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 so.

[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.

[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 have provided by Justice Fish, we have accepted; the work that Madame Deschamps brought on, highlighting the problem that is facing the Canadian Armed Forces; and also 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 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.