force somebody to go to court, what happens if she gets sued afterwards? It happened in my group a couple of times already that afterwards they were the ones who were being sued. Who pays for that? Who foots the bill even if they were forced to be the ones disclosing?

Let's say you're a supervisor and you say that your employee, your subordinate, assaulted you. If there's an acknowledgement that there was a sexual act but the consent part was uncertain, then in the military you could be charged afterwards for having an adversarial relationship—and it doesn't stop at that. We have another person who got charged for underage drinking after she reported the incident. The incident got sent to the civilian...but she got charged in the military under the disciplinary act for underage drinking.

If we're forcing people to disclose, I think that they need equal protection because they quickly can become the accused.

National Suicide Prevention Action Plan

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, want to express my deep gratitude for the tone in this room. This is a very powerful and very sad discussion to have.

It is a privilege for me to speak to Motion No. 174, which talks about suicide prevention.

We are talking about something that is often very hard for people to talk about, so I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the loved ones living with the reality of suicide, especially in the context of the speech before mine.

The actuality of life when someone we love dies by suicide is simply unimaginable. I want to acknowledge that some communities in our country face higher rates of suicide, including indigenous, LGBTQ2 and military and veterans communities, just to name a few.

ln February of this year, a very young man in my family was successful in his suicide attempt. lt has been devastating for our community of just over 300 people, our family, and most of all, those who loved him the very most, his parents, sister, uncles, aunts, cousins and grandparents.

Suicide shakes the very foundation of the people it impacts. The questioning of how and why is overwhelming. lt is something that most people are unsure how to address. I have heard stories of the loved ones of those who have died by suicide being completely isolated, because people do not know how to speak to that issue, speak to that pain, and therefore, too often, they avoid them. What do we say to people who have lost someone they loved by their own hand?

I have watched this struggle in my loved one's father. The words seem to be blocked at his lips. We know that words have power, and saying them aloud makes the reality that much more real. How does one carry this pain? How does one help? Who does one call? This is why we need a national suicide action plan to help Canadians, a comprehensive plan that would prevent suicide and provide support when suicide happens.

Each month, on average, the Canadian Armed Forces loses one serving member to death by suicide. As a member who represents a military base in my riding, I think it is important that the members of the House hear this. lt is an epidemic that continues, despite some positive steps taken to address mental health issues in the forces.

When Bill C-77 passed through the House late last year, I was disappointed that it did not remove subsection 98(c) from the National Defence Act. This subsection makes self-harm a disciplinary offence under the military code of conduct. It concerns me deeply that members of our military could be seriously considering suicide but feel unable to disclose it or ask for help because they could be disciplined. What a way to come forward and tell this horrific truth about oneself. When people are experiencing a state that leads them to thoughts of self-harm, there must be a safe way for them to come forward.

My friend, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, proposed an amendment to remove subsection 98(c) from the National Defence Act in committee. Unfortunately, it was defeated, and the amendment was defeated on so-called procedural grounds. It has been reintroduced in the House in Bill C-426. Based on the feeling in the House, I really hope that this bill receives unanimous consent at all stages when it comes to this place.

When we speak to this issue within the context of Motion No. 174, we see the need for it to be addressed. We do not want any Canadians in this country to feel that they cannot come forward to get the help they so desperately need. The Canadian Armed Forces deserve to have our support. The mere existence of subsection 98(c) continues to be a barrier for Canadian Forces members seeking the mental health assistance they need, and the House has only one more opportunity to fix this. I would love it to be in this Parliament.

Today we are debating Motion No. 174, which was tabled in this place by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I want to thank him for his tireless work and advocacy on this issue and for his dedication in bringing this forward. I am relieved to hear that the government will be supporting it.

I also thank the member because this motion speaks to the isolation I mentioned earlier. When people are successful in their suicide, or when their attempt is unsuccessful, everyone is impacted, and it is often the isolation that is the hardest part to carry. People are unsure of what to say, terrified to touch the pain of that choice, regardless of the result.

This outlines exactly why it is so important to have a national suicide prevention action plan. This issue of suicide must be addressed directly and holistically. The more isolation and silence there is around suicide, the more people will hide their thoughts and not ask for the help they need.

lt is imperative that Canada not leave any community behind. We must have a framework, because there are many small and isolated communities, like the ones I represent, that have limited access to services. How do we reach out in a safe way? We all know that when small communities face successful suicides, it can often become an epidemic.

The young man that I spoke of earlier, my relative, is the second in less than a year and a half in our small community of just under 300 people. The impact on that community has been profound, and the fear that another child is going to follow those steps has been something we all watch.

When I think about the Facebook posts that we have seen from some of our youth who are actively questioning the validity of being here, I am reminded again of how important it is as a country that we remember that those children, those people, are so important and that we must address their isolation. We can only do that by having a framework that goes across this country, so that we can work collaboratively.

No one wants to live through this. I think of my brother, who has a serious mental health issue. I think of how strong he has been in his life to face the multiple challenges and how hard it can be when he is put in situations where people do not understand that invisible mental health issue that he lives with every single day. It worries me when people do not understand that and treat him in ways that are profoundly disrespectful.

All of us know what it is to love someone and often feel as though we are fighting for their very existence. I am really happy that we are here to talk about this, to talk about having a system in place to address that.

Recently, we have been doing a study at the Veterans Affairs committee. We are looking at the impact on veterans from the use of mefloquine, which is a medication used to prevent or treat malaria. Sadly, mefloquine has been identified as a medication that can poison the brain. There are many veterans across this country who do not know that they may have the impacts of mefloquine poisoning and that their symptoms may relate directly to that. Some veterans have died by suicide, and there are questions as to whether it was due in part to the undiagnosed impacts of the use of mefloquine. This also must be addressed. That is why this is so important.

I want to acknowledge that I have not touched on every vulnerable community across this country that faces a higher suicide rate. Those stories need to be heard, and I hope to see all members in the House support this motion so that this work can be done. I am very glad to hear that so many here will support it, but we need to make sure that everyone does.

Currently, Canada does have a federal framework for suicide prevention, but this framework does not provide funding, goals, timelines and activities that would reduce suicide and does not assign responsibility to jurisdictions. We know that if responsibility is not given, if the jurisdiction is not given, if goals and resources are not given, the work simply does not get done.

I have to say how honoured I am to be in this place when we are discussing one of the most difficult conversations. We are all facing the challenges, being brave to make noise where often there is silence. I encourage all of us and all Canadians to remember to reach out to those people, even when it is hard and uncomfortable. Sometimes we need to stand with people where they are uncomfortable. We have to admit that we are also uncomfortable, but we have to let them know that we are with them and that we support them.

I think this bill will take those steps and I am really thankful that we are going to support it and see change happen in this country.

Mental Health

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, each month, on average, the Canadian Armed Forces continue to lose one serving member to death by suicide. This is an epidemic that continues, despite some positive steps toward addressing mental health issues in the forces.

The House had a historic opportunity to address this issue directly earlier this year when we passed Bill C-77, the military justice reform bill. In committee, I proposed an amendment to remove paragraph 98(c) from the National Defence Act, the section which makes self-harm a disciplinary offence under the military code of conduct. Unfortunately, the Liberals defeated my amendment on procedural grounds.

I have reintroduced my proposal to remove paragraph 98(c) as Bill C-426. Soon I will be asking for unanimous consent for passing the bill at all stages in order to make self-harm in the Canadian Forces a health issue instead of a disciplinary matter.

The mere existence of paragraph 98(c) continues to be a barrier for Canadian Forces members seeking the mental health assistance they need and the House has only one more opportunity to fix this. I hope when the time comes, the bill will have the support of all members.

National Defence Act

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-77 and the important changes to the National Defence Act that our government is proposing.

Bill C-77 proposes changes to the act that we feel modernize it and are long overdue. At the heart of these changes are our people and those in service to Canada.

This is the most important piece, as I see it. I come from a family of people who have had long-term service in the Canadian military. I am extremely proud not just of them and the work they have done but of all those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

My sister is now a veteran of the military and continues to work with the Department of National Defence. I also have three other family members in service for this country. I have come to understand the tremendous sacrifices they and their families have made for our country each and every day.

We owe all the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces a lot. We owe them our deep gratitude for their service to our country.

We also owe them fairness, openness and transparency within that service. This includes a military justice system that ensures that victims receive the support they need and deserve, a system that promotes a culture of leadership, respect and honour.

Canadian Armed Forces members are held to a higher standard of conduct, as we all know. Whether they are stationed in Canada or deployed around the world, we ask a lot of them each and every day. We have a responsibility to ensure that the rules that guide their conduct are transparent, equitable and fair.

Much of what is within Bill C-77 is an extension of the work our government is already doing to ensure a more victim-centred approach to justice; to build on Bill C-65, our government's legislation against workplace harassment; to strengthen truth and reconciliation with indigenous people; and to change military culture, through Operation Honour, in order to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces provides a respectful workplace of choice for every Canadian.

I would like to take a moment to expand on the importance of Operation Honour. As many members in the room know, Operation Honour aims to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have zero tolerance for sexual misconduct of any kind in our Canadian Armed Forces and in any entity within the country.

Through Operation Honour, we have introduced a new victim response centre that provides better training for the Canadian Armed Forces personnel and an easier reporting system.

I would also like to acknowledge the important work of the Sexual Misconduct Resource Centre, which recently released its annual report. We thank the centre for continuing to support Canadian Armed Forces members affected by sexual misconduct.

I am also pleased to note that the SMRC is looking at providing caseworkers to victims of inappropriate sexual behaviour to ensure they have continuous support from when they first report an incident to when their case concludes.

The work of the Sexual Misconduct Resource Centre has been exceptional. I know that victims are being well supported as a result of its efforts.

Its origins come from former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps, who recommended it in her 2015 report. As a government, we acted to put in place a sexual misconduct response centre to provide support to those affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour.

We have extended the hours so that staff at the centre are there to listen and provide support to members of the Canadian Armed Forces calling in 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter where they are in the world. Last October's annual report of the centre demonstrates the important work that they have done and continue to do to enhance victim support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would now like to turn to the legislation at hand and to highlight how Bill C-77 will give victims a voice and change our National Defence Act in four important ways.

First, like the civilian criminal justice system, it will enshrine important rights for victims. Second, it will seek harsher penalties for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate toward gender identity or expression. Third, it will ensure that the specific circumstances of indigenous offenders are taken into account in the sentencing process. Fourth, it will reform the manner in which the chain of command administers summary trials.

Bill C-77 proposes the inclusion of a declaration of victims rights in the National Defence Act. The declaration mirrors the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which strengthens and guides how we support victims in the civilian criminal justice system.

Specifically, the bill would legislate four new victim rights within the military justice system. They are the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to restitution.

In order to ensure that victims would be able to exercise these rights, they would be entitled to the support of a victim liaison officer, should they require it. These liaison officers will be able to explain how service offences are charged, dealt with and tried under the code of service discipline. They will help victims access information to which they are entitled, and they will remain available to assist the victim throughout their interaction with the military justice system. This would ensure that victims understand each stage of the process and how they can engage meaningfully throughout the process. The support that the victim liaison officer would offer will be comprehensive. It will be fair and it will always be offered in the spirit of preserving victims' dignity.

Bill C-77 also specifically addresses issues of gender-based prejudice and hatred in military service offences and infractions. The bill proposes harsher sentences and sanctions for service offences and infractions that are motivated by bias, prejudice or hate toward gender expression or identity.

Our men and women in uniform, and those who work and live alongside them, must feel welcomed and respected at all times. The Canadian Armed Forces has zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind. This amendment will better align the military justice system with that principle.

On that note, through programs such as the positive space initiative, the defence team has been working hard to help create inclusive work environments for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. I commend them for their work on this initiative, which provides training to ambassadors in support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited community members who work with us every day.

The next change that I would like to focus on is how we propose to update the military justice system to better reflect the realities of historic injustices inflicted upon indigenous peoples.

In the civilian criminal justice system, the Criminal Code mandates that judges must carefully consider circumstances during sentencing. Specifically, for all offenders they must consider all available sanctions. This principle is to be applied with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

This particular bill is one that I am proud to support. As a member who represents a region with a military base and every day sees those who serve in uniform, I really believe that this legislation is helping to modernize and bring more transparency to the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the indigenous committee. We have worked on together on numerous studies over the last three and a half years. She needs to be commended for her service to the indigenous community.

Our government is committed to strengthening the rights of victims in the military justice system. In addition to ensuring respect for victims rights, Bill C-77 includes a provision to incorporate aboriginal sentencing into the military justice system and more severely sanction military misconduct and misconduct related to prejudices against members of the LGBTQ2 community.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join colleagues here today for the third reading debate of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I must say that it is my profound honour to represent the city of Halifax in this place. The riding of Halifax includes the home of Canada's east coast navy and the Maritime Atlantic Command, or MARLANT. It includes elements of the 5th Canadian Division, the great Mighty Maroon Machine. It includes elements of the 12 Wing Shearwater air force base and, of course, all of their families. All these servicemen and women call Halifax home. Over these years, I have developed many lasting friendships as I meet them on base or on ship and as they meet me in their member of Parliament's office.

I am so pleased that this bill is before us. With it, our government is going to be strengthening victims' rights within the military justice system. With Bill C-77, we would also enshrine a declaration of victims' rights in the code of service discipline within the National Defence Act. We would also ensure victims' rights are respected and, notably, that we are providing victims the right to a victims liaison officer, who will help victims navigate the often confusing justice system. The bill would also enhance the speed and fairness of the summary trial system to address minor breaches of military discipline.

I am very proud to be in this House today to contribute to our government's efforts to have the military justice system continuously evolve to comply with Canadian laws and values, and we will ensure it remains responsive to both accused and victims. Reforms are building on Canada's military justice system in the long, proud history that it has of helping to maintain a high level of discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is in that spirit that our government has committed to reviewing, modernizing and improving our civilian and military systems of justice.

I am happy to reiterate what many of my colleagues around the House have said today: While some of the changes we are proposing to the National Defence Act are minor and some are considerably more significant, at their core each strives to make sure that the military justice system remains relevant and legitimate.

The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed on multiple occasions that the military needs a military justice system. Our military justice system contributes to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces, but what is more, the military justice system is needed to deal with cases of breaches to military discipline that have no equivalent and no raison d'être in Canada's civilian criminal justice system.

I will now offer a broad overview of the changes that we are proposing through Bill C-77.

To start, the amendments will clearly enshrine victims' rights in the military justice system and make sure adequate support is put in place to support them by adopting a more victim-centred approach in the military justice system. To do that, Bill C-77 proposes to add a declaration of victims rights within the code of service discipline. This declaration will ensure that the victims of service offences are informed, protected and heard throughout the military justice process.

The declaration provides victims of service offences with four new rights.

The first is the right to information, so that victims understand the process that they are a part of, how the case is proceeding, which services and programs are available to them and how to file a complaint if they believe their rights under the declaration have been denied or infringed.

The nature of the military justice system is unique, and understanding it can be difficult and even sometimes intimidating. For those reasons, this legislation includes the appointment of the victims liaison officer to help guide victims through the process and inform them of how the system works. Under the victims' right to information, they would also have access to information about the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who has harmed them.

The second core right in the legislation is that of protection, so that victims' privacy and security are considered at all stages of the military justice system. Moreover, where it is appropriate, it will ensure that their identity is protected. It also ensures that reasonable and necessary measures are taken to protect victims from intimidation or retaliation.

The third right is for participation, so that victims can express their views about the decisions to be made by military justice authorities and have those views considered. This right also includes the right to present a victim impact statement at a court martial so that the harm they have suffered can be fully appreciated at sentencing. In addition, it will be possible to submit military and community impact statements to the court martial. These will convey the full extent of the harm caused to the Canadian Armed Forces or the community as a result of the offence.

The fourth right is to restitution, so that the court martial may consider making a restitution order for all offences when financial losses and damages could be reasonably determined.

The next notable change introduced by this legislation relates to how indigenous offenders are sentenced. This is also a change that stems from the evolution of Canada's civilian criminal justice system and our desire to ensure that the military justice system reflects our times while remaining faithful to its mandate.

In the case of the military justice system, the changes introduced by Bill C-77 will make the system faster and simpler. The summary hearing will be introduced and will address minor breaches of military discipline in a non-penal and non-criminal manner. This new system will be more agile, timely and responsive. More serious matters will be directed to courts martial, and there will no longer be a summary trial.

The summary hearing will only deal with a new category of minor breach of military discipline termed a service infraction. All service offences that are more major in nature will be dealt with at a court martial. There will be no criminal consequences for service infractions, and military commanders who conduct summary hearings will be limited to non-penal sanctions to address them.

This approach has the added benefit of improving the chain of command's ability to address minor breaches of military discipline fairly and more rapidly. We expect that this will enhance the responsiveness and efficiency of military discipline, thereby contributing to the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

In 2017, our government launched Canada's defence policy, “strong, secure, engaged”. It is a policy that charts a course for the defence of Canada for the next 20 years. It puts our people first and at the heart of what we do. It spells out clearly how the government will support the Canadian Armed Forces as an organization and support its women and men in uniform as our most important asset. On the whole, that policy is a commitment to take concrete steps to give service members what they need to continue excelling in their work, as they always have.

The military justice system is central to how the Canadian Armed Forces accomplishes what it does every single day. It sets up the framework for service members to maintain an outstanding level of discipline and a high level of morale so that they can successfully accomplish the difficult tasks we ask of them. Knowing that they are protected by a military justice system that keeps pace with Canadian values and concepts of justice builds great unit cohesion among our forces as well.

It is a pleasure to see this legislation progress to second reading, as we continue to make every effort to deliver for the women and men of our armed forces and for all Canadians.

The drive to be fair, to be just, and to restore that which has been harmed is a drive that dates back to the very foundations of our country and our armed forces. Today we are taking steps in the pursuit of justice, steps to take care of victims while we seek to ensure justice is served, steps to ensure that indigenous peoples in the military justice system receive the same considerations when sentenced as those in the civilian justice system and steps to uphold justice within our military so that they can continue defending this country.

I thank every member in this House who will be supporting this very important bill and working with us toward that very worthy goal for the servicemen and women in Halifax, across Canada and indeed around the world. It is just the right thing to do.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this bill.

In talking about military justice reform and justice reform, I want to thank the former attorney general. The difference between a justice system and the potential for injustice, integrity versus undue pressure, and of course, rule of law versus political manipulation is certainly an issue that many of us were seized with last night as we heard the testimony. Hopefully there will be an opportunity for everyone to get to the bottom of that, because Canadians are extremely concerned about that type of action.

I want to talk specifically about the military, keeping in mind that for those in the military, there are certain rules and responsibilities they have to deal with. Mistakes made can well result in death, whether it is operational or in training. These are very important issues and why there has to be a system of rules and laws that make sure that everyone follows the same set of rules. That is critical.

Some of the discussion here today has included the mental health aspect, PTSD and making sure that there is help along those lines. That is extremely important. I come from an area where I know many military members and their families in the community. I listen and find out what their stories are. It is not the things veterans tell me; it is the things those engaged in the field now have to say. It is very important that we keep that in mind and respect it, because that is what is involved with the different laws we are talking about today.

The intention of the bill is to make changes to Canada's military justice system, and it does it in a number of ways. As was mentioned by one of the members opposite, it would enshrine victims rights in the National Defence Act, which is certainly important. It would also put a statute of limitations of six months on summary trial cases and clarify what cases would be handled by summary trial.

Victims rights would include enhanced access to information through the appointment of a victims liaison officer; enhanced protection through new safety, security and privacy provisions; enhanced participation through impact statements at sentencing and enhanced restitution. A court martial would require considering making a restitution order for the losses someone might have endured. Those issues are certainly critical.

In the discussions, a number of amendments were introduced, some of which were accepted and some of which were not. I know from many committees that this is a normal situation. The first was civilian criminal records for uniquely military offences. The issue was that if a soldier were found guilty and sentenced, it would result in a criminal record in the civilian world. The committee looked at five uniquely military offences that would be considered minor offences: insubordinate behaviour, quarrels and disturbances, absence without leave, drunkenness and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The committee tried to fit those activities into what the general public would have. Consequential amendments were made to ensure that a soldier convicted one of those minor offences would not be given a civilian criminal record, no matter what the severity of the sentence would be if served in the military. The legislative counsel flagged that and said that it was outside the scope of Bill C-77. Nevertheless, it is perhaps something that could be addressed later.

The other issue was burden of proof. When we considered what we had in BillC-77, the burden of proof was shifted from beyond a reasonable doubt to a “balance of probabilities”. The burden of proof does not provide the same level of protection for service members undergoing a summary hearing. As a result, there is a concern. The change to “balance of probabilities” from beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly something everyone should be aware of.

One of the other amendments was on recording of proceedings and reasons for findings. This is just making sure that the information would be available for the accused and for others associated with the trial.

Appeals was another issue. Certain punishments resulting from the summary hearings could be penal in nature. However, there was no avenue to an appeal this to a higher or different authority. The amendment would allow an appeal to a judge at the Court Martial Appeal Court in the case of sentencing arising from a summary hearing that was penal in nature.

The issue of rank was a concern because of the way the military is set up. In some cases, a non-commissioned member could be one rank below an officer and making decisions. It was important that this language be dealt with.

Those are some of the key things that were involved in the discussion. It made me feel good that under those circumstances, there was certainly ample time taken to deal with those items that are unique to the system.

As has been mentioned many times, Bill C-77 is similar to the legislation we presented a few years ago. It is important that we continue to look at and flag some of the important things that were done by our Conservative government and recognize the system that is in place right now and the problems we see in this country. Perhaps it will not be too long before we will be able to have a Conservative government back and doing something that will be good for everyone.

The purpose of Bill C-77 is to align the military justice system with the Criminal Code of Canada. Enshrining a victims bill of rights in the National Defence Act, putting a statute of limitations on summary hearing cases and clarifying what cases should be handled by a summary hearing are significant points.

The legislation before us today would enact in the Code of Service Discipline a declaration of victims rights. It would give victims the right to information, protection, participation and restitution. These rights mirror those in our previous government's Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which received royal assent on April 23, 2015.

When we consider the severe offences that have diverse victims, including military members and their families and members of the broader civilian community, to many of these individuals the military justice system can be unfamiliar and potentially intimidating. Therefore, to help ensure that victims were properly informed and positioned to access their rights, the legislation would provide for the appointment of a victims' liaison officer when a victim required this appointment.

The bill would ensure that victims of service offences within the military justice system would be able to exercise their rights, as detailed in the proposed legislation, such as the right to protection and participation. The legislation also proposes complementary changes to many court martial processes. For example, the proposed legislation would enhance a victim's ability to participate in court martial proceedings by broadening the way victim impact statements could be presented at the court martial.

There are many similarities between the legislation before us today and the legislation our Conservative government introduced. It has enough worthwhile similarities to our government's legislation that it deserves the support of the House at this point.

My Conservative colleagues and I are committed to standing up for victims of crime and ensuring that victims have a more efficient and effective voice in the criminal justice system.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of agreement today about Bill C-77, this is a very important piece of legislation. I did touch a bit on this in my speech, but on such very important areas more discussion takes more time. Definitely, we are supportive of strengthening the bill as much as possible to make sure it emphasizes the importance of the bill, what it can do and its purpose.

As I said in my speech, it was a very good start. It is built on a previous bill by our former government, Bill C-71 in the past. I hope the government can enhance it further to make it strong and to make it meaningful.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform the House I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss an issue of great importance to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, their loved ones and all those who support both victims of crime and our Canadian Armed Forces. As a member of Parliament from northeast Edmonton, I have the great pleasure of representing many members of the Canadian Armed Forces who live off base while deployed at Edmonton Garrison.

When I meet with these men and women, their conviction, dedication and love for our country never ceases to amaze me. I am very pleased to be able to lend my voice to them this afternoon as we continue to discuss Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

In the last Parliament, the former Conservative government worked hard to develop and entrench the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in law. It was a very proud day when the legislation was enacted, as it rebalanced our justice system to put more of an emphasis on protecting and empowering victims and standing up for their rights during criminal proceedings.

Over the years, there was an emphasis on ensuring accused people were treated properly, and everyone here understands how important that is as well. However, Canada's Conservatives believe victims rights need to be at the heart of our justice system. We understand victims deserve the right to information, protection, participation and, where possible, restitution.

Bill C-77 is an important piece of legislation. It continues the good work of our former Conservative government of enshrining the rights of victims of a crime in law, this time for our military justice system. The bill is largely based on legislation our former government put forward, which was Bill C-71 from the last Parliament.

Bill C-71 was introduced to ensure victims going through the military justice system had many of the same protections provided to civilians by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. I am very pleased the Liberal government did the right thing and used our previous legislation as the basis for Bill C-77 .

Canada has a long history of having a parallel justice system for our military. There are those who rail against this idea and believe military justice issues should be handled in civilian courts. Perhaps they do not understand why we have two systems, or maybe they do and simply disagree. Having these parallel systems has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada a number of times, and is even protected in the charter under section 11.

The sad reality is that we often must ask much of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We ask them to risk life, limb and mental health for the protection of our great country and the promotion of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, often in far off and hostile environments. This operational reality of the military means Canadian Armed Forces members must be held to a higher standard than what would be expected of a civilian.

This reality is recognized in the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling of R. v. Généreux, which acknowledges the armed forces must be able to deal with discipline issues quickly, effectively and efficiently for the sake of the operational readiness of our armed forces so that they may defend against threats to Canada's security. For this important reason, the armed forces has its own code of service discipline, as well as military justice tribunals to enforce it and ensure the military can accommodate its particular disciplinary needs.

That decision is from 1992. However, it has been upheld a number of times since then, most recently in 2015.

While out of necessity there is an imperative for the armed forces to be able to administer justice in its unique way, there is no reason why victims rights should not be also featured prominently in the military justice system. I believe that Bill C-77 is a good step forward in accomplishing this goal while building on the established code of service and Operation Honour to effectively combat sexual misconduct, harassment and deal with issues of intolerance in the Canadian Armed Forces.

While this is good legislation, which I am looking forward to supporting once again, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to highlight some concerns I have with the bill as well.

Under the military justice system currently, charges can be dealt with through a summary trial or a court martial. Bill C-77 introduces a new category of service infractions consisting of minor infractions that can be dealt with through a new method of summary hearings, replacing summary trials. In proposed subsections 163.1(1), (2) and (3), Bill C-77 shifts the burden of proof. In a summary hearing it goes from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “on a balance of probabilities”.

Currently, proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt, the same as in the civilian legal systems. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is one of the pillars of the Canadian justice system, and I believe that it should remain the case for our military justice system, particularly when we consider that through a summary hearing, a service member's commanding officer is able to confine them to barracks or ship for up to 21 days. In light of that realization, I believe the burden of proof should remain higher than “on a balance of probabilities”.

Unfortunately, our colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman's amendment to make this sensible change was voted down at committee, though I hope it will receive further consideration at the other place. Failing that, I hope this will be able to be reconciled through regulation to both avoid a charter challenge and ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces can be treated justly if they find themselves being called to a summary hearing.

The last issue I want to briefly touch on is the issue initially raised by our NDP colleague for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke that Bill C-77 does not repeal parts of paragraph 98(c) of the National Defence Act, which lists self-harm as an offence that can result in a fine and/or imprisonment.

I take heart in the fact that the committee heard that this is rarely used and it is my understanding that the intention is to provide recourse against individuals who may maim or injure themselves in order to be excused from duty or to be discharged. I do appreciate that rationale, but we also cannot overlook that we ask members of the Canadian Armed Forces to do and bear witness to extraordinary things and that, as a result, not only their bodies can be damaged and scarred but their minds as well.

I do not believe anyone with the privilege to sit in this chamber supports prosecuting people who make a desperate act like self-harm because they are suffering from a mental health issue. Even if it is rarely used, I do not think it should even be an option. It is my understanding that when this issue came up in relation to Bill C-77, it was ruled out of scope of the legislation.

With that in mind I would like to echo our colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman in calling for the Minister of National Defence to take this issue and come back to the House with a separate piece of legislation to address this oversight at the earliest opportunity.

The Canadian Armed Forces is a source of great pride to our country. Its members conduct themselves with honour as they serve, both in our communities and abroad. Due to their sacrifices and the sacrifices of those who came before them, we can afford the privilege to live in relative peace and security—

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think that our government's record on national defence over the past three and a half years speaks for itself.

We have made unprecedented investments in the military. Some of those investments were made at Base Gagetown, in my community. Not only did we invest in infrastructure and the needs of our military members, but we also invested in their physical and mental health, as well as the well-being of the members and their families.

I believe we have an exceptional record on military issues, and Bill C-77 enhances it even further. We are proud of our record, and we will always support Canadian military members and their families.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, this government, and I am sure all parliamentarians in the House, take very seriously issues of life and death, issues of suicide. I have no doubt and entire confidence that this issue was studied in-depth with a certain comprehensiveness at the committee and the report stage. It was a decision of the committee, which is independent of the government, and a decision at report stage by parliamentarians not to adopt this motion.

We continue to monitor the effectiveness of the military justice system by moving forward with Bill C-77, but it will not end there. We will continue to ensure we have an effective, fair, responsive military justice system that ensures Canadian Armed Forces members receive what they need and delivers fair, robust and accurate results.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I stand here today as the member of Parliament for Fredericton. I am proud that over the last three-and-a-half years I have had the distinct privilege to meet with many of the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who serve at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown.

Centred in the town of Oromocto, Base Gagetown is the second-largest military base in Canada and the home of Canada's army. Gagetown is not just a place of work for the 7,500 military members and civilian personnel, it is home to countless families. It is a school. It is a medical centre.

Base Gagetown is an economic driver for New Brunswick. It is the second-largest public sector employer in the province and the third-largest employer overall. It contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to our local and provincial economy each year. The benefits the base brings to our community are far too many to count.

Canadian Armed Forces members at Base Gagetown do not only make Fredericton, New Maryland, Oromocto and the Grand Lake region a more vibrant place to live, as members of the military, they put their lives on the line for our country and give up their own safety to defend ours.

We can never match that honour and sacrifice, but what we can do is ensure that the structures within the military are as strong as they can be so Canadian Armed Forces personnel and their families never have to see their own system as an obstacle to overcome.

Military members keep us safe, but we must protect them as well. By amending the National Defence Act, Bill C-77 is ensuring better protection for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces under the military justice system. Bill C-77 means a more just and equitable future for the 6,500 members of the Canadian Armed Forces at Base Gagetown and for thousands more who serve across the country.

The very nature of the military means its justice system must consider a different set of demands, from the hazards of war to the hierarchal chain of command. The Canadian Armed Forces must always be able to enforce discipline within that chain of command, so it can be ready and able to respond to any threat.

Bill C-77 commits to strengthening the victims rights within the unique framework of the military justice system. From ensuring that victims of inappropriate conduct by members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the right to information, protection, participation and restitution to establishing a new victim liaison officer to help guide victims through the military justice system, we are ensuring that the victims rights are not only respected but that they are strengthened.

When victims come forward with a complaint, we must ensure they are fully supported. Anything less is unacceptable. Bill C-77 is about making real changes in the lives of our service members. The impact of those changes will be felt across the country, from the Military Family Resource Centre and the Royal Canadian Legion in Oromocto all the way to Alert to Esquimalt to St. John's.

Victims rights matter, and that is why these changes matter as well.

As the Minister of National Defence has made clear, the Canadian Armed Forces welcomes the Auditor General's recommendations on ways to strengthen the administration of military justice. Our government is committed to maintaining a fair, modern and robust military justice system. We thank the Auditor General for this important work and accept the recommendations.

Unfortunately this review reflects the previous government's neglect of not only the military, but also the military justice system, which is an important part of military discipline and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Unlike the previous government, we are committed to ensuring the efficiency of the military justice system. Unlike the previous government, which allowed delays to fester, we are committed to ensuring a reliable military justice system.

We have already started to address some of the Auditor General's recommendations, including a case management system to monitor and manage cases as they progress through the system, extending the postings of defence counsel and military prosecutors to better serve both the accused and the Crown and reinstating the military justice round table, which the previous government abolished. These are just some of the measures we have taken to address the report and we will continue to work to ensure an effective military justice system.

To get back to the matter at hand, the Auditor General's findings reinforce that the judge advocate general of the Canadian Armed Forces, or JAG, is taking the right approach to modernizing the system. The JAG, Commodore Geneviève Bernatchez, oversees the administration of military justice in the forces. She has embraced the Auditor General's recommendations, which will guide her efforts to ensure the military justice system meets the expectations of Canadians and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. She has already developed a detailed action plan to respond to all nine recommendations, and members of the military are already seeing improvements to the administration of the military justice system.

Many important changes are already under way, with the office of the JAG and the director of military prosecutions actively implementing measures to improve how military justice is administered. For instance, even before the Auditor General made his recommendations, the office of the JAG began to develop a new electronic case management tool and database to capture the relevant data on all military justice cases. This will directly respond to a number of the Auditor General's recommendations to identify and address delays in military justice processes and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

The justice, administration and information management system, JAIMS, will allow for the real-time tracking of files as they proceed through the system. It will incorporate and enable the enforcement of time standards that will be established following a review conducted by the JAG as part of the response from the Department of National Defence to the Auditor General's recommendations. JAIMS will allow military justice stakeholders and decision-makers to access case data in real time and be prompted when their action is required. This will help reduce delays by improving how the military justice system's files are managed.

This is not simply about speeding up the system. We want to ensure the system is working and working well. As members may have heard my colleagues say, the military justice system is vital to the ability of the Canadian Armed Forces to achieve its missions in Canada and around the world. It cannot and will not remain static. The military justice system, like the civilian criminal justice system, is constantly evolving to remain fully compliant with Canadian law, norms and values. That is why our government tabled Bill C-77, which proposes to introduce a declaration of victims rights to incorporate indigenous sentencing considerations and reform summary trials.

In Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, our government has made an unprecedented commitment to provide the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces with the support they need and deserve. That includes the assurance that military members will continue to have access to a fair and effective military justice system as they bravely serve Canadians at home and abroad. With Bill C-77 and the many progressive changes being instituted by the Office of the Judge Advocate General, we are clearly delivering on this pledge.

The Auditor General's report offers valuable insights and tangible recommendations that will help us further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the military justice system. The changes the Auditor General has urged, many of which we are already acting on, will ensure the military justice system remains valuable and relevant in contributing to the operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP supports Bill C-77 at third reading. However, even with the proposed changes in the bill, acts of self-harm continue to be considered an offence in the military justice system. Asking for help in the military comes with a risk of disciplinary action.

What protections will the Liberals propose to ensure that military personnel have access to mental health services without fear of reprisals or risk of disciplinary action?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Fredericton.

My thanks for the opportunity to outline some of the many ways the Canadian Forces would strengthen the administration of military justice through Bill C-77.

“Strong, Secure, Engaged”, our new defence policy, unveiled in July of 2017, marks our first step in the priorities of everything we do in the Canadian Forces, now and for years to come.

We have a concrete vision, informed by diligent consultation with our fellow citizens from coast to coast to coast. The commitments we have made to our women and men in uniform will provide them with a more dynamic, prosperous and resolutely positive work environment that guarantees respect for the individual rights of all. The changes introduced in Bill C-77, coupled with the steps taken to respond to the Auditor General's report, will make it even stronger.

I want to start by reminding the House that Canada maintains a unique system of military justice. The Code of Service Discipline mandates that the military justice system deal expeditiously and fairly with service offences while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That said, there are some fundamental differences between the two systems, and for very good reason.

The military justice system is vital to maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is crucial, given the unique environment in which it operates. Military personnel often risk injury, or even death, as they perform their duties in Canada and abroad. Discipline and cohesion within military units can literally be a matter of life and death. Equally important, the military justice system enables Canada to comply with its obligation under international law to hold its military personnel accountable for their conduct during naval, land and air operations.

The military justice system is continually evolving to comply with Canadian law and Canadian values, and we will ensure that it remains responsive to both the accused and the victims. We are proud to continue in this direction and to promote the progress of justice in Canada and within our forces.

This legislation would ensure that the military justice system could satisfy both the expectations of Canadians and the unique needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. In addition, the legislation would improve victim support through information, protection, participation and restitution rights.

The bill would also introduce indigenous sentencing considerations to mirror similar provisions within the civilian criminal justice system, and it would provide sentencing and sanctions provisions for service offences and service infractions rooted in bias, prejudice or hate toward individuals based on their gender expression or identity.

Bill C-77 would also complement the positive actions resulting from the recommendations of the Auditor General's office on ways to strengthen the administration of military justice. The judge advocate general had already initiated a number of measures to improve the administration of the system prior to that report, and the department is implementing an action plan to ensure that all nine recommendations are addressed.

The Office of the Judge Advocate General and the director of military prosecutions have implemented or amended various policies to address the Auditor General's recommendations. For instance, the Office of the Judge Advocate General has begun to develop a new electronic case management tool and database to capture the relevant data on all military justice cases. This case management system directly responds to several recommendations to identify and address delays in military justice system processes.

However, our goal is not simply to speed up the system. We want to make sure that the system continues working, and working well. The case management system will assist the Canadian Armed Forces in maintaining the discipline, efficiency and morale of Canadian Armed Forces members as they work in the service of Canada, both at home and abroad.

The judge advocate general has also re-established the military justice round table to increase and improve communications among key actors in the military justice system. The round table brings together key stakeholders from across the military justice system to discuss best practices in its administration.

As “Strong, Secure, Engaged” makes clear, we are ensuring the long-term health and wellness of military members and civilian personnel. Bill C-77 is one of the many ways we are delivering on that pledge. That pledge also means that we work together to build a more inclusive and respectful environment in our military.

This is an important achievement for all our members in the military, and we hope to have the support of all parties to pass the bill. Our military justice system is vital to maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale in the military. This carefully balanced legislation would ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces could do exactly that.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, if my partisan colleague across the way had just given me another 10 seconds, that is where my next paragraph was going. The issue of carrying the course of justice is, in fact, not out of place within the context of the debate here today on Bill C-77, so there is relevancy.

Bill C-77 is all about carrying out the course of justice within our military in a way that protects victims. The legislation would bring forward changes to our military justice system that would give some protection to victims. That is something the Conservative government was working on, and as we heard earlier today from my colleague for Cariboo—Prince George, the bill is almost a duplicate of what we had proposed in the last Parliament.

As I said, the legislation would bring forward changes to our military justice system that would give some protection to victims, which is vitally important. Our previous government recognized this. It is why we brought in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and worked to enshrine those rights within our military justice system.

Former Bill C-71, which did not pass before the last election, looked very much like the legislation before us today. Our proposed legislation would have given victims the following: first, enhanced access to information through the appointment of a victim liaison officer; second, enhanced protection through new safety, security and privacy provisions; third, enhanced participation through impact statements at sentencing; and four, enhanced restitution, meaning a court martial would be required to consider making a restitution order for losses.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery and that is on full display here. The Liberal government knows that what the Conservative government tried to do in the previous Parliament was the right thing to do, and that is why it is copying it with this legislation. However, there are a few differences that I would like to highlight.

Perhaps the most glaring difference between the two bills would be the addition of the Gladue decision, in relation to paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada, into the National Defence Act. This addition would mean aboriginal members of the Canadian Armed Forces who face charges under the National Defence Act may face lighter punishment if convicted.

There is absolutely no place in the Canadian Armed Forces and in Canadian society, for that matter, for discrimination of any kind. No one should ever be discriminated against based upon race, gender, religion, culture or any other factor. That being said, the insertion of this principle has the potential to result in different consideration of offences committed by aboriginal forces members than for those committed by non-aboriginal forces members. This could lead to sentences that are less harsh, could undermine operational discipline and morale in the forces and could even undermine anti-racism policies.

I truly believe, and I think all of us in this place do, that judicial systems, military or otherwise, operate most effectively when the defining principle is equality before the law. By definition, equality applies to all. If we want true equality before the law, we cannot have separate levels of standards or sentences for some segments of the population. It must be applied uniformly.

Furthermore, while I am pleased the government is moving forward with legislation to help the men and women who are currently serving our country, it must be reminded that our veterans need our support as well.

A recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed our veterans are paying for the mistakes of the government. The PBO's report, titled “The cost differential between three regimes of Veterans Benefits”, is clear proof that the pensions for life scheme by the government is falling well short of the mark when it comes to supporting the men and women who have served our country. The report confirms veterans with severe and permanent injuries will be worse off by an average of $300,000 under this scheme. This is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

That said, it is my hope that Bill C-77 moves on to consideration in the Senate and that those in the other place will conduct a fulsome review of the bill to ensure that military justice reform works for all those who serve our country.

We cannot ever do enough for our veterans. A lot of veterans from the Second World War and many from the Korean War have left us and there will be more as time moves on. It is times like this, in their later years, when they need veterans services more than ever. I remind the government to change its attitude, change its ways and change Veterans Affairs so that the main goal is to serve these veterans instead of keeping the strings on the bank book unreasonably.

When Conservatives were in government, the same type of thing happened and it is happening now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is some onus on the member to be relevant to the legislation at hand. We are talking about Bill C-77. The member is reading, verbatim, a speech that he has prepared and it is completely irrelevant to the legislation. At least, if he is going to be off topic, he should try to make it a little more spontaneous.

I would suggest that the member is not being relevant to the bill at hand. Bill C-77 is a good bill that should be debated.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to again speak to Bill C-77. This is important legislation that I believe has a good amount of support from all sides of the House.

Before I get into the heart of my remarks today, I want to take a few moments to applaud the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, the former attorney general, for the courage she showed yesterday at the justice committee. All Canadians have been watching this story very closely. The hon. member laid out a very clear picture of what has happened.

It is now crystal clear that the Prime Minister and his office carried out a coordinated effort to try to obstruct the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It is shameful, and it needs to be looked into further.

The Criminal Code defines the charge of obstructing justice as anyone who “wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding.” Applying sustained pressure to the former attorney general once she had already made the decision to proceed to trial would 100% constitute a wilful attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.

The RCMP needs to look into this and needs to hold all of those responsible accountable for their actions, including the Prime Minister. The buck stops with him. It was his office and people in his government who carried out this pressure, and he needs to own up to it, something he is not very good at.

Further, the Prime Minister has to agree to call for a public inquiry so all Canadians can once again have faith in an independent judiciary.

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

Madam Speaker, I took a very non-partisan approach to my intervention. My hon. colleagues across the way, as the Liberals do, always has to place blame. I was merely offering that when the committee was studying Bill C-77, our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, with the best intentions, put forward a motion for us to consider the removal of subsection 98(c). That would have been an opportune time to get Bill C-77 right.

I also have offered that Bill C-77 is being supported by all opposition members on this side of the House. It is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-71, which was put forward by our strong Conservative team in the previous Parliament.

It is unfortunate that our hon. colleague has taken the opportunity to turn things partisan when we are having a reasoned debate and discussion on the merits of Bill C-77 and the opportunities to amend it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House that I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Before question period, I was talking about the intervention by our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on Bill C-77. The beauty of the House is that when one pays attention to debate, we can learn things. So many of our colleagues bring expertise and knowledge to the debate. One only has to just pay attention and listen.

My hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke brought up two areas of Bill C-77 that were missing. I want to bring them up as well and address them.

One is the issue of mental illness and injury of those who serve in our Armed Forces and their death by suicide, self-harm, and the fact that section 98(c) is still in military law. The simple act of removing that could do so much to break down the stigma for those who still suffer in the shadows.

I worked tirelessly in getting my Bill C-211 through the House and to royal assent, which took place on June 21 of last year. I am proud to say that the round tables for Bill C-211 are taking place within a month in Ottawa. Stakeholders, representatives from the provinces and territories, ministerial colleagues from across the way as well as military from Veterans Affairs and National Defence are coming together to have that overall discussion on mental health and how we can stem the tide of the epidemic of suicide due to mental illness and mental injury. This is so important.

It is very important that at all times we build trust not only for those who suffer from mental illness and mental injury, but fort hose who suffer from sexual assault as well so they know they will be believed and they can get the services they require. It is very important we build that environment of trust so they feel they can come forward and there will not be that stigma attached to them. Throughout this debate, we have heard that this still remains, because Bill C-77 does not address that.

My hon. colleague talked about his Bill C-426, which could address the removal of section 98(c). Again, it is a simple thing. I do not accept the argument that we need to study it. The wheels of bureaucracy move slowly. We tend to study things to death and then we are victims of our own inaction. We refuse to act when simple things could be done that would have such a major impact. Section 98(c) is one that my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman mentioned it as well.

This is not my file, but I read some of the amendments put forward by the my colleagues in the official opposition, and this was brought up by a number of colleagues. I did not know that in military law there is no provision for reporting the proceedings of a summary hearing. There is also no provision compelling an officer presiding over a summary hearing to give reasons for his or her findings. I had no knowledge that no notes were taken or recordings of proceedings. I am shocked that there would be not requirements in military legal procedure to take copious notes. That makes it very difficult for the appeal process.

As Conservatives, we always believe that the rights of victims should come before those of the criminal. We will always stand tall to ensure the rights of victims and their families are considered first and foremost.

Over the course of the last week, and indeed leading up to Christmas, we had a lot of opportunity to talk about victims' rights and ensuring that those who we trusted to protect us and serve our country were armed with the tools to complete their mission. We must ensure they are safe and secure and remain healthy when they come back to their families.

Earlier this week, we were talking about the rights of victims. I brought up Cody Legebokoff, Canada's youngest serial killer and how the families of his victims had been re-victimized time and again. We recently found out that he was transferred from a maximum-security to a medium-security facility.

Our hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has committed to reviewing that case. It is my hope that he will take swift action to reverse the decision, similar to what he did with Terri-Lynne McClintic. I am not sure why things always have to get to this point.

Going back to my earlier comment about subsection 98(c), I note there are simple things we can do as leaders and elected officials within the House. The 338 members of Parliament have been elected to be the voice of Canadians. There are simple things we could do to make the lives of Canadians better. Rather than overthink things, we should use a little common sense.

Sometimes in this place we get mired under the bubble in which we work. If common sense could prevail, we would be far better off.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate at third reading of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation, at third reading.

For the next two weeks, we will be working with our constituents in our ridings. Upon our return, Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-84, on animal cruelty. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday, the Minister of Finance will present budget 2019. Wednesday will be dedicated to the budget debate.

National Defence Act

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

Madam Speaker, I want to preface my intervention by letting you know that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. As they say, “I get by with a little help from my friends”.

It is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-77.

We have such a short time to try to get in all these points. However, the bill really is a carbon copy of the bill from our previous parliament that the strong team of Conservatives put forth, which was Bill C-71.

Having listened to the debate today, I want to congratulate our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on his very measured approach. As we have learned, every day we sit in the House there is so much we can learn from all sides. His was an interesting intervention and I want to thank him for it.

I want to focus my intervention on a couple of different areas. However, I imagine I will have to continue after question period, because I would not want to pre-empt that, as we must give question period its full allotted time.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing that was very disappointing in the committee study of Bill C-77 was around the issue of self-harm. It was proposed by the defence critic for the NDP, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, that we eliminate paragraph 98(c) from the National Defence Act, where those who hurt themselves or try to commit suicide could be charged and imprisoned for violating the National Defence Act. That action stigmatizes those dealing with PTSD and other operational stress injuries.

I would ask the member if he would support striking down that part of the National Defence Act so that we would end stigmatization and help those who would seek help.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe the member for St. Catharines has a legal background. Bill C-77 is a bill we are supportive of, and it is based on the Conservatives' original bill, Bill C-71, from the last Parliament.

The one change that was made that I struggle a bit with, which is something we discussed at committee for quite some time, is the question of the burden of proof when it comes to summary hearings, rather than summary convictions, which are carried out in the military and are penal in nature, often resulting in confinement to barracks, yet it does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was guilty. Now it is a balance of probabilities.

Does the member think that would violate the charter rights of the Canadian Armed Forces members?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased this important bill has reached this advanced stage in the legislative process. I am equally pleased for the opportunity to say a few words in support of the adoption of Bill C-77 and to further illustrate the improvements it would bring to Canada's military justice system.

By now, members have heard a fair bit of detail about how the bill would further modernize the military justice system; how it would ensure our military justice system would continue to evolve in harmony with the civilian justice system, while continuing to respond to the unique needs of our military; how it would enshrine victims' rights within the military justice system and ensure they would be well supported at all stages; and how it would support our government's commitment to repairing our nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous and protecting LGBTQ2 individuals from discrimination and injustices based on their gender expression or identity.

Those are all much-needed steps to strengthen our military justice system to ensure it is responsive and reflective of our deeply held Canadian values and of our number one priority, to care for our people.

However, there are other important changes in the bill, changes that will help streamline our military justice process, changes that will make those processes more efficient and better suited to meet the demands of a modern military. Today I would like to re-examine some of those changes.

The legislation before us promises to reform the summary trial process in ways that will enhance the military's ability to maintain fast, fair and effective discipline. Canadians, military and civilian alike deserve a military justice system that is responsive to operational demands and that applies fair and proportionate disciplinary measures when dealing with minor breaches of military discipline.

Our proposed changes will simplify the process of dealing with minor breaches of military discipline by replacing the current summary trial process with a new system of summary hearings, while continuing to process more serious breaches of military discipline through the court martial system.

These summary hearings would make it much easier for the Canadian Armed Forces to address minor breaches in a fair and timely manner. Summary trials have generally tended to comprise approximately 90% of all service tribunals. Courts martial have made up just one-tenth.

By creating the new summary hearing process, Bill C-77 would enable simpler and faster handling of minor breaches of military discipline. As members have heard us say before, this new process would be non-penal and non-criminal.

It would focus exclusively on minor breaches of military discipline. These minor breaches, called service infractions, would be created in regulation and dealt with exclusively through summary hearings. They would not be considered criminal offences, so they would be dealt with swiftly and fairly at the unit level.

Sanctions may be imposed in respect of a service infraction, such as reduction in rank, reprimands, deprivation of pay or minor sanctions that are non-penal, non-criminal and that would be prescribed in the regulations.

Under the proposed changes, the new summary hearing will be conducted by officers who will have jurisdiction if the person charged is one rank below the officer conducting the hearing or if he or she is a non-commissioned member. That means military commanders will have more flexibility and thus be better able to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale. In this way, the summary hearing process will maintain the current responsiveness, while enhancing operational effectiveness.

At the same time, the proposed reforms show trust and confidence in our military leaders and their ability to address minor breaches of military discipline. Of course the more serious breaches of military discipline, known as service offences, would continue to be tried under our system of courts martial.

All of that means greater efficiency within the broader military justice system.

Our military justice system is unique and necessary to meet the needs of our armed forces. The Supreme Court has affirmed this on a number of occasions. It is the solemn duty and responsibility of everyone here in this room to ensure we are supporting a military justice system that is set up to preserve the highest standards of conduct and discipline. We owe that to our armed forces, which must remain ready at all times to act decisively and effectively in service to their country.

Just as the civilian criminal justice system has progressed to reflect our current times, so too must the military justice system continually evolve.

Bill C-77's proposed summary trial reform is about making that system simpler, more effective and more efficient. It is about making sure breaches of military discipline are dealt with appropriately and effectively, based on their severity. A new summary hearing process would help preserve discipline and morale at the unit level, with sanctions that are non-penal and non-criminal and would not trigger detention or criminal record.

It would improve the chain of command's ability to address minor breaches of military discipline swiftly and fairly, which would enhance the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces. All told, the legislation would create a fairer, faster and more flexible process, one that reflects our Canadian values while staying responsive to the unique needs of our military.

Through our defence policy “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, our government is demonstrating its unwavering commitment to supporting the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. The bill offers more opportunity for all of us to reaffirm our people are our number one priority. The bill is essential to ensuring our military members have the support and systems they need to remain ready to defend and protect Canadians at home and abroad.

I am proud to be part of these efforts, and I thank my colleagues for their support in passing this important legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating Bill C-77 today. The previous Speaker had just cautioned members to try to remain relevant to the bill. I can somewhat sense that the member is trying to be relevant but is skirting around it, and now she is getting to a point of wanting to reflect on something that took place at committee yesterday.

There has been an emergency debate requested and approved for tonight. Maybe the member could save that aspect until tonight and for now concentrate on Bill C-77.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a very important conversation that we need to have today regarding the amendments to Bill C-77, which seeks to amend the National Defence Act.

The most important thing we have to talk about is why we have a National Defence Act and why people in uniform have a separate judicial system than those in the civilian world. The reason for that is very important. It is that people in uniform are the only people who are entrusted with the right to take a life in aggression, not in self-defence. They are entrusted with the responsibility and sacred reliability of taking a life.

Therefore, as elected officials in a liberal democracy, we must ensure that would never happen without the authority of the citizens, who have entrusted the people in uniform with that responsibility. That is why we have a National Defence Act that separates them from regular citizens, because they have a responsibility and authority that the average citizen does not have.

When we talk about amending the National Defence Act, we have to understand why we have it in the first place. A military is foreign policy by other means. Therefore, when, where, how and for what purpose would we use people in uniform to fight acts of aggression and take lives on behalf of the country? Our alliance in NATO and the Washington treaty, signed on April 4, 1949, after the Second World War, clearly outlines exactly why. It says:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.

Therefore, why do we have a military? We have a military to ensure we can safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of our peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. That is incredibly important to remember, particularly in light of the conversations that have gone on over the last couple of months and the testimony of the former attorney general yesterday.

Our foundation of democracy is based on the separation of the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch and the military under the National Defence Act. Those pillars are the checks and balances to ensure that individuals are not in a position to undermine the value of these institutions.

Individuals take responsibilities in each of those institutions, just like I did when I swore an oath to serve in the Canadian Forces. The oath I swore was not to a person but to the position of Queen and country. I swore an oath to serve and defend the values of the nation for which it stands. The Prime Minister, members of Parliament and cabinet ministers are also not individuals but people who have also been entrusted with the roles and responsibilities associated with their positions. If and when we forget that these are positions, not individuals, and that the role is bigger than the individuals themselves, the very nature of our democracy is under threat, because, as we can see, those individuals think they have the authority to wield the system in their favour.

We heard from the former attorney general that the Prime Minister had an unrelenting and coordinated attempt at influencing her decision as the Attorney General, the top prosecutor in the land, to do something that was actually illegal so that he could achieve political gain.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am the member for Davenport, although many people do confuse me with the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, and that is okay. However, I did want to correct it for the record.

I would say that self-harm is absolutely something that was brought to the attention of the committee. It was mentioned and we questioned whether there were some adjustments that we could make to Bill C-77 to address all of the concerns around self-harm.

The context of the bill did not allow us to address that particular issue, but we recognize that we need to continue to adapt our approach to care and to those suffering from mental health issues. That is why our minister invited the national defence committee to study the issue of suicide and self-harm within the Canadian Armed Forces, with a view to providing our government with recommendations related to these challenges, specifically as it relates to self-harm.

We have acknowledged that this is an issue. There was an impassioned plea by a mother who was affected by a Canadian Armed Forces member impacted by this particular issue. We made a commitment to look at it and we will continue to take this very seriously moving forward.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will focus my comments on Bill C-77.

The member talked about the indigenous population. As we mentioned, we are actually trying to increase the number of indigenous peoples within our Canadian Armed Forces. Two key things that we are really focused on in Bill C-77 are including indigenous sentencing provisions, which require military tribunals to consider the circumstances of indigenous offenders at sentencing, as is the case in the civilian justice system, and ensuring that indigenous peoples are given the same rights and respect in the military as in civilian courts.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about some of the challenges that occur in the Canadian Armed Forces, and that Bill C-77 incorporates the Gladue decision from the Supreme Court, ensuring that indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces will have a chance, at the time of sentencing, to make sure that any cultural sensitivities are taken into consideration.

We just witnessed an unfortunate event over the last few weeks, where the former associate minister of defence who is also the former attorney general, a very proud indigenous leader, was forced to resign. I would like to know, from the member, why the former associate minister of defence left her office.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Davenport, it is an absolute honour to have this opportunity to rise today and engage in the third reading of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This proposed bill amends the provisions of the National Defence Act with respect to the governance of the military justice system and it adds a new section on the declaration of victim rights to the Code of Service Discipline that specify the victims of service offences have a right to information, protection, participation and restitution in respect to service offences. It adds or amends several definitions, including victim and military justice system participant rights and specifies who may act on the victim's behalf for the purposes of that division.

I am so pleased to speak about how Bill C-77 is part of a broader effort our government is making to increase diversity and inclusiveness within the Canadian Armed Forces. Canada's unique, diverse and multicultural population is one of its greatest strengths and we are determined to see that strength reflected in Canada's military.

We know that embracing diversity and drawing on all the strengths of Canada's population will enhance military operational effectiveness. That is why Canada's defence policy “Strong, Secure, Engaged” makes diversity and inclusion a core institutional value for the Canadian Armed Forces. Canadians know diversity is our strength, and we will always champion that.

A diverse and inclusive Canadian Armed Forces starts with a respectful and open work environment for all. “Strong, Secure, Engaged” has identified several initiatives that will help our military continue to cultivate a culture of respect, and it is delivering on all of them.

We are ensuring that the Canadian Armed Forces has the ability to respond effectively and appropriately to anyone who discriminates against fellow service members. Through Bill C-77, we are calling for increased sentences and sanctions for service offences and infractions when there is evidence they are motivated by bias, hate or prejudice based on gender expression or identity. This focus on deterring crimes based in hate for those whose gender expression or identity differ from our own is an important step in the significant progress the forces has made in changing its culture to one of greater inclusivity and diversity. These changes will help the defence team ensure it remains an institution based in honour, integrity and honesty.

However, the changes proposed in Bill C-77 are not the only steps the forces are taking. Through Operation Honour, the Canadian Armed Forces continues its vital work to eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour. Above all else, it is putting its focus on support for people affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour. That includes expanding the role and mandate of the sexual misconduct response centre, or SMRC, to make it the authoritative voice on victim support and advocacy.

As the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre assumes this increased responsibility, it has already established itself as a leader in this field. This past December, the SMRC hosted the first-ever Five Eyes forum on preventing and addressing sexual misconduct, allowing experts from Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand to share with, and learn from, one another. These efforts will also help National Defence be an even greater leader in achieving a gender balanced military.

We should all be proud that Canada is already a world leader in this area. As of this January of this year, there are 15,116 women in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is 15.7% of our military, and significantly more than the NATO average of 11%.

I was honoured to recently visit the Canadian Armed Forces mission in Mali. It is participating in MINUSMA, which is the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission. Right now 14% of all those deployed there are women. That number compares to about 4% for all other UN missions.

I know we have a long way to go, but we have already made great progress. We should celebrate the progress we have managed to make.

Through “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, we are increasing the percentage of women in the military to 25% by 2026. That is our target. The Canadian Armed Forces has undertaken a number of activities to meet this goal. I will go through them in a minute.

I want to add that right now the national defence committee is looking at how we can increase diversity in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are looking to put forward a number of other policy ideas and immediate action steps on how we can increase the number of not only women, but those from visible minorities, the LGBTQ community and the indigenous community, among others, in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I will go back to the additional activities that the Canadian Armed Forces is undertaking to meet the goal of 25% of 2026.

First, it has established a team of representatives from across the military, the federal government and the private sector to examine recruiting strategies for women joining the defence team. We have gone outside of government to get the best ideas so we can achieve our goal of 25% by 2026.

Second, the Canadian Armed Forces has introduced policies and practices that promote a healthy family and work-life balance. I was blessed to join the Canadians Navy on the HMCS Charlottetown during the summer. When I talked to women there, I heard that more and more women were joining because the navy had done a wonderful job of improving the work-life balance, making it easier for people to have families and to support their families while they were pursuing careers in the Canadians Navy.

However, diversity is more than gender. The Canadian Armed Forces also has specific initiatives under way to increase its diversity across a broad spectrum of ethnicity, religion, age, experience, language and more.

The Canadian Armed Forces continues to modernize, streamline and standardize recruiting to ensure that it is truly welcoming to all applicants. It has recruiters who are multilingual and from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. These recruiters receive extensive training designed to help them understand and be attuned to cultural norms that may differ from their own background and beliefs. This has helped improve communication with potential recruits, which in turn has alleviated many of the misconceptions that visible minority applicants sometimes have regarding the military.

The Canadian Armed Forces has also made important changes to the way it welcomes people of different backgrounds into the military. While the military maintains strict dress regulations for professional and operational purposes, it refuses to allow those regulations to be a barrier to someone who wishes to join.

As important as all these initiatives are, we also have to recognize the impact of past actions.

In November 2017, our Prime Minister rose in the House to issue a formal apology to Canadian members of the LGBTQ2 community for historic injustices inflicted upon them in the country. That included many members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were not just discriminated against, but interrogated and persecuted for nearly forty years during what has become known infamously as “the purge”.

We can never undo the damage of this persecution, but we can recognize and remember the pain it caused. We apologized in order for us to move on and make changes.

We are doing just that with the Canada pride citation. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were directly impacted by anti-LGBTQ2 policies and practices can wear the Canada pride citation on their uniforms. The citation stands as an acknowledgement and reminder of past injustices and as an affirmation of our commitment to ensuring that this dark chapter in our history never happens again.

I note that over a year ago, the military launched the positive spaces initiative to promote a safe and inclusive work environment for all employees regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. I am happy to answer questions on that.

I am very proud of the actions we have taken to date and I ask everyone in the House to support Bill C-77.

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

Madam Speaker, we had a good, vigorous debate and study of Bill C-77, and a number of shortfalls were identified by some of the witnesses: retired Lieutenant-Colonel Perron in particular, as well as the Barreau du Québec.

One thing that came up that we did not get positive feedback from JAG on was the issue of changing the burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to the balance of probabilities. The argument from National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces' legal advisers is that we do not need to have such regimented tests within a summary hearing process, unlike in the old-fashioned court martial and summary conviction process.

I would ask the member if he feels we got to the bottom of it to protect those who are wrongfully accused in view of the potential punishments that will be laid down, such as confinement to quarters and being sent to the brig for a period of time, as well as a reduction in rank and pay.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

It is great to be in this chamber today and to hear the overwhelming support from all sides of this House on this very important piece of legislation. It is an honour to rise in the House today to share my thoughts on how the government is supporting victims of inappropriate conduct by members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

When victims display courage by coming forward with a complaint, we must ensure that they are fully supported. Anything less is unacceptable. Every victim, whether a Canadian Armed Forces member or a civilian, deserves to be treated with trust, dignity and respect. We are fully behind the chief of the defence staff and his leadership team as they take steps to root out harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour in our military.

Since General Vance launched Operation Honour in 2015, we are seeing progress. As former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps recommended in her report in 2015, we put in place a sexual misconduct response centre, which provides support to those affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour. We established the sexual misconduct response centre and extended its services to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. It is accessible no matter where a service member is deployed around the world. Last fall, the Canadian Forces provost marshal re-examined 179 sexual assault cases previously deemed unfounded, and determined that 23 should be reopened to further investigation.

This past May, we introduced Bill C-77 to add the declaration of victims rights to the military's Code of Service Discipline. This piece of legislation before us today enshrines victims' rights in the military justice system. This is good news, because it shows that military justice in this country continues to evolve in the best interests of Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces. It shows the government recognizes the harmful impact that service offences to victims have on the military and on society. It shows the government's commitment to strengthening victims' rights in the military justice system. It is our view that this legislation advances Canada's position as a global leader in supporting victims.

The amendments in this bill would strengthen and uphold victims' rights within the military justice system while ensuring that these rights mirror those in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Simply put, the legislation creates and extends rights for victims in four specific areas: first, the right to information about how the military justice system works; second, the right to protection of their security and privacy; third, the right to participation by expanding how victim impact statements can be presented at courts martial; and fourth, the right to restitution for damages or losses. We have a responsibility to make sure victims are treated with dignity and respect. We are taking this responsibility seriously. We owe it to victims and their families.

In his report last November, the Auditor General included a report on efforts to stop inappropriate sexual conduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. It came with a number of recommendations that will help lay the ground for the next steps of Operation Honour. Canadians can have complete confidence in both the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to apply these recommendations. The chief of the defence staff has made it clear that serious administrative action will be taken against Canadian Armed Forces members who are found guilty of sexual misconduct. He has zero tolerance for Canadian Armed Forces leaders who fail to act when confronted with inappropriate behaviour within the ranks.

When my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, reviewed the Auditor General's report, he had a clear message for Canadian Armed Forces members and victims. He said that this was about making sure we are doing the right thing for victims; we know we need to do better, and we will.

This is why we are moving Bill C-77 through this House as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is why we expanded the sexual misconduct response centre, so victims can access support in Canada and abroad 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. It is why the SMRC is looking at ways to enhance service delivery to better meet the needs of all Canadian Armed Forces members, and it is why the sexual assault review program was established to conduct reviews of all sexual assault investigations deemed unfounded by the military police.

Our government wants the Canadian Armed Forces recognized as a respected leader on this issue, both inside the Canadian government and by militaries around the world. At the same time, we know this is not just a military issue. The Canadian Armed Forces is not alone in dealing with sexual misconduct. It is deeply rooted in society. Sexual misconduct is wrong wherever it happens, but when it happens in the military, it threatens the welfare of all members of the Canadian Armed Forces community, military and civilian alike.

Our people are at the centre of everything we do. The way we support and treat them is directly related to the military's operational effectiveness. It is also directly related to our values as Canadians. The Canadian Armed Forces has put down a good, solid foundation on which to build. Now it is shifting toward sustained cultural change. Later this year, the Canadian Armed Forces is expected to release its fourth report to update Canadians on all progress made to date on Operation Honour, followed by a cultural change strategy.

Along with Bill C-77 and through the declaration of victims rights, we are strengthening the rights and protections of victims who come forward when they have been wronged. In the passing of this legislation, we are reinforcing Canada's position as a global leader in maintaining a fair and effective military justice system, one that continuously evolves in harmony with our civilian laws. In passing this legislation, we are demonstrating clearly and without question that anyone who is victimized by inappropriate behaviour within the Canadian Armed Forces will be supported fully in the military justice system through these enhanced victims' rights.

For these reasons, I appeal to all members of this House to support this bill.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Forty-five? Again, we do not have a good count of the reservists.

We know that even though the strategy was put in place, this continues to be a serious challenge for the Canadian Forces. It is a challenge, obviously, on the humane grounds of taking care of those we ask to do difficult and dangerous work.

...it is disturbing that even today under paragraph 98(c), a service member could face life imprisonment for attempted suicide. It would be more appropriate to consider self-harm under such circumstances as being symptomatic of a serious and urgent mental health concern, and signalling the need for appropriate and immediate medical intervention.

She is calling on us to make sure those supports are available, to make sure those barriers are removed. She said very clearly:

There is no benefit to leaving paragraph 98(c) in the National Defence Act, nor is there a downside to removing it. In my heart, I believe it is morally responsible [to remove this section].

I do not mean to be too crass here, but it is also a challenge when we invest in people to serve Canada and the result of that service is that we lose their skills and their contribution because of mental health problems.

The Canadian military has said it is committed to removing obstacles to providing mental health assistance for those who need it in the Canadian Forces. When the bill came to committee, I moved an amendment to it that would remove the largest symbolic and practical barrier to providing mental health assistance for those who are considering self-harm. That is paragraph 98(c) of the National Defence Act, which makes self-harm a disciplinary offence.

When I talk to people outside the Canadian military, their reaction to this situation is that 30 years ago, in civilian life, we moved way beyond regarding attempted suicide as the fault of the individual and began to treat it as a mental health issue, as an illness that could be dealt with and treated.

In the National Defence Act, to which all recruits are trained, it says self-harming is a disciplinary offence. In practice, when I talk to leaders within the military, I hear that this measure is not used very often and is rarely applied, but the fact that it exists and presents self-harm as a disciplinary offence creates on onus on the individual not to seek help, because what they are considering may become not just a mental health issue but a blot on their military career. It creates another obstacle to reaching out for help.

We heard moving testimony from witnesses at committee, including Sheila Fynes, whose son died by suicide while serving in the Canadian Forces and who did not get the help he needed despite repeated attempts to harm himself while serving. Instead he was subjected to discipline several times as the solution to his problems, instead of being recognized as suffering from a mental illness and receiving the treatment he needed.

Ms. Fynes is most dignified and has resisted all tendencies to become bitter about what happened with her son, instead working tirelessly with 161 other families of those who died by suicide to try to make sure this does not happen to any other families. Here is what she said at committee:

Other witnesses spoke from their experience within the Canadian military as commanders who faced these crises. One of those was retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron, who appeared before the committee last November, noting that paragraph 98(c) refers both to self-harm and also to asking someone else to do harm. He said clearly that there is no downside to removing section 98(c) as it refers to self-harm and went on to say that if the worry is about someone in the armed forces asking someone else to harm them, that's already covered by lots of other regulations. Assault is the main one that would apply. If a serving member asks someone else to harm them so they can get out of service, that person is already guilty of offences if they carry it out. He saw no downside to removing this section.

The Judge Advocate General's office made it clear that this section is rarely taken through the formal process. In other words, it is not used very often. However, the fact that it makes it a disciplinary offence means that it is sometimes applied at the command level. I think there was only one case in the last 10 years of someone being prosecuted for self-harming through the military justice system, but the fact that it is there as a disciplinary offence allows lower-level decisions that apply discipline rather than assistance to these mental health issues.

It was a big missed opportunity. The Liberals, as I mentioned, argued that it was outside the scope of Bill C-77 to remove this section of the National Defence Act. That was a very technical argument and one that is very difficult for me to accept, in that Bill C-77 already amended eight other sections of the code of conduct, so it would have been very easy for the committee to decide to proceed with this amendment.

Although the Liberals have not done so and the bill is now before us without my amendment, I still support the bill. I think there are many positive things in it. However, I have introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-426, which does the same thing. It is a very simple bill. It suggests taking paragraph 98(c) out of the National Defence Act.

The Liberals argued at committee that doing it at committee was not the right way or the right place, but they were sympathetic, so my challenge to the Liberals now is this: If the committee was not the right place to amend Bill C-77 in this way, will they join the Conservatives and the New Democrats in now supporting my bill to take this section out of the National Defence Act and remove one of the major barriers preventing those who are suffering with mental illness from getting the treatment and help they need?

With that, I will conclude my remarks, and I will be happy to take questions.

I am happy the bill is moving forward. I am happy it is going to be done before we go to another election so that we do not have a further delay on victims' rights in the military justice system, but I remain disappointed that we have missed a big opportunity to do something about the crisis of death by suicide in the Canadian Forces.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-77. It has a title that would not let anyone know what it is about. It is called “an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts”. What it really ought to be called is “a bill to complete the process of military justice reform”. That is the basic reason we in the New Democratic Party are in favour of the bill. We are in favour of it despite its tardiness, and we are in favour of it despite it missing a major opportunity to take an action I will talk about later.

Certain key provisions here are important, and I think we have all-party support for adding these to the military justice system. The first of those would provide greater rights and protections for victims in the military justice system. What the bill would do is align the military justice system with the civilian justice system and align it with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. That means that there would be rights for those involved as victims in the military justice system to be kept informed of the progress of their cases and to get key information about the process in terms of timing: when things will be heard and when they will be resolved. This is something that is not in the military justice system presently.

The second of those rights for victims is that victim impact statements would be allowed in the military justice system in the same way they are allowed in the civilian justice system. That is an important reason to support the bill.

The second reason, which was mentioned just briefly before I stood to speak, is that the bill would bring the military justice system into conformity with the Gladue decision of the Supreme Court in 1999. which allows justices to take into account the circumstances of aboriginal offenders in determining sentencing. The same principle we have been using for 20 years in the civilian justice system would be applied to the military justice system. It is a bit tardy, but it is a good thing to do.

The bill completes most of the military justice reforms that have been worked on for more than 15 years. They were mostly introduced by the previous Conservative government. In its bill, for some reason, the victims rights pieces were left behind. That was a bit surprising in that it was the Conservative government that was bringing forward the reforms, and it was the Conservative government that was the big proponent of the victims rights act. It was a bit peculiar that it was left out, but here it is again. It is a bit tardy, but it is in this bill.

The government passed most of the major military justice reforms in 2013. Here we are, six years later, still dealing with a bill to complete those reforms.

There are some oddities in the military justice system that would be cleared up here. One of those is the fact that there is no requirement to keep transcripts of all military justice proceedings. A summary hearing can be held without any record of that hearing being held. Therefore, it can become very difficult for anyone to appeal a decision from one of those tribunals when there is no written record of it. That is one of the things the Conservatives brought in in their original bill, which was quite positive, as well as better protections against self-incrimination, which did not exist in the military justice system, even though they are required by the Canadian Constitution and the bill of rights. Those were some of the things that were in the 2013 bill that were necessary. This bill would fully implement some of those changes.

What I do not understand is the great delay in getting this done. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives were slow to act on what were clearly needed reforms in military justice. I am not sure why the Conservatives did not complete the job on their watch. They only got as far as Bill C-15, and they introduced Bill C-71 in the dying days of the last Parliament, which is essentially the same as Bill C-77.

Having criticized the Conservatives for being slow, I will criticize the Liberals for being even slower, because they had the Conservative bill, Bill C-71. This bill, Bill C-77, is essentially the same bill, but it took them two years to bring it back to Parliament.

The other part of this is that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals acted expeditiously to get the sections of the original Bill C-15 proclaimed. That bill passed in 2013, and it was not fully proclaimed. It was not fully enforced until September of 2018. We had five years before the legislation was actually put into practice. Some of that was through funding not being made available for the necessary changes, especially in terms of staffing the military justice system. Some of that is simply inexplicable to me. I do not know why it took them so long to get this done.

Again, as I mentioned, it took the Liberals two years to introduce a bill virtually identical to the one the Conservatives introduced in 2015. That makes no sense at all.

What we are doing in Bill C-77 is important, not just in the narrow sense of the military justice act but because of lots of other provisions for military justice and the operations of the military. One of those is Operation HONOUR, which is the military's attempt to deal with sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military. One of the key things here in Bill C-77 is that better supports would now be mandated by law for victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military justice system. This is a supporting measure to Operation HONOUR, which has its big challenges. It has not been entirely successful.

We had former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps before the committee on February 7. It was her report on sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military that sparked some of these changes that are now taking place. What she cited was a reluctance that remains in the military to report sexual harassment and sexual assault, and what she said very clearly to us in the committee was that the solution to that is better support for victims at all stages.

Bill C-77 provides that support when we get to the formal stages for sexual harassment and sexual assault, but Madam Deschamps was very clear that there needs to be better support for victims before the formal processes begin. That is something that is not in Bill C-77. That is something that is not mandated by law. However, I do not think that is a necessity. The Canadian Forces could obviously begin to put in place those better supports for those who have been subjected to sexual harassment and sexual assault when they first make it known to their supervisors or to others in the military system. If they make those supports known and make those supports available, we will get better reporting and we will get better handling of all those cases.

There is still more work to do before the formal legal stages that are being dealt with in Bill C-77. I certainly encourage the leadership of the Canadian Forces to act quickly to get those supports for victims in place.

The other reservation I have in supporting this bill is that it has missed a huge opportunity. That is an opportunity to help deal with another serious concern in the Canadian Forces, and that is the problem of death by suicide in the military.

Over the past 15 years, we have lost 195 serving members of the Canadian Forces to death by suicide. That does not include reservists. The government has admitted that we do not do a good job of keeping track of death by suicide among reservists. The 195 is only those in the Canadian regular forces. We know the number is far larger.

We know that those who are young men between the ages of 25 and 30 are 250 times more likely to take their own lives if they are in the Canadian Forces or are veterans. Something is going on, with the difficult and dangerous work we ask people to do, that results in mental health challenges that we are not responding to in an effective manner.

In November 2017, we had the announcement of a joint DND and Veterans Affairs suicide prevention strategy. I applaud the military for having such a strategy. Again, it is a little tardy, but okay, let us get moving on this. Its focus was on providing more support for those who are facing mental health challenges and more training for all staff within the military, including chaplains and others who are assigned to support those serving members, in how to spot signs of suicide and how to deal with those suffering this mental health injury that has led to self-harm.

That strategy, as I said, was put in place in November 2017. Unfortunately, in 2018, we had 15 more serving members and two members of the reserves die by suicide. That is in one year, 2018. One of my colleagues is signalling that the government's count was two, but there were probably actually five—

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this legislation, which will affect a part of Canada's justice system that is largely unfamiliar to many Canadians, including perhaps some members of this House.

Bill C-77 makes important changes to our military justice system, bringing it more in line with our civilian criminal justice system with respect to victims' rights and sentencing for indigenous offenders. It also makes this unique system more effective in dealing with minor breaches of military discipline.

Our government and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to maintaining a military justice system that is fair, modern and robust. Canada maintains a military justice system that is separate from, but parallel to, the civilian system.

Our department has been active on many issues, including military justice reform. We will continue making equity and modernization a priority as we go forward implementing these important initiatives.

Canada has a world-class military justice system, which goes a long way toward helping the Canadian Armed Forces to accomplish their missions in Canada and throughout the world. The system reflects Canadian values and upholds the rule of law while meeting the unique needs of the military.

Some people may wonder why we have a military justice system. The reason is clear. Simply put, we need such a system to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale among those responsible for protecting Canadians, our values and our national interests.

There are many things that ordinary citizens can get away with doing without being sanctioned, even though those things may be inappropriate or even go contrary to relatively minor federal, provincial or municipal laws or regulations. However, it can be a lot more serious if a soldier does the same thing, particularly when he or she is participating in a military operation. A simple act of insubordination can compromise the cohesion of a military unit that must operate at the highest level of efficiency and solidarity. I am not exaggerating when I say that people's lives may depend on it.

Canada's military justice system is rooted in centuries of practice around the world. Monarchs, army generals and political leaders have long recognized the importance of having a disciplined military.

Just one year after Confederation, the new Parliament of Canada adopted the Militia Acts, which integrated the British Army Act into Canadian law. The Canadian Forces Legal Branch was created in 1918, just a few months before the end of the First World War. This was no coincidence. Canada's key role in the ensuing allied victory was a source of increased self-confidence.

From that point on, our military justice system evolved gradually, more specifically with the increased involvement of our military lawyers in courts of law. However, it was always clear that the commanders controlled the martial law system, and they primarily used it as a tool to enforce discipline. The military lawyers representing the Canadian Forces Legal Branch were simply there to advise tribunal members on procedure and evidence and to look for errors in law.

The first big change came after the adoption of the National Defence Act in 1950, which brought the military justice system closer in line with the civilian criminal justice system.

For instance, the act authorized appeals to the Court Martial Appeal Court and brought many penalties into line with those handed down in the civilian system. Only minor amendments had been made by the time two momentous events shook up the system in the early 1980s.

The first was the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. Another reform stemming from a charter challenge allowed the accused person to choose between trial by a military judge alone or by a judge and a panel of military members.

All of these challenges led to a radical change that caused the system to stray from its primary objective, which is to help commanders maintain discipline. This gave rise to a complex, polished system that has adopted many of the characteristics of the civilian system, which is, of course, one of the most widely admired systems in the world.

Bill C-77 is the latest step in this process of evolution. If passed, it will make the military justice system fairer and more effective, without neglecting its key role of maintaining discipline and morale.

I firmly believe that the military justice system will remain an indispensable aspect of the armed forces for many years to come.

By passing Bill C-77 to improve and modernize this system, we will be helping the Canadian Armed Forces continue to meet their many crucial objectives, both in Canada and abroad.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to speak to this issue.

As a former member of the Canadian Forces, I am deeply concerned by the state of our military justice system in Canada. We are finding that military members do not have access to legal representation to the same extent that they had formerly. We are finding that operational commanders are recommending to proceed with disciplinary charges and only 50% of cases are actually going through, which undermines the good order and discipline of the military. We have also found that there is a lack of experience among the judges within the military justice system.

Bill C-77 does nothing to address any of those systemic challenges within the military justice system. I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak to that point. When will the government do something, and what, if anything, will it do to actually address the changes in the National Defence Act?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

I am very pleased to rise today, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, to support Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I want to first acknowledge the hard work that has gone into shaping this bill and getting to this point. Obviously that includes the work of members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and their clause-by-clause consideration of the bill earlier this fall.

I would also like to recognize the work and the outstanding dedication of the members of our Canadian Armed Forces. I think we all greatly appreciate the work they do every day. We are very grateful to them and we thank them.

The study in committee made it possible to tweak the language used in the bill for clarity and to debate important ideas raised by the public, particularly with regard to mental health issues. The result is a better bill and parliamentarians who are more aware of these issues. I therefore thank the committee.

The premise of the bill is simple. Our men and women in uniform deserve a military justice system that supports them in all they do, a military justice system that reflects Canadian values, works to eliminate discrimination of any kind, and ensures that victims are given a voice throughout the legal process.

Through Bill C-77, we are proposing important changes to our current military justice framework, specifically by enshrining victims’ rights before, during and after court martial proceedings. We are also strengthening the summary trial process to ensure that minor cases are disposed of in a non-penal, non-criminal process called summary hearings. In addition, we are seeking harsher punishments and sanctions for services offences and infractions motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression. Finally, we are ensuring that the specific circumstances of indigenous offenders are taken into account at the time of sentencing.

For example, the proposed summary hearings will help improve the flexibility and effectiveness of the military justice system by allowing the chain of command to address minor service infractions quickly and fairly at the unit level. Naturally, the most serious cases will be referred to the courts martial. There will be no summary process anymore, and military commanders who preside over summary hearings will only be able to impose non-criminal penalties for service infractions.

The changes we are proposing are long overdue. We recognize that we need to continually improve our military justice system so that it mirrors the civilian criminal justice system where appropriate, while acknowledging the important distinctions that exist between the two systems in order to account for the unique requirements of military life.

Our government is committed to making the Canadian Armed Forces a safe and welcoming place for all Canadians, both civilian and military. It is this same commitment that continues to motivate us as we work to finalize these amendments and enshrine them in law.

One of the most important sets of changes we are proposing is the introduction of the declaration of victims rights into the National Defence Act. This declaration mirrors the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, applicable in the civilian criminal justice system. It enshrines rights for victims of service offences and enhances the support provided to them as they navigate the court martial process.

These changes include the right to information, which ensures that victims understand the process and the options at their disposal; the right to protection, which guarantees the victims' security and privacy; the right to participation, which allows victims to convey their views about decisions to be made by authorities in the military justice system; and the right to restitution, which entitles victims to seek restitution.

In order to ensure that victims are able to exercise these rights, they will be entitled to the support of a victim liaison officer. The victim liaison officer will help them navigate the military justice system and inform them about how this system operates. They will explain to victims how service offences are charged, dealt with and tried under the Code of Service Discipline. These are important changes that help put victims first, and I am proud to support them in the House.

The second set of changes we are proposing have to do with how the military justice system handles minor breaches of military discipline. Through these proposed changes, a new category of minor breaches of military discipline, called service infractions, will be created. These service infractions will not trigger a criminal record.

This change will allow the Canadian Armed Forces to handle minor breaches of military discipline in a fairer, simpler and faster manner. They demonstrate trust and confidence in our military leaders, who can address minor breaches of discipline at the base, wing or unit level.

Through Bill C-77, we are also working to address issues of gender-based prejudice and hatred in the Canadian Armed Forces. The bill parallels provisions in the Criminal Code that propose harsher sentences and sanctions for service offences and infractions that are motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, based on gender expression or identity.

The Canadian Armed Forces has zero-tolerance for discrimination of any kind. We are committed to eradicating these types of biases in our military ranks. That is why, through this bill and other initiatives, we are working to discourage behaviour motivated by prejudice or hate. This amendment will reflect this commitment and help the Canadian Armed forces continue to make progress in promoting inclusivity. We are ensuring that the military justice system is consistent with the civilian system when it comes to the human rights of the LGBTQ2 community. This bill represents another step in that direction.

Finally, we have made a significant amendment to align with the Criminal Code provision relating to the sentencing of indigenous offenders. For Indigenous offenders convicted of military service offences, historic injustices will be considered during sentencing. This sentencing principle acknowledges the historic wrongs that still negatively affect indigenous Canadians across the country.

These changes will also reflect the government's promise to advance reconciliation and renew our relations with indigenous people. We believe that these considerations are vital to the Canadian Armed Forces’ role in repairing our relationship with Canada’s indigenous peoples. Concrete measures like this will help us strengthen our nation-to-nation relationship and continue on the path to healing.

I am extremely proud of the important role that indigenous Canadians play in the Canadian Armed Forces. There are nearly 2,500 indigenous CAF members serving in the regular and reserve forces.

These proposed changes to the National Defence Act are key to supporting our women and men in uniform. Our military personnel are at the heart of everything we do. They are at the heart of the new defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, because the women and men of the CAF make extraordinary sacrifices every day in service to their country. They deserve a return to a military justice system that ensures their voices are heard. They deserve a military justice system that maintains discipline and efficiency in the CAF while respecting our Canadian values. They deserve a military justice system that provides fair and equal treatment, regardless of race, orientation, or gender.

Bill C-77 proposes the changes required to reform the military justice system so that it continues to meet the expectations of the people of Canada and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. It presents an approach that is more focused on the victims and protects their rights.

This bill deserves our support because it seeks to establish a better military justice system for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception with the comments by the member for Kingston and the Islands that we did not introduce our bill until the dying days.

It is a fact that we brought forward two bills on military justice before Bill C-71 that passed.

It is a fact that one thing that Bill C-71 in the old Parliament did and that Bill C-77 does is enshrine the victims bill of rights into the military justice system. That did not pass until the third year we were government.

It is a fact that we moved that bill through as fast as we could at the end of the session.

It is a fact that the Liberals sat on it for three years before they brought in Bill C-77, which is a complete replica of our Bill C-71.

We did all the heavy lifting and we did all the hard work, but the Liberals sat on their hands.

I want to ask the member, who has served so well on the national defence committee for the past 20 years, if she would comment on why the previous minister of veterans affairs and associate minister of national defence would have resigned when she has such a passion for indigenous issues which are now enshrined in Bill C-77 through the incorporation of the Gladue decision. Why would she have stepped back when she was the former justice minister who believed in having a strong law in our Canadian society, especially in the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member across the way with interest. She spoke a lot about various different aspects of the military, and the operations and what was going on.

As we bring it back to Bill C-77, this legislation really goes a long way to declaring rights for victims and ensuring they have the supports they need in order to receive the fair treatment they deserve.

However, I did not hear the member specifically reference whether she was supportive of the bill. My question is very simple. Will the member be voting in favour of the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Garrison Petawawa, the training ground of the warriors, located in the beautiful riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-77.

The legislation would amend provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system. As a veteran member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I thank the women and men in uniform for placing their trust in me as a member of that committee.

Before I get to my remarks, I join my leader and observe it is time for someone to take a walk in the snow. Unlike the current federal government that has gone rogue with the criminal justice system, the Conservatives are committed to standing up for victims of crime and ensuring that victims have a more effective voice in the criminal justice system.

I am proud to confirm that it was as a member of the previous Conservative government that I supported the enactment of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Just as I supported victims rights on behalf of the women and men serving in uniform, I support enshrining a parallel victims rights regime in the military justice system. Bill C-77, to a significant degree, replicates what the Conservatives brought forward in Bill C-71 in the 41st Parliament. So far as the current government follows our example, those elements of the legislation can be supported.

Unlike the current ethically challenged government, the Conservatives believe victims of crime should not be forgotten in the criminal justice system. Our 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 would mirror the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and put it into military law. This was the result of several years of work and takes into account hundreds of submissions and consultations held with victims and groups concerned about victims and their rights for the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

The proposed legislation would give victims enhanced access to information through the appointment of a victim liaison officer, and enhanced protection through new safety, security and privacy provisions, and the like. In addition to being the home of 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group and the 4th Canadian Division Support Group, which is made up of 2 RCHA, 1 RCR, 3 RCR, RCDs and 2 Combat Engineer Regiment, as well as 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron, and 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron, Garrison Petawawa is also home to the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, CSOR.

The Canadian Special Operations Regiment, CSOR, which was stood up during the Conservative watch of the defence of our nation, is the first new regiment to have been set up in over 50 years. I am proud of the role I played in supporting that decision and the subsequent decision to locate 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron to Garrison Petawawa to train with the troops. The Chinook helicopters serve as strategic lifts, and helicopters save lives.

As Garrison Petawawa was the last home of the Canadian Airborne Regiment before it was disbanded for partisan reasons by the Chrétien government, military justice is a volatile topic at Garrison Petawawa. The words “military” and “justice” do not need to be mutually exclusive. What we need to keep in mind, as parliamentarians debate legislation such as Bill C-77, is the effect that it has on the lives of individuals and service morale.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader raised the issue of veterans and how they are now treated. I am going to expand on his comments.

I am now going to give voice to an individual who cannot speak in this chamber, by sharing the letter I received from that soldier. It states, “Good day, I am about to be released from the Forces after 28 years of service. I have sacrificed my mind and my body in the service of Canada. Having suffered physical injuries and PTSD, I have no complaints about anything that I did for the military and would do it all over again. I have received excellent medical care for all my injuries, as well as my treatment by VAC for almost everything. They have covered me for my physical injuries and my PTSD. I expect to be on long-term disability upon my medical release.

“My issue is this. VAC went through the process to add detainee to the POW policy for compensation. I was at first happy with this change. I was detained by Serbian forces for 18 days while serving with the UN in Yugoslavia back in 1994, with 54 others, only to find out the federal government won't consider a claim until you've been a detainee for greater than 30 days.

“I feel insulted by this policy. Apparently, fearing for your life for that time period is just not enough, and we did fear for our lives. We saw the atrocities the Serbs were capable first-hand. Then, to find out that the Prime Minister paid $10.5 million to an ISIS fighter because according to him we as Canadians did not protect his rights....

“We were ordered to submit to being detained by our chain of command. Ordered not to escape, only to find out later that the order was an unlawful order. After all that, I have sacrifices, both professional and personal, and this is the only thing that still haunts me. I believe a change in policy is in order, even just to recognize what we did for our country.”

First, let me thank this solider for his service to our country. He is a credit to his uniform, and I understand how hard it was for him to step forward and write that letter.

I also understand that the Minister of Veterans Affairs for this government, whoever it was, as there have been so many it is hard to keep track, was made aware of the situation by the New Brunswick member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, or so the solider was told. Judging by the lack of government response, the Minister of Health could not be bothered to be concerned about the health of our soldiers. She is too busy staging photo ops with the Prime Minister, using soldiers as props, to be concerned about something as mundane as military justice. Justice in this case is for the sacrifice of 55 Canadian soldiers who were held prisoner as UN peacekeepers during the conflict in the Balkans.

I was also shocked, but not surprised, to learn that the Chrétien government refused to recognize the heroism of all but one member of the Royal Canadian Dragoons battle group who were held hostage, who participated in Operation Cavalier, CANBAT 2.

Where is the justice in the Liberal government coming up with the arbitrary number of 30 as the cut-off for the detention benefit that was announced in the new veterans charter? It would appear this is another example, like the critical injury benefit, where the Liberal government announces a benefit that excludes soldiers and veterans who should qualify. This is another fake promise to soldiers and veterans.

I am honoured and privileged to put on the official record of the proceedings of the House of Commons during debate on military justice, the names of those soldiers who were held hostage, who their country refuses to recognize today. Many are still serving their country in uniform today. The rank mentioned reflects the rank at the time the incident occurred in 1994. While the listing includes the declared hometowns, 44 of the 55 were based out of Garrison Petawawa, which is located in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The names of those soldiers are:

Major Dean Milner, 33, armor officer, Kingston, Ontario; Corporal Troy Cleveland, 24, crewman, Windson, Nova Scotia; Corporal Robert Carter, 26, crewman, Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia; Master Corporal Chris Maher, 31, crewman, Burlington, Ontario; Corporal Steve Tasnadi, 27, crewman, Toronto, Ontario; Corporal Richard Sheppard, 23, crewman, Fortune Bay, Newfoundland; Sergeant Daniel Berrigan, 31, crewman, Ajax, Ontario; Master Corporal Martin Nickerson, 34, crewman, Pembroke, Ontario; Corporal Sean Dunstan, 25, crewman, Petawawa, Ontario; Corporal Chris Neilson, 21, crewman, St. Catharines, Ontario; Corporal Brian Lecuyer, 28, crewman, Elliot Lake, Ontario; Corporal David Calissi, 33, crewman, Kelowna, British Columbia; 2nd Lieutenant Chris Renahan, 23, armor officer, Toronto, Ontario; Master Corporal Marc Tremblay, 31, crewman, Bagotville, Quebec; Master Warrant Officer Thomas Skelding, 39, crewman, Windsor, Ontario; Corporal Gordon Vanwesten, 25, vehicle technician, Ennismore, Ontario; Corporal Alex Vizino, 27, crewman, Port Colborne, Ontario; Lieutenant Chris Henderson, 30, public affairs officer, Ottawa, Ontario; Corporal Marc Bergeron, 33, photo technician, Alma, Quebec; Lieutenant Mark Poland, 23, reserve armor officer, Sarnia, Ontario; 2nd Lieutenant Greg Nette, 23, armor officer, Edmonton, Alberta; Master Corporal Stanley Potocnik, 27, crewman, Rawdon, Quebec; Corporal Paul Turmel, 28, crewman, Windsor, Ontario; Master Corporal Richard Biddiscombe, 27, crewman, St. John's, Newfoundland; Warrant Officer Richard Ritchie, 34, crewman, Cold Lake, Alberta; Corporal James Morgan, 23, crewman, Cormack, Newfoundland; Corporal Mark Jones, 24, crewman, Belleville, Ontario; Corporal Michael Meade, 24, crewman, Huntsville, Ontario; Corporal Mario Desrochers, 26, crewman, Petawawa, Ontario; Corporal Sean Donaldson, 23, reserve crewman, Windsor, Ontario; Corporal William Byrne, 29, crewman, Conch, Newfoundland; Corporal Sean Murphy, 25, reserve crewman, Brampton, Ontario; Master Seaman Kevin Kendall, 27, medical assistant, Esterhazy, Saskatchewan; Leading Seaman Daniel Williams, 23, medical assistant, St. John's, Newfoundland; Private Kristopher Boyd, 20, medical assistant, Forest/Sarnia, Ontario; Sergeant William Richards, 32, crewman, St. Stephen, New Brunswick; Master Corporal Michael Smith, 30, crewman, Kitchener, Ontario; Corporal Dana Crue, 30, crewman, Summerside, Prince Edward Island; Corporal David Walker, 30, crewman, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Corporal Marc Kemp, 23, crewman, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Master Corporal Dean Smith, 24, reserve crewman, Gooderham, Ontario; Master Corporal William Thomas, 32, infantryman, Canning, Nova Scotia; Corporal James Predo, 27, infantryman, Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia; Sergeant Tom Moran, 30, crewman; Master Corporal Richard Allinson, 31, crewman, Port Hope, Ontario; Corporal Michael Bolger, 27, crewman, St. John's, Newfoundland; Corporal Sheldon Clarke, 24, crewman, Grand Falls, Newfoundland; Corporal Scott Cairns, 27, crewman, Lachine, Quebec; Corporal Davis Balser, 22, crewman, Weymouth, Digby County, Nova Scotia; Sergeant Gordon Campbell, 31, crewman, Kensington, Prince Edward Island; Corporal David Clark, 30, crewman, Toronto, Ontario; Corporal Darren Burgess, 26, crewman, Windsor, Ontario; Corporal Russell Robertson, 23, Squamish, British Columbia; Corporal Bruce Rose, 27, crewman, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; Trooper Paul Smith, 23, crewman, Oil Springs/Petrolia, Ontario.

Military justice is about more than adding pages of rules and regulations filled with confusing words. Military justice should also be about recognizing the sacrifices soldiers and their families have made in representing their country.

Does Bill C-77 contribute to or diminish camaraderie among soldiers? Does Bill C-77 hurt operational efficiency? We need to keep on asking these questions with real life experiences in mind, such as those of the people who were detained.

That was my purpose when I put on the record the names of the 55 soldiers who were held hostage during the United Nations mission in Bosnia, Operation Cavalier, during the conflict in the Balkans. The government has forgotten these soldiers. The Prime Minister may state that veterans are asking for too much, as he did before. Veterans are only asking for what they are promised.

Psychological experiments and troop cohesion will end up getting soldiers killed, the same way that political expediency led to the loss of soldiers' lives in Afghanistan with the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter contract by the Chrétien Liberal government. When Chrétien cancelled that contract, he also got rid of the Chinook helicopters in the military fleet.

Just like the sponsorship scandal and the Lavalin scandal of today, the Liberals have not learned a thing with the decision to buy secondhand, cast-off jets from the Australians rather than equip our troops with what they really need. When Chrétien cancelled the sale of the new badly needed helicopters, he should have halted the sale of the Chinook helicopters to the Dutch government. A lot of good women and men died in Afghanistan as a consequence.

Justice in the military should also provide the right equipment to do the job we ask our soldiers to do on our behalf. It should be about recognizing our soldiers, like the 55 forgotten soldiers.

We need enhanced participation through impact statements at sentencing and enhanced restitution with the court martial required to consider making restitution for losses.

The Auditor General's fall 2018 report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces shows that there is a great need for victims' rights, which Bill C-77 is introducing.

Again, I would like to offer my condolences to the family of our late auditor general, Michael Ferguson.

Operation Honour is a plan to reduce inappropriate sexual behaviour toward women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Auditor General's report found that Operation Honour was severely lacking in providing proper support for the victims of inappropriate sexual behaviour, which includes crimes like sexual assault, rape and harassment. In fact, the report found that Operation Honour was not even designed with victim support in mind and that the services it did offer were poorly coordinated. Even worse, the victims were often not even told that there were support services available to them, despite the legal requirement to do so.

Disregard for legal requirements appears to be a theme with the government. Victims did not even have a say if their case was investigated, as the vast majority of reports were done via third party from a duty to report, which Operation Honour created. Investigations were undertaken inside the chain of command, whether the victim was ready or even willing to pursue justice for the crime against them. All reports were acted upon. Victims had no recourse to stop the investigation if they did not want to proceed with a complaint.

The Auditor General's report also found issues with the training and briefings given to Canadian Armed Forces members regarding the inappropriate sexual behaviour. He found that the briefings were fragmented and led to confusion, frustration, fear and less comradery among soldiers. Briefings raised awareness of inappropriate sexual behaviour, but did little to nothing to address or bring awareness to changing habits or understanding the root causes of inappropriate sexual behaviour.

The report also highlighted a lack of awareness of support services for victims, insufficient training to support the victims and a lack of availability to support those services. People providing services had a lack of subject matter expertise and there was little coordination between the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, which handles the support services, and the Strategic Response Team, which has the actual investigative responsibilities.

Operation Honour was inspired by an investigation and report by former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps. We had Justice Deschamps appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence earlier this month and she gave us her insights as to whether Operation Honour aligned with her original 10 recommendations.

It is important to remind the government that for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, when they put on a uniform, they are soldiers first, and that is an important distinction. In an operational setting, they need to be able to rely on their fellow soldiers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We seem to be drifting again. I just want to remind hon. members that we are debating Bill C-77.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-77 and look forward to it going to the Senate, but I am shocked at the comments the member just made, saying that if it is last minute in the dying hours of a Parliament, then it really was not important. We have seen that with the seniors file, where in the dying days the Liberals have appointed a Minister of Seniors and now consultation with seniors has begun.

Would the member apologize on behalf of the government for ignoring seniors and making a last-minute, dying days gasp to deal with seniors' issues?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-77, along with the minister of labour's legislation, Bill C-65, would build on the government's commitment to creating workplaces free from harassment and discrimination within the federal sphere. Let there be no doubt that inappropriate behaviour of that nature is inexcusable, and we encourage members of the Canadian Forces to raise it with their supervisors or through the mechanisms that have been put in place.

When we talk about the military, and I reference boot camps, team building is really important. When we would go out and do an exercise, it would not be complete until the last person had completed that particular exercise. For example, if we were going for a jog, it might be the person at the front who would go to the back to encourage the person at the back to continue. That person would help motivate that particular individual.

When people first start in the military, there is a great deal of discussion about being there for their teammates. Having said that, there is unacceptable behaviour. When people are witnessing unacceptable behaviour, there is an obligation to report it, because we want all work environments to be harassment free.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to provide some of my thoughts and comments.

Over the last few years, I have witnessed a different approach to Canada's military, a positive approach. I want to take a more holistic approach in my address on this legislation. This is an important bill and opposition members have recognized that fact. They too feel this is good legislation.

The bill has gone through first and second reading, through committee stage and report stage. We are now into the third and final aspect of its passage, and that is a good thing.

Bill C-77 is long overdue. It proposes to make our military justice system a bit more in sync with our civil system. There is fairly universal support for the government in advancing the legislation in order to accomplish that.

I had the good fortune to serve in the Canadian Forces for a few years. Even though I never experienced it directly, indirectly I got a sense of military justice and the justice regime. I can recall first-hand during my boot camp days the supervisor, or the master corporal in this situation, telling us what our obligations were.

In the military justice world one has an obligation to show up when asked to show up. When members of the forces are scheduled to do something, they best be there unless they have some sort of medical condition or have a very good reason for not showing up. If a member is scheduled to be on duty, he or she is expected to be there. That does not necessarily apply with the same sort of weight in civilian life.

The previous speaker made reference to the idea of being absent without leave. An important part of the training that was instilled in me and thousands of others as we went through boot camp was that there was a difference between military life and civilian life. One of the issues highlighted with respect to that was the idea of the military's ability to provide discipline to ensure its members would be where they were supposed to be. When I reflect on that today, I understand the importance of that.

Serving in the military is very unique. It is an absolute honour and privilege. As a member of Parliament, as well as in my days as a member of a legislative assembly, I have always, without exception, acknowledged the fine work the women and men in our forces do, whether it is the air force, the special units, the navy or military. I appreciate and value their contributions to our society in both current and past military actions protecting Canadians. Whether in peace missions or fighting the mighty Red River when it has overflowed, our military plays a critical and vital role with respect to our country. We will always be there for our military.

Even though we have only been in government for a little over three years, we have not only talked about taking action, but has also delivered on a number of different fronts.

What we are debating today is just one aspect of that. It is about military justice.

Let me go back to the training I received. When we were told that we had to show up, that we had to be somewhere, the consequence of not being there could lead to a court-martial and a criminal record. Even though there might be a reason, a relatively weak reason at times, for an individual not being where he or she was supposed to be, it would potentially lead to a criminal record.

I believe, as I would have believed back then, that this is not necessarily a fair consequence in all situations. That is why it is a good that the legislation brings the consequences more into line with what happens in civilian life. For example, now much more discretion will be allowed if someone is found to have been AWOL or has not shown up where he or she needs to be at a specific time. This does not mean the individual will receive a court martial. The same threat level is no longer there.

Members of the forces are incredible individuals, with a very strong sense of commitment to duty and country. Ultimately this will have a minor impact with respect to service to country, yet can have a very positive impact on what happens when someone from the military retires.

As we have heard from other speakers, when members of the Canadian Forces decide to retire or have the opportunity to retire, whatever the circumstances might be, we want those members to have the opportunity to continue with successful employment into the future. Having a criminal record has a negative impact on the ability of service members or former service members to get employment for which they are eligible. It is not fair that members of the forces would receive a criminal record for a charge that someone in the civilian sector would not receive. In part, I believe that is why we see good support for the legislation from members of the opposition. We recognize that we can do more to reform our laws that would allow that kind of an issue to be resolved positively.

Insubordination is another example. In civilian life insubordination is treated quite differently than it is in the military. The legislation would also deal with that. This is an opportunity to look at good legislation that advances our Canadian Forces in a positive direction and to get behind it.

One encouraging issue in Bill C-77 is that we would ensure indigenous sentencing provisions would be taken into consideration. This has been taking place within our civilian population. This is different from what the previous government proposed. We need to understand and appreciate that the indigenous factor needs to be taken into consideration. We see that in our civil court system and it has proven to be successful. Therefore, I am glad to see that in this legislation.

There is something we often talk about in the House in regard to legislation on criminal matters. We often hear about the importance of victims and protecting or enhancing the rights of victims. It pleases me that we would establish something new with this legislation within the law on military justice, and that is a declaration of victims rights. That is long overdue. I am glad that we have a government that has incorporated into the legislation respect for victims rights.

What does that mean? It would allow, for example, the right to have information. It would also allow a right to protection. Equally important is participation in the process. Where it is possible, restitution would be of critical importance.

I had the opportunity to serve as chair of a youth justice committee. One of the more progressive changes we started to see at the tail end, before I actually had to leave the committee a number of years back, was the idea of restitution, or restorative justice. As much as possible, that is a wonderful tool that needs to at least be considered. When we think of victims and the idea of restorative justice, we need to incorporate victims whenever we can. It really makes a difference for victims.

I would like to give an example of what that sort of justice means to victims. A victim subjected to an offence is afforded the opportunity to participate by sitting down with the perpetrator and assisting in developing the consequence for that behaviour. At the level of a youth justice committee, dealing with young offenders under the age of 18, I had the opportunity to witness that on a couple of occasions. I was very encouraged by it. The victim was better able to get an appreciation of what had taken place and at the same time feel that the impact on the victim was taken into consideration.

With respect to other aspects of the legislation, it says the following:

It amends Part III of the National Defence Act to, among other things,

(a) specify the purpose of the Code of Service Discipline and the fundamental purpose of imposing sanctions at summary hearings.

This legislation would ensure that there is a quicker processing of justice. It would also “protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences”.

Many Canadians who follow debates in the House might not be familiar with the fact that there is a civilian system of justice and a military justice system. Something I discovered in the discussions on this legislation was that in certain situations, a military person who commits an offence will go through the civilian justice system as opposed to the military justice system. An example is in regard to sexual assault. In certain situations, there is discretion in our system to enable civilian courts to deal with military personnel who are convicted of committing an offence.

I mentioned that I served in the military. I served in Edmonton, in air traffic control, as an assistant at the time, working out of Lancaster Park. Just south of Lancaster Park, in Griesbach, there was a military detention centre on the base. It was somewhat new to me, but people being held in custody for a sentence of more than two years would go to a federal facility for civilians. For any sentence under two years, offenders would be detained, in part, in military facilities.

The legislation would include the following:

(d) make testimonial aids more accessible to vulnerable witnesses;

(e) allow witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in appropriate cases;

(f) on application, make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 mandatory;

(g) In certain circumstances, require a military judge 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.

The legislation again highlights the importance of victims rights:

(i) provide for different ways of presenting victim impact statements;

(j) allow for military impact statements and community impact statements to be considered in all service offences;

(k) provide...that particular attention should be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders;

As I indicated earlier, that is completely new to the legislation, and I believe it has fairly good support on both sides of the House.

The legislation would also,

(m) provide for a scale of sanctions in respect of service infractions and for the principles applicable to those sanctions;

(n) provide for a six-month limitation period in respect of summary hearings;

As I said, this legislation has some new aspects that would further enhance what was introduced in the House a number of years ago. Members across the way appear to recognize the value of the legislation, and I hope they will allow it to go to the next step, which is the Senate.

The modernization of our military law is a positive thing, and it is part of a holistic approach this government is taking in being there for the Canadian men and women who serve in our forces. I am thankful for the opportunity to share some thoughts on the matter.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that we are discussing Bill C-77, so the questions should be relevant to that. I have flashbacks to the debate on Bill S-6 the other day when Madagascar was mentioned occasionally, and it was not pertinent in the questions.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North's question is allowing me to comment on the bill again. As he heard in my speech, I will be voting for Bill C-77. I believe it is a bill that is following the former Conservative Bill C-71. We will be moving it forward and I certainly will be supporting it.

However, there are still situations that need to be looked at, as I outlined. We need to make sure that we are looking at exactly which areas of military law are carried forward into civilian law, as I pointed out earlier. I will be looking forward to seeing some of those changes, if possible, as well.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to continue where I left off last Friday.

Just to recap, Bill C-77, which is before us today, aims to protect victims of military offences by providing needed updates to the current military justice system. Updating the judicial system of the Canadian Armed Forces can be a daunting task, but those in the service commit their lives to defending Canadian values and beliefs, and it is very worthwhile.

Whether on foreign soil or right here at home, they must regularly deal with the high-tension situations they are faced with. Therefore, their decisions and reactions can often be the difference between life and death, or war and peace. The importance of their work cannot be overstated. As such, they hold themselves to a higher standard. The armed forces judicial system is in place to maintain discipline and structure.

I am very proud to say that I represent Canadian Forces Base Shilo, our military base in Brandon—Souris, which is a very important part of our community. Many of us have family, friends and neighbours who serve on the base. They house the First Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. It is worth repeating that the base is the home station of the Royal Canadian Artillery, as well as to a component of the Western Area Training Centre, 742 Signals Squadron Detachment Shilo and 11 Canadian Forces Health Services Centre. Other supported units include 26 Field Regiment and RCA Brandon's reserve unit.

Westman is awfully proud to be the home of our brave men and women in uniform. They are an essential and prominent part of our community, and have been for many years. Many develop strong ties and settle here when they complete their service and return to civilian life and retirement.

Bill C-77 seeks to align the military's justice system with the Criminal Code of Canada. I am pleased to see that it has built upon Bill C-71, which was presented by our former Conservative government, and seeks to enshrine the rights of victims in the National Defence Act.

The main premise here is common sense, which is that victims of any alleged crime should have the right to feel safe when navigating the judicial system. Therefore, I believe it is our obligation to treat them with compassion and respect, and to provide a secure environment so that they may tell their story. Their testimony is essential in better understanding what has occurred, and it is paramount they be able to provide it without fear of consequences and reprisals.

Victims are often overlooked in criminal proceedings, with most of the emphasis being on the offender. It is important they be given their opportunity to be heard. The system is there to provide justice, not only for the accused but also for the victim.

In this regard, a key feature of the bill is that it strives to provide better protection for both victims and witnesses in military trials. Military communities are often smaller and more tightly knit. This serves to foster a strong sense of solidarity among those in the service. While they can be an exceptional advantage in the field, those strong ties sometimes make it very difficult for victims to speak out against their wrongdoer. Ensuring that due consideration is given to the safety and security of victims would help give them the courage to stand up and speak out against the injustice they have faced. They should be given every opportunity to be involved in the proceedings. At the conclusion of the proceedings, they should emerge fully satisfied that justice has been properly served.

An important part outlined in this bill is that victims have the right to rely on the assistance of others when dealing with the justice system. If victims are incapable of acting on their own behalf, they may depend on their relatives to exercise their rights. Victims can now look to their spouses, parents or dependents to be their representatives during these proceedings, to help them through the difficult times.

The justice system can be intimidating. It encompasses many procedures, rules and regulations. Victims may not always be fully aware of their rights and can easily feel overwhelmed. Giving individuals the opportunity to request a liaison officer to help them navigate the workings of the case should encourage more people to come forward.

We should ensure that these liaison officers are properly trained in order to guarantee that they can provide the most assistance possible. A lack of awareness of their rights or of standard procedure should not prevent people from seeking justice. It is important not only to provide safety to those who have suffered at the hands of others, but we must be able to reinforce their belief in the justice system in order to offer them better peace of mind.

This would be best accomplished by making the process as transparent as possible. I firmly believe that all victims have the right to request information about the military justice system. They have been directly affected by a crime. They deserve to be assured of the fair proceedings of the case. These are people who have been wronged, hurt and betrayed. They need reassurance and evidence that their belief in the justice system is not misplaced. They need to see justice served.

I understand that under certain circumstances there is a need for discretion. The military conducts many sensitive operations, and often information will be classified to ensure the safety of our troops and our civilians. Those cases notwithstanding, I believe, whenever possible, victims should be provided with information concerning their cases. They should feel completely included in those proceedings and not have to plead for the most basic facts. Victims should not have to rely on outside media or gossip to scrounge incomplete information on a case that may have deeply affected them.

The bill would achieve a good balance between aligning with the current military justice system and still supporting victims within that system. The bill is very conscious of the importance of the chain of command within the military, and it makes sure not to impact the system in a manner that would hinder it.

The declaration of victims rights contained in this piece of legislation is careful to describe the specific rights afforded to victims in this situation without creating any barriers that might impede the system. I am aware that circumstances in the military may differ widely from those encountered in civilian life, as I have said before. The bill would ensure that the victim's rights are properly represented within the important confines of the current system. It does not interfere with the more unique aspects of the justice system, such as the court martial process or the code of discipline.

With the bill, we are taking a step in the right direction when it comes to defending the rights of victims of military offences. However, there is one area of concern with the current legislation that I would like to speak to. It involves the long-term consequences that minor military offences may have on individuals when they retire from service.

Presently, there are uniquely military offences that do not have a counterpart in the civilian code. Among them are the five minor offences of insubordinate behaviour, quarrels and disturbances, absence without leave, drunkenness and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. These are infractions that can only be committed by members of the military, yet they can result in a criminal record in the civilian world.

People found guilty of insubordinate behaviour could retire from the military only to have this offence follow them into civilian life. As Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron said in his testimony to the Standing Committee on National Defence on this topic:

The consequences of having a criminal record are significant. Applying for employment or attempting to cross the Canadian border are but two of the everyday consequences that can have an important impact on a veteran's life. Do we truly wish to burden a veteran with a criminal record, when he or she has committed a service offence, which may have no equivalent in our criminal justice system or in Canadian society?

Imagine trying to look for work after leaving the military, only to be flagged with a criminal record due to being absent without leave. A large portion of veterans seek employment in the security sector, which requires security checks. When it is seen there is a criminal record, getting a job is all but impossible.

It is important to remember that we have a separate justice system in the military for a reason. There are unique circumstances that apply to our forces that require a separate process to properly address it. It would not be fair to our Canadian Forces members that minor offences that occurred in a very unique setting, a setting known to be high stress at times, remain with them and affect their lives long into the future.

Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron went on to provide a recommendation to the committee that stated, “The Criminal Records Act and the [National Defence Act] should be amended to only include service offences that truly warrant the creation of a criminal record.”

Based on his testimony, there was an amendment to Bill C-77 proposed by my fellow Conservative members who sit on the defence committee to address this issue. The amendment put forth would have ensured that those five minor offences I listed would not be given a civil criminal record, no matter the severity of the sentence received. The amendment was flagged to be potentially outside of the scope of the current bill. As such, the committee on national defence did get the opportunity to briefly study the matter, but I would like a more in-depth analysis on the topic.

I mention this because I firmly believe that it is an important issue that should be addressed, and that it would greatly benefit the present members of the House to examine. I wholly encourage members to study this subject, because it is a topic that should be reviewed in the near future so that we can do right by those who dedicate themselves to protecting us.

There is still much that can be done when it comes to providing proper justice to our brave men and women in uniform. The bill before us today would do much to help protect victims of military offences, but we must always strive to do more to help those in our armed forces.

Justice may be blind, but it should not be deaf. By better defining victims rights, we give a voice to those who seek justice. We give them a better platform to stand on and tell their story.

I will be voting in favour of the legislation, as I believe this is a non-partisan issue, and we should all unite to support victims of crimes. It is important we review Bill C-77 and we move it forward, as there are many good things in it, but there are still some things that need to be reviewed.

I hope that there has not been any undue pressure put forward on any of the persons involved in the formation of Bill C-77, considering that the former attorney general was there. We have already seen that undue pressure was put on her in many other areas. This is one situation where I believe that it is not appropriate either.

We need to make sure that we look at the Gladue decision. We are reminded that when sentencing is coming forward in those areas, the Supreme Court requires continuing to look at the situations facing our indigenous persons. We also must remember that there was a resignation that took place by the former attorney general when she was the veterans affairs minister, and also we are reminded that she was the associate minister of national defence at that time.

With that I look forward to questions.

The House resumed from February 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

Okay.

As you know, or maybe you don't know, we are in third reading of Bill C-77 that would make to the military justice system. It incorporates the Supreme Court's Gladue decision, which ensures that indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the right to be treated based upon culture, rather than the hard regimens of the forces. Do you see that as a positive move as well?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, Bill C-77, aims to help protect victims of military offences by providing needed updates to the current military justice system.

Updating the judicial system of the Canadian Armed Forces can be a daunting task. Those in the service commit their lives to defend Canada, Canadian values and beliefs. Whether on foreign soil or here at home, they must regularly deal with high-tension situations. Their decisions and reactions can often be the difference between life and death, war and peace. The importance of their work cannot be overstated and, as such, they hold themselves to a higher standard.

The armed forces judicial system is in place to maintain discipline and structure. Following the chain of command is an essential pillar of the military. In this separate judicial system, the offenders are held directly accountable to their commanding officers. While the military justice system is separate from the civilian one, it still operates under the auspices of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This separate system is constitutional and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

I represent CFB Shilo, the military base in Brandon—Souris, which is a very important part of our community. Many of us have family, friends and neighbours who serve at the base. It houses the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. The base is the home station of the Royal Canadian Artillery. It is also home to the component of the Western Area Training Centre, 742 Signals Squadron Detachment Shilo and 11 CF Health Services Centre. Other supported units include 26 Field Regiment and the RCA Brandon's Reserve Unit.

Westman is proud to be home to our brave men and women in uniform. They are an essential and prominent part of our community and have been for many years, if not decades. Many develop strong ties and settle here when they complete their service and return to civilian life.

Bill C-77 seeks to align the military's justice system with the Criminal Code of Canada. I am pleased to see that this bill has built upon Bill C-71, presented by our former Conservative government, and seeks to enshrine the rights for victims in the National Defence Act.

Created in 1950, after World War II, the National Defence Act was put in place to protect our men and women in uniform. As we all know, legislation is constantly in flux, always seeking progress. As such, this act has been modified numerous times since its inception. This bill should be our next step in improving the National Defence Act.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course we support that.

I want to come back to something. The Liberal government does not want to admit that it is simply copying Bill C-77. They know full well that is what they are doing. I cannot blame them because that was the thing to do.

However, it would be nice if my colleagues in the government showed some good faith and acknowledged the excellent work we did on victims' rights under the previous government. Honestly, it is the least they could do and would be a good show of non-partisanship on their side of the House. The bill is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-77 introduced by the Conservative government.

I might ask why it took so long to introduce it in the House.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House as the official opposition's national defence critic to once again speak to Bill C-77. I sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence with the members for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who have a great deal of experience. Members will no doubt recall that I addressed them on the same subject on October 1, 2018.

Bill C-77 seeks to make changes to Canada's military justice system, which was created in 1950 and has undergone a number of legislative amendments over the years, more specifically in 1998, 2001, 2008 and 2013.

While the court martial system is similar to Canada's criminal justice system in terms of its independence and the burden of proof, courts martial are distinctly military. However, as my colleagues know, decisions at a court martial may be appealed before Canada's civilian courts, if necessary.

The existence of Canada's military justice system has been recognized over the years, particularly in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which makes reference to it. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court, in 2015, the judiciary upheld the requirement for the separate system by indicating that the existence of a parallel system of military law is deeply entrenched in our history and supported by compelling principles. The court martial system should help make the armed forces better at conducting operations and contributing to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale. I examined Bill C-77 with that in mind.

As I pointed out last October, this bill is very similar to Bill C-71 that had been introduced by our Conservative government. The purpose of our bill was to bring our military justice system in line with the Criminal Code of Canada. Some of our proposed changes included writing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights into the National Defence Act, limiting summary trials to six months and clarifying which cases would be eligible for a summary trial. Bill C-77, which is before us today, proposes the same changes.

Before I venture into a certain part of the bill that we see as problematic, I would like to strongly reiterate that the Conservatives will always protect victims of crime and make sure that they are treated fairly in the Canadian criminal justice system. In fact, it was our Conservative government that created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Of course we will support integrating it into Canada's military justice system. That was precisely our main reason for introducing Bill C-71.

The Liberal government does not want to admit now that it copied us with Bill C-77, but the Liberals know perfectly well what they are doing. I do not blame them, for this is the right thing to do. However, it would be nice if my colleagues on the government side would act in good faith and recognize the excellent work we did on victims' rights under the previous Conservative government.

Honestly, that is the least they could do. The government should be non-partisan about this.

Overall, Bill C-77 is not a bad bill. However, there is something that bothers me about this bill and that is clause 25, dealing with division 5, which amends sections 162.1 to 164.2 of the National Defence Act.

This part is very different from what we had proposed in our Bill C-71. In Bill C-77, the burden of proof shifts from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “on a balance of probabilities”.

This obviously does not afford the same level of protection to our men and women in uniform who are going into a summary hearing. Imposing criminal penalties by making decisions on a balance of probabilities rather than according to the principle of reasonable doubt opens the door to challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the parallel system of military justice is supported by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately, the Liberal government did not support the amendment moved by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. This amendment could have easily resolved the problem by changing “on a balance of probabilities” to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Now that Bill C-77 is expected to move to the next stage, I hope that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence will propose amendments to that effect.

In committee, retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron and the Quebec bar expressed doubts that the balance of probabilities could violate the rights enshrined in the charter.

The Conservatives support our Canadian justice system as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. However, we do not support a parallel justice system that violates our rights and freedoms.

This is one of the reasons why the report of the Standing Committee on National Defence approved on division some amendments to the bill.

In conclusion, I think members should remember that Bill C-77 is largely a copy of the Conservatives' Bill C-71. I would be happy to see the Liberals simply acknowledge the excellent work we did for victims rights and for them to acknowledge that they are just picking up where we left off by seeking to add a victims bill of rights to the military justice system.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Bill C-77—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to third reading stage of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

National Defence Act

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-77.

In November of 2017, the Prime Minister rose in the House to issue a formal apology to members of Canada's LGBTQ2 community for historic injustices inflicted upon them in this country.

Today I am proud to rise in this chamber to speak about the steps our government continues to take, through Bill C-77, to protect this community. First, I wish to offer some historical context so that we can all understand why this aspect of Bill C-77 is so fundamentally important.

Canada has a history of policies, practices and federal legislation that led to the oppression of and discrimination against LGBTQ2 people in our country. Consenting adults were charged, prosecuted, persecuted and punished for engaging in same-sex relationships. From the 1950s and for nearly 40 years straight, the Government of Canada undertook a systemic campaign to persecute employees who were, or were suspected of, being members of the LGBTQ2 community. Instead of being respected and appreciated for their public service, they were fired, discharged or bullied into resigning through a campaign that became known as “the purge”. It is a shame on our history.

In the Canadian Armed Forces, treatment of LGBTQ2 members was no better. From 1967 until 1992, the Canadian Armed Forces policy on homosexuals was contained in Canadian Forces administrative order 19-20, an order that reflected the government's policy of the time.

The CFAO and other discriminatory policies prohibited the recruitment or retention of homosexuals in the public service, the RCMP and the military. During that dark period, Canadian Armed Forces members were spied on, interrogated and persecuted by their brothers and sisters in arms and those who led them, and by the very institutions to which they had dedicated their lives, namely, this Parliament.

Friends were encouraged to spy on one another and turn on each other for the grave crime of doing nothing more than loving who they loved. They were treated with terrible indignity and then they were forced out of the Canadian Armed Forces and stripped of their ranks, their life's work and their futures as members of the military. Most notable of all is that so many members of the LGBTQ2 community chose to hide their true identities so that they could serve the country, despite its great intolerance and rejection of them.

We ask members of our Canadian Armed Forces to put service before self. So many in the LGBTQ2 community have modelled that ethos, demonstrating incredible selflessness and tremendous bravery along the way. Today, we are working hard to make reparations for the harms that were inflicted on members of this community.

An LGBTQ2 class action final settlement agreement includes recognition measures, broad-based reconciliation and memorialization of measures for the Canadian Armed Forces, RCMP members and other government employees affected by discriminatory policies. It also includes measures for individual compensation.

Upon request by affected members, a Canada Pride Citation and a letter of apology will be awarded to them by the Canadian Armed Forces. Also, upon request by an affected member, a note may also be added to the file of any former member who was investigated, sanctioned or released to make it clear that the release was the result of wrongful policy by the government or the forces.

We know that no apology or reparation can undo the damage by these abhorrent policies. However, it does not discharge us from the fundamental responsibility to do everything in our power to turn things around and make sure such injustices are never committed again in our country.

Today, LGBTQ2 Canadian Armed Forces members have the same rights as any other Canadian Armed Forces members to work in a harassment-free workplace and to be treated with dignity and respect. Since taking office, we have taken concrete and sincere steps to end harassment in federal workplaces.

Going forward, we are going to ensure our approach to harassment is victim-centric and that those who experience harassment have the support they need. Our mission here is nothing less than culture change. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to get this right.

The defence policy “Strong, Secure, Engaged” reaffirms the Canadian Armed Forces commitment to increasing and promoting diversity and inclusion among its personnel. Many policies and initiatives have indeed been implemented to make this commitment a reality. The defence team has appointed diversity champions, for example. They have also worked towards integrating gender-based analysis-plus into all defence activities, from the design and implementation of programs and services that support our personnel, to equipment procurement and operational planning.

In January of last year, the forces implemented a positive space initiative in support of LGBTQ2 members. The intention is to foster the creation of a safe and inclusive work environment for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. It is a volunteer and peer-based support group for all LGBTQ2 community members and allies to allow them to create networks and seek information and assistance from positive space ambassadors.

The promotion of diversity and inclusion is a core institutional value that is supported through leadership, communications and activities at all bases, wings and across the organization. The defence team has been working through initiatives, like the positive space initiative, to help create inclusive work environments that really value everyone involved, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

Many of those efforts mirror those that have been made by our government more broadly, and this is where we circle back to the bill before us today. In June 2017, our government added gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-77 will bring the military justice system into alignment with aspects of the civilian criminal justice system, specifically section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Let me be clear about what these changes mean. Bill C-77 calls for increased sentences for service offences and increased sanctions for service infractions when there is evidence that they are motivated by bias, hate or prejudice based on gender expression or identity. Targeting people for their gender expression or identity is especially egregious. There is simply no room in Canada for that kind of hatred. We are proud that Bill C-77 reflects that fundamental value.

This focus on deterring crimes based in hate for those whose gender expression or identity differ from our own is just one more step in significant progress the forces has made in changing its culture to one of greater inclusivity and diversity. These changes will help the Canadian Armed Forces ensure it remains an institution based on honour, honesty and integrity. In that sense, the gender expression and identity clause of Bill C-77 is very much aligned with the military ethos as well.

In closing, I am proud of the work the Government of Canada has done to right historic wrongs against the LGBTQ2 community, something that folks in London have called for for a long time. I am glad to see our government put these changes into place. I am proud of the work the Canadian Armed Forces is doing to build a diverse and inclusive military for all Canadians. I am proud to stand today to highlight a small but essential inclusion in Bill C-77, which makes clear our steadfast belief that there is no room in Canada or in our military for such discrimination ever again.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was sad to learn recently that my hon. colleague is not running in the next election. I think he was elected in 2000, if I am not mistaken, nearly 20 years ago. I can tell members, as a newer member of Parliament, only elected in 2015, that he is one of the most respected members of our caucus, particularly among those who are new to this game, if I can put it that way. Sometimes it seems like a game when I hear the members opposite.

The member has seen a lot over the course of his career over the past nearly 20 years. Could he comment on the evolution of issues around indigenous folks and LGBTQ2 folks, particularly with reference to the military as well as in general terms? Bill C-77 incorporates a lot of those issues, and it is progress that I am not sure we would have seen even five years ago.

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

I am not going to do that, Madam Speaker.

I realize that the Liberal member spent a lot of time talking about indigenous members and the way the Canadian Armed Forces is trying to be more inclusive in bringing members of the Canadian Armed Forces through the recruitment process. I would like to get the member's ideas on how the Canadian Armed Forces can improve recruitment measures. I know that the programs we are running, such as bold eagle and black bear, have been very well received and well participated in out on the Prairies. Recruitment from those who have participated in those programs has been about 30%.

Could the member talk about how we could actually increase recruitment? Could the member also comment on how the Gladue decision of the Supreme Court has been incorporated into Bill C-77 to ensure that indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces are treated fairly?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for London North Centre.

It is a pleasure to be here to speak to the bill, especially when I am from an area in Cape Breton that has had one of the highest contributions per capita in world wars and conflicts. We still have a big contingency coming out of Cape Breton. As well, in my riding we have the largest population of first nations people in eastern Canada. It is an honour for me to rise today to address and discuss the indigenous sentencing provision within the changes proposed to the National Defence Act in Bill C-77.

As the Prime Minister often says, no relationship is more important than the one the Government of Canada has with its first nations people. That is why our government has put an unprecedented focus on reconciliation and on renewing nation-to-nation relationships with first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Our efforts to renew these nation-to-nation relationships are based on recognition and implementation of rights, some respect, some co-operation and some partnerships. Indigenous people have proudly served this country each time we have called them up in our armed forces. Throughout their service they have brought their unique and important perspective to the Canadian Armed Forces. We have seen them in action both here and abroad.

Indigenous people have served honourably in the forces as far back as the First World War. During that defining moment of our national history, many indigenous personnel brought valuable and unique skills to our Canadian Armed Forces.

The Second World War saw thousands of indigenous people answer the call of duty for Canada. They took on new roles during this conflict, including that of code talkers, which was a highly sought skill. The code talkers used their native Cree language to encrypt sensitive radio messages so they could not be understood if intercepted by the enemy.

This upcoming spring will see the celebration of the landing in Normandy 75 years ago. Five years ago, I had the honour of going to Normandy for the 70th celebration. Of course, many Canadians landed there and many Canadians gave up their lives, including many Cape Bretoners. I went to gravesites where I saw the names of first nations people from Cape Breton who gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom in Europe.

We know the contributions there, and they continue. More recently, indigenous Canadian Armed Forces members have served in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and other UN-led humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. They have risked their lives defending the Canadian values of peace, freedom and democracy overseas, sometimes overcoming significant cultural challenges in order to do so.

Their contribution is notable, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. If we want to continue to build on this long and proud history, we must demonstrate our respect for indigenous Canadian Armed Forces members. It is not enough to simply state it; we must show it in meaningful action.

It is no secret that indigenous people in Canada have faced very difficult histories. Sadly, it is part of our history that we acknowledge and a wrong that our government seeks to right. That is why we are proposing changes to the National Defence Act in Bill C-77 to mandate consideration of the circumstances of indigenous offenders during their sentencing.

The proposed changes would mirror the provisions set forth in the Criminal Code, which mandate that indigenous offenders' history and circumstances be taken into consideration during the sentencing phase of their trial. Many of them have had totally different ways through life than the rest of us, and that has to be taken into consideration. This information would then inform the judge's decision about the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the indigenous offender.

The proposed legislation will expand on the principle that in all cases the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, and should be the least severe sentence required to maintain the discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Forces.

All available punishments other than imprisonment and detention that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the victims or the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of the indigenous offender.

Amending the National Defence Act to mandate the consideration of the circumstances of indigenous offenders during the sentencing is just one of the ways the Canadian Armed Forces is supporting reconciliation efforts.

The Canadian Armed Forces has also put a focus on outreach and engagement with indigenous Canadian Armed Forces members. Through unique special programs, it will continue to provide indigenous peoples with an opportunity to learn more about employment opportunities in the Canadian Armed Forces, opportunities to hone their skills and develop new ones. It has a number of programs in place to do just that.

It has indigenous leadership training programs. It also has six-week summer programs that combine military training with indigenous cultural awareness. This is very important, and we see it right across the country. Some of the programs I would mention are the Bold Eagle program in Alberta, the Raven program in British Columbia, the Black Bear program in New Brunswick and the Carcajou program in Quebec, which was introduced just last fall.

Combining indigenous culture and military training allows applicants to develop new skills and abilities while enriching the Canadian Armed Forces with their talents and perspectives.

I would like to talk a bit about the Canadian Rangers. The Canadian Rangers show how the unique skills developed in those six-week programs are put to use in the Canadian Armed Forces. Although the Canadian Rangers program is not strictly indigenous, approximately 27% of the Canadian Rangers self-identify as indigenous, a higher percentage than any other component of the Canadian Armed Forces. That is pretty impressive. They are a unique subcomponent of the Canadian Armed Forces, providing a military presence in very sparsely settled areas, such as up north, along the coast and in other isolated areas right across our great country.

These Canadian Rangers are Canada's eyes and ears in these areas. Their intimate knowledge of these areas proves to be integral to northern surveillance, and they regularly provide support to operations such as ground search and rescue, which is very important, as we have seen over the last few years. Increasingly, those regions are a key crossroads where international trade, climate change and global security intersect. That is why we are making sure they have the equipment they need to do their job. As outlined in Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, we will enhance and expand the training of Canadian Rangers while strengthening their capabilities within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Just last summer the Canadian Armed Forces announced the delivery of brand new C-19 rifles for the Canadian Rangers in Yellowknife at 1 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group headquarters. The C-19s are replacing the old No. 4 Lee-Enfield rifle that has been the mainstay of the Canadian Rangers for decades.

Why are we changing these rifles for the Canadian Rangers? The new rifles have been developed to support their work as reservists in the north. It is very important that they perform well in conditions well below freezing, and they feature a design that proudly bears the crest of the Canadian Rangers.

The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence value the many contributions of indigenous Canadian Armed Forces members. Indigenous Canadians have bravely served in the Canadian Armed Forces—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise on Bill C-77. As the veterans affairs critic for the NDP, I have met many veterans, many of whom have served in our military, and I have been witness to the struggles many of them have faced. I want to ensure that we put the right tools in place for the individuals who have served our country, to ensure their long-term well-being is in good order in return for their service in uniform.

Our servicemen and servicewomen deserve to have a fair and impartial justice system that is working for them. I believe Bill C-77 takes many of the right steps in that direction. That is why I am happy to be supporting the bill, along with my NDP colleagues.

However, I cannot express how frustrated we are by the lack of urgency in getting this bill to where it is now. Bill C-15 was passed in 2013 and the enforcement of that bill just came into force last year, five years later. Here we are now in 2019, looking to continue the job we started in 2013. I very much hope these important changes do not take another five years to enact and implement, because our men and women in uniform deserve better than delay after delay.

The fundamental principles that are being debated in the bill are still working from the excellent framework provided to us by Antonio Lamer in 2003. I think we have seen today that all parties in this place are working to get the bill passed quickly, which we are grateful for. Partisanship has not been at fault for slowing this process down. It has been a lack of political urgency by previous governments. I feel strongly that we need to do better.

Here we are again in 2019, once again under the gun to get the bill passed before the next election. Canadians deserve better than to have the legislation die on the vine.

I do not want to mislead anyone that Bill C-77 has our full support. There are still steps that need to be taken to improve our military justice system. New Democrats have brought forward an amendment to the bill through our great defence critic, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, which would have struck paragraph 98(c) from the military code of service discipline. It has to do with the effects of self-harm. In my mind, and in the minds of most Canadians, the stigma and attitudes toward mental health are changing for the better, and this section looks to me like a relic from another time.

The committee heard that officials throughout the military are taking significant steps to address the mental health needs of their service people. Tragically, we have seen the impacts that inaction on this important issue has had on our servicemen and servicewomen in the last number of years. Therefore, while I have no doubt that we are taking a better and more compassionate approach to mental health issues, it is important to highlight that paragraph 98(c) is now out of place. As long as people can still see it on the books, they will still potentially be scared to bring forward their struggles and challenges. Those who are in the most vulnerable position need to have that avenue to seek help.

In discussion with my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, he spoke about how his amendment, which would have removed this clause, was at first well received by the committee. Soon, the Liberals on the committee changed their tune. They felt it should be a different study. Once they had their marching orders, the chair said the member's amendment was ineligible.

While I feel like most members in the House recognize the importance and independence of our committees, as we have seen at the justice committee over the last few days, the Liberals are ready to give up on that independence once they receive their marching orders from a minister's office or the PMO. It sounds to me that a similar situation occurred in the removal of my colleague's amendment to the bill.

We heard some very compelling evidence regarding this amendment, which should be heard as the bill returns to the House. As Sheila Fynes explained at committee:

...it is disturbing that even today, under paragraph 98(c), a service member could face life imprisonment for an attempted suicide. It would be more appropriate to consider self-harm under such circumstances as being symptomatic of a serious and urgent mental health concern, and signalling the need for appropriate and immediate medical intervention.

That speaks for itself. This is obviously undue punishment for a member who is suffering. We need to reach out and look after these members.

She went on to add, “There is no benefit to leaving paragraph 98(c) in the National Defence Act, nor is there a downside to removing it. In my heart, I believe it is morally responsible.” This is from the testimony she gave on November 1, 2018.

Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron, who took a much more conservative approach, added:

Including yourself, but if we focus on the other person, which I think you were leading up to, we have numerous other offences—assaults, attempted murder, name it—that would penalize you for the action you've committed toward the other individual that are captured in a way by paragraph 98(c), so we could reach the same result.

I am proud to say that I know the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and he will not be giving up on this fight easily. I look forward to having the opportunity to support his private member's bill, Bill C-426. If we are truly committed to ending the stigma around mental health and wellness, we need to commit ourselves not only to improving our services but also to ending the systems that reinforce these wrongly held beliefs.

This is the most important step the bill takes with respect to the compassionate treatment of victims and their families. It is imperative that these individuals have strong protections and that the military justice system supports them in a compassionate way throughout the legal process.

Bill C-77 would harmonize the military justice system with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights so that victims in the military justice system would have many of the same resources that victims in our civilian courts have. This would include keeping victims informed regarding the progress of cases, which I know can be an incredible relief. By nature, lawyers keep everything close to their chests, and not knowing what is going to happen next is a significant source of anxiety for victims and their families.

The other addition that would be most significant for victims is the appointment of a victims liaison officer to be assigned to support them through the process. We often ask our military personnel to do some of the most difficult and dangerous tasks for our country. Tools like a victims liaison officer are needed to show that we have our servicemen's and servicewomen's backs when they are suffering.

Another area in which the bill takes a positive step is reconciliation. I had the pleasure of working on the veterans affairs committee's report as the committee's standing vice-chair. The report is entitled “Indigenous Veterans: From Memories of Injustice to Lasting Recognition”. While the report lays out some very important steps forward, it is also a stark reminder that indigenous members of our military have not always been treated equally or fairly.

As the Supreme Court determined in 1999 with the Gladue decision, it is appropriate to take Canada's colonial legacy into account for sentencing. I am glad to see that Bill C-77 will extend that decision from our civilian courts to our military ones. Our military justice system often deals with serious offences, and it is imperative that every important factor is considered when these decisions are made.

While I am proud of the additional victims' rights, which will be added in Bill C-77, the bill also takes steps to make the military justice system more fair and impartial for all parties involved. Regardless of which side of the justice system people find themselves, it is vital that they have confidence that the system is arriving at a fair and impartial decision. While this can be all the more difficult in the trying situations that our military members often find themselves in, it is our duty to provide the tools and resources for fair trials to occur. By expanding the rights of an accused individual to go to trial by court martial rather than by their commanding officer, we will be better able to protect Canadians' constitutional rights.

I believe my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke put it in the most simple terms:

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to a high standard of discipline, therefore, their judicial system should also reflect that high standard. Those who risk their lives for our country should not be denied their charter rights when facing trial.

I would also like to read a quote from Tim Dunne, a columnist with The Chronicle Herald, in regard to this very same topic. He says:

Until Bill C-77 is passed, commanding and designated officers with little legal training presiding at summary trials are not required to prepare a transcript of the proceedings, so there is no provision for appeal; there is no requirement to apply rules of evidence to assure a fair trial; an accused can be compelled to testify against himself or herself, so there is no constitutional right to protection against self-incrimination; adverse inferences can be drawn from the silences of the accused; and the accused cannot be represented by a lawyer.

As I conclude my thoughts, I want to once again say how important it is to ensure we are able to enact the changes outlined in Bill C-77 in a timely manner. It has been years since we have known that these steps needed to be taken, but we have delayed. In that time many Canadians have proudly worn a uniform. We owe it to those members and their families to ensure that our military justice system is more supportive to victims and fairer to everyone.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise on Bill C-77. It is an honour to be here on behalf of the NDP defence critic, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who has worked very diligently with the government and other political parties to advance this bill expeditiously so we can move forward with protections for our military personnel.

It is a pleasure to rise on this bill today. As the veterans affairs critic for the NDP, I have had an opportunity to meet many veterans and know how vital it is to have the right tools in place for individuals in service and to ensure that their long-term well-being is being taken care of after they put down their uniforms. Our men and women in service deserve to have a fair and impartial justice system working for them, and I believe that Bill C-77 takes many of the right steps in that direction.

While I am happy to support this bill, along with my fellow NDP colleagues, I cannot help but be frustrated by the lack of urgency in the process of getting this bill to where it is now.

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

Madam Speaker, the member did not listen very closely to my speech then, because I said in my speech that changes within Bill C-77 would increase the standards under the code of service conduct. Operation Honour would be better able to stomp out sexual misconduct and intolerance, whether it is racism, whether it is homophobia, whether it is violations against people based upon their sexual orientation, and it will also stomp out harassment. Bill C-77 would work all of that into the National Defence Act. It would provide greater power to the military justice system to take action in that area and support those in the chain of command as they execute Operation Honour.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, but my colleague from London—Fanshawe said earlier that in Bill C-77, committing self-harm is still seen as an offence under military justice. I appreciate the member's comments, but the direct question was whether he and his party would support the striking of this paragraph and removing it as an offence. I want to give the member another opportunity to answer that question.

He talked about the great work of the NDP defence critic, but did not really answer the question, so I would like to provide another opportunity. Will he support the move to strike this paragraph?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to speak at third reading of Bill C-77, the amendments to the National Defence Act to add some new guidelines and strengths within the military justice system. The Conservatives have been calling for this for some time.

The Conservatives are committed to standing up for the rights of victims and ensuring that victims have a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It was our previous Conservative government that enacted the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. We support enshrining those rights for victims in our military justice system. That is why, in the last Parliament, we introduced Bill C-71. That really is the foundation that Bill C-77, which we are debating today, is based upon.

The Conservative Party will always stand up for the rights of victims, and that is why are supportive of seeing Bill C-77 passed and enacted.

We have to ensure we restore the rights of victims and ensure they are at the heart of our justice system. That is why the Victims Bill of Rights would now be mirrored in military law, once it is passed through Senate.

I hope that some of the questions I still have about the bill, as well some of the questions we just heard about self-harm, may be addressed when the bill goes for further study and debate over in the other place.

I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence. At committee we heard from numerous witnesses. Those who support victims were very loud in their support of the legislation. It would give the victims: enhanced access to information through the appointment of a victim liaison officer, which is welcomed by victims in the Canadian Armed Forces; enhanced protection for those victims through new safety, security and privacy provisions, so victims do not have to be concerned about their information being used inappropriately through a violation of their privacy; enhanced participation by allowing victims to read impact statements at the time of sentencing of those who committed a crime against them; and, when possible, enhanced restitution through the court martial process consideration to provide restitution for the order of the losses to those who were victimized.

Our previous Conservative government took significant steps to protect Canadians and to stand up for victims of crime. We understand that the highest priority for any government must be to ensure the safety of its citizens, including those who are serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is a responsibility of government. As a Conservative government, we took that seriously. I am glad to see the minister has taken it seriously with the amendments in Bill C-77.

Putting the rights of victims back at the heart of the justice system is important and it is crucial to ensure fairness, to ensure that our justice system is compassionate and that it provides a balance, both to the rights of the victims and the rights of those convicted. It is about courtesy, compassion and respect, and that has to be included at every stage of the justice process, whether it is in civilian courts or military courts.

Our previous Conservative government was committed to reversing that trend and keeping our streets and communities safe for Canadians and their families. We had taken concrete steps to see that offenders accounted for their actions.

All of us on this side of the House were proud of our previous government's record, a record that includes the Safe Streets and Communities Act, the reform of not criminally responsible legislation, laws against sexual exploitation and, of course, cyber intimidation and bullying.

We, as Conservatives, believe that for far too long the criminal justice system was about the rights of criminals. We believe the victims have to be placed at the very heart of the justice system. They deserve, and should have, the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and, where possible, the right to restitution. That is encompassed in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which is landmark legislation that will be reflected now in the National Defence Act as it applies to our military.

Many people wonder why we have a dual system, one for civilians and one for our military members. I would like to use a quote that came from Maurice de Saxe, who used to be the marshal general of France in 1732. In writing about the science of warfare, he said:

...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...

We have witnessed that in modern times in other countries around the world. That is why in 1950 the National Defence Act was enacted to established a military justice system.

We already have what I consider the best of the best who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. Because they are the best of the best and because they are given the order to use lethal force when necessary in defending Canada and Canadians and those who cannot defend themselves around the world, they have to be held to a higher standard. We need to have a military justice system in place that reflects the law of the land in Canada, but still hold to that same standard, values and principles when they are deployed abroad.

As the minister already pointed out, some of the changes in Bill C-77 build upon the code of service conduct and Operation Honour in particular. We want to ensure we have effective ways to stomp out sexual misconduct, to eliminate harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces and to deal with intolerance.

The Gladue decision of the Supreme Court a number of years ago has been put into the decision-making process through the court martial system as well as through the summary hearings that have been put in place. We want to ensure that the ongoing defence of parallel military justice systems that has been supported by the Supreme Court of Canada continues.

In the Généreux case in 1992, the MacKay case and more recently in the Moriarity case of 2015, they have consistently held up that the National Defence Act and the criminal justice system is for the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Armed Forces. It stands by section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is that there is an exemption given to members of the Canadian Armed Forces and to the chain of command to carry out military justice on a parallel track.

I raised concerns at committee and when the bill was at second reading about the recent Court Martial Appeals Court decision in the Beaudry case, in which the judge advocate general requested to have that stand at this point in time so they could take that case to the Supreme Court and have it pass a decision on it. Again, we continue to see some people who do not believe the military should have its own justice system and that cases should be tried in civilian court except when they are deployed.

Overall, we need to continue to have that chain of command, the enforcement of the Queen's rules and orders and that those regulations are reflective of some of the concerns that were brought up at committee.

A number of very powerful witnesses appeared at committee. One person was Jean-Guy Perron, a retired colonel, He was a JAG officer and also sat as a justice on the court martial court. We also had compelling testimony given by the Barreau du Québec. It raised a number of concerns where there could be charter challenges down the road if we did not get this right.

One thing that was very evident was that the change of summary trial to summary hearing may reduce the burden of proof. Right now, the burden of proof is the same as it is in civil court, which is that it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That has been modified somewhat and the accused could fact even more difficulty going forward.

I will quote retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron. He said:

Although a summary infraction is not an offence under the NDA and a summary hearing is not a court martial or a service tribunal; the failure “without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, to appear” as ordered, or to remain in attendance before an officer conducting a summary hearing, as a person charged with having committed a service infraction can lead to an accusation under s. 118.1 (Failure to appear or to attend), a trial by court martial and possibly a criminal conviction.

This is all in relationship to the summary hearings process. He went on to say:

Would “minor sanctions” be identical or quite similar to “minor punishments”? Most probably and, if so, the punishments of confinement to ship or barracks and extra work and drill raise concerns....COs can confine to ship or barracks for up to 21 days....This deprivation of liberty can be very strict and would be similar to conditional sentence of imprisonment (“house arrest”).

Since that would now be considered imprisonment through a summary hearing without actually having a court martial process, would the rights of that individual be violated by not having the right to a fair trial because it has been dealt with through the chain of command at a summary hearing?

Essentially, he is saying that house arrest or confinement to barracks is full incarceration as put by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I mentioned burden of proof earlier. Bill C-77 keeps the same sentencing objectives and principles as found in a criminal proceeding, most probably the same procedure for summary hearings as presently exists for summary trials in chapter 108 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders, and increases the punishment power, such as higher finds, of an officer conducting the hearing, while reducing the threshold of conviction from beyond a reasonable doubt to a balance of probabilities.

We had a lot of debate on the difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “a balance of probabilities”. I feel somewhat confident that the JAG officers who were present did a good job of explaining the difference and that through the regulations of Bill C-77, when we get to enacting those, coming through the gazetting process, we should be able to mitigate the charter challenge risk and ensure that the rights of those who have been charged will be considered appropriately.

Perron goes on to say:

Under C-77, the accused is liable to be sentenced to a more severe punishment...based on a lower threshold of conviction. The summary hearing under C-77 offers less protections to the accused than what was present in C-71 and what is actually present in the summary trial process.

Therefore, I stress for the minister that now that we heard a very similar concern raised by the Barreau du Québec along with Mr. Perron, we need to incorporate those concerns in the regulation process. We had assurances at committee that this would be done. We brought forward amendments that were not accepted at that stage on how we dealt with it. However, I was glad to see at least one of our amendments that would to clarify the rank structure on who could do a summary hearing and who would review which officers, or NCOs or other enlisted members.

The one thing, which we have already discussed, is that we never did get to fully debate paragraph 98(c), which deals with self-harm. It was ruled out of order by the chair, but I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for bringing it forward. We had Sheila Fynes and her family at committee. They lost their son Corporal Stuart Langridge to suicide in 2008. He served in Bosnia and in Afghanistan. They feel very passionate that paragraph 98(c) of the National Defence Act, which deals with self-harm, adds to the stigmatization, such that those who want to hurt themselves will not come forward for help because they could be charged under the National Defence Act and at the very least be put in front of a summary hearing or could get a full court martial.

We were assured by all the witnesses that this section of the National Defence Act is rarely ever used.

For those who are concerned about those who malign themselves, those who literally go out and shoot themselves in the foot so they do not have to be deployed or who purposely sprain an ankle so they do not have to go on an exercise and carry an 80-pound rucksack and march for 40 miles over the next day, those who try to avoid service, avoid exercises, who do not want to go into theatre, there are plenty of other avenues under the National Defence Act to hold those people to account and bring them to justice for not following orders.

However, when it comes down to the mental health of our servicemen and women who are suffering with PTSD, who are dealing with anxiety and have been in theatre and have witnessed some horrific abuses and atrocities and violations against humanity, those individuals need help, and the last thing we want to do is stigmatize it and send the message that they will be charged under paragraph 98(c) of the National Defence Act for self-harm.

I hope the minister will take this forward and consider it and find a way to bring it quickly back to the House in a different bill, if that is possible. I am sure he would get unanimous consent at all three stages to delete that section of the act. Since it was found to be outside the scope of Bill C-77, I would suggest that we find a different avenue to do it and that we do it as quickly as possible and as compassionately as possible and in a way that will more than help those who struggle with the thought of suicide to step forward.

We have an incredible Canadian Armed Forces. One thing that we recommended through the defence policy review a few years ago, which is reflected in the Liberal defence policy now, is that the number one source of pride within the Canadian Armed Forces is their personnel, and we want to ensure that we give them the tools to do their job. Whether they serve in the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy or the Royal Canadian Air Force, these brave men and women do incredible work to keep us safe here at home. They stand on guard 24/7. Written on the wall in NORAD, whether down in Colorado Springs or at its Canadian operations in Winnipeg, is a motto that says, “We Have The Watch”, and they are on the watch 24/7.

We often forget that there are all sorts of threats coming at us, whether airborne, seaborne or even potentially on the ground, and because we have troops deployed across this country and around the world, we are safer here at home because they are standing on the wall in places like Latvia, Mali and Ukraine, along with many other locations. They are ensuring that we can continue on with our business, oblivious to what is going on in the world and to potential threats such as cyber-hacking, knocking down our financial systems or our energy sector and blocking off our naval routes to ship our goods back and forth over the sea. Our economy, our safety and our prosperity are built upon us as Canadians, but more importantly, they are defended by those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

On behalf of all Conservative members and all members of the House, I thank them for serving, because they keep us, the true north, strong and free.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the military, and especially the military justice system, Canadians expect it to reflect the criminal justice system that is there for everybody. Right now, the victims rights bill, Bill C-77, would bring it line with what Canadians expect. It would make sure victims' rights are taken into account as well as taking into account the viewpoints from the key stakeholders, who are the family members who have been affected by challenges of the past. It would make sure their experiences are taken into account.

Just yesterday, I had a phone conversation with a mother who lost her son to suicide. As the bill passes, we want to make sure they know we have not forgotten about stakeholders' input and want to get their insights. It is more than just about parliamentarians having a say. It is about making sure Canadians who have been impacted by this have a say and we take that into account.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of National Defence, who is also the Minister of Veterans Affairs, for being here today. I would also like to congratulate him on his new post as veterans affairs minister. Of course, I will be encouraging the minister to work with his cabinet and government as they get their business sorted with respect to appointing a full-time Minister of Veterans Affairs, as he knows very well how complicated the issues are that are facing our veterans.

Today New Democrats are supporting the bill. We know that it would add greater protections for victims in the military justice system, which we are missing, and aligns the military justice system with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. We are very happy to see this come forward.

The minister well knows that, even with the changes being brought forward in Bill C-77, it is still seen as an offence under the military justice system to commit self-harm. I know the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has raised repeatedly that those who come forward seeking help within the military could in turn be disciplined for self-harm. The minister cited calling upon a committee to look at this. However, he had an opportunity to include it in the bill right now and to protect and create safeguards for those who are committing self-harm.

What safeguards are the Liberals putting forward to address the real need for mental health supports in the military that ensure services are delivered free of punishment and disciplinary action?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today in support of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I want to first acknowledge the hard work that has gone into shaping this bill, including the study undertaken by members of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

I am pleased to say that due to the care and dedication to improving our military justice system by our Canadian Armed Forces members, the final bill enjoys support from all parties.

This bill was drafted with the same care for our people in mind, because as I have said before, our people are at the heart of everything we do. They make extraordinary sacrifices every single day in service to our country, and we hold them to a high standard of conduct in all they do, whether at home or abroad. They deserve a military justice system that promotes discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Through Bill C-77, we are bringing important changes to our current framework that will allow us to provide this type of support to anyone going through the military justice system.

Many members are already familiar with the proposed changes and the improvements they would make to enshrine victims rights in the system; reform the summary trial process to ensure that minor breaches of military discipline were dealt with in a non-penal, non-criminal process; seek harsher punishments for service offences and harsher sanctions for service infractions motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression; and ensure that the specific circumstances of indigenous offenders were considered when imposing a sentence.

The changes we are proposing are long overdue and necessary. We recognize that we need to continually improve our military justice system. These changes align with the mandate given to me by our Prime Minister to make the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces workplaces free from harassment and discrimination, and they follow closely our government's action outside the Canadian Armed Forces to make sure that Canada is a safe and welcoming place for all Canadians and people living in Canada.

This legislation would build on our government's commitment to the values of fairness and equality. These values are also key tenets of Bill C-65, which makes workplaces in the federal sphere and in Parliament free from harassment and discrimination. This received royal assent last October.

Bill C-77 would help Canadians prevent incidents of harassment, enable them to respond to events that do occur, and most importantly, support victims, survivors and employers.

Our government is also making strides to ensure fairness and equality for LGBTQ2 Canadians. Since our Prime Minister's formal apology to the LGBTQ2 Canadians for decades of institutional discrimination and harassment, we have taken steps to compensate those affected. Administration of a settlement agreement between the Government of Canada and current and former members of our Canadian Armed Forces is under way.

This past fall we announced a new Canada pride citation that each member of the class will be eligible to receive. This citation is an acknowledgement of historical injustices experienced by LGBTQ2 federal public servants, RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces members to commemorate their resilience, bravery and sacrifice.

Finally, this legislation would continue our government's efforts to strengthen fairness and equality for indigenous peoples living in Canada as we work with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to implement its calls to action to repair and renew this important relationship.

We should all be proud to be part of a government working to ensure fairness and equality for all Canadians. It is work that goes a long way toward making Canada a country where everyone is treated equally. It is the same dedication to fairness and equality that motivated the creation of this legislation and that continues to motivate us as we work to finalize and enshrine these amendments in law.

I would now like to talk about our proposed changes to the National Defence Act and our hopes for how they would improve our current military justice system.

One of the most important changes would be the addition of a declaration of victims rights in the National Defence Act, which would improve support for victims. This declaration would mirror the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights found in the civilian criminal justice system. It would strengthen how the Canadian Armed Forces supports victims across the military justice system. It would enshrine rights for victims of service offences and enhance the support provided to victims as they navigate the court martial process.

Through Bill C-77, we would be legislating for victims rights, which include the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to restitution. Through these expanded rights, victims would be able to access all information to which they were entitled. They would be entitled to security and privacy at all times in the military justice system. They would have the right to present a victim impact statement and to share their views about decisions that affect their rights. They would also be able to ask a court martial to consider ordering restitution for damages or losses when that value could be calculated. In addition, to ensure that victims were able to exercise these rights, they would be entitled to the support of the victims declaration of victims rights to enhance the kind of support we could offer victims through the military justice system.

These would be important changes, and I am proud to be bringing them to the House today.

The second set of changes we are proposing concerns how the military justice system handles minor breaches of military discipline. We are proposing reforms to the current summary trial process, which would create a new process called “summary hearings”. These summary hearings would make the system more efficient and would treat minor breaches of military discipline in a fair and timely manner. The new process would be non-penal and non-criminal.

Through these proposed changes, a new category of minor breaches of military discipline, called “service infractions”, would be created. These service infractions would not trigger a criminal record. This change would allow the Canadian Armed Forces to handle minor breaches of military discipline in a fair, simpler and faster manner, which is extremely important. It would demonstrate trust and confidence in our military leaders, who could address minor breaches of discipline at the base, wing or unit level, and it would help maintain operational readiness and preserve morale across the Canadian Armed Forces.

Through Bill C-77, we would also work to address the issue of gender-based prejudice and hatred in the Canadian Armed Forces. The bill would work similarly to the Criminal Code. It proposes harsher sentences for service offences and harsher sanctions for service infractions motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender expression or identity.

The Canadian Armed Forces has zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind, and we are committed to eliminating these types of biases in all our military ranks. We have a responsibility to make sure that all Canadian Armed Forces members feel welcome and accepted. We know that we have not always supported our LGBTQ2 members as well as they have deserved. This amendment reflects this commitment and would help the forces continue to make progress in promoting inclusivity.

We have made a significant amendment to mirror the Criminal Code provision relating to the sentencing of indigenous offenders. For indigenous people found guilty of service offences, the personal history and circumstances of indigenous offenders would be considered during sentencing. All available punishments deemed appropriate given the harm done would be considered, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders. This sentencing principle also acknowledges historic wrongs that still negatively affect indigenous peoples living in Canada today.

As our Prime Minister has said on many occasions, no relationship is more important to our government and to Canada than the one we have with indigenous people.

Indigenous women and men play an important role in the Canadian Armed Forces. There are nearly 2,500 indigenous members in the regular and reserve forces, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are well supported throughout their entire military careers.

These proposed changes to the National Defence Act are key to supporting our women and men in uniform. Canadian Armed Forces members need and deserve a military justice system that is transparent, fair and equitable, and a military justice system that helps keep the Canadian Armed Forces fair and inclusive for all Canadians and people living in Canada.

Our people are at the heart of everything we do. They are the reason we work hard to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces is welcoming and inclusive for all of our members, including women. The reason we introduced Operation Honour was to eliminate sexual misconduct from the Canadian Armed Forces and to change military culture to ensure it is a respectful workplace of choice for all people living in Canada.

The support provided to Canadian Armed Forces members through initiatives like these cannot be overstated. Through Bill C-77, we are making sure that military justice reflects Canadian values, eliminates discrimination and ensures victims have a voice throughout the legal process.

The members of the Standing Committee on National Defence heard from a variety of witnesses in order to get a full picture of how the passing of the bill would affect our members, including the judge advocate general of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Barreau du Québec and senior military leadership, as well as former members of the forces and their families.

Again, I want to thank all those who worked hard to move the bill forward. Their hard work has led to several amendments, some of which have been incorporated and will make the bill stronger.

I also want to specifically recognize the important conversations surrounding mental health and self-harm that came up during the recent study at the Standing Committee on National Defence. During its study of the bill, members of the committee raised concerns about a provision in the National Defence Act that makes it a service offence for military members to wilfully injure themselves with the intent to render themselves unfit for service.

We take the well-being of our women and men in uniform very seriously. That is why we are investing $17.5 million in a centre of excellence focused on the prevention, assessment and treatment of PTSD and related mental health conditions for military members and veterans. That is why we have over 400 full-time mental health workers and we intend to hire more. That is why we included the total health and wellness strategy in our defence policy. That is why we launched the joint suicide prevention strategy with Veterans Affairs last year.

Our government recognizes that military service places unique demands on our brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. As such, I have invited the committee to undertake a study on mental health and self-harm in the Canadian Armed Forces, which will allow us to thoughtfully and thoroughly consider these issues. I look forward to working with committee members to develop a better understanding of these issues and to come up with solutions that will benefit all of our women and men in uniform.

It is a pleasure to see this proposed legislation progress to third reading and to stand in the House today in support of all members of our Canadian Armed Forces. They deserve a military justice system that maintains discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces while respecting our Canadian values. They deserve a military justice system that provides fair and equal treatment, regardless of race, orientation or gender.

A lot of discussion has occurred and hopefully we can quickly pass the bill. Once again, I want to thank all members for their input into the bill.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between getting answers and not liking the answers, but we will let the Conservatives figure that one out.

As for the work this week, this afternoon we will commence report stage debate on Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation.

Tomorrow, we will deal with report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-77, the victims' bill of rights.

Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday, if need be, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I am pleased to request the designation of an order of the day for the Minister of Finance to present budget 2019 at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19.

National Defence

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces continue to lose more than one member per month to death by suicide, yet one of the barriers to serving members getting the help that they need is the fact that self-harm remains a disciplinary offence in the military code of conduct.

Since the Liberal members ruled my amendment to fix this out of order at committee hearings on Bill C-77, let me ask the minister.

Will the government now support removing self-harm as a disciplinary offence by agreeing to support my private member's bill, Bill C-426, and expedite its passage through the House?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act. We hope to see that referred to committee by the end of the day so that the committee can do its important work. We understand that we have a lot of support, but we do need to consider amendments.

Tomorrow we will start debate at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-85, the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.

Next week we will be working with our constituents in our ridings.

I would like to note that Tuesday, February 19 will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will begin consideration at report stage and third reading of Bill C-77, on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

National Defence Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-426, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (maiming or injuring self or another).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that aims to remove a significant barrier to members of the Canadian Forces receiving the mental health assistance they need. It would do so by repealing subsection (c) of section 98 of the National Defence Act. This archaic section of the National Defence Act makes self-harm a disciplinary offence in the military code of conduct.

The Canadian Forces are still losing more than one member per month to death by suicide. We have lost over 195 serving members in the last 15 years. Removing this section would send a strong message that self-harm is a mental health issue and not something to be addressed by discipline.

This is a matter that I had hoped could have been fixed by a simple amendment to Bill C-77, the military justice reform bill, recently dealt with by the House. At that time, New Democrats and Conservatives supported my amendment, but the Liberals indicated they felt amending Bill C-77 was not the way to proceed. This private member's bill offers an alternative way of taking the actions necessary to send a positive message to Canadian Forces members struggling with mental health issues. I trust it will receive broad support in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's good of you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a question slightly out of the box, and it came up in the context of a study we're doing on the Standing Committee on National Defence, Bill C-77, and it involves service offences. Are you in a position to describe to the committee how offences committed by a member of the armed forces within the military code of conduct may or may not make their way into the criminal records in the civilian world, and what kind of suspension question, if any, would arise in that context?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from London who spoke earlier and all members for their comments on Bill C-51 today.

At the outset, because I have some time today to give a bit of a longer speech, I want to address the fact that I am troubled that in government, the Liberals are doing exactly what they said they would not do when they were in opposition. In fact, this is our second omnibus justice bill.

I know my friend from Winnipeg, the deputy House leader of the Liberal caucus, likes when I quote some of his outrage in the past Parliament about the use of omnibus bills. However, when it comes to justice omnibus bills in particular, I think the need for a lot of these provisions to be considered independently is the best way to go.

Although the bill is certainly not as long as the government's latest budget implementation act, at 850 pages or more, weaving together a variety of unrelated things in the form of one bill, here we have another substantive piece of justice legislation being presented in an omnibus bill.

Breaking it down, there are some good parts and some parts we certainly have some challenges with. I would like to use my opportunity, if I may, to highlight both the good and the bad.

The good is that as a Parliament, we need to show that we can speak with a united voice with respect to zero tolerance for sexual assault and not respecting the consent of an individual in the case of sexual relations of any kind. Therefore, I think it is good that we are having a fulsome discussion on this part of the bill today. In fact, several members have quoted from some of the case law that has led to the need for Parliament to weigh in and be very clear that people cannot provide the consent necessary to engage in sexual activities when they are unconscious. We need to send a clear signal from Parliament. I think the Senate amendments actually take away that clarity somewhat, and I am glad we are having the debate here on proposed section 273.1 in the bill.

The Supreme Court case that drove clarity in this area was very clear. It said that it was not possible for people to provide consent if they were not conscious, even if express consent had been provided ahead of time, when they were conscious. I think Parliament needs to be crystal clear that consent evolves and that there has to be the constant presence of consent and respect. That is what this bill is intended to do. In fact, some of the Senate amendments, which would almost create tests with respect to the standards, confuse the issue. There needs to be a clear signal sent that consent has to be constant. I think that is a signal that, as parliamentarians, we have to send.

I can say, as someone of my generation, that the debate on campuses about no means no and all these sorts of things was not taken seriously in the early 1990s. We are still having debates today about it. An accused will try to suggest that consent was provided sometime earlier. If consent was provided in the context of alcohol or substances, and if someone was unconscious, consent could not be provided.

The Supreme Court was clear. I think Bill C-51 and our updates to the Criminal Code send a very clear message. There is no test to be performed. It is a bright line. Everyone, all Canadians, need to show respect and a commitment to consent in the context of sexual assault cases. It is basic respect. We are in the era of the #MeToo movement and discussions about unsafe workplaces. All these things have been positive in making sure that one has a positive obligation, with respect to one's relations with someone else, to make sure that there is always consent present. I think that is clear.

I am also glad that a number of speakers from several parties have referenced Bill C-337, the bill of the former interim Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose, on judicial training in the context of sexual assault trials. The bench comprises a cross-section of society, and those attitudes need education to make sure that judicial standards adhere to the expectations we have as a society of respecting consent.

We know, in Ms. Ambrose's home province of Alberta, the case of Justice Camp, where attitudes toward a victim by the bench showed just how disconnected some may be. The vast majority of the bench would be explicitly mindful of the complainant in those cases, but we have seen cases in recent years that show that judicial training with respect to consent, in the context of sexual assault trials, is needed, as is education for all members of the bar.

As a member of the bar, I am glad that a few years ago, law societies across the country incorporated continuing legal education requirements for lawyers to make sure that they are aware of expectations with respect to consent and the law. The very fact that there would be some reluctance to have same continual legal education for judges in the context of sexual assault cases is troubling. I know that most justices demand that level of CLE, so I hope that the government, in the context of my starting off my speech by talking about some of the positive elements of Bill C-51, pushes Bill C-337 through. It should not matter that it came from a former Conservative member of Parliament, Rona Ambrose. It should not matter that it came from this side of the chamber if it addresses the same elements I am saying I support in Bill C-51 today. Let us hope there is some movement in the Senate so that in the spring, we can ensure that it is an expectation that all members of the bench have that training so they can guarantee an environment of respect for all complainants who come forward.

The provisions in proposed section 273.1 also show that Parliament is clear in its direction with respect to consent always being a requirement, and if there is any uncertainty, we err on the side of complainants. Everyone should know that if circumstances change, be they the context, consciousness, alcohol or these sort of things, prior consent is not sufficient. We have to be crystal clear on that.

This is also similar to Bill C-75, an omnibus justice bill, which I have spoken to in Parliament. I have also spoken to Bill C-77, on modernizing criminal justice within the context of the National Defence Act. I supported a number of measures in that bill. In fact, the previous government introduced Bill C-71 in the last Parliament to try to update the National Defence Act and the treatment of criminal conduct by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. That is still in a state of flux. All these bills, particularly because they deal with the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims or complainants in these cases, should be given specific attention and not be put into omnibus bills.

I would like to speak for a moment about the fact that this bill is part of the process of requiring a charter statement from the government with respect to legislation before the House of Commons. I have some concerns about that approach, in two ways. First, I am worried that it may send some sort of chill to suggest that the government is trying to inoculate itself by saying that it reviewed the bill ahead of time and has a charter opinion on it, meaning, therefore, that we cannot raise charter concerns or that there is no reasonable basis to have concerns about its validity under the charter by groups that may be impacted by the decision of this Parliament.

The very nature of the charter itself was to give a back and forth test with respect to the will of Parliament, and the ability for the court to determine whether fundamental charter rights were breached directly or indirectly by legislation in the context of enumerated groups under section 15 of the charter, are expressly contained within the charter, or are analogous ground groups, provided by subsequent court decisions.

The balancing test under section 1 of the charter, the Oakes test, which I learned in law school and is some of the first charter jurisprudence, is that balancing of the charter. By issuing a charter statement, I am quite concerned the government is trying to suggest it is doing its own Oakes test, its own charter examination of issues at the time it is passing legislation. I am not suggesting it will cause chill, but I have not have heard an argument from a member of the government bench to suggest this is any different than any government since the mid-1980s, when the charter came into effect.

Suggesting that the seal of approval for the charter is granted by one of these statements is simply ridiculous. It is up to the court to provide that reasonableness and those limitation tests under the provision of section 1 of the charter, which allows a charter right to be violated by legislation, but applies a reasonableness and balancing test to it since the Oakes jurisprudence started.

I will give a couple of examples of why I have this concern. In this Parliament, we have seen many instances of the government acting in a way I firmly believe violates the charter rights of many Canadians. This is germane because just today, shortly before we rise for Christmas, the government is reversing its position on the so-called values screen for Canada summer jobs.

We all know the controversial values test was applied for the first time in the history of this summer employment plan for youth as a clear way the government intended to exclude faith-based organizations and other service organizations from funding related to students. There were concerns from a charter basis expressed from day one when it came to the values test. Is the government suggesting, with its charter statements, that its actions on a whole range of decisions are somehow inoculated because it is providing a charter assessment? That is political theatre. It cannot provide its own charter assessment. It tries to craft legislation that it feels strikes the right balance, but the actual charter determination is not made in this chamber, which writes the laws, but in other courts.

We bow to the Speaker. We have a bar. This is a court. We write the laws, but we do not adjudicate our own laws. This is a very big distinction I have not heard the government express any clear indication on yet.

I will use another example. There have been several violations, in my view, of indigenous peoples' rights with respect to the duty to consult. In fact, I believe Bill C-69 violates that duty. We can look at the approach the government has taken on the cancellation of the northern gateway pipeline, which is one-third owned by indigenous groups. The duty to consult is not frozen in time. It does not exist 10 years before one develops a pipeline or cuts trees in a forest. If one decides to change the circumstances of that consultation, or cancel something that indigenous peoples are a one-third owner of, one has a duty to consult them on the cancellation. This is an ongoing duty.

The fact that the government may have a piece of paper that says this is our charter statement, this is our validation that the bill conforms with the charter, is political and inappropriate, because the government is suggesting this legislation will withstand any judicial scrutiny before the judicial scrutiny is applied. The government is suggesting that this is A-okay. That is not the way it works.

I invite the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the parliamentary secretary to walk a little past the Confederation Building on the Hill to a building called the Supreme Court of Canada. It is there that the Oakes test was born, the Oakes test where the section 1 charter clause was.

As I have said, the values test that the government did to politicize the Canada summer jobs program would not be inoculated because of a government-produced charter statement nor would some of its actions with respect to Bill C-69, Bill C-75, Bill C-77. These are court determinations.

I do not have any proof because the charter statement concept is part of the government's justice reforms, including in this legislation, but I do have serious concerns that it will send a chill to suggest that the government will not consider valid concerns people have with respect to their charter rights.

I would like subsequent members of the Liberal caucus, particularly the ministers or the parliamentary secretaries, to provide a substantive rationale for their approach with respect to the charter statements. Are they somehow suggesting that previous governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have somehow not conformed to the charter by doing exactly what we are supposed to do as a Parliament, which is to try and find the right balance between the will of the people and certain provisions within the charter? That is done by a court using the Oakes test, doing the balancing. Producing a charter statement does not protect the government from criticism.

As I said today, days before Christmas, the government suddenly admits that its approach on the values test for summer jobs is wrong. This is much like days before Christmas last year, when it broke its promise to veterans on the return to the Pension Act. The Liberals make very good use of the pre-Christmas period not just for parties, but for dumping out their dirty laundry.

I would like to thank the thousands of Canadians from across the country and many of my colleagues in this chamber for representing the charter rights of millions of Canadians with respect to the conduct of the Canada summer jobs program.

Why I am focusing on this part of the bill is because we have to make sure that Canadians, members of the media and members of both Houses of Parliament do not get fooled by the fact that the government validating its own legislation under the guise of charter approval is not actually charter approval.

I am hoping in the remaining debate we can actually hear a cogent argument from the Liberal caucus on this. Otherwise, it seems to be more of the sort of media spin that we hear from the government.

The Prime Minister just yesterday, while leaning on his desk acting like a professor, told the opposition what we should ask and what we should criticize. We know full well what we should ask and we know where our criticisms and critiques are warranted.

Quietly, when the House does not sit, the Liberals backtrack on things, like they did today on the summer jobs values test, like when we rose for Remembrance week, and Miss McClintic, another justice consideration, was quietly transferred to a prison as we had been demanding, and as the break week happened Statistics Canada suddenly pulled back its program.

Like the Chris Garnier criticism, the non-veteran murderer who is receiving treatment funds from Veterans Affairs Canada, on most of the criticisms we have been raising even though they make the Prime Minister uncomfortable, the Liberals have backtracked. We have been doing our job quite effectively.

In the remaining time for debate, I would like one of the Liberal members to stand up and provide a context and a rationale addressing my concerns in regard to charter statements with respect to the bill before us and others.

As I said at the outset, we support the amendments and update of our Criminal Code with respect to sexual assault.

National Defence

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on National Defence in relation to Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

Again, the majority of Bill C-77 reflects what we did in Bill C-71. Protecting victims' rights is something we support. I agree with Mr. Garrison. We had a chance to help with the destigmatization of mental health, especially around suicide and self-harm, by taking that out of the National Defence Act.

I do hope that the members from JAG here are listening to the concerns we've raised about the criminal records aspect and how these things can come back to bite our troops as they become veterans and want to participate in their communities as volunteers, as well as seek future employment. I hope that as you draft the new QR&O, that is well taken into consideration.

I will be supporting Mr. Garrison as he brings forward his amendments at report stage. Hopefully, we'll have a better hearing with the Speaker than we received at committee.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe that Bill C-77 does important things in reforming the military justice system, especially as it improves victims' rights within that system, despite my disappointment that a couple of things, I think, were incorrectly ruled out of order. I will take those up at report stage in the House. In particular, on the urgent matter of removing all obstacles for those who may be considering self-harm to get care, I believe the amendment I moved is germane to that. I believe it's germane to the larger reforms of the military justice system that we've undertaken.

I'm also disappointed that Mr. Bezan's amendment, to try to make absolutely sure that people do not get criminal records as a result of infractions, was ruled out of order. I understand the technical arguments that we've heard, but I think it should have been considered by the committee and not ruled out of order.

Despite my disappointment on those two rulings, I still think this bill is an important reform of the military justice system. I will be voting in favour of the bill.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The amendment reads:

That Bill C-77, in Clause 65, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 16 on page 81 with the following:

"(15) Si l'article 59 de la première loi entre"

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

The amendment reads:

That Bill C-77, in Clause 63, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 14 on page 70 with the following:

“(1.2) The court martial or the Court Martial Ap-”

What it essentially does is remove the excess word “tribunal” from the English text. That's proposed subsection 215(1.2) of the National Defence Act. This section refers to courts martial, and therefore the word “tribunal” is superfluous.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'll move this, Mr. Chair.

It's another one of these meaty amendments. It says:

That Bill C-77, in clause 61, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 1 on page 57 with the following:

"incarcéré dans un pénitencier ou une prison civile, au sens"

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

I'll just say that I think this is an overstep. As Mr. Garrison said when you ruled out his amendment, NDP-1, these opportunities only come along once in a while.

To address your point on Bill C-71 and Bill C-77, this is why we have committee meetings. This is why we have expert witnesses. This is what we've heard from expert witnesses. It comes back again to Mr. Perron. He is the one who suggested that we go this route. We need to make sure these criminal records do not haunt the future of our veterans.

When we start talking about transition and wanting to support our military members as they move back to civilian life, really minor service infractions should not be on their criminal records. This is a way to address it. I think it is incredibly unfortunate that we aren't taking the opportunity to hear from expert witnesses and incorporate those changes into the bill, because, as was pointed out by Mr. Garrison, this won't happen again for the next....

We need to make sure that we address those issues. The summary of the bill, which is in the front of Bill C-77 is very clear that we are dealing with minor infractions. I can't see how you can rule this out of order. For that I challenge the chair.

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

As you know, this amendment is very simple. If you look at the summary of Bill C-77 at the beginning of the bill, it notes the amendments:

(l) provide for the creation, in regulations, of service infractions that can be dealt with by summary hearing;

(m) provide for a scale of sanctions in respect of service infractions and for the principles applicable to those sanctions;

(n) provide for a six-month limitation period in respect of summary hearings; and

(o) provide superior commanders, commanding officers and delegated officers with jurisdiction to conduct a summary hearing in respect of a person charged with having committed a service infraction if the person is at least one rank below the officer conducting the summary hearing.

Since we're dealing with service infractions and the issues surrounding summary hearings, the amendment is very simple. This is about making sure that criminal records that occur for members of the military do not become part of their civilian criminal records going forward.

Specifically, we are dealing with a few minor offences here that we want to make sure are dealt with. Section 85 deals with insubordinate behaviour; section 86 is about quarrels and disturbances; section 90 is about absence without leave; section 97 deals with drunkenness; and section 129 is about conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

All of those infractions would not form a criminal record for civilians, but they do for military members. When they leave the forces, that will haunt them as they apply for jobs and move on with their lives. It's not just for their work lives, either. If one of them wants to volunteer as a hockey coach and someone does a criminal records check, these things will pop up.

What we're trying to do is make sure that these minor offences do not become anything more than just an issue of disciplinary action within the military and do not travel with members down the road as they transition into veterans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Welcome back, everybody, to the defence committee this morning to continue our discussion about Bill C-77.

I'd like to welcome back Colonel Strickey, Lieutenant-Colonel Lortie and Major Lacharité. Thank you for coming.

I think we left off with CPC-7. MP Bezan was about to speak to his proposed new clause 42.1.

Mr. Bezan, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-77, in clause 37, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 48 with the following:

“37 Section 230 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a): (a.01) if the sanction imposed on a person found to have committed a service infraction is detention, reduction in rank or a fine exceeding 25% of basic pay and that finding has been reviewed in accordance with section 163.6, the legality of that finding and the severity of the sanction; (2) Section 230 of the Act is amended by striking”

We've been discussing quite a bit here that certain punishments can be penal in nature but there's no real avenue for appeal to a higher authority. This amendment would allow that appeal to a judge of the Court Martial Appeal Court in the case of a sentence arising from a summary hearing that is penal in nature.

The Quebec bar association had a similar concern. They said that even though there are minor sanctions, which are not defined in the bill, as we discussed, but will come out in future regulations, they wondered whether these minor sanctions will simply continue the minor punishments under the current system, and if so, this could pose a problem. They said that in addition, these minor punishments could include confinement to ship or barracks—we've already talked about that—and that confinement could be for up to 21 days. They said that in certain cases, the deprivation of freedom is very restrictive, similar to a suspended prison sentence under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code.

Essentially what we're saying is that these appeals would only be available to the Court Martial Appeal Court where the service member has received a penal sentence. We're talking about detention. We're talking about huge fines, 25% of their basic pay. We're talking about reduction in rank. Therefore, some of these are penal in nature. If they're penal in nature, they should have the right of appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court. This provides that opportunity.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

This will be a fun one and a bit of a challenge:

I move that Bill C-77, in clause 29, be amended by (a) replacing in the French version, line 23 on page 44 with the following:

fraction d'ordre militaire dont il est accusé, s'avoue cou-

(b) replacing, in the French version, line 28 on page 44 with the following:

dont il est accusé, déclarer l'accusé coupable de l'infrac-

(c) replacing, in the French version, line 32 on page 44 with the following:

(8) Dans le cas où l'accusé est accusé d'une infraction

(d) replacing, in the French version, line 37 on page 44 with the following:

il est accusé ou, tout en niant sa culpabilité à l'égard de

(e) replacing, in the French version, line 4 on page 45 with the following:

(9) Dans le cas où l'accusé est accusé d'une infraction

Sorry about that to any of the French speakers in the room, but it will look fine in the blues.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 29 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 30 to 36 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 37)

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, this is another housekeeping amendment.

I move that Bill C-77, in clause 27, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 4 on page 28 with the following:

the record is in the prosecutor' s possession or control, but, in doing

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 27 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 28 agreed to on division)

(On clause 29)

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I have a supplementary question for Colonel Strickey.

I don't imagine those service offences that show up as a criminal record or record of conduct would become Criminal Code offences. What is the attached reasons requirement for those offences as it currently is framed, or as it will be framed under Bill C-77, with respect to potential avenues of appeal? Presumably it's more elaborate than what would be the case for disciplinary offences of a minor nature.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-77, in clause 25, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 22 the following:

163.21 (1) A summary hearing may not be conducted unless the superior commander, commanding officer or delegated officer has taken the necessary measures to ensure that a recording or a transcript of the summary hearing is made and that any document or information relating to the hearing and ail exhibits filed with it are preserved. (2) The superior commander, commanding officer or delegated officer shall give reasons for his or her finding."

What we have here is even though these summary hearings are supposed to be administrative in nature and hopefully not penal, we do know that currently certain service infractions show up as criminal records down the road for our service members.

If we're not going to provide proceedings of those hearings or the rulings, how does that individual, when they release from the Canadian Armed Forces, who then goes out and applies for a job.... All of us get criminal record background checks now. That record is going to show that the individual had a criminal record while serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. In civilian life, offences like drunkenness would most likely not be a Criminal Code violation and insubordination would not be a Criminal Code violation, but they would show up on the criminal record.

To expunge that criminal record, they would need to have evidence of what the rulings were and if we're not taking any proceedings at the summary hearings or providing written findings by the COs they would have a big problem down the road as they transition to civilian life.

Without the opportunity to appeal—maybe it doesn't matter—but if we provide an appeal process, those findings are required to provide information to the higher delegated officer or a court martial.

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

Well, as we continue to talk about this, the one thing we don't want to have is a situation where some of these things become subject to charter challenges. I'm looking through the definitions in Bill C-77. I don't even see a definition in here—maybe you can—for what's that term again...the balance of...?

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

I'll move the first one, amendment CPC-3, that Bill C-77, in clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 16 on page 21 with the following:

(a) the person charged is an officer who is at least one rank below the rank of the superior commander, commanding officer or delegated officer, or is a non-commissioned member;

This is a direct link to Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Perron's brief, which talks about jurisdiction on page 13. Right now, the way it reads, it talks about “commanding officer or delegated officer”. It does not mention non-commissioned members, because non-commissioned members are not one rank below a superior commander, commanding officer or delegated officer. Of course, they are below the lowest-ranking officer, but sometimes they are present and have to act in the absence of an officer. Non-commissioned members and non-commissioned officers should be mentioned in the legislation in the event that they have to carry out a summary hearing.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-77, in clause 24 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 17 the following:

161.2 (1) Except in the circumstances prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council, a person charged with having committed a service infraction has the right to elect to be tried by court martial.

(2) If a person charged with having committed a service infraction elects to be tried by court martial, the charge must be referred, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, to the Director of Military Prosecutions.

As we know, in the summary hearings, service members have the potential to receive penal consequences. That could be a violation of charter rights if there's no right for a service member to choose to be tried by a court.

We heard from a number of witnesses, in particular, the briefing documents that we received from Lieutenant-Colonel Perron and from the Quebec bar association, that there is no way summary convictions would allow soldiers to opt for that court martial or to exercise that right.

Even though there's no offence under the National Defence Act that could be considered a criminal offence, there are some of these service infractions that should be considered by court martial. I think this is a concern in that there are no definitions in here, and maybe we're going to do this under regulation later, as to what actual service infractions will fall under summary hearings versus court martial.

The big concern is that if some of these are of a penal nature, such as, confinement to quarters, confinement to barracks, reduction of rank, reduction in pay by up to 25%, those are pretty serious charges and if you look down the road at some of these amendments we have, there are no recordings. There are at least half a dozen service infractions that could actually end up on a criminal record; even though civilly they're not criminal infractions, they're going to end up on the service member's criminal record when he or she leaves the military.

We need to start providing the options to make sure that we're in compliance with the charter. I believe that the amendments that were suggested by both Jean-Guy Perron and the Quebec bar association provide that opportunity to make things correct.

I just state that because of the penalties that are in place, the Supreme Court has already stated that a conditional sentence is a form of imprisonment. House arrest is a form of imprisonment. Confinement to barracks would be a form of imprisonment. We have to make sure this stands up before the Supreme Court if this ever gets to that court.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill C-77, in clause 16, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 1 on page 14 with the following:

b) de s'abstenir d'aller dans un lieu précisé dans l'ordonnance;

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Good morning, and welcome to the national defence committee clause-by-clause study of Bill C-77.

I'd like to welcome Colonel Stephen Strickey, Lieutenant-Colonel Geneviève Lortie and Major Karl Lacharité.

Much of this will be observation. You may get involved at some point. Many of the members here have never done clause-by-clause, so we'll be patient with those who have not. Some veterans on the other side of the table have done it many times. We'll go as slowly as we need to, to get this right the first time.

Pursuant to order of reference of Monday, October 15, 2018, this is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much.

Thanks again.

We're almost at the end of the testimony.

Leadership matters. It very much plays a role in how culture unfolds and even in how things like Bill C-77 are implemented and enforced. What more do you think needs to happen at the leadership level to ensure that Bill C-77, what we're trying to do and the support we're trying to provide to victims will go through?

What more do you think needs to happen at the leadership level?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Chair, thank you very much.

Madam Gagnon, I'm going to ask you a question that goes slightly outside of the bill, and then I'll give the remainder of my time to my colleague MP Dzerowicz.

It goes back to what our colleague Monsieur Martel said about the well-being of victims. The bill talks about the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to restitution.

In your experience as a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, what support mechanisms were there prior to Bill C-77? What support mechanisms would there be in the future for a victim to come forward with respect to counselling and mental health services?

This being one incentive to take the step of coming forward, I think it's a very important—

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

Mr. Chair, I want to move a motion in light of testimony that we've received and the report that came from the Auditor General. I move:

That the Committee invite the Auditor General to appear before the consideration of Bill C-77 clause-by-clause and discuss his Fall 2018 report.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

What provisions in Bill C-77 would address this?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That's good to hear.

We know there needs to be a culture change in the military, especially surrounding sexual harassment and assault. In your opinion, what aspects of Bill C-77 would work to modify that culture and strengthen the rights of victims?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much.

Without the changes that Bill C-77 would bring to the military justice system, how difficult is it now for victims to access general information? What does the right to information mean to victims?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Even though we're still dealing with some of the very pressing problems that my colleague was just referring to—3,000 cases—we haven't solved the issues yet. Bill C-77 is an important part of that. Do you see a role for Canada in teaching and training at the level of the UN on issues of military sexual trauma, abuse and assault?

[Julie Dzerowicz]

Part of what we're trying to do is.... There are a lot of changes happening at once. I was reading—and I think it just came out last week—that the Canadian Armed Forces thought there would be 1,000 sexual assault cases coming forward. I think we're at 3,000 right now. I think that says there have been a lot more than we originally thought.

I think that we have to deal with the sins of the past while we're changing the culture, which takes time. It does take time to change the culture, put new rules and processes in place, and then educate. I think that Bill C-77 is part of that. This is what we're trying to do all at the same time. All of that is really important.

You have made a number of excellent recommendations. You went through them really quickly.

[Marie-Claude Gagnon]

The preamble in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights puts emphasis on the respect and dignity of victims, and that does not exist in Bill C-77, from what I've seen.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much.

You talked about a preamble in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and you feel that there should be a similar preamble in Bill C-77. You were speaking very fast, and you were trying to get as much information on the record as possible. I get that, and I thank you for it. However, could you give us a bit more sense of what you're thinking regarding that preamble? Bill C-77 already mirrors the charter somewhat.

I'd like to give you the opportunity to tell us a little bit more about what you think should be in that preamble.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Could you recommend specific measures to improve Bill C-77? Is there anything you did not have time to mention in your testimony this morning?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

We often talk about the benefits of creating the position of a victims legal counsel in the U.S. military justice system. That counsel helps sexual assault victims in the armed forces feel that they can confide in full confidence and safety.

Should Bill C-77 provide more than one liaison officer to victims of a military offence and give them access to counsel?

[Marie-Claude Gagnon, Founder, It's Just 700]

Good morning.

It is an honour for me to be here today. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to share my thoughts and observations on such a complex and delicate issue.

My name is Marie-Claude Gagnon. I am a former Franco-Ontarian reservist with the Canadian Navy and a survivor of sexual trauma suffered during my military service. I am the founder of the group It's Just 700, which gives men and women suffering from military-related sexual trauma to reconnect with their peers, obtain support and get information on services available to them, whether or not those services are provided by the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, Veterans Affairs Canada or other related organizations.

Today, I will share with you my concerns on Bill C-77, one of whose goals is to establish a military victims bill of rights that reflects the protections already in place for civilians.

I think this bill is a commendable step for the CAF, as it contributes to creating a work, learning and living environment that is safer and free from sexual violence for all its members. However, I think the way the CAF operates and what sets it apart from civilian society are two factors that may prevent military victims from having the same rights and the same protection as those afforded to their civilian counterparts.

For example, the military justice system does not work the same as the civilian justice system. There are differences in terms of investigation methods, ways to access information, services available in victim assistance such as provincial services for victims of crime, oversight and external accountability mechanisms, and even expertise and training of individuals in the different justice system.

In addition, operational requirements, the duty to report, frequent changes of personnel, frequent deployments and assignments, CAF ethics, outdated policies still in effect, the imbalance caused by the ranks' ability to create proximity in terms of living and working conditions, gender imbalance, and the need for strict discipline have an impact on military victims that separates them from civilian victims.

Today, I will highlight some of the differences I feel have a unique effect on the rights and protection of military victims. I will suggest ways to ensure that those differences are reflected in this proposed legislation. It is not an exhaustive list of all the elements I think should be improved, but rather a list of elements that are most likely to be received and modified, and that will benefit most military victims.

I am presenting these recommendations on the assumption that the military justice system will keep its jurisdiction over sexual assault crimes. I will be ready to make additional recommendations if the Supreme Court Canada determines otherwise in the near future.

My participation today must not be considered as a statement that supports the maintenance or transfer of sexual violence crimes management by the military justice system.

In relation to this effect, I would like to point out a statement made by Colonel David Antonyshyn, deputy judge advocate general with military justice in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces on May 28, 2018, at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence:

The victims and survivors of sexual assault and other sexual crimes may choose where they want to file a complaint. There's no obligation to deal with civilian or military police forces. The choice is up to the victim. The investigation will often be determined by the entity to which the matter is assigned. Some sexual assault cases are investigated by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and transferred to civilian authorities where they are adjudicated in civilian trials.

Please let it be my first and top recommendation that military victims be made aware of this choice on the bill of rights Bill C-77 and moreover, the right to assistance to be guided on how to proceed with a request to transfer a case to the civilian authorities.

My second recommendation is to add a basic set of principles similar to the preamble found in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. I am particularly interested in the following statements:

[V]ictims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect, including respect for their dignity; [V]ictims’ rights [must] be considered throughout the criminal justice system;

There's nothing like this in the bill right now.

My third, fourth and fifth recommendations are with regard to the victim liaison officer. To substantiate these recommendations, I would like to point out one of the findings of OAG Report 5—Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour—Canadian Armed Forces, that was released on Tuesday. It was found that the required procedure to help ensure victims' needs are met was not followed in 31 of the 46 military police cases the OAG sampled. This means that victims were not always contacted to provide statements. They were not provided with the required support information package or even offered support or referral services at the start of the investigation.

I believe this gap may have been one of the reasons that a decision was made to add an assistant victim liaison officer to victims wishing more information and guidance to the justice process. However, proposed subsections 71.16(1) of the bill specify that this victim liaison service shall be provided “at the request of the victim”, that the commanding officer shall accommodate this request “to the extent possible”, and:

In the event of the absence or incapacity of the victim's liaison officer, a commanding officer shall appoint another officer or non-commissioned member to replace the liaison officer during that absence or incapacity, unless it is not possible to do so for operational reasons.

As stated by a member of my group, victims aren't likely to know to request a victim liaison officer; therefore, my third recommendation is to remove “at the request of the victim”, in proposed subsection 71.19(1).

This ties in with my fourth recommendation about not waiving the rights of the victim liaison officer in the event of absence or incapacity, or if it is not possible to do so for operational reasons.

As stated by retired Judge Deschamps in her report, “External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Forces”, released in 2015:

...the unique circumstances of training, operational deployment, and career courses, may create particular conditions of vulnerability. In particular, when a member is geographically relocated, a number of factors may make him or her more vulnerable and a target of inappropriate sexual conduct. These include the loss of family or social support networks, the communal setting, and a lack of knowledge of, or trust in, the temporary chain of command.

This may be even more relevant in CAF's current efforts to deploy as per the CNAP under UN Security Council Resolution 1325. This is why I strongly believe that operational reasons should not be an excuse not to appoint a victim liaison officer.

My fifth recommendation is about the role given to the victim liaison officer and training requirements.

Having the CO or the victim designate an officer implies that these liaison officers would have no training or even skills to perform any task at all.

Lindsay Rodman is an international affairs fellow for Canada with the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. In her article, “Does Canada's bill to protect military victims go far enough?”, she stated, “In the United States, having Victim Liaison Officers did not work; we had to give victims their own attorney.”

She even recommended similar remedies for the Canadian military court system:

The provision of lawyers to victims in the U.S. was resource-intensive, and therefore required commitment on the part of leadership. It was a gamble, and a controversial one, but it has paid dividends. C-77 is a good first step, but merely putting military victims on par with civilians may not be a strong enough signal to them that they will be protected and heard if they come forward. A bolder effort may be required if the CAF intends to truly take this problem head-on.

Regardless of the decision to provide attorneys to victims—which, in my opinion, would be ideal—or not, I don't believe the role of the victim liaison officer envisioned in this bill can, with its limited assistance capability, offset the service gap found in Tuesday's OAG report.

At the very least the victim liaison officer should be well trained in victims matters and trauma-informed service delivery. His or her role should be expanded to help victims work through the justice process; inform them about the documents that can be given on consent, stated in the bill; and help the victims obtain these documents so as not to put the whole burden on the victim; and provide information on how to access additional victim services and legal information.

Any substitution of this role should be done by someone with an agreed-upon basic knowledge, experience and training, and an absence of conflict of interest. The choice of the substitute and the reason that the VLO was not provided should be clearly documented.

My fifth recommendation is therefore to add the additional role, which I just highlighted, to the victim liaison officer section in proposed subsection 71.16(3) and ensure the training requirements are clearly stated either in the bill or in a subsequent regulation.

My sixth recommendation is to add a section on places where victims can find information on their rights.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime provides victims with information on their rights, as well as on resources and services available to them. I don't see an equivalent option for military victims. I recommend that the bill clearly specify where a victim may find that type of information or that the information be provided in regulations.

Recommendation eight is to specify the victim-oriented training requirements for all military justice system participants.

I understand that this decision of extending the jurisdiction of summary hearings is made with the desire to ensure a swift turnaround, but military officers such as an artillery officer, a pilot or a naval officer responsible for conducting these hearings need proper guidance and training.

According to the OAG's “Report 5—lnappropriate Sexual Behaviour—Canadian Armed Forces”, training given to the chain of command was not sufficient to understand how to effectively respond to and support victims. The same report found that in 21 of the 53 cases, the file showed that the victim experienced fear, distress, discomfort, a lack of support, reprisal or blame, including from the victim's commanding officer, senior leaders, instructors, and colleagues.

I recommend adding in this bill training on victims' rights and trauma-informed response for all military justice system participants to reduce risks of aggravating a trauma, creating additional trauma or leaving a victim in an unsafe or unhealthy working and living conditions.

Extending summary hearings to less trained and less experienced personnel in a much more decentralized system covering a vast periphery comes with its own obstacles. My recommendation number nine is to define and clarify certain terms to help reduce the risks of misuse and misinterpretations of these terms.

The first is “impact statement”. ln the definition of the term “victim impact statement”, it should be specified that the statement is not to be influenced, redacted or edited by the COC, CAF or any others.

On the definition of “reasonable and necessary measures”, a further solid and clear explanation of the term “reasonable and necessary measures” should be given under the article.

A definition of “intimidation and retaliation” should be added about what constitutes intimidation and retaliation. This definition should also include a clause on adverse interference such as removal from trade, place of work, section, platoon, company, ship or unit, unless it is requested by the victim.

Out of consideration for the victim's safety and security, I would like to suggest one little change. If the court martial makes a decision that the carrying into effect of the punishment is suspended, it shall include in the decision statement how it has considered, instead of that it has considered the safety and security of every victim of the offence.

Before I conclude, I would like to raise two other points to consider.

First, a few words should be added on the support provided to military victims when their case is transferred to the civilian justice system. The transfer of cases to civilian authorities must be carefully planed to guarantee the protection of everyone's rights.

The lack of information on access to military documents and medical records, the timeline of access to military information and medical records, the differences in treatment from one province to another in terms of rape kits, the application of peace bonds, as well as the cost of transportation of key witnesses and victims from one province to another are only a few examples of obstacles military victims must overcome. Military victims should be able to count on a liaison officer who would help them navigate between the two systems, at least until they are provided with support by a provincial victim services organization.

Second, gender parity on military expert panels must be ensured. The accused generally have the right to choose between a standing court martial and a general court martial before a military judge and a panel of experts consisting of five military members. According to the CAF, court martial panels are selected at random by the court martial administrator. They serve a function akin to that of a jury in a civilian trial and must come to a unanimous decision in convictions.

As men outnumber women in the CAF, it is almost inevitable for a strong majority of men to be selected at random to make up the panel. The process could remain random, but be fine-tuned to ensure more balanced representation.

In conclusion, as explained by Lindsay Rodman, victims in military court need help to offset lack of standards to ensure they can access the same rights and protections as their civilian counterparts.

I believe my recommendations can help alleviate some of the additional burden put on military victims.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the national defence committee.

I'd like to welcome Marie-Claude Gagnon, who is here to talk to us about Bill C-77 and I'm going to turn the floor over to her for her opening comments.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

I have two questions. The first repackages Mr. Gerretsen's questions.

How concerned are you, if at all, that we—across the system, as it's currently contemplated through Bill C-77—will have the emergence of different disciplinary cultures within the Canadian Armed Forces? I'm not talking about offences. I'm talking about discipline for minor offences across different units.

Is that a concern? Is it going to happen? If it does happen, do we worry about it?

Then I have a second question.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Perron's name came up. When he was here, he mentioned that if minor sanctions be identical or quite similar to minor punishments that exist today, then some of the punishments that can be assigned include punishments of confinement to barracks and extra drill work, which would raise concerns. He further mentioned that commanding officers can confine a person to barracks for up to 21 days.

I wanted to hear from you, being the department experts on this. What are the limits on what can be imposed as punishment under minor sanctions in Bill C-77?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

In terms of the minor punishments that were put forward by some of my legal colleagues in a previous meeting, confinement to barracks is not set out in Bill C-77. Any minor punishments will be set forth in regulation.

In terms of the current sanctions put forth in Bill C-77, again, those are taken into account...of a non-penal, non-criminal system. That's what is envisioned in the bill.

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

As it currently sits right now, if somebody has been found guilty and that's going to happen, first, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of the burden of proof and how that's defined. It was defined in that way under the old Bill C-71 as well.

Plus, they had the whole concept that if they wished to, they had the option of going to a trial by their peers through court martial. Does that option still exist in Bill C-77?

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

Thank you.

I want to come back to the issue of the penalties described under Bill C-77 for summary trials. There are still very much penal consequences, such as confinement to barracks, reduction of pay and allowances and reduction in rank, yet we don't hear anything on burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that a violation of the charter?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay.

As Mr. Bezan said, Bill C-71 and Bill C-77 are very similar, Bill C-71 being the bill that died on the Order Paper in 2015.

It seems like a minor change. Bill C-77 I think uses “summary hearing” and Bill C-71 uses “summary trial”. Is that accurate? If that's the case, on the surface it doesn't seem like a big change, but what is the rationale for making sure that all through the NDA, Bill C-77 would replace the term “summary trial” with “summary hearing”?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, folks, for being here.

This may have been touched on by Mr. Spengemann, but how does the declaration of victims' rights proposed in Bill C-77 compare, how is it the same and how does it differ from the rights that already exist through the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights? Also, is the definition of “victim” the same in both?

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

Since the bill was drafted and tabled, of course we had the Beaudry decision through the Court Martial Appeal Court, and we're still waiting for the Supreme Court to pronounce on it. Have you looked at Bill C-77 since that decision through the Beaudry lens to see whether or not you feel that it cuts the mustard according to any of the changes that are being suggested in that decision?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

I can't really speak in terms of evidence, but what I can put forward, as all the committee members are aware, is that the summary trial reforms are intended to create a non-criminal, non-penal disciplinary system that will deal promptly with service disciplinary misconduct.

Certainly in terms of our allies, there was some discussion of that at the committee during the last meeting. We did take a look at that. In terms of Australia, I think this system would perhaps compare the closest. That system comprises of a summary scheme called the discipline officer scheme. I'm certainly not an expert on the Australian summary trial system, but just for the benefit of the members of the committee, from what we have researched, once people elect to have an offence dealt with by a discipline officer, they're deemed to have admitted to the infringement and they do not have the right to any type of representation.

It seems very analogous to the type of hearing that is proposed in Bill C-77, an administrative-type hearing. As well, as I discussed in my previous appearance before the committee, there are some analogies as well to the RCMP disciplinary scheme. Clearly, the needs of discipline, morale and efficiency in the Canadian Armed Forces are just that they are nuanced to the Canadian Armed Forces, but one can draw a rough analogy with the RCMP scheme.

I would point out—and again, I'm certainly not an expert in the disciplinary scheme of the RCMP—but that is a two-tier system, conduct authority and conduct board, and the balance of probabilities as well based on that system. As well, from the cursory research that we have done, there is legal representation only before a conduct board on the more serious infractions.

As I said, the balance of probabilities is the standard, and the infractions are also ensconced in the regulations. Whether we discuss theoretically a justice system or a disciplinary system, as you know, sir, there's no perfect system, but what is proposed here is a non-disciplinary, non-penal system.

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

I appreciate that. I just want to come back to some of the questions that we've been having.

As you know, we've had a number of recommendations that have come to the committee from Jean-Guy Perron, as well as from the Quebec bar association. To follow-up on some of the other questions that we've had here, there's a lot of concern around the issue in Bill C-77 regarding disciplinary infractions versus service infractions. When you compare C-77 to the old C-71 that was tabled back in 2015, is there any evidence that we need to lower service infractions to such a level versus the way we used to treat, and currently treat, those types of infractions today through summary trial?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our witnesses for being here this morning, and a special thank you to Lieutenant-General Lamarre for his excellent French translation of his presentation. This is particularly welcome these days.

My first question is this: how does Bill C-77 expand upon the right to information currently held by victims within Canada's military justice system?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

On protection orders, how significant an issue is the need to protect members from each other?

Is the protection order mechanism under Bill C-77 something that's new?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. That's super helpful. Thank you for that.

I also wanted to ask you about two mechanisms that I think are particularly important for women serving in the Canadian Forces today and women contemplating the Canadian Forces as a career. Those are the right to protection and the right to restitution. The right to protection, in common language, would be a restraining order.

Can you comment on the way this is currently being done pre-Bill C-77 if somebody needs to be protected from another member of the armed forces and what Bill C-77 adds?

The same is true for the right to financial restitution. How significant is that? Is that entirely new legal turf through Bill C-77?

I have about two minutes remaining.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General Lamarre, it's good to see you again. Thank you for being with us with your team.

Thank you, all, for your service to our nation.

My questions are going to fall under the broad rubric of women and peace and security. I say this with respect to both promoting the project within the armed forces and members who currently serve, but also as a way to recruit more women into the armed forces, including international service and peacekeeping missions.

I wanted to ask if you've had a chance to review the ombudsperson's report. It's the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, and there's probably room for a name change there. Heidi Illingworth is the ombudsperson and she made recommendations on Bill C-77 this month.

Has this document been shared with members of your team?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Richard.

Gentlemen, it's great having you at the committee again.

Colonel Jetly, it's always great seeing you. We did a lot of work together on mental health within the armed forces.

As you know, there has been quite a bit of discussion around paragraph 98(c) of the National Defence Act, which isn't in Bill C-77. However, there is quite a bit of concern that it adds to the stigmatization of mental health within the armed forces, and possibly hasn't been used in the past.

Colonel Jetly, could you respond from a mental health perspective, if that section prevents people from coming forward?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our delegation for being here today to answer some of our questions.

I want to focus my questions on the issue of the minor sanctions. We know that minor sanctions and expressions will be defined under the regulations instead of through Bill C-77. Can you comment on the benefit of defining them under regulation instead of through legislation on specific cases?

[Lieutenant-General Charles Lamarre, Commander, Military Personnel Command, Department of National Defence]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

First, I am Lieutenant-General Chuck Lamarre. I'm commander of military personnel command, the organization that recruits, trains and does the care, service, pay and so on and so forth for all of our members. We assist with the eventual transition out of military as well. Thank you for inviting us to come here and speak to you today.

The care and support of all Canadian Armed Forces personnel are of paramount importance to our operational success. Our military justice system deals with people, and it is also critical to operational success, so I'm pleased to have the opportunity to engage in the committee's study of Bill C-77.

I will introduce our experts in a moment. They will also be able to provide details and answers to all of your questions.

I want to start by stating, however, that the Canadian Armed Forces has a system of care that is world class and available to all of our members. The CAF health system has 37 clinics, of which 31 have in-house mental health professionals. There are approximately 465 dedicated mental health positions distributed among those 31 clinics.

In addition, there are over 4,000 mental health care providers in the civilian system who have registered to provide care to military members in their own practices.

Finally, we have also teamed up with Veterans Affairs Canada to create the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada joint suicide prevention strategy, which was launched on October 5, 2017.

The experts we have with us today can speak more to the excellent level of care that we provide to our members. They are Colonel Peter Clifford, deputy surgeon general, and Colonel Rakesh Jetly, senior psychiatrist and mental health adviser for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces has a duty to proceed from the point of view of care and compassion towards all of our members. It is part of the profession of arms, a code of conduct for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces that is underpinned by a high standard of values and ethics.

In instances where a member has committed an act of self-harm, the foremost priority of leadership is to provide care and support to that member. It is not to charge or punish a member in already difficult circumstances, and we do not.

We are also happy to have with us today two of our legal experts, Colonel Steve Strickey, deputy judge advocate general, military justice; and Lieutenant-Colonel Geneviève Lortie, director of law, military justice and policy. This is their second appearance before the committee, and they would be pleased to address any legal issues surrounding the study of this bill.

We take the health and well-being of our members, including their mental health, very seriously. Our members are always our highest priority.

We look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Welcome, everybody, to the defence committee this afternoon. To our guests, my apologies for being late. We had a vote and it took some time.

In the interest of time, I'm going to introduce Lieutenant-General Charles Lamarre, who will speak on Bill C-77.

I understand and appreciate that you have a number of colleagues here, but to save time, I'll turn the floor over to you for your opening remarks. Then we can get to questions. I understand that you have to leave by 12:45. We'll endeavour to get you out of here at that time.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport, Lib.]

Wonderful. Thank you so much.

Thank you for being here, Minister Sajjan, and thank you to the deputy minister and her team. Thank you for honouring the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.

Few people know this, but in my 13-square-kilometre riding of Davenport in downtown west Toronto, I have a cemetery that has the largest number of burials of World War I veterans and allied members, at 5,300. It's actually very beautiful. We have an extra-special celebration taking place this Sunday. I just wanted to mention that.

Minister, as part of your remarks, you talked a bit about diversity. Our committee will be moving on to a study of diversity after we've concluded Bill C-77. In light of the events in Saint-Jean reported this spring, and the recent media articles around extreme right and white supremacist views in some Canadian Armed Forces members, I wonder if you might go on record saying something about this.

As well, could you take a moment to talk about diversity and how it is indeed our strength and an essential part of mission success?

[LCol (Ret'd) Jean-Guy Perron]

No, I don't think you would be examining the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of Canada provides a two-part test to determine whether a proceeding is administrative, penal or criminal in nature.

The 2015 Guindon decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which basically reiterates the test from Wigglesworth and Martineau, gives us the guidelines to assess a situation and to determine whether we are dealing with something that's purely administrative in nature and procedure, and therefore the administrative law applies, or whether it's criminal or penal, and therefore the higher standards apply. This, for me, is the exercise that must be undertaken when examining Bill C-77.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I have a question for Mr. Lévesque.

Please describe, if you would, how the Beaudry decision will impact Bill C-77.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I would like to look at two mechanisms that are proposed by Bill C-77 that exist in the civilian world and are used frequently there, restitution orders and restraining orders.

Mr. Lévesque, you spoke about restraining orders earlier. For either of you, how important is it that those two mechanisms are now embedded in Bill C-77? How often are they invoked? Generally, are you favourably inclined toward the provisions in Bill C-77 on these two provisions?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

We appreciate that. It's important to get your perspective, so thank you for that.

The other broad question I wanted to ask you—you've given advice internationally at the level of the UN—was about how our partners and allies are doing on conduct and service discipline. We often look to Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., the U.S. as potential models for peacekeeping or collaboration on security matters. What about conduct and service discipline? Have you done any research there? Are there any opportunities for us to look at their practices in informing our discussion on Bill C-77?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

In terms of gender impact in the application or also in what a young woman might look at in the recruitment stage with respect to the work environment she would step into as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who would be subject to service discipline under Bill C-77, you don't see anything that would be concerning along gender lines?

[LCol (Ret'd) Jean-Guy Perron]

No. As I reviewed Bill C-77 focusing on the disciplinary aspect, the summary trial, summary hearings, I cannot say that I perceived any aspect of those provisions that would make me wonder if there was a gender aspect or an issue that is significant.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Thank you all for being here, for your service and for your expertise and your advocacy.

Mrs. Fynes, my condolences on the passing of your son, Corporal Stuart Langridge. It is my hope that through our conversation here today we are able to honour his life and honour his service, and to honour the service of all members of the Canadian Forces who died because they made a decision to take their own lives.

We heard you loud and clear that a member of the Canadian Forces who seeks help for reasons of mental health should be supported and not punished. Thank you for making that point.

My question is for Lieutenant-Colonel Perron. There are a lot of conversations throughout our government and globally on the need to have greater participation of women in our armed forces. The women, peace and security agenda and Canada's Elsie initiative on women in peace operations resonate broadly into the United Nations and beyond.

Are there gender dimensions to the points you have made to the committee earlier? In other words, do any of the recommendations, the points you have identified as worthy of attention, line up differently depending upon whether they apply to men or women, either in current practice or post-Bill C-77?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Bill C-77 will amend the National Defence Act to incorporate indigenous sentencing considerations. Military tribunals will be required to take into account the circumstances of indigenous offenders when determining sentences.

Could you please explain how sentencing will take into account the circumstances of indigenous offenders under Bill C-77?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Very well.

My next questions are for Ms. Haddadi and Mr. Lévesque.

Bill C-77 provides for the designation of a victim's liaison officer at the victim's request. That person's job is to assist the victim during the process.

Would victim liaison officers be able to provide legal advice to the victims they are responsible for assisting?

[LCol (Ret'd) Jean-Guy Perron]

Based on the statistics from the JAG annual reports over the last 10 years on summary trials, I do not see how Bill C-77 would change the landscape that greatly, considering the nature of the offences tried at the unit level and the sentences—the punishments—handed out at the unit level. Eighty per cent of trials are by delegated officers. They're not even by COs. They're by a major or a captain in the unit. COs do 16%.

The unit handles the minor disciplinary infractions, so I don't understand how Bill C-77 changes the landscape.

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

It was very critical. I guess one of the concerns is the Jordan principle and that there are a lot of delays in the judicial process. I'm unsure whether it's a shortage of lawyers or whether it's a shortage of investigators, but things aren't moving down the pipe in a timely manner.

Of course, now we have the Beaudry decision from the Court Martial Appeal Court, which suggests that these issues be tried in civilian court rather than through a court martial if they're committed in Canada. Of course, we have the delays in the civil system as well, mainly because of the lack of judges in some jurisdictions.

How do we get around this issue of delays? Does Bill C-77 fix that? I know the Canadian Armed Forces believes it does take off some of that pressure, because commanding officers will be making more decisions than military judges.

[LCol (Ret'd) Jean-Guy Perron]

Correct. That is also very problematic, because there's a lot we don't know about the consequences of Bill C-77. The infractions will be defined in regulations. The procedures will be defined in regulations. There's nothing in the bill that tells us exactly where we're heading from an infraction point of view and procedure point of view, other than a “balance of probabilities”.

If we use, presently, the five minor offences as the standard for what should be a disciplinary infraction, we would use a process that would be quite similar to a summary trial. Presently in a summary trial, if the accused may be subject to a fine that's more than 25% of basic monthly pay, detention or a reduction in rank, that gives the accused the right to elect for a court martial. This you will not see in Bill C-77 should the infractions be basically the minor offences of today. This option would not exist.

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

In Bill C-77, the elective of going to a court martial is no longer available if it's considered a non-criminal offence. Is that right?

[LCol (Ret'd) Jean-Guy Perron]

No, because, on the issue of summary hearings, these changes to military justice, Bill C-71 and Bill C-77 are practically identical.

The major fundamental change, which is critical, changes the summary trial to a summary hearing, thus keeping basically what I consider, as I discuss in my submission, what is still a penal proceeding with penal consequences, but replaces the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard with a “balance of probabilities”, which is, for me, very problematic.

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

Are you picking up any of the language that was used in Bill C-71 as a better way of interpreting military justice than Bill C-77?

[LCol (Ret'd) Jean-Guy Perron]

I have provided the clerk with my written submissions. They will be translated and then provided to the committee. I have 15 recommendations in my written submissions. I've also provided you with three annexes that contain what I think is useful information for when you are considering my submissions.

Yes, I do make recommendations pertaining to Bill C-77.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing and for your testimony.

Ms. Fynes, again, our condolences for Corporal Langridge. I'm very familiar with the case. I was previously chair of the committee and the parliamentary secretary making sure that records were turned over so that you had them for information purposes and legal proceedings.

Lieutenant-Colonel Perron, thanks for your service to Canada. You've had quite a distinguished career—a Van Doo, a commando, a JAG and a military judge. You've done it all and seen it all.

To follow up on Ms. Dzerowicz's question, are you making recommendations for amendments to Bill C-77?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much. I think that was important.

I will be reading through your recommendations again, because you've made a lot of them. They were very thoughtfully done. I really appreciate that.

I thought you also made very thoughtful recommendations, Lieutenant-Colonel Perron. Thank you for that.

I want to clarify something. I know you went through the different sections in your recommendations, and you had issues with some of them. I really appreciated that. You may have mentioned this at the beginning, but I want to make sure you did agree with the objective and our intention with Bill C-77 and what we're trying to do overall. I want to verify that you are supporting what we're intending to do with this bill, which is to ensure that victims receive the support they need and deserve, so that victims rights are actually enshrined within the National Defence Act.

[Lieutenant-Colonel, Retired) Jean-Guy Perron (As an Individual]

Good afternoon. My name is Jean-Guy Perron, and I am a retired lieutenant-colonel.

I enlisted in 1978 and graduated from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. From 1983 to 1990, at the start of my career, I was an infantry officer with the Royal 22^nd Regiment and the 1^st Battalion of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

I studied law at the University of Ottawa. From 1995 to 2006, I was a military lawyer with the Office of the Judge Advocate General. I commanded the Canadian Forces National Counter-Intelligence Unit from 2004 to 2006, I was appointed as a military judge by the Governor in Council in 2006, and I was released from the Canadian Forces in 2014.

I was deployed to Bosnia, Rwanda and Uganda and travelled to Afghanistan on several occasions, in particular, to preside at the court martial of Captain Semrau.

I wish to focus my comments on summary hearings and the related provisions of Bill C-77. I will start with a comparison of Bill C-71 with Bill C-77.

Bill C-71 uses the term ”disciplinary infraction” instead of “service infraction”. Both are created by regulations and are not an offence under the NDA or the Criminal Records Act. Under Bill C-71, a disciplinary infraction can only be tried by a summary trial. Under Bill C-77, a service infraction may only be dealt with by a summary hearing. The sanctions found in Bill C-71 are identical to those found in Bill C-77.

As for the principles and objectives of sentencing found in Bill C-71, they too are practically identical to those in Bill C-77. A summary trial under Bill C-71 is a service tribunal that deals with disciplinary infractions and not service offences. It offers the accused practically all of the protections of criminal law. A summary hearing under Bill C-77 is, in effect, identical to the summary trial in Bill C-71, except for one critical element. Everything will be defined in regulations. A hearing under Bill C-77 is not described. If one follows what we now have in chapter 108 of the QR and O, which describes the procedure for a summary trial, one should expect that the future chapter 108 of the QR and O would be quite similar for a summary hearing. If that is the case, a finding in a summary hearing is made on a balance of probabilities, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, as what is in Bill C-71 and presently for a summary trial.

The objectives and principles of sentencing in Bill C-77 are practically identical to the purposes and principles of sentencing presently used by service tribunals and the purposes and principles of sentencing found in the Criminal Code. However, Bill C-77 mentions minor sanctions that may be imposed at summary hearings but does not define them. Would minor sanctions be identical or quite similar to the minor punishments that exist today? It would be most probably so.

The punishments of confinement to barracks and extra work in drill would raise concerns. Commanding officers can confine a person to barracks for up to 21 days. The rules relating to confinement to barracks could constrain the liberty of movement and action of a defaulter. A defaulter cannot go beyond the geographic limits prescribed by the commanding officer in standing orders. This deprivation of liberty can be very strict and would be similar to a conditional sentence of imprisonment: house arrest.

A person subject to confinement to barracks could be ordered to stay within unit lines during the complete period of the punishment. This means a person with a spouse or a family could be forced to live apart from them for the punishment period. A person undergoing a sentence of house arrest still lives with his or her spouse and family. This is a significant difference. Strict confinement to ship or barracks conditions could be very restrictive on the person's liberty and could equate to detention.

Under Bill C-77, the accused is liable to be sentenced to have more severe punishment based on a lower threshold of conviction. A summary hearing under Bill C-77 offers less protections to the accused than what was present in Bill C-71 and what is actually present in the summary trial process.

I'll now turn to the role of the commanding officer. “The commanding officer is at the heart of the entire system of discipline”, so stated Justice Dickson in his 1997 report. Currently, the National Defence Act and the QR and O reflect this key role. A review of the JAG annual reports from fiscal years 2008-09 to 2017-18, 10 years, provides very useful information to help one understand the current military justice system. Data indicates that COs presided over 16% of summary trials, delegated officers over 80% and superior commanders over 4%. This distribution is probably similar today, but the JAG ceased providing these statistics after 2010. This is unfortunate, because it does offer a clear picture of how discipline is enforced within units. It does appear that the great majority of summary trials are presided over by the officer closest to the accused and who possesses the least severe powers of punishment.

Bill C-77, just as Bill C-71 did, radically transforms this concept. Bill C-77 gives more powers of punishment to the superior commander than it does to the CO. This brings into question whether the CO is still the most important actor in disciplinary matters within his or her unit.

Next, on the need to change the military justice system, why does the chain of command need new service infractions and a new disciplinary system to ensure the proper administration of discipline within a unit? Over the 10-year period, approximately 70% of the summary trials occurred without the accused being offered the election of a court martial. Over that same 10-year period, the five minor offences and disobedience of a lawful command represented 94% of the charges tried by summary trial.

The punishments, in order of those awarded the most often, are a fine, 59%; confinement to barracks, 24%; extra work and drills, 6%; a reprimand, 4%; and detention, approximately 2%. Based on these statistics, why is there a need to create new disciplinary infractions and a new disciplinary process to assist the CO in enforcing discipline within his or her unit?

With regard to decriminalizing disciplinary infractions, a person found guilty of any of the service offences listed at section 249.27 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to a punishment of imprisonment, dismissal from Her Majesty's service, detention, reduction in rank, forfeiture of seniority, or a fine exceeding one month of basic pay will have a criminal record. The service offences found at section 249.27 include the five minor offences—insubordinate behaviour, quarrels and disturbances, absence without leave, drunkenness, and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Section 83 of the National Defence Act, disobedience of a lawful command, is not included in section 249.27. A person found guilty of a purely military offence—for example, disobedience of a lawful command, insubordinate behaviour, absence without leave, drunkenness, or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline—may have a criminal record.

The consequences of having a criminal record are significant. Applying for employment or attempting to cross the Canadian border are but two of the everyday consequences that can have an important impact on a veteran's life. Do we truly wish to burden a veteran with a criminal record, when he or she has committed a service offence, which may have no equivalent in our criminal justice system or in Canadian society? The answer to this question is not found in section 249.27 or the creation of service infractions.

One should examine the nature of the service offence to determine whether the offender should suffer the consequences of a criminal record. One should examine not only the punishment or the service tribunal that tried the offence.

A thorough and comprehensive review of the Canadian military justice system is definitely required. Any discussion on the subject of discipline and military justice must start with a basic understanding of the uniqueness of the Canadian Armed Forces and its specific role in Canadian society. Canada maintains a military force whose primary purpose is to ultimately use deadly force to execute the government's directives.

This armed force must be well led, well trained and disciplined. Military justice is but one facet of discipline. It is actually the means of last resort, when all other aspects of discipline have failed. The military justice system is not synonymous with military discipline.

Any major reform to the military justice system must be discussed in a public forum. A parliamentary committee could listen to Canadians, academics, lawyers and members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It would have the independence and necessary resources for the thorough review and creation of a modern system of military justice that will effectively balance the needs of discipline with the rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Thank you.

[Pascal Lévesque, President, Criminal Law Committee, Barreau du Québec]

First of all, we welcome the fact that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being integrated into the act. The charter grants a right to information, protection, participation and restitution. However, the Barreau du Québec questions the scope of a victim's right to information in the context of paragraph (b) of the new section 71.04 introduced by the bill. Does this mean that the victim would have a right to personal information concerning the offender?

We are also in favour of creating the role of the victim's liaison officer, but we feel it might perhaps be desirable to require that the officer have a minimum level of training and the professional skills to occupy that position.

We also note and welcome the fact that new powers would be granted to military judges to facilitate the testimony of victims and witnesses. Victims may fear reprisals or pressures. These powers will therefore help ensure their safety. However, we wonder why the regime of protections and rights conferred on victims is limited to military offences and does not include service infractions. In our view, the act should protect victims from one type of offence and an infraction.

The second major feature of this bill is the paradigm shift with regard to the summary procedure. We note the will of Parliament to move away from a criminal justice system toward something resembling a system of disciplinary law. We are in favour of this initiative, which is designed to reduce military stigmatization and to make the trial process more efficient and fair, but we would remind you that this paradigm shift should not come at the cost of reducing the rights of military members.

By eliminating detention, the bill removes from a commander's sentencing options the authority to impose a sentence of detention of up to 30 days at a military detention facility. It seems desirable, at first glance, that military personnel should be less exposed to penal consequences, but the fact remains that serious questions arise over the effects of this removal.

With the detention option ruled out, it could be more difficult to address the types of misconduct committed in a theatre of operations. It is a more complicated proposition to conduct a court martial outside Canada. Would it not be more useful, in certain circumstances, to provide for detention, which would definitely be a harsher sentence, but one of shorter duration, in situations in which quick action is required? In our view, the problem is not detention, but rather its usefulness. The real challenge is to guarantee that the fundamental rights of military personnel are respected when they are faced with it.

Another effect of this reform of the summary procedure is a lowering of the evidentiary standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to that of a preponderance of probabilities. This seems consistent with the desire to depenalize the process. Despite this change in the burden of proof, however, military members still be exposed to serious consequences such as demotion and suspension of allowances and pay. This last sanction can have a significant financial impact on a service member.

If Parliament decided to abandon the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the path we feel should be favoured, there could be a compromise suggestion, along the lines of disciplinary law. To this meet the burden of proof, the evidence would have to be clear and convincing, and thus somewhere between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a "preponderance of probabilities". We nevertheless prefer proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" for as long as service members are exposed to penal consequences. I'll come back to this later.

Now I'm going to discuss undefined expressions. The expressions "service infractions" and "minor sanctions" are not defined in the bill, but they will be in future regulations. This aspect raises concerns since we think there must be greater transparency and assurances that the bill's provisions are, from the outset, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, the spectre of what a minor sanction may be looms large.

Consider, for example, confinement to quarters or to ship, a penalty that can amount to deprivation of liberty similar to a conditional sentence as provided for under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. In our opinion, minor sanctions must be defined in the act, and confinement to quarters or to ship must be considered as a serious sanction eliciting protections.

Now I will discuss procedural protections for service members. We repeat that it is necessary to provide better protection for service members, despite the removal of certain penal attributes of the military justice system's summary procedure. The reform neglects to provide certain procedural fairness protections, even as it moves closer to an administrative disciplinary law model applicable to professional associations.

The bill doesn't alter the fact that it's the commanders who determine whether service personnel have committed infractions and who impose sanctions, if need be. We understand that, by removing certain penal aspects from the present system, the bill makes the requirement of an independent decision-maker, within the meaning of paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, less necessary. The fact remains, however, that, when you compare this regime to the disciplinary regime applicable to police officers of the Sûreté du Québec or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, military decision-makers are less independent. In our view, offsetting measures should be adopted to ensure that commanders perform their duties as impartially as possible.

There is another situation that we consider problematic, and that is the removal of the option to elect a court martial. We feel that, to the extent service members are still exposed to serious consequences for infractions that remain to be defined, it is desirable that this option be retained.

The bill is also silent on the representation of service members facing infraction allegations. For the moment, only lawyers of the Director of Defence Counsel Services are authorized to provide legal counsel and legal information—that's the term used in the regulations—but that information must be general in nature and pertain to the issues involved in the accused's summary trial, and counsel providing that information must distinguish between a court-martial and a summary trial. That does not seem to include the option of providing comprehensive legal advice or representing the accused. We find this problematic, since, by comparison, RCMP and Sûreté du Québec officers receive either real legal assistance or full representation.

We recommend that the legal services offered to service personnel be expanded to include at least an offer of full legal advice, at no cost, in preparation for trial and that they be given the option of electing a court martial.

The bill is also silent on the possibility of recording hearings and on the way decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions. In our view, summary hearings must be recorded where possible, and, out of a concern for transparency, fairness and accountability, decisions should be accompanied by written reasons.

The bill provides that the decision or sanction imposed by a summary authority may be reviewed automatically or at the request of the person concerned in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council. In the circumstances, we wonder whether the review upon request or the automatic review under the present regime will be continued. Will decisions from summary hearings and review authorities be excluded from the field of application of the military grievance procedure because they are made in accordance with the code of discipline? In our view, once again having regard to the penal consequences to which service members are exposed, provision should be made for a right of appeal from summary hearing decisions. This appeal could be made following the review process and be possible only where the service member has suffered a penal consequence.

In short, having regard to the various points mentioned that we find problematic in this reform of the summary procedure, we think it may be better to defer it in order to give all necessary consideration to the protection of service members' rights.

Lastly, several amendments are designed to harmonize military and civilian justice, such as the addition, in clause 16 of the bill, of the option for a victim to seek an order to abstain from communicating him or her. We are very much in favour of this amendment, which will enable military judges to provide more effectively for victims's safety. However, we question the use of the term "victim", which we find restrictive. In our view, the term should be "person", as is the case in the Criminal Code.

In addition, the bill contains significant amendments pertaining to sentences. In particular, it requires that special attention be paid to the situation of aboriginal offenders at sentencing. Provision is made for sentences to be served intermittently. The bill also provides for the possibility of ordering suspension of a sentence and, lastly, the option of directing an absolute discharge.

Although the Barreau du Québec is in favour of these significant amendments, it questions, first, the reason why Parliament has limited the option of directing an intermittent sentence for periods of imprisonment or detention of up to 14 days, whereas this type of order can be made under the Criminal Code for sentences of up to 90 days. Second, we question the reason why a suspension may be directed only where incarceration or detention is required, the opposite of what is required under the Criminal Code. Lastly, we welcome the power of a military judge to direct absolute discharges, but we wonder why this power has not been extended to include conditional discharges.

In closing, the Barreau du Québec has noted the change in the essential sentencing objective, which is no longer to contribute "to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society", but merely to the maintain discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Forces. The Barreau du Québec feels that the previous wording was more consistent with the dual nature of military justice, which is both similar to a system of civil justice and unique.

That completes the review of the major issues that the Barreau du Québec wanted to address with you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, as part of this consultation on Bill C-77. More detailed explanations of the various issues that we have just presented are provided in a brief that may be found on the Barreau du Québec's website, in French only, although you will have a bilingual copy as of November 16.

We hope our presentation has contributed to your study of this matter. We are now available to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[Siham Haddadi, Lawyer, Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs, Barreau du Québec]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, first, we would like to thank you for inviting us here this morning to discuss Bill C-77. We are very pleased to be here.

My name is Siham Haddadi, and I am a lawyer with the Barreau du Québec. I am also the secretary of its Criminal Law Committee. I am here with M^e Pascal Lévesque, who is president of the Criminal Law Committee.

The Barreau du Québec's mission as a professional association is to protect the public and the rule of law. The protection of victims and the principles of procedural fairness are part of the Barreau's mission.

Given the time allotted to us this morning, we'll get right into the topic at hand.

First of all, we would like to say that the Barreau du Québec supports this legislative initiative, Bill C-77. In our view, this reform was needed to ensure that victims rights and Canadian values are respected. This bill was necessary to ensure that what are deemed minor infractions are handled as efficiently and fairly as possible.

However, we feel that some aspects of the bill are problematic and that it is important for us to point them out to you this morning.

Now I'll turn the floor over to M^e Lévesque, who will continue our testimony. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the defence committee. My apologies for being a little bit late. We had votes and they went the usual 15 minutes for a stand-up vote, and then we had to travel over here. I appreciate your patience with us.

We welcome your comments on our review of Bill C-77.

Today we have with us Ms. Haddadi, from the Barreau du Quebec, secretariat of the order and legal affairs. We also have with us Mr. Lévesque, president, criminal law committee. As individuals, we have Sheila Fynes and Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Jean-Guy Perron.

Thank you all for coming.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge and formally recognize the death of Corporal Langridge, thank him for his service and acknowledge your grief.

I'm going to turn the floor over to Ms. Haddadi for opening remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'd to thank all three of you for appearing today on this very important matter of Bill C-77.

To summarize, I believe there was an undertaking from you to provide the committee with some information under section 98 and then the information on the number of restitution orders, as cited by my colleague. We would appreciate that in a timely fashion, as this is our highest priority and we are aiming to get this back no later than the 30th of November. Of course, we will need time to see this information, so time is of the essence.

I would like to thank the three of you for your service to Canada.

[Lieutenant-Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Director of Law, Military Justice, Policy, Department of National Defence]

Thank you.

I want to highlight that this right is already in force in the National Defence Act. It's something that was brought into force on September 1, 2018, as part of the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, which was known before as Bill C-15. Bill C-77 is adding provisions to that. It's giving more bones to it, but the right is already there in the act and can be used by courts martial.

[Col Stephen Strickey]

With Bill C-77, as the JAG alluded to earlier in her testimony, certainly one of the rights that will be given in the declaration of victims rights is restitution, in which the court will and must consider a restitution order and as well have that restitution ordered as a civil court judgment if not paid. Certainly it is one of the four primary rights given in the declaration of victims rights, which mirrors, of course, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in the civilian system. It certainly emphasizes the points that these quasi-constitutional rights are important to victims.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

We will take note of that. Maybe there will be a chance to circle back to her. Thank you.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask a question on the importance of restitution under the current military justice system and as it's transformed by Bill C-77. When does restitution come into play, how significant is it to a victim to be able to ask for restitution, and under what circumstances would restitution even be a factor?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

What I want to repeat here, as I said yesterday, is that I've given my personal commitment to see through the implementation of the management action plan, because it is extraordinarily important for me that the military justice system remain a system that is not only in fact legitimate, in fact answering the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces, but is also seen as extremely important.

Regarding how Bill C-77 would address the issue of timeliness and the issue of delays, what I want to say again is that keeping at the unit level the minor disciplinary breaches removes the penal, criminal consequences that are currently attached to the summary trial process, which triggers a series of rights for the accused in accordance with Canadian law and with the Canadian charter in order for the summary trial to be the legally sound system that it is. To simplify the process, we remove the penal and criminal consequences from these types of infractions. We ensure that there is no criminal record associated with them. They are simple, basic disciplinary issues addressed at the unit level.

What does that mean? It means that we do not have to offer the right to election to the accused person. It means that we can streamline the process and decide at the outset that it will be one forum or the other. As a result, it cuts the time that it takes for a matter to get resolved, so we answer directly the Auditor General's preoccupation about the overall timeliness of the military justice system.

If it gets addressed by a summary hearing quickly or goes to court martial to start with, you remove all the delays that are associated with election, referral of charges from one level to the other, review of charges by legal officers and the legal advice that needs to be provided in that process. You remove the time taken for that, streamline the process and reduce delays.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commodore Bernatchez, in your comments back and forth with Mr. Martel, you mentioned that you were going to provide information on how many people have been charged under section 98. Could you also provide greater clarification, if it's possible, of how many were under paragraphs 98(a), 98(b) and 98(c)—malingering, feigning and so forth—just so we have that picture? Also, it would be useful for the committee if you could give us information on paragraph 98(c), as to whether or not those individuals were offered treatment for mental health challenges they may have been dealing with.

We talked a little bit about the impact of Beaudry, and I did ask you this question yesterday with regard to the Auditor General's report. It was a very critical analysis of how military justice has been carried out. Under Jordan, justice delayed is justice denied. Now that we are, as Ms. Gallant said, sitting in limbo until we find out what we're doing with Beaudry, my concern is with how we are going to determine whether or not the principles of Jordan are being respected under military justice.

I thought you gave a good explanation yesterday about how Bill C-77 will help streamline processes and reduce the backlog that has caused problems during the time frame that the Auditor General did his analysis.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

You will be hearing from a lot of expert witnesses throughout the analysis of this bill. I think it is for this committee to arrive at a determination of the legal policies that should be taken into consideration.

For sure, a bill like C-77 presents an opportunity to address Parliament's preoccupation and considerations to ensure that the military justice system remains on pace with Canadian laws and values.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that we have limited time today, I want to make one remark on your testimony, on the section considering the circumstances of indigenous people. It is that I had some questions and concerns, but your testimony has already reassured me on those grounds.

I want to return to section 98 and ask two different things.

Given that Bill C-77 is about reforming the justice system, that changes some infractions and adds some penalties. Would you think that removing proposed paragraph 98(c) would be within the general purposes of this bill? In other words, would it fit in this bill in reforming military justice, or not?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Bill C-77 is attempting to put in place a summary proceeding system where the units would maintain their responsibility for settling the most minor breaches to the Code of Service Discipline. This means arriving late for work or not wearing an appropriate uniform, for example; the list of these infractions has not yet been drawn up. As these infractions would be handled by unit commanders or their delegated officers, the procedure would be simplified. Only the most serious cases would be referred to court martial, which would simplify the process and reduce delays. This would be a direct response to one of the concerns of the Auditor General.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

How will Bill C-77 improve the speed and fairness of the summary trial system for minor infractions to military discipline? Will this have an impact on the delays mentioned by the Auditor General in his spring report?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We know that the military justice system can be hard to understand. In what way will the designation of a liaison officer, as set out in Bill C-77 to help victims navigate the military justice system, help to guarantee that those victims' rights will be respected?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Bill C-77 does not specifically address the Jordan decision because it is a matter of law in Canada that there is an 18-month time period that is afforded for a matter to proceed.

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

Does Bill C-77 encompass the ramifications of the Jordan decision?

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

If the charges are dropped in a military court with Bill C-77, is there the option for the victim to take them to civilian court, or once it has been tried in a military court or not tried, is it not able to go forth to civilian court?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport, Lib.]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for being here. I'm glad that we finally have Bill C-77 on the table.

I was very much impacted—and I'm sure many across this country were—by the Deschamps report that talked about the rampant sexual abuse within the Canadian Armed Forces. I know that we have Operation Honour in place. I know that we have Bill C-65. I know that this bill will also be part of helping to address some of the findings in that report.

Could you outline to me how Bill C-77 will help female victims of sexual assault? What improvements in here actually help female victims of sexual assault?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Are you in a position to comment on where Bill C-77 places us with respect to our trusted coalition partners when we go overseas and do peace operations, for example—the U.K., France, the United States? How do their legal frameworks compare to ours? What does Bill C-77 accomplish with respect to how we stand up with our allies on these issues?

[Colonel Stephen Strickey, Colonel, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Department of National Defence]

To add to what the Judge Advocate General has mentioned, the aggravating factors do mirror section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

I would add as well that traditionally we have done research in the JAG annual reports on breaking down various offences, so as the JAG alluded to, we're not clear if this has had a significant effect. Those are certainly things we will look at now that the provision is in place.

As a little bit of history on the provision, I can tell you that the addition of sexual expression as an aggravating factor in section 718.2 was part of Bill C-16, which, at that point, did not take into account Bill C-77. What this does in effect is, as the JAG mentioned, mirror section 718.2 to track the current language in Bill C-16.

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

Yes, I would. I would like to move that considering Bill C-77 clarifies that Canadian Armed Forces members are subject to the code of service discipline even while off duty, and considering that Vice-Admiral Norman is a serving member who is believed to have committed a service offence, that the committee call on the government to immediately table all documents relevant to Vice-Admiral Norman's court proceedings, including all relevant cabinet documents, and that the government waive cabinet confidence in order to provide Vice-Admiral Norman with the full disclosure he is seeking to conduct his defence.

That is notice of motion.

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

Mr. Gerretsen said that because this is not a court martial.... In any case, what I would like to know is with Bill C-77, to that point of order, does—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Chair, the Norman case is being tried before a civil court. We're here to discuss Bill C-77, which has to do with the military justice system. I would argue this is completely irrelevant.

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

Does Bill C-77 change the way an investigation happens under military law for commanding officers?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

What's very important here is that with Bill C-77, we're trying to make sure that we create greater efficiencies with the military justice system so that we can deliver greater justice for the victims, and that they're even better supported. We're trying to make sure that cases actually go through in a much more efficient manner, and that it's in line with the direction of our wider legislation. It's extremely important for us.

I'll just remind all parliamentarians that this is very important legislation that we need to get through. We should take this very seriously by making sure we have the right input from all of you so we can look at any improvements that need to be made.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'm going to pass that on to the JAG.

In terms of this Bill C-77 and how important this is to looking after our people, let's remember that your government put this in during the dying days of the last Parliament. I think this is where we need to keep focused as all members of Parliament, and not allow other issues to take away from this very important work. This is about our women and men in the Canadian Forces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

As the point of order is to relevance in accordance to Bill C-77 , an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, I tend to agree.

The point of order is sustained.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the committee has invited the minister to testify about Bill C-77. I don't see, at all, how that is relevant to the topic that's at issue here today.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Yes, thank you.

I will refer here to the annual report that I am mandated by the National Defence Act to present to the minister on a annual basis and that was tabled in Parliament at the beginning of the month. We have statistics there that indicate 90% of matters that are dealt with by the military justice system are currently dealt with by summary trial. This is the vast, vast majority of it.

Bill C-77 would go to the heart of addressing the ability of the chain of command to maintain an ability to address disciplinary issues at the unit level.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I can assure you there is no conspiracy here.

Members of the Standing Committee on National Defence, distinguished colleagues, it's great to be here alongside the Judge Advocate General to discuss Bill C-77 and the important changes we are proposing to the National Defence Act. I look forward to answering your questions at the end of my remarks, as always.

As you know, Bill C-77 proposed a number of changes in the National Defence Act and at the heart of these changes it's about our people, the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who make the great sacrifices every single day in service to our great country. This includes the military justice system that ensures that victims receive the support they need and deserve and a system that promotes a culture of leadership, respect and honour.

The Canadian Armed Forces members are held to a high standard of conduct and they're expected to uphold and reflect Canadian values in everything that they do. Whether stationed in Canada or deployed around the world, we ask a lot of them every single day, so we have a responsibility to ensure that the rules that guide their conduct are transparent, equitable and fair. These rules must reflect the current times and must be aligned with the Canadian values and those of the Canada civilian criminal justice system.

Much of what is within Bill C-77 is an extension of work that our government is already doing to ensure that a more victim-centred approach to justice; to build on Bill C-65, our government's legislative against workplace harassment; to strengthen truth and reconciliation with indigenous peoples; and to change military culture through Operation Honour in order to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces is a respectful workplace of choice for every Canadian.

I'd like to take a moment to expand on the importance of Operation Honour. As many of you know in this room, Operation Honour aims to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Both I and the chief of defence staff have been very clear that we have a zero tolerance for sexual misconduct of any kind in our Canadian Armed Forces.

Through Operation Honour, we have introduced a new victim response centre, better training for the Canadian Armed Forces personnel, and easier reporting. I would also like to note that the Canadian Armed Forces Provost Marshal recently released the result of a comprehensive review of previously unfounded sexual assault cases. Of the 179 cases examined, 23 cases have been reopened and identified for further investigation, and we commend the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Provost Marshal for their work in ensuring victims are heard.

I would also like to acknowledge the important work of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, which recently released its annual report. We thank the SMRC for continuing to support Canadian Armed Forces members affected by sexual misconduct. I am also pleased to note that the SMRC is looking at providing case workers to victims of inappropriate sexual behaviour to ensure they have continuous support from when they first report an incident to when their case concludes.

The work of the SMRC has been exceptional, and I know that the victims are being well supported as a result of their efforts.

I would now like to turn to the legislation at hand and highlight Bill C-77 , which will give victims a voice and change our National Defence Act in four important ways.

First, like the civilian criminal justice system, it will enshrine important rights for victims.

Second, it will seek harsher penalties for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.

Third, it will ensure that the specific circumstances of indigenous offenders are taken into account in the sentencing process.

Fourth, it will reform the manner in which the chain of command administers summary trials.

Bill C-77 proposes the inclusion of the declaration of victims rights in the National Defence Act. This declaration mirrors the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which strengthens and guides how we support victims in the civilian criminal justice system.

Specifically, the bill would legislate four new victims' rights within the military justice system. They are: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution.

In order to ensure victims are able to exercise these rights, they will be entitled to the support of a victim liaison officer, should they request it. These liaison officers will be able to explain how service offences are charged, dealt with, and tried under the Code of Service Discipline.

They liaison officers will help victims access information to which they are entitled, and they will remain available to assist victims throughout their interaction with the military justice system. This ensures victims understand each stage of the process and how they can engage meaningfully throughout. The support they offer will be comprehensive and fair, and it will always be offered in the spirit of preserving victims' dignity.

Bill C-77 also specifically addresses issues of gender-based prejudice and hatred in military service offences and infractions. The bill proposes harsher sentences and sanctions for service offences and infractions motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the gender expression of identity. Our women and men in uniform, and those who work and live alongside them, must feel welcomed and respected at all times. The Canadian Armed Forces has zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind. This amendment will better align the military justice system with that principle.

On that note, the defence team has been working hard, through programs like the positive spaces initiative, to help create inclusive work environments for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. I commend them for their work on this initiative, which provides training to ambassadors in support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited community members who work with us every day.

The next change I would like to focus on is how we propose updating the military justice system to better reflect the realities of historic injustices inflicted upon indigenous peoples. In the civilian criminal justice system, the Criminal Code mandates that judges must carefully consider circumstances during sentencing. Specifically, for all offenders, they must consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable under the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community. This principle is to be applied with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders. It is our shared responsibility to repair and renew our relationship with indigenous peoples. As our Prime Minister has said on many occasions, no relationship is more important to our government, and to Canada, than the one we have with indigenous peoples.

By incorporating these considerations into sentencing, this legislation will ensure that our Canadian Armed Forces and our government continue on the right path forward. This is one of the elements that distinguishes Bill C-77 from similar legislation introduced by the previous government in the dying days of the 41st Parliament. I believe this addition strengthens this bill, and I'm proud to have it included here. To that end, I trust that I can count on everyone's support to get this legislation passed in a timely manner.

The last significant area of change brought about by this legislation relates to the summary trial process. The JAG can speak to these changes in greater detail, but I want to quickly address the changes and their effects, as well. To date, minor breaches of military discipline have been handled through summary trials. Our proposed legislation would implement a non-penal, non-criminal summary hearing process to replace the summary trial system. This change would ensure that minor breaches of military discipline are dealt with efficiently, while maintaining the fairness of the overall system.

An example of a service infraction that could be caught up by these changes would be something like being absent without leave, or AWOL for short. It is these types of offences that we are looking to address with this legislation. It also demonstrates trust and confidence in military leaders who can address minor breaches of discipline at their level.

Taken together, these changes proposed through our new legislation are important in modernizing the military justice system and maintaining its responsiveness toward breaches of military discipline.

Our Prime Minister gave me a mandate to establish and maintain a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. Our defence policy—strong, secure, engaged—emphasizes the importance of looking after our women and men in uniform and ensuring that victims are supported through the military justice system. That is why I'm extremely proud to be speaking to Bill C-77 today. Not only will Bill C-77 ensure that our Canadian Armed Forces members are protected by a military justice system that keeps pace with Canadian concepts of justice, but it will make sure victims are supported and heard.

I look forward to the committee providing a full review analysis of this legislation, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning to everyone, and welcome to the defence committee and the committee's first look at Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Appearing today is the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, and Commodore Bernatchez, Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces. Thank you very much for appearing.

We have the minister only until the top of the hour, so I want to commence without delay.

Minister, you have the floor.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

You are correct in stating that some of the offences currently tried by summary trial could eventually lead to records that are akin to criminal records. The changes that would be brought by Bill C-77 would ensure that everything that is done by summary hearings doesn't result in penal or criminal consequences.

That will be a sea change. If we go from the summary trial process to the summary hearing process, it will require significant training of all actors within the military justice system. That's something that the office of the judge advocate general and the Canadian Armed Forces did in 1998 when there was a sea change in the military justice system, and we're quite used to doing this. It will be significant. It will need to be deliberate.

As you mentioned previously, it will need to address not only the officers within the Canadian Armed Forces, but all of the disciplinarians—the senior NCOs, the NCMs, everybody who has a role to play, from the person who receives a complaint to the person who leads the investigation, to the person who lays the charges, to the person who finally hears the summary hearing process.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's related to the idea of summary trials. Obviously, before Bill C-77, which is in Parliament right now, that left you with a record. You were criminally responsible. It was a criminal case. Now it has changed.

Is there going to be an education program? One of the issues with the military justice system is that people were very afraid to use it. If you were late, you were charged and you would eventually have to go and get a pardon, at some point in the future. A lot of people were very wary, because 20 years ago you could be charged and you would have a criminal record for life when you left the military, just for having been 15 minutes late.

Now it's changing. Will there be an education program through the NCMs and the units on the ground to actually ensure people know that this instrument has changed, that they can use it, that they can go about and actually start imposing the discipline? Discipline is important for one reason. If people make mistakes, people can die. If you don't use your arms properly, your weapons, if you discharge your weapon in an inappropriate way, if you're doing things that are inappropriate, your comrades could die while in operations, and obviously, we don't want that.

What are you doing to help ensure that the disciplinary structure is flexible on the ground, related to education?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Once again, thank you very much, Commodore Bernatchez. I was just reading your resumé. It's very impressive, by the way. You were in the naval reserves. You were a combat officer in the naval combat trade, and then you transferred over in 1990, in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. That's very interesting.

I have a question for the Auditor General's office. You've done this review. Are you going to be coming back to do an additional review after you've allowed time for the military justice system to make its changes to Bill C-77?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

The current system provides for offences that may be tried by courts martial or summary trial. When charges are laid, oftentimes the accused is given the choice to elect between one of the two forums. Then it goes to summary trial or.... There are a lot of steps as a consequence of the evolution of Canadian law. The military justice system must keep step with Canadian legal standards and Canadian values, and that's how the system developed. Over time, though, it put an incredible burden, an incredible responsibility on the shoulders of commanding officers who, as rightfully noted, are not legally trained, and that complexity, in and of itself, inserted delays in the process.

Bill C-77 aims to introduce summary hearings. For the simplest disciplinary instances within the units, for example, being late for duty, things of that nature, a commanding officer or a delegated officer will be able to try the cases, without giving elections to the member, because there will be no penal or criminal consequences. It will be akin to the disciplinary hearings we have in the public service or the RCMP. Minor things will be kept at the unit level. It will de-clog the court martial level of tribunals. It will also ensure that there are less steps to follow, so things will be addressed more quickly. That's how it will address delays.

[James Bezan]

Commodore, you mentioned that Bill C-77—and we'll have you at committee tomorrow as we start the study on it—will address some of the shortfalls we currently have in the National Defence Act. I'm glad that we are going to be addressing victims' rights to reflect what we already have in the Victims Bill of Rights brought in by our previous Conservative government.

Can you speak to how this will streamline the process in the summary hearings and change the way summary convictions are carried out versus the court martial system?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

I want to reaffirm here for the committee that inappropriate sexual behaviour is not accepted in the Canadian Armed Forces and that our chief of the defence staff completely committed to ensuring that this would be dealt with. The military justice system is one of the important tools put at the disposal of the chain of command to ensure that we eradicate these behaviours within our midst.

You're absolutely correct that a computer system cannot, in and of itself, solve everything. When we're talking about timeliness, when we're talking about the effectiveness of the system, there needs to be a complete cohesion of things coming together. The solutions we're looking at and are currently working on are the time standards and the litigation experience, as has been noted by the Auditor General, to ensure that our prosecutors and our defence counsel have the expertise required moving forward. That requires training as well from all actors in the military justice system.

Going back to a previous question or comment, the Canadian Armed Forces disciplinary advisory committee, made up of senior NCOs, is the key advisory body for the Canadian Armed Forces in that regard. Better communication between actors was also noted in order to ensure that the system runs smoothly and benefits from the perspective, the expertise and the points of view of all of the major actors.

I would be remiss not to mention also Bill C-77, which is currently before Parliament for discussion. That is expected to significantly reduce the delays within the military justice system, because it will simplify summary hearings and bring them back to simple disciplinary infractions that commanding officers, delegated officers, can deal with.

National Defence Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important, because it would give teeth to the rights of victims in the military justice system, something that has been lacking. With the passage of Bill C-77, those rights would be enshrined. There would be processes in place to ensure that victims were able to receive those four pillars: the right to information; the right to privacy; the right to restitution, where appropriate; and the right to be heard at all stages of the court process.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act. It is a bill that would make a number of changes to Canada's military justice system, which applies to members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Before I address the substance of the bill, let me put on the record my thanks to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for their service, sacrifice and duty to country. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces collectively represent the highest standards of excellence.

CFB Edmonton is located minutes from my riding of St. Albert—Edmonton, and many Canadian Armed Forces personnel who are posted at CFB Edmonton live in my riding and are an integral part of the communities I am so fortunate to represent in the city of St. Albert and in northwest Edmonton. I am very proud to be their voice in the House of Commons.

Broadly speaking, Bill C-77 would seek to align the military justice system with modern day Criminal Code amendments. Without more, Bill C-77 is a good bill, and I am going to address why I think it is a step in the right direction. Before I do that, just for context, it would be somewhat helpful to discuss the fact that we have two parallel justice systems in Canada, a civilian justice system and a military justice system, and the rationale for that long-standing reality.

It was very succinctly put by Chief Justice Lamer in the R v. Généreux decision, wherein Chief Justice Lamer stated the purpose of a military justice system. He stated:

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.

I would further add that another aspect of the military justice system is the recognition that Canadian Armed Forces personnel can be situated anywhere around the world, and it extends that jurisdiction to Canadian Armed Forces personnel whether they are operating in Canada, Afghanistan, Mali or wherever they may be.

The military justice system has done a lot of things really well. Chief Justice Lamer spoke about the need for a speedy process for justice and about a higher level of discipline, having regard for the fact that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are not civilians and are held to a higher standard.

However, one area where our military justice system has not done as good a job is in protecting the rights of victims, and that is what Bill C-77 would seek to change. What Bill C-77 would do is establish a bill of rights. It would incorporate a victims bill of rights into the Code of Service Discipline. It would be similar to the Victims Bill of Rights that applies in the civilian context, which, of course, is an important achievement of the previous Conservative government.

What types of rights would Bill C-77 enshrine? It would enshrine four pillars of rights for victims. One would be the right to information. Quite often, those who are victims find themselves in a very difficult position in understanding all the court processes.

The right to information under Bill C-77 would mean that victims would have information at all stages, from the time the charges were laid, through the trial, through sentencing and through the post-sentencing phase, at all stages. That is really important. In order to help ensure that victims received information at all stages, Bill C-77 would establish a victims liaison officer.

A second pillar is that it would ensure that victims had the right to privacy and that the privacy of victims would be treated as paramount. That is important, particularly in cases, for example, involving sexual assault.

A third pillar of rights for victims is the right to be heard at all stages of the justice process. That includes being able to provide a victim impact statement at the time of sentencing. This is something that is routinely done in the civilian court context, and it seems to be quite logical that it should extend to the military justice system as well.

Finally, Bill C-77 would provide the right to restitution whereby it would require a court martial to consider the imposition of a restitution order where there was a loss involved.

All of those things are good. They are a step in the right direction. We support them. We strongly support protecting the rights of victims.

When we say that there is no problem with Bill C-77 and that, on the whole, it is a pretty good bill, it is perhaps because it is a carbon copy of Bill C-71, introduced by the previous Conservative government.

While the bill will pass, hopefully sooner rather than later, and it has taken three years for the government to finally get around to literally copying and pasting a bill from the previous Conservative government, after Bill C-77 is passed, there are going to be challenges from the standpoint of implementation. It is going to be up to the government to deliver. It is not necessarily going to be easy.

We have, for example, the need for a victims liaison officer to be appointed. As I noted when I asked a question to my colleague from Calgary Shepard in the context of the victims ombudsman, which is basically the same type of position in the civilian context, the government left that position vacant for a year. In other words, there was no one there to represent and be an advocate for victims in the civilian justice system for a year. Let us hope that the government does a better job when it comes to appointing a victims liaison officer.

As my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, has noted, we have the very recent Court Martial Appeal Court decision on Beaudry, which could upend the real objective of this bill, inasmuch as the Beaudry decision provides that in the case of serious offences, those offences should be tried in the civilian court system rather than in the military justice system, notwithstanding the fact that we have three Supreme Court decisions that have provided that such cases should be tried before the military justice system.

That is another wrinkle, but overall, this is a good bill. We will try to work co-operatively with members of the government to put forward amendments where necessary and to hear from as many witnesses as possible to pass the best possible legislation to protect the rights of victims.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct that the provisions included in Bill C-77 would bring the military justice system more in conformity with what the Criminal Code provides for with indigenous and aboriginal offenders. Therefore, I cannot see any reason to disagree with it at all.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the key component and essence of Bill C-C-77 is to enshrine victims' rights in the military justice system. It is one thing to pass a bill; it is quite another to actually see the implementation of those rights.

There are going to be a number of challenges from an operational standpoint in terms of implementation. One of the key positions that Bill C-77 establishes is a victim liaison officer, which is basically parallel to the victims ombudsman in the civilian court system.

It took the government a year to fill the vacancy of a victims ombudsman. This really speaks to the fact that the government may talk a good game about victims' rights, but when it comes to delivering, time and again it has come up short. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, they say that to every new song we can find an old tune. It is a Yiddish proverb, because I am big fan of them. However, in this case, the proposed legislation has many members of the opposition on this side of the House who will support it to move to the committee stage. It is so similar to legislation in the previous Parliament, which was supported by the government at the time, that would have enshrined great protections for victims. At the time, it was Bill C-71, and now we are finding a lot of the same types of provisions in Bill C-77.

I will, as little as possible, go over the same ground that others have already gone over and steer my remarks to the 2018 spring report of the Auditor General of Canada. This was an independent report on the delays and the flawed process within the military justice system. It was a review done of cases from 2016-17, entirely within the time of the current government.

Bill C-77 would change three major things: enshrine the previous government's Victims Bill of Rights in the National Defence Act; put a statute of limitations of six months on summary hearing cases; and clarify what cases should be handled by summary hearing. These are good measures.

My experience with the military is limited, but I did work for a previous minister of national defence. He had served as a one-star brigadier general in the armed forces. Specifically on cases of sexual misconduct in the forces, he would always remind us that it was an issue of discipline and command. He reminded us sternly that if a person was accused and convicted of sexual misconduct, he believed that person did not belong in the forces anymore as there were obvious problems with discipline and the ability to follow orders. I am glad to see that we will be paying greater attention to that.

The bill proposes that special considerations be given to indigenous peoples, which match those in the Criminal Code of Canada already. Some of the differences that will be introduced regard absolute discharges for court martial. Also, there is the simple change of name from “summary trials” to “summary hearings”.

The Auditor General's report was tabled just this year. It is quite detailed and uses a pool of cases, looking at the military justice system, and it offers a list of recommendations. I will go through some of the content of that report prepared on the military justice system.

The Auditor General's report found delays, and in some cases unbelievable delays, in the adjudication of cases. The solution in many of these situations that the Department of National Defence offered was simply a new tracking system, which was some type of electronic, online, tracking database called the justice administration and information management system. However, the Auditor General found in several cases that delays had been leading to dismissal or not proceeding with a court martial in cases where it was warranted.

In the report's analysis, for some charges, and I have a list of charges, it took an average of 2.3 months to refer the charges for prosecution, an average of 3.2 months to decide to proceed to court martial and then an average of 12.2 months for the pretrial preparations and a court martial. The average time the Auditor General found it took to complete 20 cases was 17.7 months, which goes very close to what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled would be a fair amount of time between the moment when one was charged with an offence to the moment when one's trial was completed, which is at 18 months.

What we see proposed in Bill C-77 are efforts at streamlining some of those procedures to ensure that members of the forces who are accused of different alleged actions will face justice in a reasonable amount of time so it matches up to what is available to civilians in the Criminal Code.

The Auditor General looked at 117 summary trial cases and 20 court martial cases. Under the headline “Delays in summary trials”, it details the problems with investigations and delaying of charges. It details how some of those delays really raise major concerns about the way the National Defence Department deals with cases of disciplinary actions against its members and deals with the more serious cases where a court martial is necessary.

We know that what should be top of mind in all of these cases, which the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed, is discipline; discipline of the members who wear the uniform in defence of Canada. It is of vital importance that they know justice will be served upon them. It serves as a deterrent for those who abuse not only their position, but also the particular situations in which they find themselves, doing so for either personal gain or some type of financial reward.

The analysis also showed that there was lack of time standards, inadequate communication between military police investigators and other parties, late communication with defence counsel services and a risk that sufficient military litigation expertise was not developed. All of these failings noted in the 2018 Auditor General's report give the committee an opportunity, when considering this legislation, to also consider whether Bill C-77 goes far enough in certain cases or does enough in light of the Auditor General's report.

Members on this side of the House, as all members have heard, support that it be sent to committee to give it that secondary review so we can go in-depth on the opportunities to improve military justice for members in uniform and ensure that their rights are upheld and that the rights of victims are upheld as well.

Too often the government forgets about the victim in these situations. Other members have mentioned it, including the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, with respect to the case of McClintic. I have had members of the RCMP and the military come to my office who have been victims of the system or actions of others. They feel that justice has not been served. They do not feel that the system has protected their interests. The system has not helped them get through and the trial system has not given them satisfaction.

It would ensure that those who commit criminal acts or participate in actions or behaviours that are not conducive to ensuring the proper discipline in the armed forces are actually punished. As I mentioned, I really believe that for those convicted of sexual misconduct in the forces, we should think about whether they should be serving in the forces in the first place. That type of behaviour has no place in the forces, something that has been reiterated by the chief of defence staff and the minister. Previous ministers have said it as well. Part of this legislation gets us to the point where we can do a great service to victims of those types of crimes and of other crimes to ensure the military justice system looks after them.

One of the recommendations in the Auditor General's report was “The Canadian Armed Forces should define and communicate time standards for every phase of the military justice process and ensure there is a process for tracking and enforcing them.” As I said, there is a new online digital tracking system called the JAIMS system, which is supposed to be part of what the Liberals are calling for here. However, there should be time standards as well. It is very reasonable to have, at the very onset of the process, a certain amount of expectation regarding how long the process will last.

The speed at which a trial happens in the military, just like in the civilian court system, is vitally important to ensuring that justice is done. Justice deferred is judicial failure. It is justice not delivered. In cases where men and women in uniform are serving overseas in combat roles, we owe it to them to ensure that they have faith in the military justice system and that it will look after their interests. We will be fair and just, but we will also be efficient.

Some of the proposals in Bill C-77 go toward achieving that goal, which is why I will support sending the legislation to committee to give it a further review in light of the Auditor General's report on the military justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague recognizes that Bill C-77 is good legislation. It would appear that the Conservatives want to support its passage through to committee.

However, I get the feeling that the Stephen Harper Conservatives over there are having a tough time because the rights of victims are enshrined within this legislation. That member spent a good portion of his time speaking about the government not caring about victims, and yet we are enshrining the rights of victims within the bill. The member has a bad example of a bill if he wants to talk about what Stephen Harper would like him to talk about inside the chamber.

Bill C-77 is good legislation. It is doable. It would modernize our military, and I see that as a positive thing.

When does my friend across the way anticipate seeing this legislation go before committee?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise in the House to debate Bill C-77.

I would like to begin by thanking the previous Conservative government for its excellent work on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which was an important first step in advancing victims' rights in Canada. Next, I would like to thank the former minister of justice in the Conservative government, Peter MacKay, for his excellent work on the act that enacted the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Finally, I would also like to thank the previous minister of national defence, Jason Kenney, for his work on the Victims Rights in the Military Justice System Act.

Unfortunately, this last bill did not reach second reading stage. These two bills prove that the previous Conservative government has always been committed to defending victims, and that the Conservative Party will always uphold this principle in its justice policies. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the Liberal government.

The current government introduced Bill C-75, which reduces penalties for offences such as membership in a criminal organization and administering a noxious thing. This government is also the one that refused to send Terri-Lynne McClintic, a child murderer, back to prison. It was also this government that awarded benefits intended for veterans to the man who killed Constable Campbell. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister was telling veterans that they were asking for too much. This government always seems to side with criminals, even when the right thing to do, morally speaking, seems obvious.

This bill is very important to victims' rights in Canada. It provides victims with very important protections. For instance, the bill guarantees victims' privacy in crimes of a sexual nature. It also provides additional protections for victims under the age of 18. Thus, the bill will protect the rights of vulnerable witnesses by allowing them to testify using a pseudonym and providing them with other supports.

These are important reforms, because they provide victims with the resources they need to understand the legal process and feel safe as the process unfolds. It is also important to show victims that they are not alone and that people are available to help them through this extraordinarily difficult time.

Looking at Bill C-77, it is quite clear that the Liberals took inspiration from the previous Conservative government. The wording of the bill is identical to that of the bill introduced by the previous Conservative government. I am very pleased that the Liberals have decided to copy the Conservative bill. That was the right thing to do, and it would be nice if they did more of that.

Obviously, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are not the same, so the two bills do have some differences, although they share the same objectives. That is why I would like to see this bill referred to committee, so we can look at how to improve it and come to an agreement between the Liberals and Conservatives.

This bill is a good start, and I would like it to go to committee so it can be improved.

The committee should also study this bill carefully to ensure that each provision complies with the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to ensure that there are no deficiencies in this bill.

I hope that the committee will make substantive amendments to improve the bill.

I will vote in favour of this bill, so that it can be sent to committee for a more thorough review.

We have a bill here, Bill C-77, that adopts in many respects the work done in the previous Parliament by the then defence minister and future premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney. The bill began a process, and it is good to see that occasionally the Liberal government sees the wisdom of continuing the good work Conservatives have done. The Liberals have often been reluctant to recognize the heritage they bring forward in these cases, but nonetheless, we will accept that even if they need to engage in some reinvention of the record about the trajectory of this issue, we see some progress being made on initiatives that were carried out previously.

The unfortunate thing about the current government is that this one bill dealing with the rights of victims is so out of step with the vast majority of the Liberals' agenda. It is curious to hear members of the government talk about victims, because in so many other debates on so many other bills we deal with in the House—sometimes on opposition day motions that we put forward, as well as legislative initiatives—we hardly hear the Liberals talk about the rights of victims.

There are many issues where we need to recognize the problems specifically created by the current government when it comes to the rights of victims. We see legislation coming forward to weaken sentencing. We see perverse outcomes and the failure of the government to intervene. I note in particular the opposition day motion that we put forward that no members of the government had the courage to vote in favour of, even though I am sure they were hearing from their constituents about it. Coming off a constituency work week, that is one of the things I was hearing about again and again from different constituents. Many people were very engaged with the particulars of that issue, because they understood that having a convicted murderer in a facility where there is no fence and children are present is obviously inappropriate. I think Canadians of all backgrounds and all political persuasions understood that, but unfortunately our colleagues across the way do not seem to share in it. We did not see a single Liberal stand up for the protection of society and for victims in that case. They could have done much better; unfortunately, they did not.

There are other areas where we see a lack of regard for the protection of victims, namely the backlogs that the Liberals have allowed to emerge in our justice system. My colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton raised this issue right at the beginning of this Parliament, the fact of court delays and the lack of a government response to actually do its job of ensuring that we have judges in place so that cases can move through in a timely way and that people who have committed a crime actually pay the consequences. We have seen this problem exacerbated by the continued lack of effective response by the government. This is important to Canadians and to victims. Of course, we have the failure of the government to effectively respond to the issue of ISIS or Daesh fighters who are coming back to Canada. Again, the government has not responded by taking seriously the needs of society and potential victims, and so forth.

While I am pleased to support Bill C-77 through to committee, I wish that the Liberals would adopt more of our Conservative legislation and more of our respect for victims. I will not hold my breath, but here is hoping.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, could the hon. member explain to this House how Bill C-77 would improve victims rights in general?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands is a member of the defence committee. I am looking forward to some of the discussions we will have around the committee table.

I want to ask the member if he is aware that the Court Martial Appeal Court recently ruled in the Beaudry decision. It was a split decision that has now been referred to the Supreme Court. Everything that we are trying to do in Bill C-77 to strengthen the judicial system within the Canadian Armed Forces could be completely undermined by the Beaudry decision, which is saying that all crimes committed that fall under the Criminal Code should be tried in a civil court. That creates all sorts of difficulties as it relates to a good order of discipline and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Of course, I think the chain of command is very concerned about this. We know that in the civil court system there is a huge backlog, especially with respect to sexual assault cases. If Operation Honour is to work at dealing with sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, we need to have a strong military justice system.

I wonder if the member could comment on the possible questions that will arise with respect to the Beaudry decision once this bill goes to committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Davenport for sharing her time with me today.

I stand today in support of Bill C-77, which would bring important changes to Canada's military justice system, including greater support and new statutory rights for victims of service offences.

During today's debate, I will focus my remarks on one specific aspect of the legislation: the proposed reform to the military's summary trial process. These changes would enhance the efficiency of the military justice system. They would preserve the current responsiveness of the system in maintaining discipline, while simplifying the process of dealing with more minor breaches of military discipline.

Our military justice system is unique and necessary. It contributes significantly to the ability of our armed forces to achieve its mission here at home and around the world. It does this by assisting military commanders in maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale.

In Canada we hold our military members to a high standard, a standard which is also different from what we expect from a civilian. These men and women not only serve our country,they also represent it within our borders and abroad. Their discipline affects not only the operations of the Canadian Armed Forces, but also our reputation as a great country throughout the world. They are expected to conduct themselves accordingly. They must reflect the best of us. In times of peace and armed conflict, the foundation of military efficiency and excellence is an adherence to law, a commitment to discipline and obedience to authority. Rules must be obeyed. The chain of command must be respected. Breaches of military law must bring consequences for the greater good of the military and all Canadians.

Serious breaches of military discipline are handled by courts martial. This would remain unchanged under the proposed legislation as courts martial would retain the sole jurisdiction over service offences. However, Bill C-77 would change and improve how minor breaches of military discipline are handled. It would replace the current summary trials process in the Canadian Armed Forces with a new system of summary hearings to better ensure minor breaches are heard and ruled on in a fair and timely manner.

In Canada we take pride in being a global leader in the development of a fair and effective military justice system. Bill C-77 demonstrates that continuing commitment by enhancing the rights of victims and the efficiency of our military justice system. Historically, summary trials have made up over 90% of all tribunals and courts martial have made up the remainder. This system was established under military law to ensure justice in respect of minor service offences. The proposed summary hearing process seeks to enhance the efficiency of the military justice system. It would do so by creating a process which deals with minor breaches of military discipline quicker and more simply.

The new process would be non-penal, non-criminal in nature. It would focus exclusively on minor breaches of military discipline. Hearings would be conducted fairly, more rapidly and by a wider range of military officers. The summary hearing process would maintain the current responsiveness and enhance the overall operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about ensuring that we, as a country, adapt with the times and continue to respect the guidance the Supreme Court of Canada provided us some 25 years ago. At that time, it noted, “To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently.”

The proposed reforms would also show trust and confidence in our military leaders. By improving the chain of command's ability to address minor breaches of military discipline, we would contribute to improving the efficiency of the system and the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.

It is important to emphasize to this House and Canadians that these new summary hearings would focus exclusively on minor breaches of military discipline. These minor breaches would be called service infractions and would be created in regulation. They would not be considered criminal offences and would be dealt with at the unit level. They would be punishable by one sanction or a combination of sanctions, including reduction in rank, reprimands and deprivation of pay. More serious breaches of military discipline, known as service offences, would continue to be tried under our system of courts martial.

To further increase efficiency, the officers who conduct summary hearings would have an extended jurisdiction so that they are able to conduct a hearing for persons of all ranks as long as the officer conducting the hearing is at least one rank higher than the person charged.

The Supreme Court has affirmed on a number of occasions that our military justice system is necessary to meet the needs of our Armed Forces. It falls to the government of the day to ensure that the military justice system is configured to help ensure the highest standards of conduct and discipline. This is required so that our Armed Forces are ready at all times to act decisively and effectively in service to their country.

Military justice must evolve just as civilian justice changes with the times. The proposed changes I have outlined today are about making the military justice system simpler, more effective and more efficient. They are about ensuring that minor and serious breaches to discipline are dealt with in accordance with their respective character.

The new summary hearing process would help ensure discipline and preserve morale at the unit level by issuing sanctions that are corrective in nature but do not involve detention or a criminal record. It would allow the chain of command to address minor breaches fairly and more rapidly, which in turn would contribute to the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

In summary, Bill C-77 would create a faster, fairer and more flexible process to handle minor breaches of military discipline, a process that reflects our Canadian values while supporting the unique needs of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Since launching the new defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, our government has been improving support for the Canadian Armed Forces and the men and women who serve. Bill C-77 would further contribute to an effective military that is ready to defend and protect Canadians at home and abroad. This is a good law, and I look forward to seeing it passed by this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I think all of us at the defence committee are looking forward to having this bill get before us in relatively short order so that we can go through the bill clause by clause. This bill is a copy of Bill C-71 under the former Conservative government that was tabled just before the last election. It has taken three years to get it this far. I am glad we finally got it here but we have to move on it when we get it to committee.

I was wondering if my colleague would talk a little bit about this. She mentioned the victims bill of rights, which is in the Criminal Code now, and how we are incorporating that within the National Defence Act to ensure that victims of crime in the military system have the same rights and abilities. It also refers to the importance of rights to information for victims.

Unfortunately, correction services Canada broke the bill of rights when it transferred Terri-Lynne McClintic, the murderer of Tori Stafford, into a healing lodge. That information should have been shared with the family of Tori Stafford and in particular, Rodney Stafford, her father.

I wonder if my colleague would talk about how we remedy that within Corrections Canada since we are now bringing the rights for the victim into the National Defence Act in Bill C-77.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the very fine and hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

It is an honour for me to once again rise in this honourable House to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on Bill C-77, which is an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. The focus of my comments over the next 10 minutes is to discuss the importance of this bill and its implications for indigenous peoples.

Before I begin, I want to say that repairing the relationship and building a new nation-to-nation relationship with the indigenous people of this country is very important to Davenport residents. They want to see both a renewed relationship and that we have made key progress. I am very glad to be focusing on the implications for indigenous peoples and highlight two key things that this bill would do that would specifically benefit the indigenous peoples of Canada.

The first is that Bill C-77 includes indigenous sentencing provisions that would require that military tribunals consider the circumstances of indigenous offenders at sentencing, as is the case in the civilian justice system. The second is that through Bill C-77, we would ensure that indigenous people are given the same rights and respect in the military as in civilian courts.

I am getting a little ahead of myself, so I will provide some context. Each time that Canada has called upon its armed forces, indigenous peoples have volunteered to proudly and honourably serve their country. Many have done so while facing discrimination and inequality from the very people they were sworn to defend and the very institution they have chosen to serve. It is part of our history that we acknowledge sadly, and a wrong that we seek to right each and every day.

As all members of the military, indigenous service members make sacrifices to serve. They have left their homes, families and communities to fight in war zones so that Canadians may enjoy peace and security here at home in Canada. They were valued allies in the War of 1812. Then came the First and Second World Wars when thousands of indigenous servicemen and women risked their lives for freedom. They did so again in the Korean and Gulf wars. More recently, indigenous Canadian Armed Forces members served in missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and other UN-led missions.

When I was in Iqaluit, I saw a monument that was dedicated to indigenous Canadians who died in service of this country in various wars in our past. There are countless members of the Rangers who work diligently to protect our sovereignty, perform search and rescue operations, and carry out operations and patrols. I had a chance to meet with a group of them when I arrived in Iqaluit over the summer via the Canadian leaders at sea program that sailed on the HMCS Charlottetown from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Iqaluit. It was wonderful to meet the Rangers, to understand the work they do and how well they work with our Canadian Armed Forces. It was wonderful to have an opportunity to meet them.

I am not here to give a history lesson but to reaffirm the respect we have for indigenous Canadian Armed Forces members and how the legislation our government is proposing now reflects that respect.

As the Prime Minister has stated before, no relationship is more important than our relationship with indigenous peoples. Based on self-identification statistics from May 2017, indigenous Canadians make up a total of 2.7% of our armed forces. This means that nearly 2,500 indigenous members, in total, now serve in the regular and reserve forces. They are employed in careers throughout the Canadian Armed Forces and have become leaders in fields as diverse as engineering, physiotherapy, vehicle maintenance and systems specialities. Suffice it to say, their contributions are notable and Canadians owe these members a great debt of gratitude.

Our government has put an unprecedented focus on reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We understand that for far too long, indigenous peoples have had to prove their rights exist and have had to fight to have them recognized.

This past November, our Prime Minister delivered a powerful and long overdue apology to residential school survivors in Newfoundland. However, as the Prime Minister stated, saying sorry is not enough. Saying sorry does not undo the harm that was done and does not bring back the culture they lost. A real apology begins with action. That is why we are taking steps for real and lasting change.

Earlier this year, our Prime Minister stood in the House to discuss the recognition and implementation of rights framework. That was done in February of this year. The importance of that is we are taking a much more proactive stand and in doing so, we are not only transforming the status quo of how Canada operates and interacts with indigenous people, but also challenging and supporting indigenous communities in a positive way to lead change, rebuild and find solutions, and take their rightful place within Confederation in ways that reflect indigenous self-determination.

I am very proud that we did that earlier this year. Our Prime Minister further stated that it is our job as a government to support, accompany and partner with first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It is our responsibility to provide them with the framework and tools they can use to chart a path forward. The framework will lay the foundation for real and lasting change. It is up to us to take concrete action toward a better future for indigenous peoples.

Actions include reducing the overrepresentation of indigenous Canadians in federal prisons, which is about one-quarter of all inmates in Canadian prisons. Unfortunately, female incarceration rates are higher than men's, at 38%. It is something we really need to work on.

Indeed, this is one of the priorities set out in the Minister of Justice's mandate letter from the Prime Minister when she first was appointed. This speaks directly to the calls to action declared by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was called upon by our government to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people in custody.

While the military justice system has not experienced overrepresentation of indigenous offenders, the proposed changes to the National Defence Act reflect our understanding that indigenous Canadians have faced very difficult histories and that they should be taken into account when determining which sentences would best serve justice in each particular case. The proposed amendments to the National Defence Act mirror the civil system's considerations for sentencing and our nation's history.

As it currently stands, the National Defence Act does not mandate military tribunals to consider the specific circumstances of indigenous Canadians when determining sentencing the way our civilian criminal justice system does.

This legislation will change that and bring the military system more in line with our civilian criminal justice system. Canadian civil courts are mandated to consider the circumstances and history of indigenous offenders when considering sentencing options. This information then informs the judge's decision about appropriate sentencing for the indigenous offender.

Bill C-77 would enshrine those same principles in the military justice system. The proposed legislation will expand on the principle that, in all cases, a sentence should be the least severe sentence required to maintain the discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Forces that is appropriate given the gravity of the offence committed and the responsibility of the offender.

The legislation then goes a step further and mandates particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders when determining appropriate sentences for service offences. The hope is that keeping indigenous offenders out of civilian and service prisons and detention barracks, when justice can be met through other punishments, will allow for better outcomes, greater rehabilitation, less recidivism and a greater sense of justice within Canada and our military.

Amending the National Defence Act speaks directly to our government's efforts to repair and renew our relationship with indigenous peoples. Our Department of National Defence is also committed to focus on building relations with local chiefs and engaging with local communities. I know there is a lot more work that needs to be done in our reconciliation efforts, but I know that the bill goes a long way along this path. I am confident that our government will continue to take this right path forward.

The House resumed from October 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Defence

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his excellent work on the committee.

As we all know, our government is committed to strengthening victims' rights in the military justice system.

That is what we are doing with Bill C-77, which adds a declaration of victims rights to the Code of Service Discipline.

Bill C-77 ensures that victims rights are upheld and allows the victims to have the help of a liaison officer to navigate in the military justice system.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on average, more than one member of the Canadian Forces dies by suicide each month. Unfortunately, serving members often struggle to get the help they need, with one barrier being that self-harm is still a disciplinary offence under the military code of conduct. This policy is archaic and does nothing but keep the men and women serving our country who face mental health challenges from seeking help.

Will the minister support the NDP amendment to Bill C-77 to remove self-harm as a disciplinary offence and help serving members get the help they need and deserve?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue second reading of Bill C-78, the family justice act. Tomorrow we will begin debate at third reading of Bill C-79, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership implementation act.

Next week, members will be working with Canadians in their ridings. When we return, we will begin debate on Senate amendments to Bill C-65, the harassment prevention act. Priority will then be given to the following bills: Bill C-77 on the Victims Bill of Rights and Bill C-82, the multilateral instrument in respect of tax conventions act.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues and their families a happy Thanksgiving.

National Defence Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-77 today. I am especially honoured to do so following my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord's first speech in the House. We are all very proud of him. He was just elected with 53% of the popular vote. Compare that to our party's fourth-place finish three years ago. These things are worth remembering.

Bill C-77 is about reforming the military justice system. During my brief remarks, I will remind the House that this bill is essentially the same as Bill C-71, which we introduced when we were in government. It speaks to an issue that arouses tremendous compassion in everyone on both sides of the House.

Thousands of Canadians serve their country as members of the Canadian Armed Forces' army, navy and air force. We are all very grateful to these men. Although CFB Valcartier is not in my riding—that is an honour belonging to my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who represents the folks at Valcartier very well—several hundred of the base's 6,000 soldiers do live in my riding.

Fall is here and in six weeks, on November 11, we will be commemorating Remembrance Day. This year will be special as we mark the 100th anniversary of the armistice of 1918. As hon. members know, on the 11th day of the 11th month at the 11th hour, the First World War was to end. Unfortunately, other conflicts followed. Let us commemorate the thousands of Canadians who gave their lives so that we may live in freedom. Let us always remember the extraordinary sacrifices that these young men and women made during the different conflicts, especially during the First World War and the Second World War.

I have the extraordinary privilege of coming from a family that served its country. My father served during the campaign in Italy, among others, for the French Army under the command of Marshal Juin during the Second World War. My maternal grandfather, Paul Ponzelli, served in the First World War. He was in the French army and fought in the battle of Verdun, among others. I would also like to salute the people at the Consulate General of France in Quebec City, who are currently preparing a special commemoration for November 11. My mother will take part in this tribute being held six weeks from now.

Bill C-77 proposes reforms to the military justice system, which, naturally, is a delicate subject. Our men and women in uniform serve their country, but men being men and women being women, reprehensible behaviour can sometimes happen. This is why we have a military justice system. Canadians who put on the uniform accept that this uniform comes with responsibilities. Cases of reprehensible behaviour must be considered in the context of military action, because when these soldiers put on the uniform and carry a weapon, they can be sent to a combat theatre. The enemy will always be an enemy, which means that a solder may commit an act that would be considered criminal in the civilian world, but heroic in the military world. This is why the military justice system is different from the civilian system. Of course, this does not mean that soldiers should not have a dignified and honourable conduct in civilian life.

When we were in government, we introduced Bill C-71, which would have amended the military justice system. Some aspects of Bill C-71 are similar to our bill, such as enshrining victims' rights in the National Defence Act, imposing a six-month limitation period for summary trials and stipulating which cases should be handled in summary trial. These are the parts of the bill we agree with. I would like to point out that this bill was drafted with the assistance of our government's former justice ministers, namely the hon. Peter MacKay, the hon. Jason Kenney, and the hon. member for Niagara Falls, who is still serving his constituents in the House of Commons.

We also have some concerns about the fact that justice will likely be different for some people than for others. It is important to remember that there is a reason why justice is blind. Portrayals of Themis show what we want from a justice system. She is often portrayed with her eyes blindfolded, a sword in one hand and the scales of justice in the other. The sword is for punishing those who commit reprehensible acts and the scales are to ensure that everyone's rights are respected.

It is important to note that, in this allegorical personification of justice, Themis with her eyes covered, justice is blind. People must be judged based on their actions, not on who they are as a person. Some aspects of the legislation must be reviewed. For us, it is important to ensure that people are being judged based on their actions, and not on who they are, what they represent or embody, or their very nature even. We have to be careful about that. That is why the bill will be examined in committee by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and others. It is important to remember that, as parliamentarians, we do indeed have the right to debate bills here.

I participated in all of today's debates and I was surprised to hear some of my government colleagues criticize us for rising to speak to this bill. Need I remind the government that this bill, which is almost a carbon copy of what we produced three years ago, was only introduced after three years by the Liberals? It is not because there are seven, eight, ten or twelve members who want to speak and debate lasts for one, two or three days that members will take offence and start getting annoyed. We must remember that our first duty here, in the House of Commons, is to express ourselves, as we are doing, to the extent possible and, above all, within the allotted time frame.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-77—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I remember the last time I had to do this we were able to find a way forward, and I am hoping that again we will be able to find a way forward. If not, I have a responsibility to advance legislation.

An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

National Defence Act

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, after asking my first question in the House and giving my first member's statement, I will now be giving my first 10-minute or so speech in the House of Commons. It is important to me to quickly break the ice.

First, it is an honour to be able to represent my constituents in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord as we study Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. As we know, the Bagotville military base is in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. As part of Air Command, it is one of two bases housing the CF-18s in Canada. For those like me who are interested in history, I will mention that the Bagotville military base was established in 1942 to protect Alcan's infrastructure in the Saguenay, the aluminum plants that were part of the war effort during World War II. I would also like to mention that, at present, we are still paying a 10% tax on aluminum. This base continues to be one of the largest employers in Saguenay and houses 3 Wing Bagotville. It is one of the major pillars of the Saguenay economy, along with aluminum, lumber and agriculture. It is even more important to remember this today because aluminum, lumber and supply management were sacrificed in part last night.

I always enjoy meeting our troops. They are people of honour and integrity. They are leaders. They stand by one another. They protect one another. They all want equal treatment. I also enjoy meeting our valiant veterans. They always have good stories to tell. Unfortunately, they often have trouble getting the government to respect their rights. I talk to a lot of veterans who tell me about their deployments and the problems they run into when they return. Every time they tell the government what they need, the government does not seem that interested.

One of my greatest hopes is for the base to keep getting better. I would like to see proper military aircraft there, not the old, broken-down Australian planes the Liberals want to replace our CF-18s with. Our people in uniform deserve better. I have talked to some of them. The Australian planes are even older than the CF-18s at the Bagotville base. People are wondering what plans the government has to get them up to snuff.

Let me get back to the matter at hand, Bill C-77. Make no mistake, this bill is very similar to Bill C-71 that the previous Conservative government wanted to bring in during the 41st Parliament. That bill was introduced in June 2015, but it did not get as far as second reading.

Much like Bill C-77, we wanted to make changes to the military justice system. Specifically, we wanted to bring Canada's military justice system in line with the Criminal Code. Some of the most important changes we were planning to make were as follows: adding victims' rights the National Defence Act, limiting summary trials to six months and clarifying which cases would be eligible for a summary trial. From what I understand, Bill C-77 seeks to achieve the same objectives.

One has to wonder why the Liberal government waited so long to introduce this bill. The Liberals keep saying that they care about our veterans, that they are sympathetic to our solders and so on. It is obvious that the Conservatives will always put the rights of victims of crime ahead of the rights of criminals, and we will make sure that victims have a voice in our justice system.

Need I remind members of the House that it was us, the Conservatives, who brought in the victims bill of rights? In fact, it was the senator from Quebec who represents LaSalle who made the victims bill of rights possible. Of course we are in favour of incorporating the victims bill of rights into the military justice system. That is precisely why we introduced Bill C-71 three years earlier. It was such a long time ago—I was still a coach at the time—but that is fine, we cannot fault our colleagues across the way for copying our work because we know full well that adding the victims bill of rights to the military justice system is the right thing to do for our country.

The leader of the official opposition and member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Conservatives will always stand behind victims of crime. It is important to us that Bill C-77 pass this first important stage and get to committee so that we can go over it in greater detail. It will be a pleasure to discuss this bill clause by clause with my colleagues opposite to make it the best it can be for our armed forces and the military justice system.

We are definitely going to discuss equality. Discipline demands consistency and continuity. They are the very foundation of people's trust in others and in the system. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces should not be subjected to discrimination based on race, gender, creed or culture. It is crucial that no soldier lose trust in their superior officer. Trust is hard to win and easy to lose. Whether positive or negative, discrimination undermines the bond of trust.

This will also be my first time analyzing a bill in detail in committee, so I will be adding another string to my bow as a new MP. I may get a chance to submit amendments and seek my colleagues' co-operation in getting them approved.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to debate Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I find the comments coming from the Liberals somewhat interesting and rich about needing to ram this bill through all of a sudden. Here we are on October 1, and now it is time to ram this bill through when it took them three years to get to this point. When it was first introduced on May 10, we went through two months of sitting in May and June, had midnight sittings through most of the month of June, but yet the government did not see fit to bring it forward for debate then. Instead, the first day of debate for this bill was September 21, a Friday sitting, where just about two hours of debate can occur. Here we are on just our second day on the bill, and all of a sudden the Liberals are crying that we should be immediately ramming this through, before members have a chance to debate it.

In our former Conservative government, we placed victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. We thought it was important the victim of a crime be granted the right and privilege to participate in the criminal justice system. We did this in a number of different ways, but most importantly, through Bill C-32, which created the Victims Bill of Rights. We did that because we felt it was important the victim have a voice and the opportunity to fully participate in our criminal justice system.

It has been disappointing to hear from these Liberals the last couple of weeks, who would rather place criminals ahead of victims on so many different issues. In the past two weeks alone, we saw these Liberals defend granting veterans benefits to convicted murderer Chris Garnier, a convicted murderer who did not spend a single day in the military. He never once donned our nation's uniform, never once participated in Canada's Armed Forces, yet these Liberals stood in this very place and defended the right of that convicted murderer to receive veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, that he, by his own admission, had because of the brutal murder he committed. These Liberals are defending his right to receive treatment paid for by veterans rather than that which is available through our Correctional Service of Canada.

Tomorrow we will be debating a motion in this very place brought forward by our leader, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, about the tragic case of Tori Stafford's murderer being transferred from a prison with bars and razor wire to a healing lodge, where the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada admitted there are often children present. We heard the Liberals defending this once again today in question period, defending the murderer of an eight-year-old girl who was brutally murdered. The Liberals are defending the transfer of her killer from a prison to a healing lodge. It is wrong. Tomorrow, we will see where the Liberals truly stand on victims when they are called to account to stand in this place and defend that decision.

This follows a series of moves by these Liberals to place a greater emphasis on the criminal rather than the victim. Bill C-75 would actually reduce a sentence for a number of what we on this side consider serious crimes.

This would include participating in the activity of a terrorist group, infanticide, a couple of impaired driving offences causing bodily harm, abducting a person under the age of 14, forced marriage, advocating genocide, extortion by libel, arson for fraudulent purposes, and possession of property obtained by crime. They also want sentences reduced for participation in the activities of a criminal organization. With all of the challenges we are facing, these Liberals want to reduce sentence for those participating in gang activities. I know this is wrong and Canadians know it is wrong.

When the former Conservative government introduced the Victims Bill of Rights in 2014, our then justice minister saw fit to make this bill of rights a quasi-constitutional document, a document so important that it would take precedence over many other federal statutes. At the time, our minister of justice, the hon. Peter Mackay, stated on April 9, 2014:

In order to give meaningful effect to victims' rights by all players in our criminal justice system, our government is proposing that this bill have quasi-constitutional status. This would mean that the Canadian victims bill of rights would prevail over other federal statutes, with the exception of the Constitution Act, which includes the Charter of Rights and other quasi-constitutional statutes within our legal system, such as the Official Languages Act, the Privacy Act, and, of course, the Canadian Human Rights Act.

What does this bill do? It effectively reintroduces Bill C-71 from the previous Parliament, which our Conservative government introduced, and applies the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to the military justice system. In particular, it provides for four key rights for victims: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution.

Many Canadians, whether they serve in the Canadian forces or not, often find the criminal justice system intimidating and confusing, and find it challenging to get information about the case being made about the crime perpetrated against them. The right to information is about their right to have information in the general sense of how the system works, and also specifically regarding their case so they know about its progress. It is also to know information about the investigation, and the prosecution and sentencing of the person who perpetrated the act against them.

Whether it comes to the criminal justice system or the military justice system, the second right is the right to protection. This is to ensure that victim safety and security is protected. Whether that is by having their identity protected from public disclosure or using other measures that would allow for their protection, we believe this is exceptionally important.

I do see that my time is running short, so I will not have a full opportunity to talk about the right to participation and right to restitution. However, I will say that those of us on the Conservative benches will always stand for the victims of crime. We will defend the victims of crime and ensure that they have a place in both our criminal justice and military justice systems so that their voices are heard. We will stand with victims.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

While we know that Canada's military justice system operates separately from Canada's civilian justice system, it is nevertheless important that its system is also just and fair. Canadian Armed Forces members are held to a high standard of conduct. It is understood that Canada's separate military justice system exists to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. The safety and well-being of all Canadians is dependent on the military's ability to deal with internal discipline effectively and efficiently. That is because our esteemed men and women serving in the military are often required to risk injury or death when they perform their duties. Nonetheless, when it comes to provisions to support victims, there is a gap in the National Defence Act. Victims' rights should be at the heart of every criminal justice system. The proposed legislation takes a step toward that goal. It extends victims' rights into the military justice system, which is certainly positive.

The legislation we are considering is in fact largely modelled after Bill C-71, which was introduced in the previous parliament by the former Conservative government. It builds on existing efforts to put victims of crime at the heart of Canada's criminal justice system. The Conservatives have a proud record of standing up for victims of crime and law-abiding citizens, and we remain committed to them. We have and will always work toward ensuring that victims of crime have an effective voice in the criminal justice system, and we will never accept having the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims of crime and law-abiding citizens. In fact, for far too many years in Canada the scales of justice tipped in favour of criminals. Our criminal justice system neglected those who had been affected by their crimes. It neglected the rights of victims of crime. I am proud of the hard work and the achievements of our former Conservative government. Our country is better off for it. It took significant steps to find a better balance in our criminal justice system, steps that gave victims of crime clear, enforceable rights and protections.

The principle that victims of crimes should be a priority in Canada's criminal justice system was reflected throughout the former Conservative government's policies, reforms, and even investments. Whether it was the creation of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, the passing of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, or investments in child advocacy centres across the country, victims and law-abiding criminals were always the priority.

The landmark Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was the most notable forward step for victims taken by the former Conservative government. This historic legislation entrenched the rights of victims of crime into a single document at the federal level. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights guarantees victims of crime the right to information, protection, participation and restitution. lt means that the rights of victims are considered at every stage of the criminal justice process, as they should be.

After entrenching the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in Canada's criminal justice system, our former Conservative government tabled legislation to also give victims of service offences the same rights, that is, the right to information, protection, participation and restitution. Unfortunately, there was not enough time to study and pass this legislation before the dissolution of Parliament. However, I am pleased that the current Liberal government, through Bill C-77, has copied that legislation. lt is the right thing to do. As we work to protect and promote victims' rights, we are helping to ensure that both of Canada's criminal justice systems help those who truly deserve support.

Given that the legislation for the most part is a carbon copy of the legislation introduced by the former Conservative government, it is disappointing that it is being introduced so late in the Liberal government's mandate. I suppose this is perhaps a reflection of the Liberal government's record on victims' rights.

Unfortunately, it is way too easy to offer examples of the Liberal government's appalling record of putting the rights of dangerous criminals ahead of the rights of victims and their families. Just last week, the Liberals voted against our Conservative motion calling on their Minister of Veterans Affairs to revoke the Veterans Affairs-funded benefits of Chris Garnier, a convicted cop killer. Moreover, the Liberal government is still defending the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic to a healing lodge. McClintic was convicted of first-degree murder in the 2009 kidnapping and rape of eight-year-old Tori Stafford. Less than 10 years after the disgusting crimes she committed, she has no business being transferred to a healing lodge facility. That facility has no fences around it and often has children present. However, the Liberal public safety minister has defended this decision and downgraded her despicable crimes to “bad practices”. As a mother of two young children, I am livid by the Liberal government's refusal to exercise its moral, legal and political authority to reverse this decision, and my heart breaks for the family of Tori Stafford.

These are just two recent examples in the public eye of the Liberals' backward priorities. They have also tabled Bill C-75, which makes sweeping changes to Canada's Criminal Code. lt undoes a lot of the progress our former government made to put the rights of victims ahead of criminals.

While we are considering the legislation before us, I would point out that the Liberals are also pushing through legislation to reduce sentencing for serious crimes. These are serious crimes like human trafficking, participation in a terrorist group or the abduction of a child under the age of 14. The Liberal record of putting the rights of criminals ahead of victims is shameful. lt is not a record of restoring victim rights.

That said, I am pleased to see that a version of our Conservative legislation has been brought forward by this government. Victims' rights should never fall by the wayside in either of Canada's systems of justice. That is why passing this legislation is so important. Like the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, this legislation entrenches four key rights for victims of service offences. First, it provides the right to information. This includes the right to information on the military justice system, as well as services and programs available to victims. lt also gives victims the right to information about the progress of the case. The legislation gives victims the right to protection by giving consideration to their privacy and security through the military justice process. lt gives them the right to participate in the proceedings and creates an opportunity for a victim impact statement to be made. lt also gives the right to restitution when financial losses can reasonably be determined.

The addition of these rights to the military justice system through the Code of Service Discipline's declaration of victims' rights places these rights at the heart of the military justice system. That is exactly where they belong. The legislation has my support. I will be voting in favour of sending it to committee so it can be studied in detail.

Conservatives will always stand in support of victims. We will always be in favour of giving victims a stronger voice in Canada's criminal justice systems. I hope the legislation is referred to committee and that all victims of crime and law-abiding Canadians are given a greater priority by the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the upper Ottawa Valley riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, home to Garrison Petawawa, training ground of the warriors, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-77, the legislation that, if passed, would amend provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system. As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I look forward to examining Bill C-77 in greater detail, and I will vote with my party to send this legislation to committee for further study.

It has been noted by our party's defence critic that Bill C-77 incorporates many of the legislative proposals made by the Conservative government in the 41st Parliament. This fact alone loan merits my support of the bill at second reading. There are changes between the legislation introduced by the Conservative government in the last Parliament and what we have before us today, and those changes will need to be carefully scrutinized.

As the member of Parliament for the riding that is home to Garrison Petawawa, Canada's largest army base, military justice is still a volatile topic. In addition to being the home of 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, 2 CMBG, and the 4th Canadian Division Support Group, which is made up of 2 RCHA, 1 RCR and 3 RCR, RCDs and 2 Combat Engineer Regiment, as well as 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron and 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron, Garrison Petawawa is also home to CSOR, the Canadian Special Operations Regiment.

CSOR, which was stood up during the Conservative watch of the defence of our nation, is the first new regiment to be stood up in over 50 years. I am proud of the role I played in supporting that decision and the subsequent decision to locate 450 Air Tactical Helicopter Squadron to be close by, to train with the troops its Chinook helicopters serve as strategic lift for. It made absolute sense to locate CSOR at Garrison Petawawa.

Petawawa is the home of the storied Canadian Airborne Regiment before it was disbanded during the decade of darkness that occurred prior to the election of a Conservative government. I mention that dark time in Canadian military history, the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, as there is a direct relationship between that sad event and the legislation we have before us today.

March 5, 1995 will be forever etched in the minds of many Canadian veterans and their supporters as a day of infamy. That is the date the Canadian Airborne Regiment was officially disbanded by David Collenette, the minister of defence at the time in the Jean Chrétien government. Collenette acted against the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff in ordering the regiment to be disbanded. The most unfortunate aspect of the few acts of a handful of Canadian soldiers is that the Canadian success story in Somalia has been overlooked by the media and remains largely unknown to the majority of Canadians.

In late 1992, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was sent to Somalia to assist the United Nations peacekeeping mission in that country. Initially, the UN troops operated according to the relatively restrictive rules of engagement that directed most such operations. As the violence in Somalia escalated, however, the United States requested and received permission to modify its role. The Canadian Airborne Regiment received a change in orders. Canadian soldiers were ordered to be peace makers instead of being peacekeepers, two very different roles. The untold story is how the paratroopers of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, tankers of the Royal Canadian Dragoons and combat engineers of 1 Combat Engineer Regiment, all based in Garrison Petawawa, very quickly subdued heavily armed gangs. Attacks on Canadian patrols early in the mission were suppressed with force and local warlords quickly realized that Canada's combat power was not just for show. Humanitarian agencies could then go about their business of distributing relief supplies, a task that was never the primary mission of Canada's troops.

Canada's soldiers then turned to rebuilding a local infrastructure of the police, hospitals, schools, etc. Poignant testimony of the effectiveness of the second reconstruction phase of the Canadian mission came from the father of the dead Somali at the centre of the controversy. He pleaded with Major-General Lewis Mackenzie, who was by then retired and on assignment as a journalist to Somalia, to intercede to keep the Canadian soldiers in his country. He told Mackenzie that, while he grieved for his son, the value of the peace makers to Somalia was enormous.

If Canadians are going to use this dark period in military history as a learning exercise, there are several things parliamentarians need to keep in mind when we study this legislation in detail.

A big difference between this legislation and the bill that was introduced by the previous Conservative government is special consideration for indigenous members that results in sentences that are less harsh versus other Canadian Armed Forces members. There is a legitimate concern that a two-tier system of military justice could undermine operational discipline, morale and anti-racism policies.

The following question needs be considered: If the legislative provisions in Bill C-77 had been in place during the Somalia affair, and had he been fit to stand trial, should Master Corporal Clayton Matchee, an aboriginal, been treated any differently, under the circumstances, than a non-aboriginal soldier? Would the Liberal government of the day have been so quick to disband the Canadian Airborne Regiment and slash military spending in that circumstance?

The symbol for justice is a blindfolded figure holding a set of scales in balance. Will serving soldiers see a set of scales in balance or weighted in favour of someone based on government policies that tip the scale based on the political flavour of the day? Members of the Canadian Armed Forces should not be discriminated against based on race, gender, creed or culture.

I recognize that the Chief of Defence Staff stood up to deal with sexual misconduct and other forms of discrimination in the armed forces. However, as parliamentarians, we need to tread very carefully each time changes are made that would affect our women and men in uniform.

Consider this. For members of the Canadian Armed Forces, when they put on the uniform, they are soldiers first. That is an important distinction. In an operational setting, they need to rely on their fellow soldiers. Would Bill C-77 contribute to or diminish camaraderie among soldiers? Would Bill C-77 hurt operational efficiency? We need to keep asking these questions with real-life experiences in mind. Psychological experiments in troop cohesion will end up getting soldiers killed, the same way political expediency led to the loss of soldiers' lives in Afghanistan with the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter contract by the Chrétien Liberal government.

One of the other take-aways from the Somalia affair was the report on the military justice system completed by former chief justice Brian Dickson in 1977. While it recognized that there was a breakdown in the chain of command, it also recognized that the chain of command, the flow of responsibility, must be at the heart of the military justice system. In the same way, a cabinet minister is expected to take responsibility for bad decisions by resigning, or, where there is a lack of judgment in not resigning, is fired by the Prime Minister.

The Somalia affair resulted in the end of a number of political careers, including several Liberal defence ministers. What is truly unfortunate about the Somalia affair is that with the political decision by the Liberal government of the day to shut down the civilian inquiry, the true cause of the breakdown in the chain of command never came to light. I quote from a 2017 media story:

The man who led an inquiry into the 1992 beating death of a Somali teenager at the hands of Canadian troops says he is frustrated that his commission's work was cut short before it could explore what role a controversial anti-malarial drug might have played in the violence.

Gilles Létourneau, a retired judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, says it may be too difficult now to examine whether mefloquine was a major factor in the so-called Somalia Affair because most of the soldiers who were deployed to the African country have left the military. But Mr. Létourneau told The Globe and Mail in a telephone interview on Wednesday it would be worthwhile to take a hard public look at the dangers posed by the drug, which is still being offered to Canadian Force members.

“Surely, run a survey of existing use of mefloquine within the Armed Forces and see whether the problems that were raised 20 years ago are still there,” Mr. Létourneau said.

“We ran out of time,” he said of the inquiry, which gathered evidence for two years before being cut off by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien before the 1997 election. “There were so many issues to be covered, and this was one we had to leave aside in the hope that eventually medical progress would either sort out or solve these problems. But it hasn't been followed up, from what I can gather.”

Health Canada agreed in August, three years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration came to the same conclusion, with an assessment that said mefloquine can cause permanent brain damage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Bill C-77 has cross-party support. The individuals who are following the debate appreciate and value what is being done here.

The Minister of National Defence has taken a long-term approach with the whole file, and we hear a lot about Canada's policy of “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. We talk about financial commitments, investing in our regular forces, our reserves and our veterans. We now have before us a strong piece of proposed legislation that complements and brings the military justice system in tune with the civilian justice system. It is all part of a package.

I wonder if my colleague across the way would acknowledge how important it is that, when we deal with issues of this nature, it is very much holistic. We owe it to our women and men who serve us, our vets and Canadians as a whole to bring in good, solid legislation. It would appear that all members of this House are behind it.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the issue at hand, it is no wonder that taxpayers and voters across this country get skeptical about politics when somebody, whether it is the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Veterans Affairs, stands up every day and tries to pretend that something is exactly like something else when it is not. I am referring to what he just talked about on the minimum-security prison where this murderer, child killer, was moved to. She was behind bars in minimum security. She is not today and that is a huge difference. People get it, no matter how they try and spin it.

Before my blood boils much more, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-77, which will amend the National Defence Act to bring about some changes to the Canadian military justice system. For the most part, these changes are both needed and welcomed. The bill before us today is in fact very similar to a previous Conservative bill, Bill C-71. I do not want to confuse anyone. The Bill C-71 that I am referring to is a bill from a previous government. It is not the same Bill C-71 that the Liberals have passed through this House which is a direct attack on law-abiding firearms owners. That is most certainly a Bill C-71 that I will never be supporting. The Bill C-71 that I am referring to was put forward by our previous Conservative government in an attempt to accomplish many of the same goals that the bill before us here today seeks to accomplish.

The fundamental objectives of this legislation, that I believe are supported across party lines, are aligning the military justice system in Canada with the Criminal Code of Canada, enshrining the Victims Bill of Rights into the National Defence Act, putting a statute of limitations of six months on summary trial cases and clarifying what cases should be handled by a summary trial. These are all very positive steps forward that are contained within Bill C-77 and I am supportive of them moving forward.

I would like to take some time to focus on one of these central points, with respect to enacting the Victims Bill of Rights. It should be pointed out that it was the former Conservative government that brought forward the Victims Bill of Rights when we were in government. It was an incredible step forward to ensure that Canadians who are victims of crime are supported. That is our party's record when it comes to supporting survivors.

Unfortunately, time and time again we see the Liberals talking the talk but not walking the walk when it comes to support for victims in this country. In fact, they've adopted a “hug a thug” mentality when it comes to modernizing the Criminal Code. Through Bill C-75, the Liberals are actually making it possible for perpetrators of heinous criminal acts, some carrying sentences of 10 years in prison, to get off with only a ticket, fine or minor jail time. Bill C-75 introduces a number of measures that are intended to deal with delays in Canada's court system. However, as I have said, the massive 302-page bill will also end up reducing sentences for a number of dangerous crimes. This will be done by provisions in the bill that could reclassify indictable offences so that they may be punishable as summary offences, which would carry a maximum penalty of only two years.

A potential 10-year sentence lessened to two years is the Liberal solution to judicial delays. I sent a mailing out to my constituents that informed them of Bill C-75 and what it would do. I invited them to respond to me via a response card. The response card asked them if they agreed with Bill C-75. To be clear, there was literature that went with it to explain exactly what was there so that people understood what they were voting on.

In my entire time serving the riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I have never had such an immense return to a mailing like this. I received nearly 1,600 responses to this question. Of the responses, 97% of respondents said that they disagreed with Bill C-75, while only 31 individuals out of that 1,600 agreed and 17 were unsure or needed more information. This was certainly a message heard loud and clear. Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound does not support Bill C-75.

Canadians are also having a hard time believing that this government supports the men and women who serve this country.

I rose in the House last week to make the Minister of Veterans Affairs aware of a veteran in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound who cannot receive the important support he needs. He is 87 years old and is a veteran of the Korean War. His name is Barry Jackson. I know the family well. He served our country admirably and is now looking for any kind of help from Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately, it will not return his calls.

First I will provide a bit of history. It took years for Barry Jackson to be approved for a wheelchair ramp. Now he needs a scooter, and all he gets is silence from Veterans Affairs. His son Jonathon contacted my office after learning that the Liberals were paying for PTSD treatment for a convicted murderer who has never served in the military one single day in his life. It truly is shameful that a murderer and cop killer with not one day of military service is receiving benefits.

When Barry Jackson got the call from Canada in 1951, he answered that call and headed off to Korea, just like thousands of other young Canadian men did. However, years later, when Barry Jackson needed help and reached out to Canada, nada, nothing, zero. From Veterans Affairs, nothing; from the Prime Minister, nothing; from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, nothing. They should all be ashamed.

Christopher Garnier, meanwhile, committed unspeakable acts, but because his father served in the armed forces, he is getting support, while actual veterans like Barry Jackson wait and wait. It is unfair and, I would say, un-Canadian. What is really ironic, and we can use whatever word we want, is that with the money in Veterans Affairs and the services available, veterans like Barry Jackson, who laid their lives on the line to earn those services when they needed them, are the ones who cannot get them. However, a cop killer and rapist like Chris Garnier, one of the worst human beings one can imagine, has no problem getting them and did not serve one day. That is why people shake their heads and wonder why they even support or want government. It is things like this that give it all a dirty feeling.

When it comes to supporting victims and the men and women who serve this country, the Liberals do not have a great record.

Earlier in my remarks, I mentioned that Bill C-77 almost directly mirrors Bill C-71 from a previous Parliament. There are, however, a few differences I would like to highlight. Perhaps the most glaring difference between the two bills would be the addition of the Gladue decision in relation to subsection 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada to the National Defence Act.

This addition would mean that aboriginal members of the Canadian Armed Forces facing charges under the National Defence Act may face lighter punishment if convicted. There is absolutely no place in the Canadian Armed Forces, or in Canadian society, for that matter, for discrimination of any kind. No one should ever be discriminated against based upon race, gender, religion, culture or any other factor. That being said, the insertion of this principle has the potential to result in different considerations for offences committed by aboriginal CAF members than for those committed by non-aboriginal forces members. This could lead to sentences that are less harsh and could undermine operational discipline, morale in the forces and even anti-racism policies.

I want to point out, while I have the opportunity, that there are two reserves in my riding. Cape Croker, which is just north of my home town of Wiarton, has the distinction of having the highest percentage of young men who have served in wars. That is something I know they are proud of. Wilmer Nadjiwon, a former chief, just passed away a year or so ago at 96. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that he and seven of his brothers, the eight of them, were in the war, and some of them did not come home. They gave it all, so this is not a slam against aboriginal veterans across this country.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to stand in the House today to speak about what we on all sides of the House know is an important bill, one that will seek to put victims at the centre of military law going forward.

Before I go directly into the bill, there are a few things that I want to address. Last week was a very telling week for the government and Canadians watching the government, with regard to those who have served in the military and have been victimized in different ways and through different avenues, some through PTSD and other things. We heard the Minister of Veterans Affairs refer to the underfunding of Veterans Affairs, such as for prepaid phone cards or credit cards and getting those back. If that is the attitude toward our veterans after they have served our country, the government's attitude is probably not much different toward those who are currently serving. Therefore, I can understand why it took three years to finally bring this bill, which was already written, to the House.

This bill reminds me a lot of Bill C-71. We have waited three years for anything to come to the House for other victims of society. For those who deal with accessibility or disability issues, we were promised movement in six months, and we have it now finally after three years, and even then, we are not seeing anything with any teeth.

Over the last few weeks, we have also seen government not putting victims of crime at the centre of care. An individual who was convicted of murder has been given post-traumatic stress support by psychologists and funding from Veterans Affairs, while former members of the military go into any or all members' offices requesting the same. I do not think this is a partisan issue. I would guess that MPs whose ridings are near bases, like my riding, which is about 10 kilometres from a base, have dealt with and heard some very difficult stories from those currently serving, about the services they are looking for and not having those services signed off on by Veterans Affairs, or if they are currently serving, by the Department of National Defence.

There are incredibly heart-wrenching stories that MPs and these individuals deal with. They are just not put at the centre of the process. They are not cared for in the way we would hope. I feel it is the same in the case of Mr. Christopher Garnier, seeing the way he was treated versus many veterans who fought for our country and those currently serving fighting for our freedom or others' freedom around the world.

I will go directly into the bill at this point. Despite the fact that it has taken three years, I want to congratulate the minister for bringing the bill to the House. It is said that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, so it is wonderful to see the government copy and paste from the previous Conservative government's work on Bill C-71 and continue this march forward.

This is a bill that politicians from all parties in the House want to support, as there is no greater duty of the Government of Canada, indeed, any government, than to provide for the physical safety of its citizens, especially those serving within our military. Unfortunately, in many instances, the government cannot be everywhere at all times to prevent a crime from occurring. When such a thing does happen, it is the duty of the Canadian government to ensure that justice is administered in a fair and equitable way. Conservatives have always stood up for the victims of crime and we take pride in knowing that we stand on the side of justice and to ensure that victims have an effective voice in the criminal justice system.

It is because of these core values that our previous Conservative government enacted the Victims Bill of Rights, and why we support enshrining victims' rights within the military justice system. It is because of these core values that our Conservative government brought forward Bill C-71 in the last Parliament.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would again like to applaud the members of the government for reintroducing Bill C-71 under its new name. I would also like to reiterate that a Conservative government will always have the backs of victims of crime. That said, it should come as no surprise to the members opposite that we will be supporting Bill C-77's getting to the committee stage.

An essential requirement of justice is that justice is blind. There can be no preference in a court of law for a person's race, religion, sex, age or anything else. All Canadian citizens must be given equal and fair treatment in any case before the judiciary. This is a principle that is completely intertwined with the concept of justice. Equality before the law is something that stretches back almost a thousand years to the signing of the Magna Carta in England. Sadly, we have not always lived up to that high principle, but the concept of equality before the law has served as an excellent guiding compass in creating an ever more just society.

The military justice system in Canada comes from a long and distinguished history, going back to the roots of the British military. Any serious military force in the world requires a robust military justice system to improve and maintain the fighting effectiveness, discipline and morale of its fighting forces. It is because of our armed forces' effectiveness, discipline and morale that Canada and our allies have been so successful in protecting our God-given freedoms from aggressive foreign enemies.

With Remembrance Day very quickly approaching, we would all do well to reflect upon the sacrifice of our valiant men and women who made Canada, and how the military justice system contributed to their ultimate success. An effective military justice system is essential for both operational efficiency and to ensure that Canadians see justice being served and completed in a fair way. It is why the previous government brought forth legislation that mirrored the Victims Bill of Rights and made sure it was put into military law as well.

The previous Conservative government understood that the highest priority for every and any government must be the safety of its own citizens, and to ensure that justice is properly administered when prevention impossible. It is why putting the rights of victims front and centre of the criminal justice system is a central tenet of our party.

Prior to the previous government, the criminal justice system leaned far too heavily toward protecting the rights of criminals. The previous Conservative government believed that balance needed to be brought back to the criminal justice system, and so we took concrete steps to hold criminals accountable for their misdeeds.

One such concrete measure was to introduce the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which introduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain sexual offences and for drug dealers. Another such example was the Victims Bill of Rights, which gave victims of crime enhanced access to information, protection, participation and restitution. Taking that and applying it to our military justice system is certainly something we will stand behind. Through this process, I am sure there are going to be ideas brought to the table on how to better this bill and strengthen it where it perhaps has failings. However, on the whole, I want to see, as I know all members of this House do, this move forward in principle.

In terms of the victims of crime, I said that last week was a defining week for what Canadians saw of their government, especially when it comes to victims of crime and to criminals themselves. At question period, question after question was asked about one of the killers of Tori Stafford. The killer was moved from one medium-security facility to another, and in this case, she was removed from behind bars to a healing lodge. Canadians were very upset. However, no one was more upset than the father of Tori Stafford. We saw that through the media. We saw that through statements from him. We certainly saw that through Canadians who were around the family.

I found it incredibly telling when members on this side asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do to correct this injustice and support the victims rather than the person who had participated in this brutal murder. After question after question, the answer consistently seemed to be that the Prime Minister was outraged that members of the House would stand up in defence of the victims in this case and talk about the crime that was committed. The Prime Minister asked us to no longer speak about the details of the crime itself.

What really struck me was why the Prime Minister was not upset about the crime itself. Why was the Prime Minister admonishing members of the House for bringing up the factual details of how a person who had murdered an eight year old was moved to a healing lodge, instead of standing up and saying that the person who committed this crime was not serving out what Canadians would consider justice in moving to this place, and condemning the change in the facility, and moving forward hand in hand with Canadians and, more importantly, hand in hand with the victims of this crime, Tori Stafford's family?

I could not get over it. I did not understand it, especially when we consider that Bill C-77 is coming forward and we are talking consistently, as a House, about standing up for Canadians who are unable to stand up for themselves. I do not remember going to a single door where someone said that criminals needed more rights, that people who commit murders need more rights and that we need to be talking about their rights more and more. However, I do remember hearing over and over again from Canadians that we need to ensure that we protect our citizens. We need to ensure that we support victims. It does not matter where in this country they are. It does not matter the colour of their skin. It does not matter their religion or faith. It does not matter their sexual orientation. It does not matter whether they are male or female. We need to ensure that we are protecting Canadians, and one way we protect Canadians is by ensuring that those who are victims are given the supports they need.

However, that was not demonstrated in the House by the government and the Prime Minister last week. Instead, we saw the Prime Minister going in the complete opposite direction of what I believe the bill being presented by the government is trying to do. When laying the facts out and asking questions about cases in which victims have been severely hurt, we were admonished in this case for talking about what happened to this young lady. However, it was not deemed terrible that the person who did it has seen a form of freedom they do not deserve and is completely unjust. I just do not get it. I am trying to rationalize the same government bringing forward the bill before us, which sat on a shelf for three years, with a government that could not come out and say this was unjust.

Day after day, we need to be consistent. The message to Canadians needs to be consistent, that we will take the side of victims, that if people commit crimes, especially heinous crimes, as in the two situations I brought up today, they will pay the full penalty, the full price. Even when they are paying that penalty, that full price, it will never, ever undo the pain that has been caused to their victims.

We, as parliamentarians, need to ensure from this moment forward that when we are talking about these crimes and these victims, when there are individual cases that need to be delved into because of some injustice that has happened, that we are respectful on both sides of the House. However, the first piece of respect needs to be that it is not wrong to speak about the crime that has happened, but it is wrong to let the injustice continue.

I know, as we look forward with respect to changes to the military justice system, with respect to changes that are brought forward by the bill, that they will be done with the best of intentions, that some banter and some debate will occur at the committee level, that there will likely be amendments brought forward and that there will be testimony from those who serve in the military, from different organizations, victims' organizations, etc.

I hope, as we go through that process, we can sincerely put the victim at the centre of that process, not just a bill, not just our talking points. I hope we can move forward putting victims at the centre of the bill to ensure that what comes out committee is even better than the one that goes in and that we can win the support of everybody in the House.

I would like to end with one piece. I have a mother who is an incredible woman. I got my activism from her. For many years she lobbied, and many of the members in the House have received letters and requests, that victims, specifically of sexual crimes, be put first. I take notice of being able to stand to speak to this bill, of being able to look back, whether it was at the white ribbon campaign against child pornography, or human trafficking or many other things, which the Victims Bill of Rights was originally brought in to help with and now is being applied to the military justice system.

I take a lot of pride in knowing that one Canadian, and I am sure there was at least one in every riding, stood up and put pressure on the government of the day to bring something forward. I take a lot of pride in standing up as a Conservative, knowing that it was our government that brought forward the Victims Bill of Rights. I take pride in knowing that we brought forward this bill, before the end of our mandate. I take pride in knowing that I will be able to be part of this hopeful solution at the end.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-77. As the member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris, I am very proud to say that Canadian Forces Base Shilo is part of my constituency. CFB Shilo is home to the First Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

The base is also home to a component of the Western Area Training Centre, 742 Signals Squadron Detachment Shilo, and 11 Canadian Forces Health Services Centre, as well as being the home station of the Royal Canadian Artillery. Other supported units include 26th Field Regiment and the Royal Canadian Army's Brandon Reserve Unit.

In Westman, the men and women of Canadian Forces Base Shilo live in various communities such as Spruce Woods, Brandon, Wawanesa, Killarney, Souris, Glenboro, to name a few of the communities around Shilo. I could put some of the ones from the riding of my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa in there as well, in Carberry, Minnedosa, Neepawa, and other areas.

They are our friends and our neighbours. They and their families are part of our communities. Many will know that due to our quality of life and the amazing communities that are found within our constituencies, numerous members of the Canadian Armed Forces decide to make Westman their permanent home after they retire and transition into civilian life. I will not name them here, but many of them are good friends of mine and live throughout our area.

I have been interested in the affairs of the Canadian Armed Forces for all of my life and am forever grateful for the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend Canada. The bill before us is a reiteration of our previous government's efforts to enhance the Canadian military justice system. The judicial system within the Canadian Armed Forces is distinctive due to the high standards for those in uniform. When in service, it is expected that there could be circumstances where one's life will be put in danger.

Make no mistake, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces deal with stressful and high tempo operations. They have a chain of command and there is zero room for error. Due to the high risk of injury or death, there must be a justice system put in place to maintain discipline and structure. While the Canadian Armed Forces has its own judicial system, it still operates under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The constitutionality of the military justice system has been upheld by the Supreme Court and there is jurisprudence that has upheld its separate justice system. That said, as with all government legislation, it is necessary to do a thorough review to make sure that the system is as efficient as possible.

The original National Defence Act was crafted in 1950 after World War II. While it has been modified on various occasions over the years, this legislation provides a forum for even further improvements.

I know that all members will agree with the need to ensure that the regulations and laws on the books can meet the challenges and expectations of our times. I am encouraged that the Liberal government has agreed with our previous Conservative legislation to enshrine the rights of victims into the National Defence Act.

More than ever, particularly in light of our upcoming opposition day motion this week, the rights of victims must be upheld. Far too often the justice system has forgotten to give a voice to those who have been victimized. Victims deserve to be treated with compassion and respect. They should never be an afterthought. With this legislation we will set in stone in the National Defence Act the principle that victims have rights, an extremely important point.

I firmly believe that every victim has the right to request information about the military justice system. Far too often, we forget that the justice system can be daunting. Some would even say it can be intimidating, especially for victims. In most cases, people have never had to navigate or deal with either the military or civilian judicial systems. While that in itself is a good thing, it is a reminder that we must be vigilant that the system is not only there to provide justice for the accused, but also for the victim.

With this legislation, we would make it crystal clear that every victim has the right to request the status and outcome of the investigation. People should not have to rely on rumours or second-hand news to find out what is happening. They should not feel they must plead for the most basic information. To bolster that point, this new victims bill of rights would give them the right to know about the location of proceedings, when these will take place and their progress and outcomes. This bill of rights would give victims the ability to request information about the offender while they are in a service prison. They could also request information when there is the release of the offender. These are simple but meaningful rights that would provide much improved transparency and support for victims.

An important change is that victims would now have the right to access services and programs. This is essential to the healing process for the victim. Being able to access ongoing counselling or mental health services should be easy for those who need them.

In this updating of the National Defence Act, I also support the new rights to protect the identity of the victim. To create the right environment for victims and witnesses to come forward, it is imperative that they have the right to request that their identity be protected. This legislation would provide the flexibility to allow victims to use pseudonyms in appropriate cases. This is a simple but very important change that could empower people to come forward while not having to feel shamed or threatened.

For victims to come forward or to feel safe while going through the process, their security must never be in doubt. That is why the protection clauses found in the bill are a step in the right direction. The legislation would direct the authorities in the military justice system to ensure that every victim has the right to reasonable and necessary measures to protect them against intimidation and retaliation. No one should have to fear speaking the truth, and no one should have to worry about the consequences of taking part in a trial or within the military justice system. This is certainly an area that I would like the defence committee to study while going through the legislation. As in many cases, military communities are small and tight-knit. While this can be a tremendous benefit, it also can create situations where the victim and the accused are in close proximity.

It would be prudent to bring forward witnesses who can speak about the expectations for these new provisions. That is one of the reasons I believe the bill should move to second reading. It would give everyone an opportunity to have a greater say.

It would also be wise to reach out and gather as much evidence as possible as to what other militaries or judicial systems around the world have done to protect victims. I know from my work on other committees that a valuable option to have in place is the ability to learn from other areas of the world.

Another area that must get proper study is the complaints process for victims. While the legislation would give cabinet the ability to set out the complaints process through regulation, it would be in the committee's best interests to review it. If individuals do not feel they have the appropriate avenues to lodge complaints, the overall credibility of the system could be called into question and even undermined.

This is something that our immigration committee recently reviewed for the immigration review board and I can say without hesitation that numerous concerns were brought to our attention. To expand on this point, immigration committee had unanimity with our report that we tabled in Parliament. That in itself is a perfect example of how these sorts of issues are non-partisan.

Victims of any judicial system must be at the heart of its rules and regulations. For real justice to occur, the system must be fair and orderly. It must be unbiased and it must serve those who appear before it. It must hand out appropriate sentences.

I will be voting in favour of this legislation. My Conservative colleagues on defence committee will do their due diligence in scrutinizing it and making it better.

That is why I wanted to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation today as well. Like my colleague from southwest Saskatchewan, this is the only opportunity that I will have because I am not on defence committee. That is why many of my colleagues would like to speak to this important legislation that is before us today. Many of them know people who may want to come forward as witnesses before committee. This is an opportunity for us to scrutinize this bill with great intensity, to add the areas that I talked about earlier in regards to perhaps other areas of jurisdiction not only here in Canada, but around the world so we can garner what we can for victims' rights.

I had the privilege and the opportunity of being on public safety committee when I was first elected to Parliament. Through that I learned that there are many areas that could have been improved, some of which were in the area of firearm legislation and management of the transporting and handling of firearms for law-abiding citizens. That is where I first learned the most about victims being the centre of attention instead of offenders. A few times here in the House my colleagues have said that the government of the day seems to want to deal with the rights of the offenders as opposed to the rights of the victims. I very much feel that victims need to be at the forefront of this.

That is why I have indicated that we need to make sure that victims have access to information as they go through the court process and even when decisions are made, that they be able to better understand why a decision was made the way it was.

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

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has been around here for over 20 years, the member understands the importance of debate and the opportunity to talk about the issues at hand. For members of the government to say that we are talking about things that they have already heard and they do not want to listen to debate any more, well, that type of arrogance is what gets democracy in trouble.

We want to make sure that every member who wants to be able to articulate themselves on a particular item, in this case Bill C-77, has that opportunity, especially when they have constituents who are interested in this very topic. It does not matter if one is interested in national defence or victims rights, one has to be able to stand in this place and share that view so that people can be informed when we have the vote. That is what informed debate is all about. Therefore, I just want to thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his great articulation today on the issue and for his passion to stand up for victims rights.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that our discussion has veered off victims again and back to offenders. How do we treat offenders? Do we treat different offenders differently, or whatever?

We are talking about a victims bill of rights as being applied to the military. Once again, as soon as we start talking about victims, the Liberals seem to want to talk about offenders and giving some special breaks to people of some sort so that we do not have to treat crimes seriously. It does not just happen with the bill before us but kind of a way of thinking, I think, on that side of the House. Every time we turn around, with every bill that comes through here, they have some kind of expectation that we are going to be concerned first about offenders and then we will begin to consider the situation that victims find themselves in.

Thankfully, Bill C-77 is not that. It has a different direction to it. I will point out that it would do a number of things. It would enhance access to information. I mentioned the victim liaison officer before. That is a good thing. It will be an appointment of an officer so that people will be able to get extended and enhanced access to information. There is enhanced protection for victims and not for offenders in the bill. It is for victims. There are new safety and security provisions. There are new privacy provision in the bill that would be applied. There is enhanced participation for victims and, again, not for offenders to come and say to let them off. This is supposed to be for victims, allowing them to give impact statements at sentencing. Again, the offenders would be held accountable for what they have done, and it is not about finding ways to let them off and lessen those sentences. The other thing we talked about a little earlier was enhanced restitution, the possibility of restitution that exists in the legislation, and courts martial can be required to consider making restitution for losses suffered by victims.

I want to refocus this back to the fact that the bill is about dealing with victims, giving victims a better standing, a better status and a better opportunity to have their say. It is not about offenders, how we might find other ways, and multiple ways, of letting offenders off, letting them have easier sentences and letting them not pay the price for the offences they have done.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for being so interested in this issue. I heard the Liberals say that they wanted this to leave the House immediately, but some of us do not have a lot of chance to speak to bills that are outside of our portfolio area. I am not on the defence committee, so that is not a place where I will be able to participate. Therefore, this is my sole chance to participate in this debate.

I hope my colleagues opposite understand that we are not ragging the puck here. We just want to give people an opportunity to speak to the issues.

These are important issues that come out of a number of different areas. I want to talk later about the Victims Bill of Rights, what it means and how much it has improved and changed the lives of Canadians. That has been the foundation of what we are doing. Bill C-77 tries to apply that bill of rights to the military as well.

My colleague who spoke previously basically had the same opening as I did. He talked about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. It is interesting that on the things the government has succeeded in, it has had to copy us. The things the Liberals have not copied us on have been pretty much a disaster. If we think about electoral reform and so on, their own initiatives have not gone anywhere. However, the ones we had done the work on and laid the foundation and the groundwork for, the Liberals have had some success.

Apart from this bill, I think of things like CETA, the trade agreement with Europe, which was pretty much handed to the Liberals, but they almost messed that up. They took it back and started messing with some of the text. The next thing was the Europeans wanted to open that whole agreement up again. The government had to fight and struggle to ensure it was implemented the way that we had negotiated it.

We are seeing the same thing with TPP. The agreement basically was finished and handed to the Liberals. We are sitting here two and a half years later and still do not have it through the House even though we were the ones who did the work on it. It is a good agreement and it should be implemented as soon as possible.

We saw the struggles the Liberals had around NAFTA, where they insisted on taking the agreement that worked very well and came so close to making a complete mess of it. Canadians need to understand that we were saved at the last minute by the fact that the U.S. auto sector stepped in and said that it needed to get the agreement done, that the negotiators could not be serious if they allowed the President to put tariffs on autos. Finally, our government realized it had better quit playing games, trying to make the President look bad, fooling around that way, and decided to get the agreement done.

Interestingly enough, the Liberals really did not gain anything with it. It barely held the ground that we had in the past. That seems to be the way the government operates.

That brings us back to Bill C-77, hopefully something that will be much easier for the Liberals to get through in the form it is in right now. We have heard debate about it. At this point, we will support the bill at second reading to go to committee as soon as the debate is done in the House. The point of it is to align the military justice system of Canada with the Criminal Code of Canada. It is a good and important objective. As I said before, it centres around the Victims Bill of Rights that was passed in 2015. It takes that and enshrines it in the National Defence Act.

Many people talked specifically about Bill C-77 and what is included in it. However, I would like to back up a step and talk about the Victims Bill of Rights, which lays the foundation for the discussion we are having today and for the bill that is being presented here today.

Obviously, the Victims Bill of Rights created a clear set of rights for victims of crime. It requires those rights to be considered during the trial processes and it provides four rights for victims in Canada. Those rights are the ideas of information, protection for their rights of participation in the system and then some aspect of restitution.

Some of it seems to be common sense, but perhaps is not in the courts. Canadians will understand that every victim should have the right to request information that he or she needs with respect to the system and the role the victims play in that, the services and programs that are available to them. Victims should be aware of the fact that they have the right to file complaints if their rights are being violated.

In investigations, victims have the right to ask about the status and outcome of the investigations. They have the right to know where the location of the proceedings are taking place. They have the right to ask for information about any kind of reviews that are being done under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

For the last week we have been talking about an issue in western Canada, actually in my riding. A young “lady”, and I use that word very loosely, participated in the kidnapping, rape, torture, murder and burial of an eight-year-old girl. She was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Then about a week ago we found out she had been moved from a maximum-security prison to medium-security prison a couple of years ago. In the last few weeks, she was moved to what was basically a minimum-security prison.

I am familiar with the Okimaw Ohci healing lodge. It is in my riding and I have been there several times. I have been there for its open days and have enjoyed going there. However, this is not the appropriate place for someone like that.

As I pointed out, the rights of victims require that those who have suffered have the opportunity to find out what is going on in the system. When Tori Stafford's father found out what had happened, he appealed to the Prime Minister. He said that it was crazy. The person had murdered his daughter and he had to live with that every day of his life. He said that the Prime Minister had sent her to a minimum-security prison. Not only was it not a prison, but it was in a treed area. It was like a park setting with small cabins arranged in small units. Not only did it not have a fence around, or have restrictions or whatever, but children were allowed to go and spend time with their mothers.

My constituents have made their opinions clear to me. They agree with our position over the last week that this needs to be reversed.

The reason we know about it is because there is a Victims Bill of Rights and that is the foundation for the changes being suggested in Bill C-77.

Victims are allowed to attend hearings that are open. With respect to protection and security, people have the right to have their security considered. In the criminal justice system, they have the right to protection from intimidation and retaliation. We have talked about that today in regard to Bill C-77. They have the right to have their privacy considered and having their identity protected as well. They also have the right to request any kind of help they might need when appearing as witnesses in proceedings.

There are other things around participation. Victims have the right to give their views about decisions to be made by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system that affect their rights. They have the right to speak up. We think that is an important right.

We are all familiar with victim impact statements and the role they play. In some court cases, victims are allowed to give victim impact statements, how the criminal impacted their lives, how this activity has destroyed, for example, the lives of their families.

The Victims Bill of Rights also talks about restitution orders and the fact that victims have the right to have the court consider making restitution to them by the offender.

There are a number of other things in the Victims Bill of Rights, but that lays the foundation for us for Bill C-77. The bill is about enshrining that Victims Bill of Rights in the National Defence Act. It also puts a statute of limitations of six months on summary hearing cases.

We heard this morning about the various levels of discipline and how the defence minister , if we trust him, was trying to make some changes that would speed up some of the discipline cases on lesser offences. We are hoping that what the Liberals are saying is actually true.

This is virtually a copy of something that was presented three years ago by the former Conservative government just before the last election. I guess the good thing is, as I mentioned, the Liberals have taken this on and have decided that they are going to bring the bill forward in much the same fashion and structure that it was before and introduce those changes.

There are some differences. We have talked a bit about them as well. One of the main differences in this bill, and probably will be one of the main things that will be discussed at committee, is the addition of the Gladue decision in the National Defence Act. For those people who are not familiar with that, it instructs the courts to take into consideration an aboriginal person's background when he or she is sentenced. On occasion, when that is applied, it may mean that the sentencing itself or the sentencing process will be different for that individual than it would be for a non-aboriginal person.

People have questioned whether this should be considered in the military. Is it appropriate that in the military, where everyone is subject to the same structures of discipline, where we try to bring about equality and equal participation, someone would have a different sentencing structured or a different level of punishment than other people would based on these kinds of considerations? I am sure we will be bringing forward those issues and asking those questions at committee.

Our government made it a priority to stand up for victims. That is why we brought forward the Victims Bill of Rights. That is also why we saw our Bill C-71 come forward prior to the election, in pretty much the form being presented by the current government. We know that the priority of government, on this side of the House anyway, should be to protect the safety of its citizens. We take that responsibility very seriously.

Putting the rights of victims back into the centre of the criminal justice system was important to us. It was something we spoke about many times and made it the centre of a number of different pieces of legislation, the guarantee that victims would have the right to have a more effective voice in the system and that they would be treated with courtesy and compassion. I think we are all familiar with situations in the past years where often victims seemed to be harassed more than they were treated with compassion and respect when they came forward with charges. We were determined to try to reverse that trend and ensure people were treated with respect, while keeping our streets, our cities and communities safe for Canadians and their families. That was why we took so many concrete steps to hold people accountable for their actions. We are glad to see this being extended to the military as well.

The question I need to ask is this. Are the Liberals really serious about this bill? They say that they want it to go to committee as soon as possible, and we hope that is true. However, what we have seen in the past is that they are far more interested in PR when it comes to issues of criminal activity than they are in the content. We see that in this Parliament.

I think of Bill C-71, the firearms legislation. The bill has come forward. The government has made a declaration that it wants to deal with the crimes with respect to gangs and the illegal use of firearms. The bill does not mention either of those things but creates massive problems for legitimate firearms owners. It is almost as if the Liberals looked at what the PR side of it was, decided they could make it an attack on legitimate firearms owners, convince the media country that it was a good thing and they did not have to do the hard work of trying to solve the gang situation and getting illegal guns off the street.

Bill C-71 is an example of where the Liberals do not seem to take this issue of crime seriously. I hope they are with respect to Bill C-77. I asked a question of the minister this morning and I trust he answered it honestly.

With respect to Bill C-71, another issue we had was the misuse of statistics. The Liberals take an extreme statistic, apply it, then say that is the average and that they will operate using that as a starting point. However, anyone who knows the statistics knows that the year they were using, 2013, was such an exceptional year and it did not really fit into the normal trend. There is a lot of attack on regular citizens it seems, particularly in Bill C-71, and not much that would actually protect victims of crime.

We brought forward a number of other bills when we were in government: the Safe Streets and Communities Act; the reform of the not criminally responsible legislation, which was needed for many years, and we were happy to bring that forward; and the laws against sexual exploitation and cyber intimidation.

It is good to see these changes are coming forward. I know there have been some changes made since 2016, even within the military. The government talks about the fact that the director of military prosecutions has changed the way that it does things, the way it approaches these issues. There are a number of things in the government's document. It talks about how it has already introduced changes, such as providing information proactively to victims on the choice of jurisdictions in a sexual misconduct matter. Therefore, if there is a charge of sexual misconduct, the victim now has more say in what jurisdiction he or she wants it looked at. It has some information that it can provide that will help. Victims are kept informed throughout the investigation and throughout the trial process. That did not happen before in the military. The DMP, in its overhaul of the way it has done things, has included this as one of the things it thinks is important.

Now the DMP has started to consider the views of victims in determining the public interest in these cases. Is there public interest in moving forward with the prosecution of the cases? It is allowing victims to participate. I know that witness preparation has been improved. It is spending more time with witnesses, finding out what they will be testifying to and if they are prepared to be competent witnesses. It is assuring victims' comfort and security. I am told it is one of the key considerations. In the past, as I mentioned, people have been intimidated, even by the way the system is set up, so this is set up to be much more fair to them.

It is making efforts to make sure that in sexual misconduct cases, victim impact statements are relevant and considered. It is trying to get consistency with the prosecution and prosecutors so that each of them approaches the issues in the same way. That is probably an important consideration in that there needs to be consistency within the military itself and the way it deals with and addresses these issues. That is part of what Bill C-77 is trying to do: to bring the consistency provided in the Victims Bill of Rights into the military part of the justice system. Another thing is that sexual misconduct cases are being expedited in the military courts to try to get them out of the way.

There are a lot of things going on. As I mentioned, there are the indigenous sentencing considerations. We heard earlier today that there are changes to the summary trial process and the way summary charges are handled. There are a number of other areas around the victims rights at courts martial as well that have changed. They have a different perspective and a different opportunity. A victim's liaison officer would be put in place to give victims an opportunity to get this information and go to somebody who can work with and help them.

I come back to the concern that Liberals are honest about dealing with victims. We have heard over the last three or four weeks in the House of Commons about a gentleman who murdered a female police officer, desecrated the body and was sentenced to jail. Then he applied for Veterans Affairs benefits and the government has been providing those benefits to him. Those benefits, I am told, can be provided by Correctional Service Canada, but the government has made the decision that he deserves veterans benefits. Conservatives have argued that he does not. There are people who have served who receive them, but he has not served or spent a moment of time in military service and yet he is getting these benefits.

The government said it would cut them off for now, but we need a better response than that from the government. That was a bad response in that case. Now with Tori Stafford, we have heard the comments made by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness this afternoon. It is another slow response, a bad response to people who have been victimized in the worst ways by crimes and the best the ministers of the government can say is they have given it to somebody who will review it for a long time and when that person gets back to them, they will let us know how it turns out. In the case of Tori Stafford, by the time that happens, how long will that woman have been in the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge, being able to do whatever she wants to do, having access to children and wandering off the property if she wants? She is not eligible for parole for another 13 years. What does she have to lose should she decide to do something inappropriate in Okimaw Ohci?

That is an example of the government not being willing to react to these issues. We hope that when this bill goes to committee, Liberals will deal seriously with it, and when it is implemented, they actually treat it seriously, because they do not have a history anywhere else of dealing fairly and honestly with victims. Hopefully, in this situation, they will and we look forward to when this bill is passed.

It is a good bill, Conservatives wrote most of it, and we are looking forward to the government applying it and hopefully, it will take care of many of these issues that people have faced at military trials and those kinds of situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, given the way the current Liberal government treats our veterans, let alone serving members, specifically around the promised pension for life, given that scenario and what has transpired, can the member further expand on why it is important that we slow the ball down on Bill C-77, let it get to committee and study it there?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly wait for the day we get a member representing St. Catharines who asks some intelligent questions, as Krystina Waler will when she becomes the next member of Parliament for St. Catharines.

The member for Barrie—Innisfil has done a fabulous job in articulating the many problems with the government today. As much as Bill C-77 follows up on the legislation we brought forward in the last Parliament under Bill C-71, we have a lot of questions about the way the government actually treats victims in Canada. It always wants to hug a thug rather than stand up for victims' rights.

Even though we are enshrining victims' rights in the National Defence Act, as the previous Conservative government did in the Criminal Code when it made sure that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament, I would love to hear from the member for Barrie—Innisfil about some of the concerns he has about how the Liberals have made crime in this country easier to commit, with less punishment, and how victims' rights have actually been eroded.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my French were a bit better, then we would not need the interpretation, but I am working on it.

I do want to clarify something I was saying just before question period. I mentioned the situation regarding the Truro police officer Catherine Campbell and I referred to her as “Christine” Campbell, not “Catherine” Campbell. A good friend of mine is named Christine Campbell and it is easy for me to think in those terms.

Let me go back to question period today. Members of the official opposition, including me, again asked several government members and the public safety minister about the situation with respect to Tori Stafford and the fact that her killer has been moved to an aboriginal healing centre.

In the context of speaking of a victims bill of rights, I cannot believe for the life of me that the government is tripling down on this situation. Tomorrow we will be presenting an opposition day motion to deal with this situation, because Canadians are so outraged by this. Over the weekend, Tori Stafford's father issued a letter to the Prime Minister begging him to reverse this decision, which we are going to ask the government to do tomorrow.

It is my hope that the government will not quadruple down on this and will instead do the right thing. Canadians are outraged by this entire situation. They are outraged that the killer would be allowed to be placed not behind bars and razor wire, but instead be surrounded by trees at an aboriginal healing centre where there are children as well.

The minister tried to answer the question by saying that there are children at the Grand Valley Institution. The fact is that the Grand Valley Institution is entirely surrounded by fences and razor wire and the inmates are in pods behind bars.

The minister is suggesting that the two institutions are the same. One is a medium-maximum security prison and the other is a medium-minimum security prison. By the minister suggesting that they are similar, he is not being frank with Canadians, and that needs to be clarified.

When I was on the veterans affairs committee, we often dealt with the issue of PTSD and the impact that it has on our serving members. Quite a few forces members came before that committee and spoke about sexual assault and the impact it has. This again relates to Bill C-77. We had quite lengthy discussions at the veterans affairs committee over this and how it relates specifically to military justice and the Canadian justice system.

Bill C-77 is a cut-and-paste version of what the previous Conservative government introduced in Bill C-71 at the end of its mandate in 2015.

The purpose of Bill C-77 is to align the military justice system of Canada with the Criminal Code of Canada. The bill would do this in a number of ways, such as enshrining a victims bill of rights in the National Defence Act.

The Victims Bill of Rights was quite a comprehensive document. The intent of the previous government was, in contrast to the current government, to look after victims and their families to make sure that within the criminal justice system they were looked after. The emphasis in the Victims Bill of Rights was not on criminals but on the victims.

This piece of legislation would enshrine 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. Bill C-71 would have instituted these changes as well had it passed the previous Parliament.

The main difference between this legislation and Bill C-71 is the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act. This addition will mean that aboriginal members of the Canadian Forces facing charges under the National Defence Act would face lighter punishments and special consideration if convicted.

We have heard on this side of the House during the debate all day that it could result in sentences that are less harsh versus other CAF members, so the question of fairness comes into it. Members could undermine operational discipline, morale and anti-racism policies.

The vast majority of Bill C-77 is based on the previous Conservative government's bill. We are going to support this bill, but we are going to seek some amendments at the committee stage. Excuse the cynicism, but it is our hope that this bill and some of those amendments that come at committee will be looked at by the government side. I know that we will have lots of stakeholders who come to committee. There will be recommendations from those stakeholders, including first nations communities and other advocates for military justice and civil justice in this country. It is our hope that the government will listen to all the information that comes forward and will deal with some of those considerations. Again, the government has not shown that commitment in the past to being open to many of the recommendations, not just from the Conservative side but from the NDP side as well. We are hoping that the Liberals will do that.

The previous bill had hundreds of consultations. They had stakeholders. Victims and members of communities came forward and spoke to Bill C-71. We landed at a good place with that piece of legislation. However, the Gladue decision certainly made changes to that.

I am fortunate, as you are, Mr. Speaker, to be close to a military base, base Borden, or camp Borden, as it was known in the past. In the time I have spent at base Borden and with base commander Atherton, as well as Chief Warrant Officer Charette, many people who serve have come and gone. When I was the critic for veterans affairs, I used to travel across the country meeting with military members, veterans and stakeholders and their families. The first question I would ask when I was in front of them was how many had gone through base Borden, and the hands would go up. It is the largest training base in Canada. I used to ask how many were at camp Borden, and some hands would go up, and I would say to those people, boy, they were old, because it has not been camp Borden for a while.

It is an integral part of our community, and those members who are placed at base Borden, as Canada's largest training base, come from all over the country. In fact, they come from all over the world to train in languages and other disciplines. I am quite honoured to be able to represent an area that has a military base like base Borden. In fact, there are thousands of people who live in my riding who are stationed at the base and work there in either a military or civilian capacity. They are truly heroes, in my mind.

I try to spend as much time at the base as I can. I was there last week when the United Nations peacekeepers were in town. They were holding their biannual meeting, and I was there for a speech at the base. I went there for dinner and then there was a ceremony at Peacekeepers' Park in Angus.

It plays an important role in our community, and not just an economic role. The connection to the base is one that is valued and cherished, so supporting our military members at all levels, including with this piece of legislation, is critical in what we do here in Parliament as parliamentarians.

In conclusion, I would say that Bill C-77 is an important piece of legislation. We are supportive of this bill proceeding to committee. We think it needs some work and some scrutiny. Therefore, I hope that when it gets to committee, the majority Liberal side will take some of these concerns we have and that stakeholders have and implement this to make it a better piece of legislation.

I would be remiss if I did not speak about something that was a passion of mine. I am really disappointed that it never received support from Parliament. It received support from this side and the NDP side, but not from the government side. It is Bill C-378, which was a private member's bill I proposed about having a military covenant with our military members. We would have been only the second country in the world to establish such a covenant, behind Great Britain, and unfortunately, the government side did not support it. It related specifically to the sacrifice made by veterans. It is something I was very proud to present, and I was very sorry to see that it did not pass through this Parliament.

However, there is hope, because at our policy convention in Halifax just a few short weeks ago, members of the Conservative Party made it a point to ensure that as a matter of policy, a military covenant would be established between our veterans and the people of this country who owe them so much.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill C-77, to enact military justice reforms. They say that imitation is the best form of flattery. The government of the day has taken into account many of the proposals that were in Bill C-71 from the previous government, with the exception of adding a couple of things. It has simply copied and pasted that legislation into Bill C-77.

I want to spend a couple of moments on some issues that have come up lately in the House. Throughout the debate this morning, we heard the government side talk about victims and victims' rights. On this side of the House, and in the previous government, I have strongly advocated for the rights of victims, as we did the previous government with the introduction of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It is paramount that governments ensure that they put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, we have seen some highly publicized situations come up that have gained the attention of Canadians, in large part because of the issues brought up in the House. I will note two cases in particular as examples.

There is the Christopher Garnier case in Nova Scotia. Christopher Garnier murdered police officer and volunteer firefighter Christine Campbell. It was a highly publicized case. Ahead of veterans, Mr. Garnier was receiving PTSD benefits from Veterans Affairs.

Of course over the last week, we have also seen the issue around Tori Stafford come up. Her murderer is now sitting in an aboriginal healing centre in northern Saskatchewan when she should be behind bars and razor wire, which is exactly where she was before.

On the issues of victims' rights, we have to ensure we put them ahead of the rights of criminals. We have not seen that, as an example in the case of the government, over the course of the last couple of weeks. Many of us heard the father of Tori Stafford over the weekend, pleading with the Prime Minister of our country to correct that situation.

Fortunately, tomorrow on opposition day, members of the government side will have the opportunity to stand and do what is right with respect to an opposition day motion we will be put forward. It calls on the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Public Safety to reverse the decision of Correctional Service Canada and ensure Tori Stafford's killer is put back behind bars and razor wire where she belongs, not surrounded by trees at a healing centre. The government and its members will have the opportunity tomorrow to do the right thing by standing in support of the opposition day motion.

On the issue of Bill C-71, as I said earlier, the Conservatives will always stand for victims and not criminals. Over the weekend, I had a robust discussion about this very issue as it related to criminals. It was more so about the current legislation, Bill C-71 and Bill C-75, as it relates to the new Liberal gun registry and changes to criminal justice acts, and in particular about the list of many otherwise serious criminal activities being reduced to summary convictions.

In some of the discussions I had around my riding this weekend, people were quite concerned not only with the gun registry and that it did little to tackle the real issue of gangs, gang violence and illegal gun activity, but also with the fact that many of these more heinous and serious crimes would be potentially reduced to summary convictions. The reason for that is the government's inability to fill judicial appointments on the bench and cases are getting backlogged. The government would simply rather slap criminals on the wrist with this potential summary conviction rather than looking after victims' rights and victims instead of criminals.

Part of this legislation, one of the important pieces of it, is the Gladue decision. For the most part, this is a copy and paste of the previous bill, Bill C-71, from the previous Conservative government. However, the main difference between the two would be the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act.

In effect, this addition would mean that aboriginal members of the CAF, who face charges under the National Defence Act, would face lighter punishments if convicted. That causes problems with respect to the fact that the special considerations for indigenous members could result in sentences that would be less harsh than those of other CAF members. In fact, it could undermine the operational discipline, morale and some of the anti-racism policies of the CAF. It is a concern.

We will support this legislation and get it to committee to ensure we hear from those various stakeholders, such as first nations communities and advocates.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously I am hopeful the Liberals will stick true to their word on Bill C-77 about ensuring that victims rights are front and centre.

The member is correct. We have seen over the last two weeks in the House conversations around the challenges when victims voices are definitely are not heard. The Liberals seem to put forward opportunities all the time, and in the case of one individual who is currently incarcerated, where those rights come before those of other individual Canadians who we know are victims. Therefore, I am hopeful this will move forward and victims rights are protected. The proof will be when we come back to the House and passes a law that enshrines those victims rights.

[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.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have here are important reforms that would restrict the use of summary trials and require better investigation and better production of evidence to be used in the more formal proceedings that are likely to occur.

There are good things in Bill C-77. These measures were originally proposed by the previous Conservative government, and I am not sure why it took this government three years to get them before the House.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman as the Conservative spokesperson on the defence committee. While we do not always agree, we certainly both have the best interests of the serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces and of Canada at heart. I trust him on that implicitly.

As to his question on the Beaudry decision, this just happened on Friday, so I believe, although I do not know for sure, that a stay would be granted and this case will be heard by the Supreme Court.

Today, I have to say that I am not sure that this is a good time for us to try to amend Bill C-77, until we see what the Supreme Court of Canada has to say.

I agree with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. Because it was a split decision, it is not inevitable that the Supreme Court would reach the same conclusions that the military court of appeal did. I would be cautious at this point about taking legislative action until we hear from the Supreme Court.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-77, very important, though tardy and still incomplete, legislation. The last time there were major reforms in our military justice system was 1998, in what was then Bill C-25. At that time, Bill C-25 specified there would be a five-year review of those extensive reforms that had been mandated in law. That review was completed by the very distinguished former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Antonio Lamer, in September of 2003, 15 years ago.

The conclusion reached by Justice Lamer was that after five years of experience with the reformed justice system, it was generally “working well”, but he went on to say that it was, “not entirely without room for improvement”. That was a very moderate statement as Justice Lamer was wanting to make. He then submitted 88 recommendations for those improvements.

Justice Lamer made recommendations in three main areas: actions to increase the protection of the independence of military judges; actions to improve the grievance process within the Canadian military; and actions to address some major deficiencies in the overall military justice framework.

Now, here we are 15 years later and we are still dealing with important issues in this bill, a bill that was delayed three times by intervening elections. However, both the Liberal and Conservative governments, as we heard them tossing at each other earlier in this debate, have been slow to act on these important changes.

On the first recommendation of the independence of military justice, the Conservatives did act early in the last Parliament in a separate bill, which was then Bill C-16. This was dealt with on an urgent basis because a deadline had been set for changes regarding the independence of judges by the Court Martial Appeals Court decision in the case of R v. LeBlanc. This deadline was met with royal assent on November 29, 2001.

For me, there is the proof that we could have dealt with all of these things very expeditiously. There was a will in Parliament, the Conservatives had a majority and we could have gotten through all of these reforms seven years ago. However, all of the other recommendations had to wait.

When the Conservatives finally did introduce in the last Parliament Bill C-15, in October of 2011, it contained many, but not all, of the needed reforms. Even then, progress on the bill was slow. It took two years to pass through the previous Parliament and it only received second reading a year after it was introduced. The bill sat for an entire year without any motion, debate or effective action on it.

Finally, in May of 2013, the bill passed the House and, for once, the Senate did act expeditiously and the bill received royal assent in 2013. However, here is the kicker on this one. Most of the reforms mandated in the bill did not come into force until September 1 of this year. Therefore, even though the bill passed five years ago, it was only last month that its provisions came into effect, again 15 years after those reforms were recommended by former Justice Lamer.

Why is that the case? It is pretty simple. Our military justice system remains woefully under-resourced no matter whether Liberals or Conservatives have been the government.

Justice Lamer's recommendations specifically recognized four important principles to guide reform in the military justice system. His first was, “Maintaining discipline by the chain of command is essential to a competent and reliable military organization.” None of us in the House would disagree with that recommendation. It is important to keep in mind because, as my hon. friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman pointed out, there are times when the military justice system has to be faster and perhaps harsher than the civilian system.

His second principle was that it was necessary to recognize the particular context of the military justice system, meaning that we, “need to have a system that will properly operate under those special conditions that our men and women are placed in, often abroad, under conditions from peacekeeping to peace-making, in what is often a hostile environment, and indeed sometimes outright war.”

His third principle, perhaps one that is most important to me, is that those who risk their lives for our country deserve a military justice system that protects their rights in accordance with our charter, just like all other Canadians.

His fourth principle said that it was necessary to recognize, also an important point, that any doubts or lack of confidence in the military justice system may have negative impacts on morale as a result of concerns about injustice. The system has to be fair and be seen to be fair so it serves the interests of those who are risking their lives to serve our country.

Returning specifically to Bill C-77, New Democrats are supporting this bill at second reading, and we have recommended expediting this passage at all stages. After all, 15 years later, it is time to get this in gear.

Bill C-77 does complete most of the rest of the reforms to the military justice system that were first proposed under the former Conservative government, but unfortunately were left out when Bill C-15 was adopted in the last Parliament. I am not quite sure why it took the Liberals three years to get this bill before us, because the Conservatives had introduced essentially the same bill in the dying days of the last Parliament.

For me, the most important part of those reforms in Bill C-77 are those that add greater protections to victims in the military justice system. These were missing, they are missing, and these changes would align the military justice system with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It is important not only that those who are accused are treated fairly, but that those who have been victims of the offences are also treated fairly in the military justice system.

As I said, this bill would implement most of the rest of the reforms first proposed under the former Harper government and would modernize the military justice system, but there are still some areas in which it is lacking. We believe there are two areas in which improvements could be made without undue delay to this bill.

One important provision in Bill C-77 is found in section 23(c.1). This section would allow military judges to take into account the circumstances of aboriginal offenders when determining sentencing. This change is obviously welcome, as it is in keeping with the Supreme Court Gladue decision of 1999 with regard to how the criminal justice system operates in the civilian realm.

However, we believe it is possible, given that this is 2018, nearly 20 years later, that we may be able to improve the wording of that section to allow greater clarification of its intentions and the impacts of this section.

The second improvement we would like to see involves the subject of my questions earlier to the minister and to the Conservative spokesperson. This is the omission of reform that would help deal with the serious problem of suicide within the Canadian military.

In October 2016, the government announced a suicide prevention strategy, a strategy with 160 provisions to address a problem that is very real in the Canadian Forces. We are still seeing one to two members of the Canadian Forces die by suicide each and every month. That is a total of more than 130 serving members who died by suicide from 2010 to the end of 2017.

When we are speaking just of serving members, obviously that excludes the very high rate of suicide among veterans, which the government was not even able to track when the report was issued in 2016. Today, we know at least 70 of those who served in the Afghanistan mission have died by suicide, some of those still in the military; some of those having retired and become veterans.

Self-harm is listed as an offence in section 98 of the National Defence Act. Three offences are included in that section 98. Section (a) deals with malingering, and obviously in a time of crisis, avoiding duties should be subject to discipline. The second, section (b), is dealing with aggravating disease or infirmity, and I question whether that is really a necessary inclusion, it seems a lot like malingering to me. It seems like it is repeating in (b) what it just said in (a).

It is the third section, section (c), that concerns me. It says that anyone who:

....wilfully maims or injures himself or any other person who is a member of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith, whether at the instance of that person or not, with intent thereby to render himself or that other person unfit for service, or causes himself to be maimed or injured by any person with intent thereby to render himself unfit for service, is guilty of an offence....

Section 98, as a whole, goes on to set the possible penalties for self-harm as up to life imprisonment.

I ask members to think about individuals serving in the armed forces and suffering from mental health issues and needing help. Are they likely to go forward to their commanding officer and say that they are about to commit a disciplinary offence? This is an obstacle to getting the treatment those people need. It is a matter of human compassion. It is also a matter of getting help so that Canadian Forces members who have been trained, invested in and are part of a team can remain effective. Therefore, it is not only a moral question, it is also very much an efficiency question in the military.

This is a major obstacle, as I said, to serving members' seeking help, and omitting this section would have no impact on or injury to other serving members. The minister's response to my question seemed to implicate that there was some problem in omitting this section, but I would assert, and will bring forward some witnesses at committee, that harm to other serving members is already covered in other sections of the code of conduct so that this section on self-harm or asking someone to harm them or someone else really does not need to be there. All of those possible behaviours they could think of that the minister seemed concerned about are actually covered somewhere else.

I want to speak for a moment about a tragic case that I know best, and that is of Corporal Stuart Langridge, whose family I have come to know well, as they reside in my riding. Corporal Langridge twice attempted suicide while he was a serving member. He failed the first two times, but he did not seek the help that he needed. His family firmly believe that this section that makes it an offence was part of the reason that he did not seek help. Therefore, this section making it a disciplinary offence hindered rather than helped their son and, unfortunately, on his third attempt he succeeded and died by suicide. This led to an unfortunate attempt to cover up the details of his case, but that is not the topic here today and I do want to set that aside. The goal here is removing, as I have heard from families, from veterans and from serving members, a major obstacle to those who need help with serious mental health issues in getting the help they need. Making self-harm an offence is clearly a relic of old thinking about the scourge of suicide that continues to plague not only our military but this entire country.

One last major reform that was not dealt with in Bill C-16, Bill C-15 and in this current bill, Bill C-77 is that of the right to trial by jury. We had, as was noted earlier in the debate, a Court Martial Appeal Court ruling last week, which ruled that civil offences are not offences under military law if they are not connected to military duties, an oversimplification of the case, in the case of Master Corporal Beaudry. The government has appealed that decision, which was a split decision in the court, and has requested a stay of that decision until the Supreme Court can hear the case. The military justice head prosecutor, Bruce MacGregor, has said that this potentially affects about half the caseload of the military justice system. I am not going to take a position today on what the proper decision in that case should be. That is the job of the Supreme Court, not politicians. However, we can all recognize today that there may be further work needed if that decision is upheld by the courts.

Experts like retired judge Gilles Letourneau and the highly skilled lawyer from Montreal, Michel Drapeau, have argued that this is a question of fundamental rights, and that it will not affect military discipline. However, there have been concerns raised on the other side about the slowness of the civilian justice system and whether it can fully consider the context in which those crimes might occur.

My biggest concern is that this ruling raises questions of the ultimate disposition of sexual assault cases that were originally declared unfounded by the military police. The military police recently announced that 23 of those cases will be reopened for investigation. I am concerned about that because if this decision stands and those cases are transferred to the civilian system, they might fall under the time limits set in the 2016 Jordan decision, resulting in a dismissal because of unnecessary delays. Those are very complicated implications that we have yet to see play out from this court decision.

Let me say once again that the NDP believes that Bill C-77 should pass expeditiously, and we will support it. However, in doing so, we should not neglect the opportunity to make some improvements, most importantly, to remove self-harm as an offence in the military code of conduct.

Finally, let me restate the importance of these improvements to our military justice system. They are important to discipline, they are important to morale, and they are important as a right of those who serve.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to a high standard of discipline, therefore, their judicial system should also reflect that high standard. Those who risk their lives for our country should not be denied their charter rights when facing trial.

Other countries have recognized this issue and changed their processes. It is time for Canada to catch up in this area. It is past time that we take the necessary steps toward ensuring that our military justice system ranks as a model system and a system of which members of the Canadian Armed Forces can be justifiably proud.

Bill C-77 takes important steps forward, but there is still more work left to be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP and I served together on the national defence committee. I have always respected his positions and the passion he has for ensuring we are working for the benefit of all those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am glad he has brought this issue forward. I am looking forward to having some of the witnesses appear at committee when we study Bill C-77. This whole idea that self-harm is an issue with respect to fines, discipline and court martial charges within the Canadian Armed Forces is something on which we do need to move fast. I think we all realize that those who serve have greater mental health needs because of the operational stress injuries they receive, like PTSD. If we want to get away from the stigmatization of mental health within the Canadian Armed Forces and have people come forward to seek the help they need to get better and to continue to bravely serve our country, then we have to start removing some of these impediments, like the section on self-harm. Instead of disciplining them, we should be helping them. By doing that, we will be able to get that help to military members and their families quicker.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his comments today on Bill C-77, and for his service as a veteran and as a police officer.

The minister talked about the work the Canadian Forces provost marshal was doing, and how the Canadian Armed Forces is engaged in Operation Honour and in trying to stamp out sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would love to get the minister's opinion on a recent decision made by the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Beaudry decision, where the appeal court is now essentially saying that any serious crimes committed by a member of the Canadian Armed Forces should be tried in a civilian court, not in the court martial system.

With all the cases that the court martial system and the judge advocate general is currently dealing with, I would like to hear the minister's opinion on: first, how that will impact morale and discipline within the Canadian Armed Forces, and the need we have for good order and discipline in the operations of the Canadian Armed Forces; and second, how that will impact the victims, those who are seeking justice, if they are thrown into the civilian system that has huge backlogs right now, which would otherwise be dealt with relatively quickly in the Canadian Armed Forces court martial system, and, more importantly, would allow Operation Honour to be fully implemented, with all members respecting that ethos within the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today for second reading debate of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Canada's military justice system has a long and proud history of helping to maintain a high level of discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has been asked by the Prime Minister to conduct a review of the criminal justice system.

It is in that same spirit that our government has committed to reviewing, modernizing and improving our civilian and military justice systems.

We are proposing a number of changes to the National Defence Act, some minor and others more significant. At the heart of these changes are our people, the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who make extraordinary sacrifices every day in the service of their country.

When we formed government, we promised to put people at the core of everything we did. I am proud to say that this focus on people especially applies to our defence team. Since launching our defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged” last year, we have done great work to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces culture and improve support to our members.

For example, we are investing in our military family resource centres by providing an additional $6 million per year to modernize military family support programs. This will provide more support to our military families when members are deploying or during long periods of absence. We are also helping to stabilize family life for Canadian Armed Forces members and their families, which frequently have to relocate. Through our seamless Canada initiative, we have started a dialogue with the provinces and territories to improve the coordination of services across provinces to ease the burden of moving. We have introduced tax-free status for all Canadian Armed Forces personnel that are deployed on named international operations.

These are just a few examples of what we are doing to look after our women and men in uniform.

Many members are aware of Operation Honour, which aims to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Through Operation Honour, we have introduced a new victim response centre, better training for Canadian Armed Forces personnel and easier reporting.

On a related note, our government is pleased to see the results of a comprehensive review of previously unfounded sexual assault cases conducted by the Canadian Forces provost marshal. Twenty-three cases have been reopened and identified for further investigation. I want to commend the Canadian Forces national investigation service and the provost marshal for their work in ensuring victims are heard.

The changes laid out in Bill C-77 build on Operation Honour and will further strengthen our ability to create a positive and respectful environment within our military.

Before I outline what is included in Bill C-77, I want to explain how the legislation fits within the broader context of what our government is doing to create workplaces that are free from harassment.

After we formed government, the Prime Minister gave me a specific mandate to work with senior leaders of the Canadian Armed Forces to establish and maintain a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. I spoke earlier about Operation Honour and how it was one tool we had to stamp out this unacceptable behaviour. However, it is not only in the military that we see these issues.

Over the last year, we have seen many acts of tremendous bravery, with victims speaking out and standing up to their abusers. I am proud of the efforts our government is taking to end this unacceptable behaviour.

For example, last spring, my colleague, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, introduced Bill C-65, which aims to prevent harassment and violence in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces. One of the key elements of the legislation is providing better support to victims of this unacceptable behaviour. It is in the same spirit that we are debating Bill C-77 today.

Let me now offer a broad overview of the changes we are proposing through Bill C-77.

To start, the amendments would clearly enshrine victims' rights in the military justice system. We know from a Department of Justice report that victims often feel excluded and even re-victimized by the criminal justice process. Bill C-77 would address these concerns by committing to a more victim-centred approach in our military justice system.

To do that, Bill C-77 proposes to add a declaration of victims' rights within the Code of Service Discipline. This declaration gives victims a voice. It will ensure that victims of service offences are informed, protected and heard. The declaration provides victims of service offences with four new rights.

The first is the right to information so victims understand the process that they are a part of, how the case is proceeding, which services and programs are available to them and how to file a complaint if they believe their rights under the declaration have been denied or infringed. Because of the unique nature of the military justice system, understanding it can be difficult and potentially intimidating. For those reasons this legislation also includes the appointment of victims' liaison officers to help guide victims through the process and inform them about the system. Under the victims' rights to information, they will also have access to information about the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who harmed them.

The second right is to protection, so victims' privacy and security are considered at all stages in the military justice system. Moreover, where it is appropriate, we will ensure their identities are protected. This right to protection also guarantees that reasonable and necessary measures are taken to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation.

The third right is to participation, so victims can express their views about the decisions to be made by military justice authorities and have those views considered. This right will ensure that victims' views and the harm and loss they have suffered can be fully considered. In addition, it will be possible to submit military and community impact statements to the court martial. These will convey the full extent of harm caused to the Canadian Armed Forces or the community as a result of the offence.

The fourth right is to restitution, so the court martial may consider making a restitution order for all offences where financial losses and damages can be reasonably determined.

The next important change introduced by the legislation relates to how indigenous offenders are sentenced. This stems from the evolution of Canada's civilian criminal justice system and our desire to ensure the military justice system reflects our times, while remaining responsive to its mandate.

As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, no relationship is more important to our government and to Canada than the one we have with indigenous peoples. Naturally, the fact that indigenous people are significantly overrepresented within the civilian criminal justice system is of grave concern to all of us. It is not enough to serve justice fairly. In a case like this, where we see such an imbalance, we must pursue the root causes of that imbalance and be considerate in our response.

The Criminal Code has provisions, introduced by Parliament, that have sought to alleviate the higher rate of incarceration for indigenous offenders. In fact, it calls for judges to consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable under the circumstances, with particular attention to circumstances of indigenous offenders.

While the military just system has not experienced any overrepresention of indigenous offenders, the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act reflect the civilian system's considerations for sentencing and our nation's history. Bill C-77 would enshrine those same principles in the military justice system.

Similarly, Bill C-77 aligns military justice with the civilian system where LGBTQ2 rights are concerned.

In June 2017, our government added gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In November, the Prime Minister issued a formal apology to LGBTQ2 Canadians for the historic wrongs and injustices they suffered because of their gender or sexuality.

The defence team has been working hard through initiatives like the positive space initiative to help create inclusive work environments for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. This bill is another step in that direction. It calls for harsher sanctions and sentences for service infractions and offences that are rooted in bias, hate or prejudice toward individuals based on their gender expression or identity. This change will foster a more inclusive and cohesive Canadian Armed Forces, while delivering justice for the victims of fear and prejudice.

The last category of changes introduced by this bill relate to broad efforts to make Canada's justice systems more flexible. In the case of the military justice system, the changes introduced by Bill C-77 would make the system faster and simpler. The summary hearing will be introduced and address minor breaches of military discipline in a non-penal and non-criminal manner. More serious matters will be directed to court martial and there will no longer be summary trials. The summary hearing would only deal with the new category of minor breaches of military discipline, known as service infractions. Service offences that are more major in nature will be dealt with at a court martial.

I want to be clear. There will be no criminal consequences for service infractions and military commanders who conduct summary hearings will be limited to non-penal sanctions to address them. This will improve the chain of command's ability to address minor breaches of military discipline fairly and more rapidly. We also expect it will enhance the responsiveness and efficiency of military discipline, thereby contributing to the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, is a policy that will guide us for the next 20 years. It clearly outlines that our government will continue to support the women and men of our Canadian Armed Forces. The military justice system is critical to how the Canadian Armed Forces accomplishes what it does every day. It sets up a framework for all service members to maintain an outstanding level of discipline and a high level or morale so they can successfully accomplish the difficult tasks asked of them. Knowing they are protected by the military justice system that keeps pace with the Canadian concepts of justice builds on the great unit cohesion among our forces as well.

It is a pleasure to see this legislation progress to second reading, something my Conservative colleagues could not manage when they tabled similar legislation in the dying days of the last Parliament. However, we will see this through as we continue to make every effort to deliver for the women and men of our Canadian Armed Forces and all Canadians. The drive to be fair, to be just and to restore that which has been harmed is a drive that dates back to the very foundations of our country and our armed forces.

Today, we take steps in the pursuit of justice; steps to take care of victims, while we seek to ensure justice is served; steps to ensure that indigenous peoples in the military justice system receive the same considerations on sentence as those in the civilian justice system; steps to uphold justice within our military so it can continue defending our country.

I want to thank everyone for working with us toward this very worthy goal.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I was deemed to have not spoken to this motion when it first moved.

As Bill C-77 is standing in my name, I would ask unanimous consent to be deemed to have not yet spoken to this motion in order to allow me to make a speech now.

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-82, the multilateral instrument in respect of tax conventions act.

Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-77 on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and of Bill C-78, the family law act.

Next Tuesday, October 2, shall be an allotted day.

Finally, for the rest of the week, priority shall be given to report stage and third reading of Bill C-79, the CPTPP implementation act; and the Senate amendments to Bill C-65, the framework for the prevention of harassment.

National Defence Act

[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, seeing that Bill C-77 basically copies the Harper Conservatives' bill, of course I support most of it.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked our colleague from Edmonton West an excellent question earlier, but we have not had an answer.

In case he did not understand the question, I will repeat it: does he agree with the provisions of Bill C-77?

[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.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as our government made clear when we tabled Bill C-77, Canada's military justice system is both unique and necessary. It contributes significantly to the ability of the Canadian Armed Forces to achieve its missions in Canada and around the world. However, it must also continue to evolve in order to represent Canadian values.

I would like to take this opportunity to reflect for a moment on the many different facets of our Canadian Armed Forces, including the facets that are manifest in our communities.

I would like to give particular thanks to two organizations in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore, the Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans Branch 262 and the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 82. I have watched them both work tirelessly to cultivate an environment where current and past members of the Canadian Armed Forces receive the support they need and deserve, while at the same time promoting a culture of leadership, respect and honour for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is exactly who we are putting first with this new bill.

Today, many of my colleagues spoke of the benefits of the set of amendments being made to strengthen the legislation. Allow me to take this important opportunity to provide context to this discussion by giving an overview of the current military justice system, some of its elements and how they actually work in practice.

The first thing parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians, should appreciate is that Canada's military justice system, while unique, forms part of a larger Canadian justice system, sharing many of the same underlying principles. It is subject to the same constitutional framework, including Canada's Constitution and of course our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Exactly like the civilian system, its overall role is to ensure that justice is administered fairly and with respect for the rule of law.

Military members are liable for their conduct under both the code of conduct service discipline and provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. However, the military justice system has a second purpose. It is also designed to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces. It does so by supporting the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale among military members.

The operational realities of military life mean that service members are often held to a higher standard of conduct than what would be expected of a civilian. That is because military personnel are often required to risk injury or even death in the performance of their duties, both inside and outside Canada. This necessitates discipline within and cohesion of military units.

The chain of command must have a legal mechanism it can employ to investigate and sanction disciplinary breaches. These breaches require a formal, fair and prompt response, one that ensures the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces reflects Canadian social values. Even though members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to the highest standards of conduct, they do not give up the rights that are afforded to them under Canadian law, including under the Constitution. However, an individual's rights coexist with the basic obligations of military service.

The Canadian Armed Forces' capacity to operate effectively depends on the ability of its leadership to instill and maintain that discipline. This is a balancing of rights against the need to maintain a disciplined and effective armed force. It is important to understand this when considering the Canadian military justice system. The challenges of the armed forces are profound and are not shrinking in magnitude, both domestically and overseas.

These realities of military life and service have been acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Canada. On multiple occasions, the court has directly addressed the importance of a distinct military justice system to meet the specific needs of the Canadian Armed Forces and its serving members.

In 1997, former chief justice of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, conducted an independent inquiry of the military justice system. In his report, he concluded that “the need for a separate and distinct military justice system is inescapable” and that the chain of command is central to this justice system.

The military justice system also enables Canada to respect its international obligation to hold members of the military accountable for their actions during naval, ground, and air operations, including those that fall under the law of armed conflict.

Two other independent inquiries of the military justice system have been carried out: one, by another former chief justice of Canada, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, in 2003; and the other, by the Hon. Patrick LeSage, former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in 2011.

Justice Lamer concluded, and Justice LeSage agreed, that “...Canada has developed a very sound and fair military justice framework in which Canadians can have trust and confidence.”

I want to assure my hon. colleagues that leadership and training are central to maintaining discipline, and furthermore that disciplinary action involving the military justice system is not to be taken lightly.

The military justice system ensures that military decision-makers act appropriately and within their authority when making decisions affecting a service member's rights. Such decisions must conform to the law and be just. A lack of fairness can seriously undermine cohesion, morale and discipline and it can adversely impact unit effectiveness.

While these disciplinary actions are not to be taken lightly, each year hundreds of service members find themselves before the military justice system. It is a system that is used and it is a system that must be effective and efficient.

When there are reasons to believe there has been an offence, an investigation is conducted to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to lay a charge. If the complaint is of a serious or sensitive nature, the Canadian Armed Forces National Investigation Service examines the complaint and then investigates as appropriate. Otherwise, investigations are conducted by military police or at the unit level. With the exception of certain service offences of a minor nature, legal advice is required before a charge may be laid.

The military justice system employs a two-tiered tribunal structure. More serious matters are addressed at court martial where a military judge presides, whereas minor matters maybe dealt with at summary trial, where there are qualified officers who preside. Both tribunals can be held wherever the Canadian Armed Forces are deployed and this is an operational necessity.

Courts martial are formal military courts and they are presided over by independent military judges. These tribunals are designed to deal with more serious offences and they are similar to Canadian civilian criminal courts.

The accused person is entitled always to be represented at a court martial by defence counsel from the director of defence counsel services at no cost or by a civilian counsel at his or her own expense. There are two types of courts martial. A standing court martial is conducted by a military judge who sits alone and who is responsible for the finding on the charges and imposing a sentence if the accused person is found guilty. For the most serious offences, or if chosen by the accused person, a general court martial will be convened where the case is presided over by a military judge and the verdict is decided by a panel of five other members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Summary trials are designed to deal with relatively minor offences. That is important for the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency at the unit level. These trials are presided over by officers from within the accused person's chain of command, including commanding officers, delegated officers to whom a commanding officer has delegated his or her powers and superior commanders. All presiding officers are trained in a curriculum established by the judge advocate general and are certified to perform their duties. Summary trials allow military commanders to administer discipline, enabling members to return to duty as soon as possible.

An offender may request a review of the findings of a summary trial by a review authority. If he or she remains unsatisfied, the offender may then appeal for judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada.

In each and every case, an accused has the right to be tried in the official language of her or his choice and, in each and every case, an offender convicted at a court martial has the right to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, a civilian court comprised of three judges selected from the Federal Court of Canada. These decisions can in turn be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The military justice system remains a vital facet of the Canadian Armed Forces. It must also continue to evolve to meet the expectations of Canadians and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is precisely what Bill C-77 sets out to do.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to strengthening victims' rights within the military justice system. The Code of Service Discipline recognizes the harmful impact of service offences on victims.

Bill C-77 makes two significant changes to the Conservative bill with respect to sentencing. One of those is that it adds gender identity and gender expression as special consideration in sentencing. Could my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour reflect on that change in sentencing provisions?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his great work on the Standing Committee on National Defence.

I wonder if he could talk a bit about how this framework in Bill C-77 connects with the excellent reputation of the Canadian Forces abroad, the discipline, the operational effectiveness and the feedback that we are getting from our allies and pretty much anybody with whom we interact overseas on the great work that we are doing in peacekeeping and international security.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated from the outset in response to the parliamentary secretary's speech, the NDP is very proud to support the bill. In response to another question for the Conservative member, our position is that we want to get the bill to committee as soon as possible.

No bill is perfect and we have some suggestions of a constructive nature that would deal with strengthening the rights of indigenous people who serve our country in the military.

As I indicated in a question for the parliamentary secretary that we believe the code of service, the service offences and the discipline changes ought to occur to address those who attempt to take their own lives, a far too common occurrence in the military. We do not think that should be the subject of discipline as it currently is now. We think a more compassionate approach is required. Therefore, we will work, I hope arm in arm with the government and the Conservatives, to see if we can effect those changes at committee when we get there.

As a little background, the bill before us enacts reforms to the military justice system that were left out of Bill C-15 from the previous Conservative government, which received assent five years ago, in 2013. It is not clear why the Liberals did not introduce changes earlier to complete the system, but better late than never would be how I would summarize the position in which we find ourselves.

This is a good legislation. We are not alone in taking that position. It was said by Lindsay Rodman, a fellow of the Global Affairs Institute, in the Globe and Mail earlier this year. By establishing a victims bill of rights in the military, as this bill would do, it would mirror protections that already exist for Canadian civilians with one additional provision. That provision in the bill. It calls for the creation of a “victim liaison officer” to help shepherd the victim through the justice system. This is a very laudable step for the armed forces to take and it will go some distance to deal with the pernicious issue of sexual assault in the military. I commend the government for realizing that. This step, although not sufficient in and of itself, will be very valuable in getting more justice for those kinds of victims. I salute the government for such a creative position.

What happens until Bill C-77 is enacted? That commanding and designated officers, with often no legal training, preside at summary trials in the military justice system.

Summary trials are where most of the action is, where most of the offences are dealt with in a summary fashion for the vast majority. These people are not legally trained. They are not required to prepare a transcript of the proceedings. There is no ability to effectively appeal. There is no requirement to apply rules of evidence to assure a fair trial. An accused person can be compelled to testify against herself or himself. Therefore, there is no constitutional right to protection against self-incrimination. Adverse inferences can be drawn from the silence of the accused and the accused cannot be assisted by legal representation.

Those are serious drawbacks in our system of military justice. It did not need to be this way. Other countries have given criminal justice over to the civilian courts in the context of military discipline. In other words, there is no similar provision in the National Defence Act of the kind before us today.

The need to overhaul rights for the accused is as important as dealing, as the government so laudably has, with victims in the military justice system.

Perhaps I can be forgiven if I try to put this debate in a slightly broader context. Why do we have a separate system of military justice in the first place? People watching this debate may wonder that because other countries have not chosen to do so at all. For example, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium and France have removed criminal offences from the jurisdiction of military courts. Their military personnel have the same rights in the same courts as civilians.

Therefore, Canadians may wonder, why is it that we do have this separate system of military justice, and why is it so important that in this bill we move to modernize it and bring it into compliance and conformity with the rights that Canadians have elsewhere? That is a fair question. The answer to that is that the courts of Canada have long accepted that there needs to be a separate military justice system for people in the military. Chief Justice Lamer, in 1992 in the Supreme Court of Canada, said 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.”

Those words are now found in the amendments before us today in recognition and confirmation by Parliament of what the Supreme Court has said. Those words were also repeated in a subsequent case in 2015 by Justice Cromwell in the Moriarity case. However, the difference is that the court now has said we do not need to have things pertain directly to the military; there does not have to be what Justice Cromwell called a “nexus” to the military. There was just a broad understanding that we need to have this separate code as a consequence. Therefore, people might ask, why do we need to have a separate code of military justice? Indeed, the charter acknowledges that it will be separate. For example, there is no trial by jury, per section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter acknowledges that there will be military tribunals and military law, so even in our Constitution we accept that this would be necessary.

These offences can occur, I remind members, abroad or in Canada. If our military men and women are serving in Mali, they will be subject to the same sort of code in that country, not the country in question where they are serving but under Canadian military law and there is the special Code of Service Discipline, which is at issue. Part III of the National Defence Act before us adds this declaration of victims' rights to that code, but that code contemplates that we need, for purposes of discipline in the field, to have a separate disciplinary jurisdiction for service offences that may be, as my Conservative colleague acknowledged, not offences in the normal course of criminal law but pertain particularly to the need for military discipline no matter where people are serving, such as arms misconduct in the presence of the enemy, mutiny, disobedience of a lawful command, desertion, absence without leave, negligent performance of duty and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. That is a pretty big waterfront of things that can go wrong if one is serving in the military, and that is why there need to be broader rights granted to the accused individuals so they can face their accuser with the same kind of rights that Canadians have come to expect under our Constitution and under our criminal law system. That is why this bill is so important and so long overdue.

What would this bill do? Among other things, we have talked about the victims' rights aspect of this bill, but it also deals with a number of important principles that would dramatically change the military justice system. I would just like to make sure I get the wording right in describing that. Among other things, in addition to this declaration of victims' rights in the Code of Service Discipline, there are other things that are added or amended in that code. First, it confirms that the purpose of the code and the fundamental purpose of imposing sanctions is to protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences; specifying factors that a military judge can take into consideration when determining whether to make an exclusion order; and a lot of additional changes to the way in which witnesses can testify, even allowing them to do so with a pseudonym in appropriate cases.

These are things that would never be permitted in normal courts but are recognized as important in the context of the unique requirements of discipline in the military. There is the ability on application to make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 and so forth.

It seems to me that there are some really positive changes in the bill that need to be supported by members on all sides of the House.

For several years we have had the concept of victim impact statements. Why would that not be applicable in the context of military justice? There is no reason why not, and I proud to see that the bill would allow that to occur in the circumstances of military justice as well.

As I said, we have two types of military justice, two parallel tracks as the courts have said: regular civilian criminal law and the Code of Service Discipline in part III of the National Defence Act. The goal of this legislation, as I understand it, is to bring those in closer harmony so that the accused will increasingly have the rights that we have discussed and take for granted in the criminal justice system, while taking into account the needs of military discipline as well.

It is going to be a balancing judgment. When the bill gets to committee there will be some things that we may want to address to ensure that we have that balance right. By everyone's acknowledgement in the House, the bill is an enormous improvement over the status quo, but we still have quite a considerable distance to go if we are going to get that balance right.

I will speak to two things that need to be addressed when we get to committee and have the opportunity to roll up our sleeves and deal with this in trying to achieve the best balance.

We need to have greater protection for those suffering from mental illness. In my riding, and I am sure in the ridings of all members in this place, we have seen people who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. We used to call it “shell shock” in the First World War. It is now manifesting itself in so many different ways. People are coming home crippled and wounded, not just in a physical sense but wounded mentally. In the 21st century, we have to do better at providing justice for those people who put their lives on the line for us but come home and often find they do not have the services they need.

What about when they are serving in the forces, however? Will they be stigmatized if they attempt suicide? Will they face disciplinary sanctions because it is a problem in terms of the line of command and discipline? We cannot have that. In a civilized country like ours, while acknowledging as I do the need for discipline, we cannot have people penalized for crying out for help because of a mental disorder, probably exacerbated if not caused by their service to their country. That has to be fixed and we are going to work with the government to fix it when we get to committee.

As has been acknowledged, there have been some things to improve the lot of indigenous people who served in the military. These are long overdue. When we work constructively in committee, we can make some positive changes to this aspect in the bill as well. In the proposed bill, judges are allowed to take into account the circumstances of aboriginal offenders when determining sentencing. That has been the law in the rest of the land since the Gladue principle in 1999, but it needs to find its way into the code of military justice, and it will, thanks to Bill C-77. Is that sufficient? We will suggest some improvements when the bill gets to committee.

This legislation should be understood as completing the reforms to the military justice system that were proposed under the previous Conservative government but left out when Bill C-15 was adopted in the 41st Parliament. It has taken over two years for the Liberals to finish the job and get the bill before us. We are getting there. We have improvements before us.

I am very happy this morning to note the goodwill on all sides to get this right, but we need to be treating our military personnel with the same kinds of rights, largely, as they are entitled to under the charter. The charter does apply to military justice. I did not want to leave anyone with the impression that because there is reference in the charter to military justice and military tribunals, with the charter saying that no juries will be part of that system, that somehow the section 7 legal rights of the accused, etc., are not fully there.

The problem, as we know, is that there are limitations on the charter. The government has the ability to say that the charter rights of an individual civilian may be larger than those in the military because it can say it can demonstrably demonstrate that those limits are justified in a free and democratic society. That is how the military justice system gets to kind of erode the rights that would otherwise be available to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It says these limits are required because of the nature of being in the military. I understand that, but as much as possible, of course, our goal should be to ensure that those rights are as close to those available in civilian courts as possible.

Mr. Justice Gilles Létourneau, formerly of the Federal Court, and Professor Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel in the military, have written a book called Military Justice in Action. It is a gigantic tome that demonstrates there is a huge body of law that the JAG and people who defend military personnel before court martial, appeal tribunals and so forth, have had to learn. It is now well entrenched, ever since we have had a military in this country, that there are these parallel tracks.

The goal of Bill C-77, in short, should be to demonstrate why the limits that are there, the legitimate limits for morale and discipline, cannot approach those in civilian courts. If other countries have seen fit to eliminate military justice in the criminal context and give it entirely over to civilian courts, it is up to the government to demonstrate why the rights of the accused are somehow lesser simply because service members had joined the military. One might say that the rights should be broader because they are the patriots, putting their lives on the line for the rest of us. However, I do acknowledge continually that the courts have made clear that legitimate discipline and morale issues in Canada have been affirmed to require a separate track.

Our job, in short, as we address Bill C-77, is twofold. It is to make sure that the rights of the victims, the declaration that this bill contains, is not simply an empty declaration, but that we can make sure that those words mean something to those who have suffered as victims and, equally important, that the rights of accused are as broad as those enjoyed by other Canadians, unless the military can justify and demonstrate clearly that they need those restrictions on charter rights for purposes of discipline. This bill goes a great distance to achieving that goal. New Democrats will work with the government to make sure that we get it right, and we look forward to the opportunity to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

Maybe some amendments will be proposed, but overall, we are strongly in favour of Bill C-77 in its current form. We need to take a closer look at some of the details, but at this point I cannot say whether any amendments will be proposed or what they might be. For us, it is important for the bill to get to committee as soon as possible so that it can be passed quickly.

[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.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, how does the new defence policy of our government inform Bill C-77? How does this bill help victims in the military justice system? Could the parliamentary secretary elaborate on that?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As I mentioned, we want to include indigenous peoples and the LGBTQ community in this bill. Our government is very determined to strengthen victims' rights in the military justice system.

In addition to guaranteeing victims' rights are respected, Bill C-77 includes a provision to ensure that the military justice system considers the situation of indigenous offenders when determining the sentence. Additionally, it sets out harsher sentences for military offences motivated by prejudice towards the LGBTQ community.

I know that this bill is very important for all members of Parliament. These provisions were not in the bill that the Conservatives introduced just before the last election. We wanted to ensure that these communities were included in the bill. For that reason our bill is very different from the Conservatives' bill.

[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?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his co-operation on this bill.

As I said earlier, Bill C-77 puts victims first. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen victims' rights within the military justice system by establishing a victims bill of rights in the Code of Service Discipline. That is very important to our government. Respect for victims' rights will be guaranteed through the creation of a victim liaison officer who will support them during the judicial process and help them navigate the justice system.

I know my colleague's question pertains more to a separate issue, but we want to work with our colleagues. I can assure my colleague that we are prepared to look at any number of ways we can further improve our system, which is already fair and effective. This bill will strengthen victims' rights. It is a robust bill that will be fair with respect to victims' rights.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be addressing the House today on the subject of this important bill. This is my first time speaking as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

Before I begin, I want to thank all the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces for the outstanding service they give every day to this country and to all Canadians. We are deeply grateful to them.

I also want to thank the staff of the Department of National Defence. I am very much looking forward to working with them. They work hard every day to make sure we get solid policy and strong legislation, and we greatly appreciate their efforts.

Lastly, I want to thank all our veterans. We owe them a tremendous debt. They fought tirelessly so that we could live in this big, beautiful country.

I am also really looking forward to working with the Minister of National Defence. I think we are going to get some amazing things done this year.

The Prime Minister asked our colleague, the Minister of Justice, to do a comprehensive review of the justice system. In the same spirit, our government is committed to reviewing, modernizing and improving our civil and military justice systems.

Bill C-77 will bring our military justice system in line with the kind of justice system the Canadian Armed Forces are entitled to and the kind Canadians expect.

Canada's military justice system is rooted in centuries of practice around the world. Monarchs, army generals and political leaders have long recognized the importance of having a disciplined military.

A series of studies and public inquiries were conducted following the legislative changes made between 1998 and 2013. Those changes resulted in the system we have in place today.

Today, we are proposing a number of changes to the National Defence Act. Some are minor changes, while others are more significant. Central to those changes are the members of our military forces. The women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces make extraordinary sacrifices for their country every day.

Bill C-77 provides for changes that will improve the military justice system by ensuring that the system provides proper support for the Canadian Armed Forces in its efforts to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale within its ranks.

These changes will also reflect our government's promise to promote reconciliation and renew our relationship with indigenous peoples.

These changes will discourage prejudice- or hate-motivated behaviour toward the LGBTQ community based on gender identity or expression. They will also ensure that the rights of victims will be protected throughout the judicial process and that both people and support for military families are our top priorities.

Before I continue, I would like to come back to the Auditor General's report on the administration of justice in the Canadian Armed Forces, which was released last spring, shortly after Bill C-77 was introduced.

We thank the Auditor General for his important work, and we accept his recommendations. Unfortunately, this report shows how the previous government neglected not only our troops but also the military justice system, which is an important part of military discipline and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces.

These recommendations were very timely, since the government had just introduced a bill to improve the military justice system.

Unlike the previous government, we are determined to ensure that we have an effective military justice system. What is more, I can assure the House that the judge advocate general is already engaged in the implementation phase of her action plan to respond to each of the auditor's nine recommendations.

These measures include a new case management system that makes it possible for cases to be monitored in real time, as well as a new performance evaluation tool to help us assess how well the military justice system is working.

This will help significantly reduce delays by improving the way military justice cases are managed. However, this is not just about speeding up the process. We also want to ensure that the system works well for everyone.

Now I would like to talk about some of the changes we are proposing in the bill. I hope I can count on all my colleagues to support this important initiative for all our women and men in uniform.

The proposed summary hearings will help improve the flexibility and effectiveness of the military justice system by allowing the chain of command to address minor service infractions quickly and fairly at the unit level.

Naturally, the most serious cases will be referred to the courts martial. There will be no summary process and military commanders who preside over a summary hearing will only be able to impose non-criminal penalties for service offences.

Since launching our “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defence policy last year, we have worked very hard to strengthen the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces and improve support for our members. Accordingly, another important change set out in the bill being debated in the House today concerns the sentencing process for indigenous offenders.

The Prime Minister has stated that there is no relationship more important to our government and to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. We are all greatly concerned by the fact that indigenous people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. I would like to point out that this is not the case in the military justice system. Thanks to real measures such as this one, we will strengthen our nation-to-nation relationship and continue our journey of healing.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-77 are in line with what we are doing with Operation HONOUR, and they will help us create a positive, respectful environment within our armed forces. I must digress a little bit to say that, regardless of this bill, all forms of inappropriate sexual conduct are completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated within the Canadian Armed Forces or within our society. This is why we are taking decisive action as part of Operation HONOUR to combat and eliminate this type of behaviour. We will continue working until all of our members are able to carry out their duties in an environment free from harassment and discrimination.

The biggest change this bill will bring about is that it will enshrine the rights of victims in the military justice system. This is a victim-based approach that protects victims' rights.

We will make sure that military justice aligns with the civil system with respect to LGBTQ2 rights. In 2017, our government added gender identity and expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act. At the same time, we have been working hard to change the culture, through Operation HONOUR and other initiatives, to make our forces more diverse and inclusive. This bill is another step in that direction.

It calls for harsher sanctions and penalties for service infractions or offences motivated by prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression. The biggest change proposed in Bill C-77 is clearly aimed at establishing rights for all victims within the military justice system. A new division entitled “Declaration of Victims Rights” will be added to the Code of Service Discipline to specify that victims have a right to information, protection and participation throughout the military justice process.

The new provisions of this act will have a clear, perceptible and real impact on the military justice system. The declaration will give victims a voice and support. It will protect four new rights for service offence victims.

The first new right is the right to information, which will ensure that victims understand the process and the services and programs at their disposal, including the process for filing a complaint if they believe that their rights under the declaration have been infringed or denied. The military justice system can be intimidating and hard to understand. That is why we are adding this provision.

The bill provides for the appointment of liaison officers to guide the victim through the process and explain how the system works. Victims also have the right to be informed about the investigation and prosecution of the offence and the sentence handed down to the person who caused them harm.

Then, there is the right to protection, which guarantees that the safety and privacy of victims will be taken into account at every step of the military justice process. That includes protection of victims' identity, when necessary, and measures to protect them from intimidation or retaliation.

The right to participation guarantees victims the right to share their views with military justice system authorities and ensures that those views are taken into account when authorities make their decision. Victims can also present a victim impact statement before the court martial so that the military judge fully understands the harm done to the victim when determining the offender's sentence.

However, victims are not always just people, which is why Bill C-77 also allows military and community impact statements to be considered so that judges are aware of the extent of the damage that an offence caused to the Canadian Armed Forces or to the community.

Finally, the right to restitution means that victims have the right to seek compensation for any financial losses or damages incurred as a result of an offence.

Bill C-77 proposes much-needed changes to the military justice system so that it can continue to meet Canadians' expectations and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Lastly, the bill introduces a more victim-centred approach that protects victims' rights. Clearly, the bill deserves our support so that we can implement a better military justice system for Canadians. I believe it is the right thing to do, and I hope that all my colleagues in this House will support this bill so that it can move forward.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, for the Minister of National Defence]

moved that Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue third reading debate of Bill C-71, the firearms legislation. Tomorrow, we will have second reading debate of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.

On Monday, we will return to the second reading of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. We also hope to start debating Bill C-78.

National Defence

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, during this Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, we are reiterating our commitment to strengthening victims' rights in our military justice system. By introducing Bill C-77, we are adding a declaration of victims' rights to the Code of Service Discipline under the National Defence Act.

This bill includes a provision to incorporate indigenous consideration, something the previous Conservative government neglected to include.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I know it's kind of a truism that opposition members aren't always happy at estimates discussions, but this is making me very happy. Again, I congratulate you on the initiatives that you've taken and give you the assurance that New Democrats have agreed that we will expedite Bill C-77 in any way possible in order to support the work you're already doing.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

There is great news in the fact that on May 10, Bill C-77 was tabled in Parliament, and we'll have to let it follow its parliamentary process in order for it to be approved and come into force. I'm also pleased to say that, while this is occurring, we are not immobile, and we're not looking at this as unfolding work. We're taking concrete action to implement as many rights as possible for victims within the military justice system and to ensure that indigenous sentencing considerations are made by courts even as the act follows its course.

In fact, what the legislation will do in many respects is to enshrine into legislation those rights and those considerations that are already, in large part, being provided for by policy directions that have been given either by the director of military prosecutions or by our service tribunals.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I have to say this is something I've followed since I was elected to Parliament, and finally, we're making some progress, so my congratulations to you on the progress that we are making in this area.

Two things were left out of Bill C-15 and are now before Parliament in Bill C-77 , and those were provisions with regard to victims in the military justice system and also the provisions with regard to the treatment of aboriginal offenders within the military justice system. My question is really about whether the delays in getting this legislation into force will impair the new reforms. In other words, I'm feeling things would be better if these were implemented at the same time. We have a lot of changes taking place without the victims' rights part and without the aboriginal offender part.

Do you have any comment on that? Would that require further adjustments and further training?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, members of the standing committee, thank you very much for having me here today. It's kind of nice not to be in the committee of the whole, although I kind of miss that too. We had such a bonding experience for all of us during those four hours.

I appreciate the opportunity for me to present on the main estimates for national defence for the fiscal year 2018–19. I'm very pleased to appear before you in the company of my deputy minister, Jody Thomas; Shelly Bruce, the acting chief of the Communications Security Establishment; Rear-Admiral Darren Hawco, who is the acting vice chief of the defence staff; and senior members of my defence team who you see here today.

In just over a week, we will celebrate the anniversary of the launch of our new defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, SSE. The policy was not only a road map for the next 20 years, but it was a commitment to do defence differently, a commitment to move toward a mindset of investing in our armed forces. Through SSE, we have committed to increasing the annual defence spending to $32 billion over the next 10 years, an increase of over 70%.

In one year's time, we have accomplished quite a bit and we are very proud of that and very proud of the team that has accomplished this.

Today I will detail some of the most significant accomplishments in line with our main estimates. In SSE, we said that care for Canadian Armed Forces personnel would be our primary focus. We said we would offer enhanced tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members on deployed international operations. We have done that. We said we would launch a suicide prevention strategy with Veterans Affairs. We did that. We promised to integrate gender-based analysis plus into our activities, and that has happened. We announced $6 million in new annual funding for the military family resource centres, and that has been delivered. We said we would appoint a diversity champion and implement a new charter for the sexual misconduct response centre. This also has been done. We said we would further modernize the military justice system. We have tabled Bill C-77, which introduces a declaration of victims' rights and will make the overall system more efficient.

On innovation, we promised to introduce the IDEaS program to seek out the best defence and security ideas across the country. That has been done.

On procurement, we said we would give the military what it needs to do the important work. That is well under way. We said we would explore an interim fighter capability now. We are examining the acquisition of 18 Australian F-18s. We said we would also launch an open competition for the future fighter, and that has been done. We also have a new fleet of 16 Airbus C-295s for search and rescue. The first one is scheduled to be delivered at the end of 2019. For the navy, we are acquiring a fleet of five to six Arctic patrol ships, the first of which is expected next year. We are hiring more people into the materiel group to help deliver on these and other procurement projects.

In many ways, the successful implementation of our policy so far is due to the way we manage our cash flow and support a flexible funding model. In last year's main and supplementary estimates, we requested $20.97 billion. For the second year in a row, we will have no lapsed funding. This has not been done at DND since the early 2000s. Instead, we will be carrying over $677 million. This is done for a very good reason: the department cannot reduce this further without taking the chance of overspending its appropriation at the end of the year.

A small, unplanned change in forecast may make such a difference. For example, a one-cent fluctuation in the U.S. exchange rate costs us approximately $16 million. All of this reflects better forecasting for capital investments and other improved financial management practices. In addition to reducing the discrepancies between forecasted and actual spending, the department only requests funding it knows it can spend. For instance, we planned to bring in $6 billion last year for capital investments, but ended up requesting just $4 billion. Here's why: about 30% of the funds were unspent because we were able to cut costs through better contracts and unused risk mitigation strategy, which is a good thing.

For example, in some cases we put aside funding to pay for intellectual property, but this expense did not materialize over the first year of the projects, and 27% of the unspent funds were the result of our own internal processes and the additional time required to analyze options for some of the projects. We will continue to review our project management process to find greater efficiencies.

Another 42% of the unspent money is related to delays in delivering goods and services by industry. Simply put, we will not pay for non-performance. We take this extremely seriously. This is why we are introducing new initiatives to increase our collaboration with industry and help reduce such delays.

Other changes to our financial management have also helped us to get to where we are today. Our shift to the accrual basis of accounting enables better, longer-term planning of defence capabilities over the next 20-year period. Because our funding model is flexible, we are not forced to spend money before it is the right time to do so. This strategy to request funds only when they are needed offers greater transparency to parliamentarians and to Canadians.

Also in the vein of openness and transparency is our plan to release our first defence investment plan publicly. This will be done very shortly. This publication will ensure that Canadians and the defence industry can see where we will be making capital investments so they can engage with us accordingly. In fact, I look forward to speaking about the plan with industry professionals tomorrow at CANSEC.

So far, I have focused on the work that we are doing to support the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, but I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to reflect upon what they have accomplished this past year.

At home, we have performed life-saving evacuations of Canadians at risk from wildfires and offered critical assistance to flood relief efforts in Ontario, New Brunswick, and British Columbia.

Abroad, about 1,900 personnel are currently deployed on 18 active international operations, including in Latvia, Iraq, and Ukraine. As you know, we will deploy an air task force to Mali as part of our commitment to peace support operations.

So, Mr. Chair, all of this brings us to the funds we are requesting under these main estimates. We have achieved tremendous momentum through good work in the last year. The task at hand is to build upon that momentum, continue supporting our forces, and serve Canadians. For that, we are requesting $20.38 billion. That is $1.7 billion more than last year, or a 9.2% increase.

Within this, $1 billion is for operating expenses, $658 million is for capital expenditures, $12 million is for grants and contributions, and $9.2 million is for statutory allocations.

The difference between the $20.38 billion in the main estimates and the $21 billion that appears for the fiscal year in SSE will be covered by requests made through the supplementary estimates process. Those costs relate mostly to operations and capital projects.

We recognize how complex the defence budget is, so our CFO and I will be happy to walk you through any of the budgeting in detail so that we can provide further clarity.

Let me assure you that we remain on track to implement our defence policy over the next 20 years.

I am also requesting $624.9 million for the Communications Security Establishment. That is roughly $28.9 million more than in last year's main estimates. These funds will help maintain the security of our IT systems while ensuring that the sensitive information Canadians entrust to government is protected.

Mr. Chair, before I close, I would like to take a moment to thank all the parliamentarians for the tremendous work that all of you have done, and on that note, I'll be happy to take any of your questions.

Thank you.

National Defence Act

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)