Bill C-66 (Historical)

Military Justice System Modernization Act

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act that relate to the military justice system in response to the Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence and the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
In response to those reports, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the process for appointing the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services with a view to enhancing their independence;
(b) affirm the Judge Advocate General’s respect for the independence of authorities in the military justice system in the exercise of the Judge Advocate General’s superintendence of the administration of military justice;
(c) remove the court martial’s jurisdiction to try a person in relation to an offence under the Criminal Code that is alleged to have been committed in Canada and that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose;
(d) remove the Canadian Armed Forces’ authority to investigate an offence under the Criminal Code that is alleged to have been committed in Canada and that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose;
(e) expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge;
(f) expand the class of persons who may make an interference complaint and provide that a member of the military police or person performing policing duties or functions under the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s supervision must make such a complaint in certain circumstances; and
(g) change the title of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to the Provost Marshal General.
In addition, the enactment amends the National Defence Act to remove military judges from the summary hearing system and to provide that, in the context of a service offence, an individual acting on behalf of a victim may request that a victim’s liaison officer be appointed to assist them.
It further amends that Act to harmonize the sex offender information and publication ban provisions with the amendments made to the Criminal Code in An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act .
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, provide superior courts of criminal jurisdiction with the jurisdiction to hear applications for an exemption in respect of orders to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act made under the National Defence Act and applications to vary the duration of such orders.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to have a cultural change. I am reading the new defence policy, and on page 17, it clearly mentions all we have to do. This is the work that was complemented by the introduction of Bill C-66. That work can only be completed if we get this bill through. The sooner we get that done, the sooner we will be able to achieve what we all want to achieve, which is justice for the members who protect Canada and Canadians.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island. I would like to take a minute to recognize a resident from Langford, Mr. Matt Gariepy, who recently retired from the Royal Canadian Navy after 23 years of service. I congratulate Matt.

Today I am honoured to speak on behalf of the brave men and women serving our country in the Canadian Armed Forces. As a veteran myself, I am proud to have worked with so many heroic men and women, and I share much respect for those who have served and continue to serve. I understand first-hand the support that all people in uniform need, and I have made it part of my mission to continue to listen and to ensure that their needs are met.

Unfortunately, all too often, people in uniform are impacted by military sexual trauma, an issue that Bill C-11 looks to address. My Conservative colleagues and I wholeheartedly believe that we must address and provide realistic solutions to the issues of sexual misconduct, racism, sexism and other forms of harassment in the military. All military members deserve to have a safe and respectful workplace, especially given the amount of sacrifice we already ask of them and their families.

Deschamps, Fish and Arbour are three former Supreme Court justices who have released separate reports dealing with sexual misconduct in the military, the first of which was published in 2015, yet we are still waiting for a majority of the recommendations to be implemented. Less than half of them had been implemented as of the last public updates, and I am at a loss as to why the government has sat on its hands and ignored our military members again and again, especially those who are suffering from military sexual trauma. They deserve better than what the Liberal government has yet to give them.

Under the current system, victims and their families have no answers, and their cases continue to sit, awaiting proper action. It is 10 years and three separate reports later, and we are finally seeing the Liberal government start to implement legislation to help deal with the horrific travesties of justice, something the Liberal government should have dealt with years ago.

Though desperately late, Bill C-11 has the potential to meet one of the many outstanding recommendations that need to be implemented from the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports. The bill is something the Conservatives want sent to committee, where it clearly needs rigorous study. We need to hear from experts, including those in the legal community, and we need to hear from victims and those who have served or are still serving.

Unfortunately the legislation is not without issue. Conservatives already spoke to numerous stakeholders about the bill when it was in its previous form, Bill C-66, and there are many questions and concerns that must be addressed, which is why we support the bill in principle but believe it requires in-depth study at committee.

One of the concerns that has been brought forward is that the legislation would open the door to increased political interference with new Governor in Council appointments of the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal. They would be moved from their current reporting structure under the judge advocate general, and while the intention of the change is well-meaning, meant to create independence from the military and the judge advocate general, it would ultimately give more power to the minister of national defence.

Not only would the minister have direct control over the key investigatory and legal positions in the Canadian Armed Forces, but the change would also allow them to issue guidelines related to Bill C-11 with respect to prosecutions. While the change would mitigate military interference, it would also open the door to direct political interference. Given the evidence we have seen first-hand of increased political interference from the Liberal government over the last decade, it raises concerns that this pattern may be even worse under the legislation. I am talking about cases like Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and the former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance.

Moreover, the logistics around the lengths of the appointments and the process of how individuals would be appointed is unclear. There would be no consistency with the other Governor in Council appointments. We must address these issues before implementing the bill.

The bill indicates that investigations and prosecutions would be moved under civilian authority for sexual misconduct cases that take place within Canada, which we support, but what about the cases that take place abroad while on deployment? Those would still be investigated and prosecuted by the military police, who often already struggle to successfully investigate and prosecute under the current system, and now the concern is that those skills would only atrophy, as they would see fewer cases. This must be considered and accounted for in legislation to ensure that Canadian Armed Forces members can be properly served justice at home or while deployed abroad.

Additionally, while the military police can still start investigations of these cases on Canadian soil, they are to pass the investigation along to civilian investigators as soon as possible. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to ensure that these investigations are unhindered. This brings us back to the concern over political interference.

An unhindered civilian investigation will be vital to the success of cases in civilian court, so it is key that the bill outlines that process and includes the importance of unobstructed, independent investigation. There need to be tight protocols for the collection and sharing of information related to the investigations, and there need to be solid protocols for unrestricted access by civilian investigators. These are only a few examples of the key issues that will require rigorous committee examination of the bill.

The last concern I wish to speak to today is that of the capacity of the civilian courts to take on these cases. We have seen, over the last 10 years, the civilian courts become more and more overwhelmed because of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies. The bill would only add to a system that is already over capacity. This may lead to prosecutors' refusing to try a case because of an unlikely probability of conviction. What recourse will this leave victims? Internal service code of discipline punishments may still be possible, but will they happen?

I fear that this will just feed the mentality of excusing systemic military sexual trauma in the Canadian Armed Forces. Our service members do not feel safe or respected. They do not feel supported or honoured by the government. We must deal with the issue of sexual misconduct and harassment so that our forces can begin to feel that respect. Many military sexual trauma survivors are being released or quitting the Armed Forces, along with many others who face systemic issues in the military, which is having a huge impact on recruitment and retention.

We are short approximately 16,500 members in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are desperately short on the hard-working men and women who train up our troops to deploy on missions. Currently, there are over 10,000 undertrained and undeployable members in uniform. That is, over 10,000 men and women do not have the skills or necessary training to perform the jobs they have been hired to do.

This is both unsustainable and embarrassing for Canada as a nation. We must do everything we can to ensure that the supports our troops actually need and that they are asking for are implemented so that they can feel safe and respected in the workplace, be it on base in Canada or deployed in Latvia.

Over the last few days of debate, we have heard a lot about the big names who have been accused of sexual misconduct, such as the admirals and generals who have been charged. Of course, that is what we hear in the news. However, my concern is for the names that do not make the news: the young lieutenant who was repeatedly raped by his commanding officer; the corporal who has gone to her commanders only to be told the evidence is not there, or worse, have the evidence swept under the rug; the young sergeant who was pinned down and raped by her peers because she had received a prestigious award; or the master corporal who was raped by a fellow allied service member in Latvia, outside Canadian jurisdiction and where local authorities are not willing to prosecute. I have heard first-hand as Canadian Forces National Investigation Service members told a victim that they had all the pieces needed to get a solid conviction, but they have been told not to prosecute because it would reflect poorly on the military.

These are all examples of MST victims that I personally know. I have met them, and they have shared their stories with me. These are all examples of what victims are dealing with.

This is why we need to move cases to civilian court and why Conservatives generally support Bill C-11, despite its being 10 years late. We need to make sure these changes are implemented effectively through detailed examination in committee. It is good to see some common agreement in the House on some of the overall goals of the bill. I look forward to resolving these issues in detail in committee so that we can bring the bill back for third reading and see proper legislation in place.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always with great pride that I rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

That is especially true when we are discussing our armed forces since the Valcartier military base is a just a few kilometres from my riding. It is very well represented by the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier. As with all members who have a military base in their area, there are hundreds, even thousands, of military personnel, former military personnel, and military families living in my riding.

We can be proud of our military, which shone with distinction when it was called upon around the world. It happened in World War I with the Battle of Vimy Ridge, in World War II with the tragedy of Dieppe and the Normandy landings, but also during the landings in Italy, in which my father participated with the very prestigious Royal 22nd Regiment.

Closer to home, there are all those who served in the war in Afghanistan. I want to remind everyone that Canadians died there, including a young man from Loretteville, close to where I was born. Corporal Jonathan Couturier died on September 17, 2009, when he was barely 23 years old. He served under our flag, and it is important that we remember that.

The Canadian military has had its moments of glory, but it has also had its share of trials and tribulations, like any organization. As with any organization, depending on the social situations in each era, there have been challenges to be faced. I remember very well that when I was about 10 years old, in the mid-1970s, a tragedy happened not far from my home in Loretteville. A soldier who no longer had his wits about him because he had drunk a little too much alcohol unfortunately killed some children. This incident brought a lot of attention to the problem of alcoholism in the Canadian Armed Forces. What did they do? They took the problem and dealt with it properly. They succeeded in significantly reducing that alcoholism that was rampant among members of our army in the 1970s.

Members will also remember the infamous and unfortunate scandal in the mid-1990s involving the Airborne Regiment, when Canadian soldiers in Somalia dishonoured our flag and their uniform by engaging in behaviour that was completely unacceptable. That is why the regiment was disbanded in 1995 by prime minister Jean Chrétien, as everyone likely remembers.

As I said, whenever challenges arise in the military, they must be addressed, and the Canadian military has always seized the opportunity to resolve difficult situations.

The current situation involves sexual misconduct in the Canadian military. Yes, that is the reality we have to deal with. That is why we are gathered here today to discuss Bill C‑11, which directly addresses this concern about sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, particularly with regard to the chain of command and the utterly reprehensible incidents that have occurred in recent years.

Bill C‑11 is reminiscent of Bill C‑66 from the last Parliament. Essentially, when there are cases of sexual misconduct, the bill aims to have the judicial process take place in the civilian system and not in the military police system, under military law. In addition, the government would appoint the military leaders who are responsible for discipline.

Regrettably, the issue of sexual violence is not something new. The Canadian Forces and Canadians have been dealing with it for more than a decade. It was in 2014 that Stephen Harper's Conservative government tasked former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps with investigating the everyday reality of sexual violence in the Canadian Forces. One year later, Justice Deschamps tabled a scathing report that showed, unfortunately, in black and white, that sexual violence was a serious problem. About ten recommendations were made, which were adopted by the Harper government.

Then came the 2015 election and, unfortunately, a period of total darkness on the issue of sexual violence.

For years, under the Justin Trudeau government, neither its ministers nor its MPs chose to do the right thing. True, other inquiries were held, yet this only raises the question of why they were necessary, given that the evidence already confirmed the need for immediate action to solve the problem of sexual violence in our army.

For five years, the government was asleep at the wheel. It called for another inquiry by two different judges who each conducted their own inquiry, even though we all knew as far back as 2015 that action was needed. Still, the government did nothing. Obviously, what shocked everyone into action was the incident involving General Vance, Canada's top soldier. Here was a soldier who held the Canadian army's most powerful position, who was initially the focus of rumours, then allegations, then substantiated evidence and then a trial.

Why is it that, for all these years, nothing has been done? Why is it that this government, for 10 years, has done everything it can to cover up the affair? Why is it that, while this case was being studied by a parliamentary committee on April 12, 2021, the Liberal government, along with the Bloc Québécois, decided to put an end to the parliamentary inquiry? This was followed by many other developments that I will have the opportunity to discuss later, the next time this bill comes before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

I want to let you know that I will be splitting my time, should any remain, with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

First of all, I want to tell people what this bill does, if they are not aware. It is similar to Bill C-66 from the last Parliament with some language changes in English and French to fix some errors.

It essentially amends the National Defence Act to transfer the jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civil authorities when the offence takes place in Canada, but it remains under the Canadian Armed Forces if it occurs outside of Canada.

The legislation incorporates recent amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and publication ban rules into the National Defence Act and tries to increase the independence of the people who are involved in these prosecutions and investigations from the chain of command.

It also identifies different levels of review, including the minister, to try to get greater accountability.

I want to say right up front that I am very happy to see this bill coming to the House; it is just a shame it has taken so long.

I have been here in the House since 2015. I can remember in 2015 when the first report, the Deschamps report, came out. Minister Sajjan sat on it for five years and did nothing to address the sexual misconduct that was rampant throughout the military. At that point in time, a light was shone on it.

We were doing a study in 2021, at the status of women committee, which I was chairing. I know there was a study done as well at the defence committee. However, this was at at the time when General Vance had allegations of sexual misconduct against him and the PMO and Minister Sajjan knew about the allegations. Did they investigate him? Did they suspend him while they investigated? No. They gave him a $50,000 raise. What did that say to the victims who were waiting for justice? They had been waiting for five years, since the Deschamps report, and then this broke. Then there was all the filibustering at the defence committee by the Liberal government. There was not that same problem at the status of women committee.

We had testimony after testimony from women who had experienced sexual violations, such as gang rape in the first eight weeks of being in the military. We heard horrific stories. They were hard to hear. It was really disheartening to know that all of the survivors did not believe anything would change in the military after all this time. It was disheartening to see the government demand another report and get the Arbour recommendations, then a year later demand a third report. It has been 10 years and now all of a sudden it seems to be in a total hurry. I think victims could be not blamed for thinking that it is virtue signalling. That is what we have seen from the government to this point.

That said, I want to talk about a couple of things.

First, I want to talk about the actual problems I see in this bill. Basically, when we look at the testimony that was heard, what was clear was when there were allegations of sexual misconduct, especially against a senior officer, the old boys' club would gather around and there was punishment given to the complainant. In some cases, if they were overseas, they were returned home as if they were discharged or demoted out of the situation. I am sure there was some good intention of protecting and not having the victim have to work day after day in the environment with the perpetrators, but obviously this is not an acceptable trauma-informed way of dealing with the situation.

I do not have a problem with moving the jurisdiction to the civil courts; however, what I would say is this. When I was on status of women, we heard testimony of sexual violations. About 40% of them do not even get a police report done. Of the 60% that get a police report done, only 5% of them make it to trial. Of the 5% that make it trial, only 1% ever get a conviction. Of the 1% that get a conviction, the penalty is measured in months of house arrest or community service compared to the trauma the victim has experienced.

While we can say that yes, it was the recommendation of all the reports that we transfer the issue out of the CAF and put it into the criminal court system, we have a problem in our criminal court system. We do not have enough judges. We do not have, in many cases, any penalties, and are letting repeat sexual violent offenders out on bail. We hear about it day after day. I have a pile of examples I could read.

Are the survivors of sexual misconduct in the military going to be better off if they have to go through the current court system? Many of the rapists are getting off on the Jordan principle, which says that if they wait a certain amount of time and there are not enough judges and they cannot hear their case, then they go free. That is not justice. That is one of the concerns I have. The legislation would not really fix the problem of making sure we deal with the problem and get justice for the victims.

The second thing I am concerned about is how the criminal courts and that legal process would interface with the military. How would they exchange information to co-operate in investigations and prosecutions? I see that there would not really be anything in place to allow them to share the information, and that is problematic.

The other thing is that international incidents that occur would still be investigated under the prior system under the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard testimony from people who served overseas and who were sexually assaulted, and the resolution there was not good, so not changing that would, again, not address the problem for the victims.

When it comes to looking at some of the other issues we have heard about, today under the military system, if somebody is accused, then the military covers the cost of the litigation for them. Therefore if there is a complaint that is not valid, and frivolous complaints can come forward, it can be very expensive. If we move all of that to the criminal courts, then the individual is on the hook for the expenses, whether the charge is a valid one or not. That is another area where the government should take a look at what it has put before the House and see whether there is a way of shoring that up so it can determine that if there is pernicious prosecution, the military can pay for it.

Another thing in the bill is that the government has created a whole bunch of new term limits, and they are not consistent across everyone. I believe that the intent is to make people more independent from the chain of command, which I support, but it is not clear to me why the terms are all different and why the government would put new roles in place. To me, it would create a lot of bureaucracy. If we look at the Liberal government and its record, this is what it does. If the Liberals want to solve a housing crisis, they create not just one bureaucracy; they are on number four. When it comes to defence procurement, the Liberals have decided the broken system would be fixed by putting a new defence procurement bureaucracy in place. It is the same for the major projects system, and I could go on.

There are still things we need to repair, and at the end of it all, it comes back to trust. The victims do not trust the current government, because it spent 10 years doing nothing, and they do not believe the Liberals now. I do not know why the Liberals think people would believe them until they see actual action and something put in place that would get victims the justice they need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. If we were to take a look at what was being said on the floor of the House of Commons last year, it would be very clear we could have passed Bill C-66. It did not pass and get royal assent because the Conservative Party had an agenda that was politically self-serving, as opposed to serving Canadians. This is the reality. I would debate that issue anytime, because that is the truth.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get my colleague's perspective on today's debate.

Why does he think some Conservative members are framing this in partisan terms, blaming the Liberals for prorogation of Parliament and delaying Bill C-66, when they themselves were calling for an election? Given the importance of moving forward with the amended bill, especially improvements that could be done at the committee stage, do you believe we can work together to pass the bill and protect the victims?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that this might be the first time the member has actually had a valid point of order. I apologize for using the wrong wording, but the facts remain. At the end of the day, we can in fact send a very strong and powerful message on Bill C-11 by allowing the legislation to pass. Some of the members of the Conservatives are going to say, “Whoa, just wait a minute; we brought it in only today, and we have had only eight hours of debate on the bill.”

The Conservatives have a shadow minister dealing with justice who introduced a private member's bill, and he is arguing that it should be passed virtually instantly. Fortunately for him, because it is a private member's bill even though it would make substantial changes, there are going to be only two hours of debate for second reading. We have had three or four times that already. Then it is going to go to committee, where it is going to be timed, and then it will come back, and that is because it happens to be a private member's bill even though it is proposing to make profound changes to our judicial system.

If the political will is there, we all know that the legislation before us could go to committee. What is the advantage of its going to committee now? I would suggest that by allowing the bill to go to committee, members opposite would be able to share their concerns and to look at potential amendments and propose them. If they have a substantial good idea, they should be able to convince other members to support it. After all, it can pass only if we get more than one political entity in the House in favour of it, so if they are really convinced on their arguments, or they want to have a good, thorough discussion at the committee stage, why hold off and why wait? They can tell me the justification.

I have had a Conservative member say that there is virtually no difference between Bill C-66 and the bill that is before us. The member could be right. I do not know all the details of it, but let me assume that the Conservative member was accurate in the statement he made. If that is the case, Bill C-66 was introduced in January 2024 or March 2024, so the Conservatives have had ample time to deal with what is within the legislation.

Surely to goodness, if the Conservatives have some amendments, they should be primed and ready to go. Once we get the bill out of committee, then it is back here in the House, and many members can speak once again to it, but let us at least get it to the committee stage so we can be in a position before the end of the year to actually pass the legislation and have it receive royal assent. Would that not be nice?

We have an opportunity to meet all 48 of the recommendations, and I would encourage my colleagues opposite, if they are genuine when they say they want to have further discussions and debates and look at possible amendments to the legislation, to allow it to get to that stage.

Having said all that, I want to provide a very quick comment in regard to the military overall, and the reason I want to do that is that many people kind of went off track in their discussions on it, even me possibly, to a certain degree, but when it comes to the military, our new Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Liberal caucus have done an incredible job of ensuring that we are going to be able to achieve the 2%, a commitment the Prime Minister has made. I know it would make a difference, but when we talk about victims, or about military expenditures and the many things we are doing for the members who serve in our forces, we know we can always do better, and we will strive to do that.

However, let us at least acknowledge that, at the end of the day, since having a new Prime Minister, the file on the Canadian Forces has been moving forward, second to no other prime minister in the last 40 to 50 years. I believe the Prime Minister will continue to ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are being looked after in every way, which includes seeing Bill C-11 become the law of the land.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was just heckled that we had 10 years, and I plan on addressing that head-on.

Hopefully we will see the official opposition at least acknowledge the reality, as opposed to trying to continue to mislead. That is what we have witnessed today. Individuals trying to follow the debate would have a false impression after listening to Conservative after Conservative stand up to speak. Some speeches I really enjoyed, especially certain aspects of the speeches, for example when members opposite stand up and talk about victims. That is truly why the government, for years now, has been moving forward on dealing with the recommendations. It is all about the victims.

I have had the opportunity, privilege and honour to serve in the Canadian military. I was an air traffic control assistant posted in Edmonton, and I had wonderful opportunities to serve in our forces for just over three years. Whether they are marching with World War II veterans or sitting in a tower in Lancaster Park, I have the deepest amount of respect for the men and women who have served in many different capacities.

In many ways, we are the envy of the world because of our Canadian Forces and the many contributions they have provided, whether through peacekeeping abroad, participating in protecting our freedoms and the rule of law, being in countries abroad during world wars, fighting the mighty Red River when it was flooding the city of Winnipeg, fighting forest fires or stepping up during the pandemic. As I know my colleagues have and as all of us should have, I have an immense amount of respect for the work done by the personnel who make up our Canadian Forces.

When I think about why this is an important piece of legislation, it provides a very strong message to members in the forces today. As much as we value and appreciate what they do for Canadians day in and day out, we too appreciate their need for certainty. We want changes so that every member of the Canadian Forces can feel safe in their environment.

I heard a number of members talk about specific files where there was sexual abuse or sexual harassment. We know that takes place. That is the reason we have had studies take place.

The number of recommendations from former chief justice Arbour was 48. Bill C-11 deals specifically with recommendation 5. I actually printed off all the recommendations. I want to read recommendation 5 so that people who are following the debate will get a really good understanding of why we have the legislation before us.

These 48 recommendations are recommendations that the government has been proactively working on, virtually from day one after they were brought into being. On budgetary expenditures, in the 2022 budget, I believe there was somewhere in the neighbourhood of close to $100 million over a number of years that was actually allocated. On legislative actions, today we have Bill C-11 dealing with recommendation 5.

It is important to recognize, contrary to the misinformation coming from the other side, that the government has been taking action. Let there be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the government has not only taken the issue seriously but is also taking specific actions to deal with it. The best example I could give is the fact that, as of right now, there is a very real chance that all 48 recommendations will be dealt with before the end of this year. The one that is causing the problem is one that I believe every member in the chamber actually supports, at least in principle.

I will read the actual recommendation from the former chief justice:

Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the [military police] may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity.

That is the recommendation. It is the only recommendation that compels the government to bring in legislation. Ultimately, we did not wait for the legislation to appear before us. We actually took action within a year of the interim report to ensure that we had prosecutions and investigations taking place in a civilian setting. That is how important it was for us.

I do not recall any of the Conservatives pointing out that this is the case. Rather, they amplified that nothing has been done. In fact, hundreds have actually gone in that direction. The legislation is to put it into law permanently. That is the purpose of Bill C-11. It would then put us in full compliance with that particular recommendation.

Then we hear the Conservatives again trying to give the false impression that we are sitting on it and not respecting the principles of recommendation 5.

What is worse is that, if a political entity in the House has prevented the legislation from becoming law, it is the Conservative Party of Canada; the Conservatives just do not realize it. Seriously, do they not remember what was taking place last year? Do members remember when they were jumping up and down, demanding their privileges and points of order and saying they were going to shut down Parliament?

I remember the hours and days, going into weeks and weeks, when the Conservatives refused to get anything passed. Where was that caring attitude for the victims then? That was all tossed aside because the Conservatives were more interested in their own political fortunes than they were in the victims.

If we take a look at the legislation, it was actually introduced as Bill C-66 back in September of last year. They had the opportunity to provide comment on it. They did in part, but then they came up with that game because they were more interested in having an election. They will have to excuse me for not being overly sympathetic when they try to give the false impression that, as a government, we ignored the situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the day, we had taken action to ensure that victims of sexual abuse and harassment within the military were going through the civil system. That is the fact, but they deny that.

Then, the Conservatives have the brevity to try to say that the Liberals are the reason the law itself has not been enacted.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians hold deep pride in the men and women who wear the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces. They serve in dangerous places with courage to defend the values and freedoms we hold dear. We ask them to put country before self, to risk their lives so that we can continue to live in safety and freedom. For far too long, too many of those who have served have had to fight another battle, the battle to be heard, to be believed and to be treated with dignity when they come forward as victims of sexual assault or misconduct within the very institution that demands the highest standards of honour and integrity.

That is why today's debate on Bill C-11, the government's new military justice reform bill, matters. Our conversation today is not just about amending sections of the National Defence Act. It is about the culture, credibility and future of the Canadian Armed Forces because of the way that Bill C-11 now intersects with our criminal justice system. It is also about the way we prosecute crime, in general, in Canada.

It has been more than a decade since the 2015 report of former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps rocked Canada with her findings on sexual misconduct in our armed forces. She made 10 recommendations. Operation Honour followed and was supposed to change both culture and outcomes, but years later, the Auditor General reported that Operation Honour had little measurable success. Investigations were still slow, accountability was still weak and the culture in some parts of the military continued to allow perpetrators to avoid serious consequences. Justice Deschamps called the Liberal government out for its failure to act in this regard.

The next report came in 2021. It was done by former Supreme Court of Canada justice Morris Fish. It gave the Liberal government another failing grade and made 107 recommendations. In 2022, former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour delivered yet another comprehensive external review, this time with 48 recommendations, again emphasizing broken trust and calling for action.

Three former Supreme Court of Canada justices laid out a road map for reform, and yet, as the Liberals hesitated, as progress stalled, as survivors were left waiting, it was Conservative pressure through parliamentary questions, committee hearings and public advocacy that forced this issue back onto the national stage again and again. We can fairly say that without the sustained efforts and tenacity of victims, Bill C-66, which still died on the Order Paper when the Liberal government prorogued last time, and now Bill C-11 may never have been introduced.

The Liberals will now claim credit for these reforms, but it is Conservative MPs who ensured that the voices of victims were not forgotten and that meaningful change could not be avoided. The fact that we are still here 10 years after the Deschamps report debating the same issues with the same victims still waiting for change is a damning indictment of the Liberal government's ability to deliver results.

Even with all of this to work with, Bill C-11 still includes some very strange inconsistencies. Term lengths and reappointment rules differ across positions. The director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services would serve seven-year terms with no reappointment, but the provost marshal, on the other hand, serves for four years and can be reappointed. There seems to be no clear rationale for these differences.

Similarly, giving the Minister of National Defence the power to issue prosecutorial guidelines in specific cases and giving the Governor in Council authority over appointments and removals, which is cabinet, opens the door, intentionally or not, to political interference. The minister's involvement in reviewing inquiries and authorizing acting appointments could compromise independence and BillC-11 does not fully clarify how offences outside of Canada would be handled. I hope the Liberals will collaborate with Conservatives on these issues and others raised by my colleagues and that they will be ironed out as the bill progresses through our parliamentary system.

Beyond the wording of the bill, however, we cannot ignore the context in which this debate takes place. The government has promised to grow the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO obligations. It has pledged to recruit and retain thousands of new members in the coming years. That will require trust that every person who joins our forces will serve in an institution that protects them, upholds the law and embodies the values that we defend abroad.

That brings me to a very serious concern. The government is proposing to transfer all sexual offence cases from the military justice system to civilian courts. The principle makes sense: Justice must be independent. However, modernization is not just a word; it is a commitment to follow through. It means resourcing reforms properly. It means ensuring civilian authorities are ready to handle the additional caseloads. Right now, our civilian court system is in crisis. Court backlogs are staggering. Serious criminal cases have been stayed or dismissed because of delays. Victims of assault, including sexual assault, are waiting years for their day in court. Therefore, when the government says it will hand military cases to the civilian system, we have to ask how the civilian system would cope. What additional resources would be provided to the provinces along with this downloading to ensure these cases and others do not end up stayed for delay?

While we are speaking about justice, let us talk about the need to reform Liberal bail. Just this afternoon, the Liberal government voted down a Conservative private member's bill that would have tightened bail provisions for repeat violent offenders, including sexual offences. These are people who, under the current government's lax laws, have been released time and time again and have shown a staggering ability to reoffend. The Liberals talk about protecting victims, but when they had the chance to take common-sense steps to keep dangerous criminals off our streets, they said no to reform and yes to Liberal bail, which would apply to these cases under Bill C-11 the same way it applies to other cases in our justice system.

Canadians deserve a government that takes justice seriously. Our men and women in uniform deserve a military where justice is not only done but is seen to be done and is done expeditiously. The integrity of our justice system, civilian and military, depends on consistency. The Liberals cannot claim to stand for victims in uniform if they turn their back on victims in our communities. They cannot say that they believe in accountability for the forces if they do not demand it in our courts.

The government has to move beyond symbolism and performative legislation. It must demonstrate through action and results that it understands the gravity of the trust that it has broken and the responsibility it carries to restore it. If we fail to get this right, then we fail not only today's soldiers, sailors and aviators, but also those we hope will serve tomorrow.

Canada is vulnerable. Our allies are increasing their defence commitments. The global security environment is becoming more dangerous. We will ask more of our military in the years ahead. Leadership begins with integrity at home. Before we can ask our soldiers to defend Canada's values overseas, we must prove that those values govern our own institutions. The rule of law, equality and justice must not be words in a report, but living principles in every part of our justice system.

For the sake of our soldiers, sailors and aviators serving in Canada and abroad, let us get it right. The time for excuses has long passed. Fix the criminal system, or get out of the way and let us do it. Let us ensure that the civilian courts have the capacity to deliver justice quickly and fairly. Above all, let us commit across party lines that never again will the men and women who serve Canada have to wonder whether their own government will stand up for them when they need it most.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that the government has really taken too long to introduce this bill or its previous version, Bill C‑66?

Members will recall that, when the scandal broke, the Liberal government decided to appoint Justice Louise Arbour to make the military justice system independent of the chain of command. That was six years after the Deschamps report, which made the very same recommendation.

According to the Toronto Star, when Louise Arbour was called, she wanted to know if she was seriously being asked to do this work that had already been done. The Arbour report was tabled in May 2022, and there was also the report by Mr. Morris Fish.

Why delay the passage of such a bill for 10 years?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why does my colleague think the government took so long to introduce this bill? Yes, there was Bill C‑66, but it died on the Order Paper.

The government has known for 10 years that it needed to act quickly, but it failed to do so. As for General Vance, there were allegations even under the Conservatives. Members will recall that the Liberal defence minister refused 12 times to meet with the ombudsman, who asked to meet with him on this issue so that action could be taken and legislation could be passed. The minister refused to even look at any evidence.

Could my hon. colleague share his thoughts on that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House. Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to spend some time talking about the context in which this debate is taking place, because the legislative route that this bill took to get to this moment says everything about the tired, old, incompetent government. It is really worth taking a moment to examine that.

This bill is the second attempt to finally, after over 10 years, implement the recommendations of the Deschamps report to transfer the criminal prosecution for sexual offences to civilian court. This was contained in the report and recommendations made to the Harper government in the spring of 2015. That was just before Parliament adjourned ahead of dissolution for the 2015 election. The Harper government accepted the recommendations, and had the Conservatives been re-elected that fall, we would have had the opportunity to table the appropriate legislation to implement the Deschamps report.

Instead, we have had three entire parliaments during which the Liberal government failed to make this legislative change and implement the recommendation that Justice Deschamps made in March 2015. From 2015 to 2019, the government took exactly zero steps to implement the recommendation to address sexual misconduct in the armed forces. However, then minister Harjit Sajjan did take time to cover up the sexual misconduct of the then chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, and during that Parliament, the government did take the time to engineer the frivolous and vexatious politically motivated prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

During the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals also expended no resources to try to deal with procuring important equipment. They did spend time, though, buying rusted-out Australian F-18s while delaying a decision to replace our own fighter jet fleet. They squandered the entire four-year majority Parliament without addressing sexual misconduct in the military or making progress in procuring ships, jets, other aircraft, submarines, land vehicles, artillery, ammunition and base housing.

Then from 2019 to 2021, the Liberals continued to ignore victims of sexual misconduct, although the resignations of senior officers piled up during that Parliament. They continued to delay procurement, as worsening morale began to foment a crisis of recruitment and retention that would start to jeopardize Canada's force posture and readiness to respond to requests from allies on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and respond to China's explicit challenges to Canada's Arctic sovereignty and security.

Then in the last Parliament, between 2021 and 2025, Canada's lack of military preparedness became undeniable and unignorable. In 2023, it became known that there were 16,000 vacant positions in the Canadian Armed Forces and that another 10,000 force members were undertrained and undeployable. It was what kept then chief of the defence staff Wayne Eyre awake at night, according to his own committee testimony.

In 2023, after eight years of neglecting and ignoring the armed forces, other than the occasional morale-sapping pronouncement lamenting military culture, the Liberals finally tabled Bill C-66 but did nothing to advance it for an entire year. They finally introduced it in the House of Commons in the spring of 2024, and as my colleague from Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke pointed out, in the fall of 2024, they spent their entire legislative agenda avoiding compliance with an order of this House and not advancing this legislation.

Let there be no doubt about the government's lack of seriousness about the Canadian Armed Forces in general and the problem of sexual misconduct in the military specifically. Its track record over the past 10 years speaks for itself.

Right now, as I speak in this chamber, ships are rusting out at sea. Fighter jets that should have been ordered and delivered by now have still not been delivered. We would be lucky right now if we could get one submarine in the water for a handful of days per year, and there is no replacement ordered. We have only a handful of operational tanks, barely any available for training. We do not have air defence systems. New transport and refuelling aircraft have been ordered with no plan, no hangars built to house them and no base location decisions made.

Howitzers and artillery pieces are entirely lacking, as well as adequate shells. The government let a production line of artillery shells mothball in an emerging threat environment, and now, as Canada and its allies desperately need this ammunition, we do not have the production capacity. We do not have the production capacity to supply ourselves and our allies with desperately needed 155-millimetre artillery shells. That is a World War I munition, the production of which the government partially shut down on the eve of the Ukraine war.

Base housing is in a deplorable condition, with houses falling apart and a 7,000-unit backlog of personnel waiting to access base housing. Barracks are in horrific unsanitary conditions. Health care is also lacking for many military families. This bill would address a well-known and well-documented problem with sexual misconduct in the military, which is a factor in the recruitment and retention crisis we face and a factor in morale at a time when we desperately need to fill vacancies for almost every single position in all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As I have said before, let me say something about the men and women in our armed forces. They are among the very best people in this country. I have travelled and visited foreign bases of operations in Latvia and England, and these people are the best. They are extremely young people with extraordinary responsibilities. I met a 19-year-old in Latvia who was responsible for training and helping allied soldiers. He was a kid from northern British Columbia with enormous responsibility, and he was so positive and full of energy and enthusiasm for his work.

These are incredible people, and they deserve our support. They are the best, and they deserve protection. They deserve access to justice when sexual misconduct happens.

We have already heard in debate a lot about culture and culture change in the military. Part of the culture change that needs to happen is overcoming the culture of secrecy and the culture of cover-up. That culture has permeated to the very top levels. We saw the former minister of national defence covering up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff. We have seen this type of behaviour at the highest levels, and we see it at the unit level, as my colleague said earlier today.

We have had testimony at the defence committee from victims of sexual assault who say they cannot access justice because of the lack of access to the civilian system, which this bill would ultimately change, and because of the inability to get information about themselves to file a complaint. The reflexive secrecy around even members of the Canadian Armed Forces accessing their own information is part of the problem. This bill would not fix that, so there is a long way to go to ensure justice for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are victims of sexual misconduct.

It is not like civilian access to justice for sexual assault victims is assured. It is far from it. We see over and over again how repeat violent offenders are automatically granted bail as a result of the Liberals' so-called bail reforms of Bill C-75, and earlier this afternoon this very Liberal bench voted entirely against replacing and repealing that law.

We have seen under the current government an erosion of effective law enforcement and justice for victims. We see crime levels that we have not seen in decades. We see an acceleration in crime. We see a lack of urgency in appointing judges so that assault victims can get access to trial, and this bill would not fix all of these problems. This bill contains an important long-standing 10-year-old recommendation, and I hope this Parliament will debate this bill and that we will have a proper debate so we can come to the bottom of this and conclude it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Crowfoot.

I rise today on behalf of the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces who call the Ottawa Valley home, and to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. This legislation, which was presented as reform, raises serious concerns about the future of justice for our Canadian Armed Forces and the government's ability to protect both the victims and the integrity of our military institutions.

Conservatives support our women and men in uniform. We honour their service and believe they deserve a workplace free from sexual misconduct, discrimination and harassment. We also believe they deserve a justice system that is fair, transparent and accountable.

Bill C-11 proposes to transfer jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada from the military justice system to the civilian courts. This change was recommended by Justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour, and it has been supported by many victims groups.

Conservatives have long called for action on these recommendations. We have criticized the Liberal government for its delays and lack of urgency. Victims deserve justice, and they deserve it without political interference or bureaucratic excuses. However, this bill does not fully deliver on that promise. It would create a split system where offences committed in Canada are handled in the civilian courts while those committed abroad are under military jurisdiction.

This inconsistency risks undermining the investigative capacity of our military police. If they are no longer investigating sexual offences in Canada, how will they maintain the skills needed to handle cases overseas? This is not theoretical. We have already seen troubling examples of investigative failures.

In February of this year, Ontario Superior Court Justice Cynthia Petersen stayed charges against a Canadian Armed Forces member accused of sexually assaulting his wife. She found that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service had shown bias, failed to document key evidence and even destroyed materials that should have been disclosed.

Justice Petersen called the misconduct "so egregious" that she had no choice but to halt the proceedings. She said it breached the accused's charter rights and shocked the conscience of the community. Two military police officers were suspended and an internal investigation was launched, but the damage was done. This case illustrates the dangers of a system that lacks accountability and transparency. It also raises the question about whether the military is capable of investigating its own conduct.

Another example is the case of Kristen Adams, a civilian employee working in Camp Adazi in Latvia. She was sexually assaulted by an Albanian NATO soldier who grabbed her breast while she was serving Canadian troops in the canteen. When she reported the assault, she was told by the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services that she should have expected such risks when accepting the job. They called it a cultural difference. They terminated her contract early and refused to call the incident a sexual assault.

Latvian military police conducted a superficial investigation, failed to interview witnesses and concluded there was no criminal offence. Canadian military police created a shadow file but had no jurisdiction to act. Adams was left without justice, without support and without answers.

This is what happens when jurisdiction is unclear and accountability absent. This is what happens when the system prioritizes optics over victims.

Bill C-11 does not fix this. It does not ensure that victims like Adams would be protected or that the perpetrators would be held accountable. It does not guarantee that investigations would be thorough or that justice would be served. It does not address the "culture of silence and deflection" that has plagued the military for years.

The case of Private Elvira Jaszberenyi is another sad example. She was a soldier who was raped by Corporal Oleksii Silin in a broom closet at CFB Borden. Military police who investigated her case told her that Corporal Silin was a sexual person. They told her that Silin's wife and kids had left him, suggesting this was a form of punishment. The military police mentioned that as a Russian immigrant, Silin's culture may view slapping a woman as permissible.

Despite that, Silin confessed to the military police that he had pulled her into a broom closet and had sexual intercourse with her. However, what was not mentioned at the time was that Silin was already under investigation for a different sexual assault the year before, but the military refused to prosecute the case.

Private Jaszberenyi complained to the Military Police Complaints Commission, but the commission was not permitted to review all the relevant files, specifically the briefing from the military police to prosecutors. This was despite the fact that Justice Morris Fish had issued a recommendation that these files be provided to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Without access to the briefing notes, the commission was effectively prevented from determining if the refusal to prosecute was reasonable.

While the bill before us would remove the role of the military police from investigating sexual assaults in Canada, the bill would not implement Justice Fish's recommendation to give the commission access to key briefing notes.

Faced with an unresponsive military justice system and bureaucratic hurdles, Private Jaszberenyi would not be deterred. She pursued a private prosecution in civilian court after exhausting all military avenues. The trial exposed the failure of the military justice system to take her complaint seriously. It showed how the victims are forced to fight alone for justice. It showed how the system protects itself instead of the people it serves.

In the end, Silin was acquitted. According to a CTV report on the case, Justice Robert Gattrell “...said he agreed with the defence, which argued Jaszberenyi came across as someone with ‘an agenda,’ who took issue with the military’s treatment of members, particularly women, who come forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct.”

Private Jaszberenyi's own advocacy for justice was used against her. While it is no longer permitted to weaponize a woman's sexual history against her in court, apparently women must not be too insistent in seeking justice. Any effort we make to ensure another woman is not raped can and will be used against us.

Bill C-11 does not address the underlying culture that allowed this to happen in the first place. It would not prevent senior leadership from allowing serious charges to be downgraded to conduct violations. It would not ensure that civilian court outcomes are integrated with the code of service discipline. It would not fix the disconnect between military justice and civilian accountability. Instead, it would shift responsibility without solving the root issues.

The bill would also increase the independence of key military justice officials by having them appointed by the governor in council. While independence from the chain of command is important, the inconsistent term lengths and reappointment rules raise concerns. As well, giving the Minister of National Defence the power to issue guidelines on prosecutions opens the door to political interference. This is especially troubling given the history of interference in previous cases.

Conservatives believe in protecting victims and supporting the rights of the accused. We believe in a justice system that is fair, consistent and rooted in the principles of individual liberty. We do not support a parallel system that undermines these principles.

We also believe in transparency. The military has referred dozens of sexual offence cases to civilian authorities, but it cannot, or will not, reveal how many of these cases have resulted in charges. This lack of data makes it impossible to evaluate whether the transfer of jurisdiction is working. Victims deserve answers. Service members deserve clarity. Canadians deserve accountability.

Bill C-11 may be well-intentioned, but it is incomplete. It does not address the systemic failures that have plagued the military justice system. It would not ensure that victims would be heard or that accused members would be treated fairly. It does not restore trust.

Let us be honest about why the bill was delayed. The Liberals had this legislation ready as Bill C-66. They let it die when they prorogued Parliament. They delayed it again while they scrambled to cover up their green slush fund scandal. They delayed it again while they changed leaders behind closed doors. They delayed it again while they installed a man whose record includes tax haven investments, greenwashing scandals and ties to ethically compromised donors. They delayed justice for victims so they could protect their own political interests. That is the real story behind Bill C-11. That is why victims are still waiting. That is why the system is still broken.

We will push for a fulsome committee study to hear from victims, such as Private Jaszberenyi. We will demand changes that protect victims, support service members and strengthen our justice system.

We owe it to those who serve, we owe it to those who suffered and we owe it to Canada.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑11 gives us something we have been hoping for for a long time, namely an opportunity to improve the military justice system. Acts of sexual misconduct have been widely reported in the media over the past few years, severely affecting the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces and its leaders. Although I have not been able to find data on this, it goes without saying that the situation has also likely severely affected recruitment efforts, as well as morale among female military members.

This bill is almost the same as Bill C‑66, which died on the Order Paper in January when Parliament was prorogued and later dissolved, leading to the election in April.

Several former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have already studied the issue and made recommendations. First, there was the Hon. Justice Marie Deschamps, who tabled her report on March 27, 2015. That was over 10 years ago. Then there was the Hon. Morris J. Fish, who tabled his in June 2021. That was the third independent review. It contained 107 recommendations, including one to review the process for appointing three key positions in the military justice system: the provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. I think everyone can agree that, in a justice system, the judge, the prosecutor and the defence attorney are pretty important.

Justice Fish proposed better safeguards to protect these individuals from any pressure they might have been subjected to by the military hierarchy. Bill C‑11 addresses that recommendation, and we think it is a wise decision. However, we must remain vigilant to ensure that politicians do not interfere in the justice process, which desperately needs reforms. We must not get to a point where we get rid of one form of interference in favour of another.

As has been mentioned several times in the House, the appointment process in our common law courts justice system is often manipulated. For one, we have often heard about the infamous “Liberalist”. I hope that the “Liberalist”, or the Conservative list, if they are elected in the next election, will not become the tool for appointing judges to the courts that will have to judge or act as prosecutors in cases of sexual assault in the military.

Prior to Justice Fish, in 2003, the late Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, a retired former chief justice, also submitted a report containing 88 recommendations. In 2012, the Hon. Patrick LeSage, former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court, also submitted a report, which contained 55 recommendations. Finally, there was the Hon. Louise Arbour, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who, after pointing out that the exercise had already been done, tabled her report in October 2025, more than 10 years after her colleague Justice Deschamps.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that it is time to take action. We intend to support this bill and hope that it comes into force quickly so that we can have a military justice system that reflects Quebec and Canadian society.

In a recent media interview, the hon. Minister of National Defence said that victims need to have the confidence that the system is transparent and predictable and that they have the support that they need to come forward and to reveal what has happened to them. Not surprisingly, we agree. That is how it needs to be.

The armed forces as we knew them a century ago have given way to an army that is more open to the realities of our society. While the presence of women in the military was once an exception, even an anachronism, today it is the norm for about 15% to 20% of armed forces members. However, the organization of the armed forces has to adjust to this reality. Every member of our armed forces must feel comfortable and fully able to provide the services they are called upon to provide.

As I was saying, Bill C-11 will make it possible to modify the appointment process so it is no longer hierarchical. The following appointments will now be made by the governor general in council, at the recommendation of the Minister of Defence: the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. As I was saying earlier, this was among Justice Fish's recommendations, which were made a long time ago. Now it is in Bill C‑11, which is a good thing.

Bill C‑11 also proposes to remove the military courts' jurisdiction to try individuals for Criminal Code sexual offences. This is very important.

Some troubling situations have surfaced in recent years. We need only think of the case of General Jonathan Vance. He had been the focus of allegations of sexual misconduct long before the Conservative government decided to appoint him chief of the defence staff in the summer of 2015. He was alleged to have committed sexual misconduct, but the Conservatives did not see that as a problem and appointed him chief of the defence staff anyway. That seemed rather odd to us.

Then, in the fall of 2015, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government came to power. That government also did not bother removing General Vance from his position or do anything at all to limit the problems of sexual misconduct. On the contrary, allegations of sexual misconduct have escalated since 2015.

I will not go so far as to name every single person who has been the subject of allegations of misconduct. As a lawyer, I am aware that allegations of misconduct do not necessarily result in a guilty verdict. These individuals must be presumed innocent. That is fine, but it is still problematic at the social level. Society sees that people who lead the Canadian Armed Forces are the subject of repeated allegations of sexual assault or misconduct. Despite this, they are kept in their positions or even promoted. It makes no sense. I hope that Bill C‑11 will enable us to move beyond that era.

The bill also removes the military's power to investigate. Yes, that is obviously needed. Members will agree that a military investigator whose boss is accused of sexual assault or sexual misconduct is in no position to conduct an impartial and effective investigation.

I also want to talk about the process for appointing military judges. The pool is being expanded. The idea is that the person closest in rank is not necessarily the person who should be appointed and that the person could come from any military rank. There are individuals who have undergone training their entire military careers and who may be qualified to be appointed as court martial judges. In many cases, they would probably be better suited to the job than the highest-ranking officer who wanted to do it. This group is going to be expanded. That is good news for us.

The group of people who can file complaints will also be expanded. That is more good news. We must help victims emerge from the shadows and leave behind the era when allegations of sexual misconduct undermined the credibility of our military forces and the lives of women who served in the armed forces. I thank these women for helping to change the hierarchy and the way the armed forces operate. This is the best news we have had in a long time.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that my time is not being split, because it is already split, and I am the second half. I say that because I am torn and split over the bill, so I will be sharing my thoughts and comments over the next few minutes. I have been asked to speak to Bill C-11 given the veterans affairs committee's work on MST, military sexual trauma, in the last Parliament.

I am proud to speak to this important issue, but I wish it was not necessary. During that study, the veterans affairs committee heard countless first-hand accounts of how terrible military sexual trauma can be and the lasting effects it can have on a person and their family.

First, we have to solemnly thank all the survivors who came forward to bravely share their stories and pursue claims despite all the challenges thrown in their way. Sadly, the VAC claims process still places a considerable burden of proof on survivors, sometimes forcing survivors to recount their horrific stories several times, and from what I have heard, time and time again.

Many witnesses shared their difficulties, delays and ongoing barriers when seeking help for MST-related health impacts. This is extremely important to note. MST survivors often experience lasting mental health effects, such as PTSD, depression and substance abuse, compounded by physical health problems and challenges in interpersonal relationships.

Many women came forward with heartbreaking accounts, but they had the courage to demand change and accountability from the system they were in. I would like to share some quotes from survivors who shared their accounts with our committee: “I came forward because I could not live with the weight of silence anymore. The trauma followed me home, and VAC made the process so hard that I nearly gave up.” That is not a lone comment.

Another comment was, “Being believed matters. In the military, the burden of proof is too heavy. My entire story was put on trial again when I applied for support from Veterans Affairs.”

Another witness shared this: “There is strength in telling our stories, but it's exhausting to relive the trauma with each new bureaucratic step. We need a system that listens the first time.”

Another comment from a witness was, “When I tried to access help, I felt isolated and invisible. Services were not designed for people like me—they didn't understand what I had lived through.”

These are heartbreaking testimonies that have come forward. VAC needs to train case managers in trauma. Too often, I was confronted by disbelief or ignorance when explaining the reality and the complexity of sexual trauma. The veterans affairs committee dealt with and listened to many witnesses. It was heartbreaking. This committee is doing good work, and we are also going to be hearing about veterans who have committed suicide and how we can prevent this for our veterans community, so it is not an easy committee to be on.

One comment that really hit home to me was, “All I ever wanted was recognition, support, and to be treated like my experiences mattered. MST ended my career and changed my life in every way.”

We need to be there for victims during their time in service and after their time in service.

I am someone who has served and a father of two young girls, and this issue hits extremely close to home. I can only hope that by the time my children are adults, parliamentarians will not still be looking at ways to fix these ongoing crises. Sadly, the current bill would not fix them.

First, I will say clearly to anyone watching that the Liberals are not serious about this issue. If they were, they would not have tabled Bill C-66 mere months before the last election, but they did. If they were serious, they would not have allowed it to die on the Order Paper without real debate. If they were serious, they would have listened to the experts explain the legislation's problems instead of copying and pasting the legislation into Bill C-11, the bill we are debating today. Frankly, Liberals cannot be trusted to stop sexual assault within the CAF. They constantly choose soft-on-crime policies instead of advocating for victims. We have seen that today in the House. Victims seem to be ignored, but those who commit the crimes seem to get away with it.

Those of us on this side of the House believe we must continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment. All military members deserve to have a safe and respectful workplace. All victims of military sexual misconduct deserve timely justice. The Harper government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment in the CAF. After a decade of the Liberal government and two more reports from Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly.

Sadly, parts of Bill C-11 would simply open the door to potential political interference and partisan appointments. First, the bill would give increased power to the Minister of National Defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions. Second, the director of military prosecution, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general would be appointed by the Governor in Council. Canadians are worried about political interference. Given the wide-ranging issues with the ways former defence minister Sajjan handled sexual misconduct cases in 2021, this is for good reason.

For over half a year, Justin Trudeau and former minister Sajjan continually covered up information on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Trudeau's team went to great lengths to block investigations and hide the truth from Canadians. For months in 2021, he orchestrated a cover-up to hide the fact that his top aide, Katie Telford, and former minister Sajjan had direct knowledge of the sexual misconduct allegation against the then chief of the defence staff.

In a statement on the report conducted by the status of women committee in 2021, Conservatives said, “it's become abundantly clear that there has been a lack of leadership” by the defence minister on the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Despite repeated problems, including handling of sexual misconduct allegations, then prime minister Trudeau left former defence minister Sajjan as the minister until after the next election. When sexual misconduct was studied at the national defence committee in 2021, the Liberals filibustered for weeks and then called an election before the committee was able to produce a report. Four Liberal MPs who participated in the filibuster are elected today. Let us be clear that Liberal political interference is not limited to national defence. Liberals have a long and proud history of it.

We have seen time and time again how the Liberals have involved themselves in military decisions when they should have stayed out. This means that parliamentarians who are veterans need to read and go through the bill in committee.