Bill C-66

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

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's tabling Bill C-66 at second reading. The Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-66, but we want to send it to committee. We know that it needs to be thoroughly studied, and we want to make sure that it is going to work for victims. We want to hear from stakeholders, military justice experts and the CAF itself to ensure that the appropriate action is being taken.

The government came to power nine long years ago, and here we are in the dying days of this Parliament and the government, and the Liberals are finally bringing forward something they knew was a problem. In 2015, former chief justice Deschamps brought forward a report that sat on the desk of former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, and on the desk of the former minister of national defence, who is now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, for years and they did nothing with it.

The Liberals actually covered up the sexual misconduct by former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance. They even stalled a committee from doing an investigation into why there was a cover-up from the Prime Minister's Office by Katie Telford and by the former minister of national defence. Why did they allow that to happen and why did they not act then to address the problems we had in the Canadian Armed Forces in protecting the victims of sexual misconduct?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified to hear that the member opposite, my critic in defence, and the Conservative Party will support the passage at second reading of Bill C-66. It is absolutely essential that we move forward with all speed. We all have a shared responsibility, and I believe every single member of this House cares about the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. I believe we all know that we have to work together to ensure that they have a safe, respectful and supportive work environment. I would very much like to get this bill to committee because I very much respect the work of the committee, and I am very gratified to hear of the member's support.

I also feel a great sense of urgency. This is an important bill. As I said, on the very first day I was appointed to this position, I tried to explain to DND and to Canadians that it was among my greatest responsibilities to make sure that we find every possible way to support all of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. I believe that is a value that everybody shares. I will wait respectfully to hear from our friends from the other parties, but I believe it is very much in the best interests of Canadian Armed Forces members, members of DND and all Canadians that we move forward with all diligence and speed to get this bill passed. We have work to do. Let us do it together.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is going to be somewhat similar to the question from my colleague, the co-chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

Since 2015, the issue of sexual misconduct has become common knowledge, so much so that Justice Deschamps, who reported on it at the time, served a guide for Justice Arbour, who also had to report on it. She wondered why she was being approached to do something that had already been done.

This bill was introduced in March, but we had to wait until September for second reading. It took some time. The bill primarily focuses on sexual misconduct, although we know that military personnel are complaining about many other kinds of grievances too.

If we had done the work on sexual misconduct a little sooner, would we have been able to move on to the next step by now and address other kinds of grievances that military personnel are complaining about? These grievances are adding fuel to an already serious fire, which explains why we are having problems with recruitment and retention.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also feel a sense of urgency. We have to get this done.

We have made very significant progress in response to all of Arbour's recommendations. We have also published a comprehensive implementation plan, which is available to all members of the House, to give a very clear outline of the work we are undertaking and will continue to do to get this done.

There is only one recommendation contained in Arbour's recommendations that requires legislative changes, and as members know, we introduced legislation back in March. This is our first opportunity to debate it, and I believe absolutely that we have the ability to work on this important matter together and get it to committee.

I believe the committee will add great value to this discussion. It will have an opportunity to hear from witnesses and move this forward. However, in the interests all of the men and women who have served or continue to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, and frankly in Canadians' interests as well, we are required to put our heads down together and get this job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for bringing this legislation together. The New Democrats will be supporting it at second reading to get it to committee because we know how important it is.

However, what I heard over the summer from many of the survivors of military sexual trauma, and the minister noted it, is that while the work of Louise Arbour was incredible and the consultation was very much needed, that was the work she had done. The work the government had done did not consult survivors. They were very concerned that they were left out of the consultation process for this piece of legislation.

I would very much like to hear an explanation from the minister of the gap that seems to have occurred.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I give my personal thanks for your and your party's support, which will allow this bill to move forward. That is important and it will allow us to get some work done.

With respect to consultation, as I have indicated and as Madam Justice Arbour reported, she did do fairly extensive consultation, during which she talked to hundreds of survivors, advocates and witnesses, who provided her with advice. I think her recommendations are a really clear road map of the path forward, and we have been well informed by them. I also want to assure you that our chief of the defence staff, in her previous role, conducted very extensive consultations. She advised me that she spoke to 16,000 people, and not just members of the Canadian Armed Forces, although there were many, and members of DND, but also advocates, survivors and witnesses. There was very extensive consultation.

I also hear you, because I have heard the same thing. There are some people who do not yet feel they have been heard. We are presented with a real opportunity at committee to give those people another forum where they can come forward and share their experiences and opinions with the committee. I also hope that you engage with our chief of the defence staff, who oversaw the consultation with over 16,000 people, so that she can share with you the results of those consultations.

I do not think we can ever do enough to listen to the lived experiences. People need to know that they have been heard, and we have tried very hard to hear them. I know there is no universal consensus on exactly the right way forward, but we have been informed by the excellent report of Justice Arbour and the excellent report of Justice Fish. We have listened to literally thousands of people who have come forward and offered their opinions, their lived experiences and their advice. Our work has been informed by that experience and that advice, but I would welcome the committee taking even further steps to continue in that consultation.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for putting forward this important legislation. I want to give a shout-out to all of our veterans and those who have served and who continue to serve our country, especially those from Mississauga—Streetsville's Legion 139.

I think a few of us in this room were able to be on the veterans affairs committee, and while serving on that committee, we heard many different testimonies, especially when we did the women's study. It had testimony from those who experienced sexual misconduct on how traumatizing those experiences were.

My hon. colleague talked about trust and how vitally important trust is, so I would like him to share how the reforms he is putting forward will continue to build trust with those who serve our country.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her concern.

I believe that for every member of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, having trust in their workplace, that their rights will be protected and that they will be respected is absolutely essential. It is why, in this bill, we are trying to make very clear that all members of the military justice system will be independent in their actions so that they will not be taking direction from the chain of command. They need to know that they are going to be treated with fairness, respect and compassion. They also need to know that they are going to have access to services.

Our responsibility, all of us, is to show respect and that we have heard their concerns. We have a responsibility to every man and woman who serves in the Canadian Armed Forces to make sure that they have a respectful, supportive work environment and to treat them with the dignity and respect that each one of them deserves. This bill is going to help us with that, but we have a job to do to make sure that we explain exactly what our rationale is. There has been a great deal of consultation, but there is more work to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before going to the next speaker, I want to remind colleagues that we run our questions and answers through the Chair and we do not refer to individual members with the word “you”, which we are not supposed to use here but was used a bunch of times in the debate.

I know the hon. minister was thinking about me but was looking at someone else. I want to thank him for his presentation and for his comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this House and speak for the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. Conservatives are proud of our soldiers, sailors and aircrew, and we want to support all those in uniform who serve Canada.

Conservatives believe that sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment must be stomped out of the Canadian Armed Forces because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. It is hard enough to do the dangerous work that we call upon them to do. We know they face incredible danger in addressing the conflicts around the world and the domestic responses to natural disasters right here in Canada.

The previous Conservative government, and we are talking nine years ago, accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all sexual harassment from the Canadian Armed Forces. That report, as I already asked the minister about, sat on the desk of the former chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, and on the desk of the former minister of national defence, who is now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness and the seatmate of the current Minister of National Defence. It sat on their desks and collected dust. Here we are, nine years later, and they are finally moving forward with legislative changes to the military justice system.

I would say that we cannot trust the Liberals to actually implement the policies needed to stop sexual assault and sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces when we look at the soft-on-crime policies they instituted in our Criminal Code and our criminal justice system in the civil courts from coast to coast to coast. After nine long years and two more reports from two more former superior court justices, the victims of sexual misconduct within the military still have no answers and they are not having their cases dealt with properly.

As I said earlier, Conservatives support Bill C-66. We want to get it to committee. We know it needs vigorous study. We know we need to hear from witnesses, both experts and academics, who are familiar with the National Defence Act and the military justice system, but we also have to hear from victims. We have to hear from those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and other stakeholders, including the legal community, provincial governments and municipal courts, that are going to be forced to handle the investigations, the collection of evidence and the prosecution within our court systems that are already overrun because of the soft-on-crime policies the Liberal government has brought forward.

We have these outstanding issues on whether there is capacity within the civilian court system to handle what is coming from the Canadian Armed Forces. The biggest problem is that they are overrun because of the soft-on-crime approach that is allowing people to get out on bail. Repeat offenders just keep going out and reoffending. That is why Conservatives always say, “Jail, not bail”. By doing that, not only are we taking dangerous and repeat offenders off our streets and making our communities safer, but we are going to be able to free up more resources within the court system to deal with things like sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Conservatives are wondering about some of the logic within Bill C-66. It is proposing to take the investigation and prosecution of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces outside of the military itself for any offences that occur within Canada. They would be moved into the civilian system, whether it is municipal or provincial police departments, or even the federal police department, the RCMP, in some jurisdictions. We would see the skills and ability of our military police and criminal prosecutors within the Office of the Judge Advocate General atrophy and deteriorate.

Within Bill C-66, whenever our troops are deployed out of Canada, we are still going to be in a situation where they are going to be the lead investigators and lead prosecutors, as well as the defendants, as we know happens within the military justice system, which has both prosecutors and defenders in order to provide the balance of justice to those who are accused and those who are plaintiffs. However, if they are not good enough to prosecute and investigate sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces when it happens here in Canada, how do we know we can trust them for cases outside Canada? I know I do, but I wonder if the minister is at all concerned about the atrophy of those skills, at both the prosecutor level and the investigator level, for our military police if they are not getting the repetitions. It is just like exercise; one has to do it over and over again.

The other concern we have is about the new Governor in Council appointments. Currently, the Governor in Council, or the cabinet, the Prime Minister, the PMO, appoints the chief of the defence staff, the deputy minister, the national defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman and the judge advocate general. They are all done through an order in council and they all report to the Minister of National Defence. Now we would be adding more Governor in Council appointments: the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal.

That would increase independence, but there are questions around the terms and lengths of those appointments. There is no consistency with other Governor in Council appointments we have, both in the civil system, within the bureaucracy and other government appointments, and those appointed under the National Defence Act. There is also no clarification of how those individuals would be reappointed. There have even been questions raised about whether having these three new Governor in Council appointments, who right now report to the JAG, would make having the judge advocate general irrelevant and the position undermined because of directives that can come from the minister.

We are also very concerned that this would increase political interference, which we have already witnessed with the Liberal government. This is because it would be giving the power to the Minister of National Defence to not only have control over more individuals within the Canadian Armed Forces, but also to issue guidelines under Bill C-66 with respect to prosecutions, which would open the door to that political interference.

All we have to do is look at some of the cases the government has already politically put pressure on to have moved to the civilian system. There was the case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman; we can look at how that came about. Of course, those charges were all stayed and there was a legal settlement paid out by the Government of Canada to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for its witch hunt.

There was the case of Jonathan Vance, the former chief of the defence staff. In that situation, he was not charged for sexual misconduct but was actually charged for obstruction of justice.

The next case I want to touch on is that of Admiral Art McDonald. Again, this was a political appointment by the Liberal government, and he was chief of the defence staff. It then came to light that there was some misconduct in his background. When it came time to prosecute, those charges were all dropped by the military prosecution office.

Major-General Dany Fortin was acquitted by the Quebec judicial system. There is pressure coming from the Liberals on National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to move these to the civil system, so here he is getting off. All we are doing is destroying these people's reputations, and from the victim's standpoint, they are not getting any justice.

With respect to Lieutenant-General Trevor Cadieu, his cases were stayed by the Ontario justice department.

Vice-Admiral Haydn Edmundson was found not guilty in the Ontario justice system. That case was just ruled on earlier this week, and it was found that a CBC reporter actually tampered with a witness and all the testimony was thrown out.

The last one I have here is Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan, and again, the charges were dropped by military prosecutors, and Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan has filed a statement of claim. When we look at all of this, we know we have a situation where the political pressure on national defence from the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence to move these into the civilian court system does not automatically result in justice for the victims. It actually turns into situations where we have liability because of increased defamation of the characters of individuals who have served this country for long, hard years as military leaders.

We know General Jonathan Vance as a former chief of the defence staff. When we studied this at the national defence committee, for three months the Liberal chair kept adjourning the committee and refused to let us hear from witnesses and experts and victims about the cover-up that happened when the victims came forward about Jonathan Vance. The news stories broke and it came to light that the former minister of national defence, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, had gone to great lengths to block the investigation, to turn a blind eye. The Prime Minister was involved in that. Unfortunately, the only committee that was able to give any type of report was the status of women. The Conservatives said, in response to that report, that it was “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.”

Of course, instead of finishing the report and getting to the bottom of this, an election was called, Parliament was prorogued and the report died. The Liberals had lots of opportunities to act earlier than 2024. They had lots of reports they could have relied on. I mentioned the 2015 Deschamps report. In 2018, the Auditor General released a report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces and then updated that report, the national defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman report on sexual misconduct, in 2021. We had the Justice Fish report, which was a very extensive report with hundreds of recommendations. There was, also from the status of women committee here in Parliament, the 2021 report “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces”. What did we have? Indecision, dithering, delays and punting this down the road to 2024.

Meanwhile, while all this was happening, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and sexual violence have escalated. As I have said before, we are trying to push out any sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces on base and here in Canada. Since 2015, over the last long nine years of the Liberal government, we have seen total sexual assaults at all three levels increase 74.83%. As for sexual violence in Canada, and this is all Canadians, sexual violence against children has increased 118.85%. Forcible confinement or kidnapping is up 10.6%. Indecent and harassing communications are up 86.41%. Non-consensual distribution of intimate images is up 801%. Trafficking in persons is up 83.7%.

These are huge numbers that are dominating the work of our civil judicial system, whether it is in defendants or prosecutors or municipal or provincial or federal police forces. We are now going to throw in there an increase in sexual misconduct that we are seeing at national defence.

Over the last five years, sexual misconduct reports have increased from 256 to 443. That is an increase of 73% under the watch of the Liberal government, which has turned a blind eye to this problem and failed to act in an appropriate manner.

However, I do not think we should be surprised by this at all, because this is a Liberal government that has failed our Canadian Armed Forces. It has failed our brave women and men, who are the best of the best that Canada has to offer. They go through some of the roughest training. They get screened from a medical and a health perspective before they are ever allowed to don the uniform, and the current government has allowed our Canadian Armed Forces to fall into complete disrepair for nine long years.

Our warships are rusting out, our fighter jets are worn out, the army has been hollowed out, and we are so short of soldiers, sailors and air crew that all our troops are burnt out. We have entire air squadrons now that have been shut down because we do not have enough personnel, whether pilots or maintenance personnel, to keep our fighter jets in the air. Our submarines are barely in the water. From all the Order Paper questions that we get back, we are lucky if we can put one submarine in the water for 100 days a year, and that is four submarines combined, which is embarrassing. How do we maintain skills if we do not have the opportunity to train and practise alongside our allies and protect our shorelines from other submarines?

When the Liberals announced their defence policy, SSE, back in 2017, I said that it was a book of empty promises. If we look at their track record, it is still a book of empty promises. The defence policy update was a year late and, again, fails to make a strong investment in the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, after the Liberals brought forward their defence policy update, they cut a billion dollars from the budget, which is affecting the operational readiness of our Canadian Armed Forces. Over $10 billion has gone unspent, uninvested in the Canadian Armed Forces. This means that the delivery of much-needed equipment is happening later, and our troops are getting tired of operating on old, worn-out equipment.

Our troops do not feel safe. They do not feel respected. They do not feel honoured by the government. That is why we are short 16,000 troops in the reserves and regular forces today; this is a shocking number to start with. However, because we are so short of troops, we are also short of the people, the ladies and gentlemen, who make up a kind of middle management. These are the corporals, the master corporals, the sergeants and sergeant majors, who go out there and train our forces.

Right now, we have over 10,000 undertrained and undeployable members who are in uniform. We do not dare send them out, because they do not have all the skill sets they need to do the job that we want them to. This is the government's own number. Our military has been so badly hollowed out that only 58% of our forces stand ready to deploy; again, that is a huge embarrassment.

One thing that has really undermined our troops is that, at home and abroad, they have literally been left out in the cold. We have a housing shortage of 6,700 units. The government has only budgeted $8 million to build homes over the next five years. Last year, it only built 20 homes for our Canadian Armed Forces members, and the year before that, it only built 18. Thirty-eight new homes will not make up for the 6,700-unit shortage we have right now, and that is why so many of our guys are living unhoused. They are living in tents; they are couch surfing and sometimes living in precarious situations.

I will close with this: The next Conservative government will rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces by cutting down on the bureaucracy and the wasteful spending on unnecessary consultants. We have people in the Canadian Armed Forces and within the Department of National Defence who can do that job. We will reduce that tail and invest it in the tooth of our military. We will take the taxpayer money that is going to foreign dictatorships and despots and reinvest that into the Canadian Armed Forces. We will spend more on the Canadian Armed Forces than the Liberals ever hoped to, and we will make the Canadian Armed Forces stronger and ensure they have the equipment they need. We will restore the honour and integrity of our military heroes so that Canadians can be proud of them. We will reverse all the woke Liberal culture, that experiment they have been carrying on; instead, we will support the war fighters of the Canadian Armed Forces so that they can proudly serve, proudly defend and proudly fight alongside our allies when they are called upon.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me admire the hubris of the member opposite. When he sat in government and his then government reduced defence spending to less than 1% of GDP, he sat there and went along with it. Over the last eight years, as we have more than doubled defence spending in Canada, every single time, the member voted against the dollars for it. Even when we brought forward money for a well-deserved raise for our soldiers, he sat there on his hands and voted against it. Deeds speak; his actions and the actions of a Conservative government speak much louder than the empty talk we are hearing now.

I just want to comment on some of his remarks. I have been involved in the criminal justice system most of my adult life. I want to advise him that acquittal is not evidence of a dysfunctional justice system; in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is actually proof that the system can work. I also want to address another misconception in his words. When we are eliminating concurrent jurisdiction and moving these sexual offences into the civilian criminal justice system, we are not suggesting that our military police are not doing their job properly. They are excellent, and they do their work very ably.

The change is not about the military police. The change is about the victims; it is about the perception of victims, of women and men, who have been subject to sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. We want to make sure that they can trust that they do not have to go to their boss to report their victimization. They can seek justice and support in a way that is independent of their work environment. That is how we create a safe, supportive and respectful work environment for those people, not by invoking somebody's very strange version of warrior culture.

We are talking about treating all the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces decently, respectfully, which is the way they deserve to be treated.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us just remind everyone that, if we actually look at what we bought and got delivered in a very short time for our Canadian Armed Forces when they were deployed and in theatre, there were five brand new C-17s and a whole fleet of new HERC-130Js. The Liberals had thrown away our Leopard tanks. Can members guess what we did? We bought a whole new fleet of Leopard tanks. We upgraded all our LAVs and our frigates, and everything was in perfect fighting condition.

Now we are in a situation where we do not have enough tanks to train with. We gave away all of our howitzers and did not replace them. We have a situation where we cannot actually deploy, because our individuals are stretched thin. This is outside the good work we are doing in the theatre of Latvia. We could not deploy anybody to go down to Haiti to help bring justice there under the government, because our troops are so poorly equipped and so poorly trained at this point in time that they cannot handle the workload coming at them. We are looking at a shortage of staff.

All we have to do is look at the track record on all the high-level cases that the Liberals have brought forward already. Where is the justice for the victims? Every court case was stayed or the defendant was found not guilty. In Jonathan Vance's case, he was not charged for sexual misconduct or even abuse of authority of his position as CDS. He was charged with obstruction of justice.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and co-chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence for his speech.

At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned the importance of hearing from victims and getting their views on Bill C‑66. However, it takes a lot of courage for victims to come forward and testify publicly about this type of case.

I cannot help but recall what happened this summer at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on the topic of domestic violence. It turned into a shocking free-for-all amongst the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, right in front of the victims, who ended up leaving the room in tears. Only my Bloc Québécois colleague from Shefford rose above the fray and was respectful.

If I were a victim, I would be doubly afraid and reluctant to testify before a committee. I have an idea. If we were to hear from potential victims in camera, would my colleague agree to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, as a father of three daughters, I want to make sure that any victim, male or female, who wants to come before our committee is treated with the utmost respect and that the political partisanship that we often play at would have no place in this study on Bill C-66.

We need to ensure that they have a safe place to help us do an analysis of Bill C-66. If we are in a situation where there are shortfalls within the legislation, or if there are situations that need to be amended, then we need to hear from those victims and we need to make sure they are feeling safe, welcome and respected. I encourage all members of our national defence committee to do so.

As vice-chair and former chair of that committee, I can commit today that members from the Conservative side will definitely respect all who appear. This is not about partisan one-upmanship, especially when we have those individuals in the room. This is about making sure that we get this right, that the military justice system is there to serve those who are already putting their lives on the line for this country and ensuring that they have a safe and respectful workplace where they do not have to worry about being mistreated and sexually assaulted by any of their cohorts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to hear that the Conservatives are in support of this bill to move to committee.

When the sexual misconduct scandals first came out, the Conservatives were seemingly ready to talk about the real systemic cultural reforms that were needed, but we are seeing a change within the leadership of the Conservative Party. It is certainly under new management, and they have talked about it. Actually, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman said himself today that there needs to be an end to this idea of woke culture.

There was a keynote speaker at the Conservative Party convention who downplayed the existence of sexual misconduct itself, which I found shameful, so I want to hear today from the Conservative member whether he will commit to that continued talk and support, as opposed to just pushing it aside and calling it “woke culture” when we're talking about women and men coming forward in this place, in this institution, to make the real change that they need against sexual misconduct.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say that the code of service discipline, the very ethos of the Canadian Armed Forces, holds up the issues of honour and integrity. I think all of us would demand that all those who serve apply that to their daily lives. This situation of sexual misconduct only happens when those individuals are not following through on that ethos, and then they are going to be subjected to the code of service discipline and the Criminal Code.

When we are talking about sexual misconduct, that has nothing to do with wokeness. This is about behaviour that has to change, and that respect has to happen. I am talking about ending that woke culture and making sure that we get back to training war fighters. I think that the stereotyping that has happened about our Canadian Armed Forces members in general has been detrimental because everybody who dons a uniform deserves to be respected. For everyone who goes out there, there is an expectation that they have a certain standard to meet.

Bill C-66 is for those who refuse to follow the code, and then they have to be subjected to the Criminal Code. For that, we support it one hundred per cent. To my colleague from the NDP, I will just say that, as I said to my friend in the Bloc, we will be treating this with the utmost respect and balance this conversation deserves to ensure that those who come before committee feel safe and are going to be valued in their testimony, which we will take it into serious consideration as we go forward.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too will put an end to the suspense by announcing that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.

However, I will reiterate some of the comments I made about the timeline that led to the passage of the bill and the relevance of debating it now.

As has been mentioned, the issue of sexual misconduct in the armed forces was first brought to the forefront in March 2015 by the hon. Justice Deschamps. This took place around the same time as a series of other events that I will come back to a little later. In April 2021, Justice Fish also made some recommendations. In addition, Justice Arbour released a report on the subject in June 2022. When she was asked to look at potential reforms within the armed forces to put an end to certain issues related to misconduct, she replied that this had already been done and studied. However, hardly anything was put in place to bring about the changes recommended by her predecessors.

It was not until March 2024 that Bill C‑66 was finally introduced at first reading. Only now are we debating it at second reading. We know that it is not because the Standing Committee on National Defence has nothing to do right now. We are already working on a number of things. I am a little concerned that other matters no less important than this one could get delayed.

I am not trying to diminish the importance of any particular issue, but we have several files to deal with. We usually give priority to clause-by-clause consideration of bills so that reports can be produced. I am worried that we are going to get bogged down because, for one thing, military procurement is still an issue. Just about every week, the media reports on a new problem, whether it is sleeping bags or deliveries of light armoured vehicles. This is a recurring problem. We are likely to hear about it again.

There is also the matter of military spending. Although new funding was announced with the updated defence policy, some cuts that were announced last September are still in effect. That has led to a lack of resources in several areas. Canada is still not meeting the 2% target that it committed to at the Wales summit in 2014. That percentage used to be a minimum, but it is now a maximum. We still have capacity issues when it comes to international operations. There are problems with recruitment, retention and housing. Francophones in the armed forces are also having trouble getting services in their mother tongue.

We may end up talking about the Afghanistan evacuation in the summer of 2021, the evacuation of Kabul. During that evacuation, the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the member for Vancouver South, reportedly gave instructions to prioritize members of the Afghan Sikh community over Canadians and interpreters who had helped Canada. That is not the first blunder this minister made. I may come back to that later, because, on his watch, mistakes were also made regarding the then chief of defence staff, Jonathan Vance. That was likely the most high-profile case pertaining to sexual misconduct and the lack of separation between the chain of command and the military justice system. It was a case study of sorts for the many other cases that were not necessarily talked about in the media but that still plague the armed forces.

All this work that could have been accomplished might get pushed aside because we are going to have to work on Bill C‑66, which could have been introduced much sooner. On top of that, we may not be able to finish the study. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the news in recent days knows about the sword hanging over our heads and the possibility that an election could be called. This could jeopardize the bill, which is anxiously awaited by victims of sexual misconduct in our military and other observers.

I have a lot of empathy for these victims, but I am afraid that we will not be able to finish the study, as much as we want to, even if everything goes as smoothly as humanly possible in committee. The bill may not make it to third reading, pass through the Senate, or go on to receive royal assent. However, at the very least, we all agree on the principle of this bill.

Another point I would like to make is that a number of victims were consulted by Justice Arbour as part of a much broader study on changing the culture in the armed forces. However, those victims do not appear to have been contacted for the specific study of Bill C-66, to fine-tune the bill. As I mentioned in a question to my colleague earlier, it can be hard for victims to testify publicly, so I would like to issue an appeal to them while I have the opportunity. If any victims wish to contact committee members to make recommendations or suggestions or to submit questions that they should ask, that would be great. Personally, I promise to treat any submissions in complete confidence, if only to get the point of view of people who have unfortunately experienced the difficulties of the excessive proximity between the military justice system and those facing charges.

Let us come back to the bill, which makes several changes. The bill focuses primarily on changes related to sexual misconduct. The military has other grievances as well, but they are unfortunately not addressed in this bill, which is understandable because it would have been a massive bill. It would have been almost impossible to address it all at once. I wish we had already dealt with this issue so we could move on to other things, but oh well. Again, it goes back to the issue of timing and the proper use of the parliamentary calendar by the government. We could spend all day talking about that. I will refrain from doing so this time.

On the issue of misconduct, the main amendment made by the bill is the one that could only be made through legislation. It seeks to implement recommendation 5 from Justice Arbour's report, which proposes to completely remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences listed in the Criminal Code and committed in Canada. Previously, the only offences that could not be tried by the Armed Forces themselves were murder, manslaughter and cases related to kidnapping or human trafficking. The bill adds new offences that will no longer be dealt with within the armed forces, such as sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, bestiality, voyeurism and publication of child pornography.

These are all sex offences. They can no longer be judged internally. This is a major change that was long overdue and I think it could have been implemented a little sooner. It was the key recommendation emerging from Justice Arbour's report and, as I said, it was the only recommendation that required legislation. Some things will not change, however, and I think that is a good thing. Military personnel can continue to gather evidence while awaiting the arrival of civilian authorities in the event of wrongdoing.

The other recommendations being adopted include ones from Justice Fish's report. Justice Fish recommended modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, to make it a political, civilian process instead of relying on the military chain of command. These individuals would be selected by the government instead of military leadership. That way, they would be sheltered from any form of blackmail. I would just remind my colleagues about the case of the chief of defence staff, Jonathan Vance, who had sexual relations with a subordinate and subsequently bragged about having full control over the military investigations, ensuring that the victim could not file a complaint. His successor at the time, Art McDonald, had also stepped down a few weeks following allegations of a sexual nature. That is one of the recommendations from Justice Fish's report that is implemented by Bill C‑66.

This bill implements eight others as well. I will speak to them briefly. They are recommendations 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

Recommendation 2 was that the National Defence Act be amended to allow the Governor in Council to appoint military judges, who can now be any officer or non-commissioned member who is a lawyer registered with the bar of their province and who has at least 10 years of experience as a lawyer and military member. This measure aims to exclude military judges from the summary hearing system. This evidently refers to summary hearings for service infractions or offences of a more disciplinary nature in general, such as being absent without leave, negligently discharging a firearm, wearing a uniform improperly or maintaining equipment poorly. Previously, service infractions like these could be tried before military judges. Now that the government is going to appoint military judges, they will no longer be able to decide matters that are subject to a summary hearing.

I understand the reasoning behind this, but I think it will still be useful to hear from people in committee to find out whether this exclusion is a good idea. The problem is that these summary hearings will always be presided over by unit commanders. This means it will always be a superior officer trying one of their subordinates, which generally results in a rather expeditious form of justice in which the person is guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around. This recommendation may need some improvement.

Recommendation 7 from Justice Fish's report will also be implemented. It calls for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services to be appointed, again on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, for terms of up to seven years.

Recommendation 8 will also be implemented, meaning that the judge advocate general will no longer be able to issue directives or instructions in respect of a particular prosecution. This power will be granted to the Minister of National Defence.

Recommendation 10 calls for the National Defence Act to be amended to enhance respect for the independence of military prosecutors, military defence counsel, and other actors in the military justice system. It will also clarify that the provost marshal, who is the head of the military police, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services are independent.

Recommendations 13 and 14 are for the provost marshal to be appointed by the government rather than by the military. Once again, appointments are being moved outside the military chain of command in favour of a more civilian process. An effort is made to create roles that are more self-sufficient, to avoid constantly ending up in a kind of closed circle or boys' club where judicial decisions are susceptible to outside control.

Finally, there is recommendation 16, which I mentioned earlier. It will allow any member of the military to file an interference complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada. Previously, only the victim could do so. A third party will be able to file a complaint against a military member or superior officer if they believe that the person interfered in the justice process. The purpose is to increase the number of people who can file a complaint, including the victim, for various offences.

Other recommendations being adopted include the recommendation that non‑commissioned members be allowed to become military judges. In the past, this position was reserved for more senior officers, but it did not necessarily reflect the current reality. Many non‑commissioned members, whose rank ranges from private to chief warrant officer, have a stronger academic background than some officers. In some cases, they are more academically qualified to fulfill this role.

Now the role of military judge could be open to a much larger pool that will better respect the current reality of the armed forces, which is not inappropriate in the circumstances. There will also be a much larger pool of potential candidates to select from for this role.

In the less substantial changes set out in Bill C‑66, there is the one that creates the victim's liaison officer position. It provides a representative for the victim, a sort of help in the complaints process. It also adds the possibility of a victim's representative being the spokesperson for the victim in dealing with this liaison officer. Some rather interesting recommendations were made, after all.

Finally, it harmonizes the National Defence Act with the Criminal Code regarding sex offender information and publication bans. There was a sort of code of silence for the general public on what could go on within the forces. Bill C‑66 will help modernize this.

As I was saying earlier, all of this is happening in the context of an issue that we have, unfortunately, been aware of for a long time, the issue of sexual misconduct. Members will recall that Justice Deschamps was commissioned to produce a report, which she submitted in March 2015. At that time, Jonathan Vance was also appointed as chief of the defence staff, even though allegations had already been made against him. Mr. Vance continued to commit indiscretions basically free from recrimination, mainly because the member for Vancouver South, the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness, more or less turned a blind eye to the complaints that he heard and everything surrounding Jonathan Vance's appointment. That likely gave victims the impression that nothing would change and that they would never get justice if the person who committed an offence against them was their superior. Unfortunately, that was true for many long years. We can hope that Bill C‑66 will have a positive impact and that it will give victims at least a little confidence in the system's ability to deliver justice when offences are committed.

Above all, the thing that I hope will change is the impression that no matter what happens in the armed forces, the boys' club will close ranks. Let us hope, once this dynamic changes, that recruitment and retention problems will become a thing of the past. It turns into a kind of vicious circle. The forces get a bad reputation, which has a ripple effect on recruitment and retention. We end up with a smaller pool of members in the forces and, unfortunately, fewer young recruits with a fresh outlook and possibly a much more assertive voice when it comes to speaking up and seeking justice. The fish, we are told, rots from the head. Often, we have to wait until the head is gone before things change. We cannot simply hope that things will change gradually as young people with different values join up. We need to speed up the process.

Bill C‑66 is a step in the right direction. I hope that we can move the bill forward quickly in committee. I somehow doubt it will happen. However, if any sand gets thrown in the gears, Bloc Québécois members will not be the ones to blame.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my very sincere appreciation for the Bloc's support in moving this bill through second reading and to committee. I also want to acknowledge the very thorough analysis of all the points that are in Bill C-66. The member did a very thorough job of articulating the important measures in this bill and the reasons behind them.

It is absolutely important that every single member of our Canadian Armed Forces, men and women, trusts that they will be treated fairly and respectfully. They should not be afraid to come forward. With the appointment of our chief professional conduct and culture in 2021 and our commitment to that position, with some of the very important work that has taken place over the last two years in implementing almost half of Justice Arbour's recommendations and with our clear commitment to doing the rest, I am hoping that we will encourage people to trust that they will be treated properly.

I also want to share that over 70,000 people applied to join the Canadian Armed Forces last year. There is no shortage of Canadians who want to serve their country. We just have to do a better job of getting them into training and deployed in the services. I believe that the introduction of this bill and the work that we will all do together in committee will make a real difference.

I do not have a question, but I look forward to working with all members on passing the bill through committee. I believe very sincerely that the committee has important work to do and can make this bill better.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister may not have asked me a question, but he did raise a point that I failed to mention when I was listing other files that the committee could examine.

With respect to recruitment and retention, yes, 70,000 people applied. The problem is that so many applications remain in the queue for so long because the processing time for new recruits is so problematic that there is no way to make up for the backlog. This is just another example of how much work needs to be done in the armed forces to improve the system. This gives me an opportunity to reiterate that I wish Bill C-66 had passed already, so that we could continue to work on everything that still needs to be done, rather than doing it now, nearly 10 years after the first red flag was raised.

Nevertheless, I will work with the minister and my colleagues on this file, which is critically important, especially for the victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

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

Madam Speaker, when my colleague from the Bloc and I work together on the bill, we will be vigorous in our analysis and will ensure that we get it right.

The member mentioned the member of Parliament for Vancouver South, who is the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness and the former minister of national defence. Does she believe that his protection of his war buddy, his brother in arms, former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, was political interference, and that because of his unwillingness to address this back in 2015 and onward until 2021, after the last federal election, nothing was done on sexual misconduct? Was there a willingness to turn a blind eye to it to protect his friend?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think there is no need to describe the former minister's actions as political interference to know, to understand and to conclude that it was absolutely not the thing to do.

Unfortunately, what happened ended up slowing down the process, because it was not until 2021, if memory serves, that journalists shed light on the issue and the Standing Committee on National Defence looked into it. Ultimately, it was unable to get anything done for two years because of the Liberals' obstruction.

The former minister's actions aside, it is undeniable that this delayed the adoption of Bill C‑66 currently before us. That might have given us an extra two years to adopt this bill that, in the end, might never see the light of day.

It is shameful and the former minister's actions are partially to blame.

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

Madam Speaker, in addition to the criminal offences, it is crucial to reassess our support for victims of sexual trauma in the military.

We have heard the concerns about the lack of institutional points of contact for francophone members of the armed forces, reservists and cadets.

I know that the member represents a riding where there is a military college, so I would like to ask her whether she supports the committee's inquiry into additional types of support for the survivors.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for the question she asked in perfect French.

Unfortunately, that comes back to what I was saying earlier. There are so many important issues to examine. Unless I am mistaken, the issue that she raised is addressed in a motion, but there are so many motions that the Standing Committee on National Defence has to examine.

Generally speaking, the substance of these motions is worthwhile. The Standing Committee on National Defence has worked relatively well over the past two and a half years since I have been the critic for this file. The problem is not the quality of the files that we need to look at, but the fact that the workload is enormous and the number of issues continues to grow. I therefore agree with what my colleague is saying. Unfortunately, the problem is more about prioritizing all of the files that the Standing Committee on National Defence has to look at. We have more work than we have time for.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very informative speech. She clearly has a firm grasp of the file.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister of National Defence for listening carefully to the positions of each of the other parties. Unfortunately, the House seldom sees a minister so diligent about his legislation. We appreciate it. We support the bill in principle, although it should have been implemented and passed a long time ago.

My hon. colleague raised another issue. It concerns the testimony of victims in committee who may end up getting caught in partisan crossfire from various elected members sitting on the Standing Committee on National Defence. She apparently has some suggestions to ensure the comfort and well-being of these witnesses and ensure they are treated with respect, considering the kinds of stress they may be dealing with.

I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I put the question to my colleague the co-chair, he may have mentioned that the issue of sexual misconduct is so non-partisan that we should ensure the safety of the witnesses who testify about it. However, the issue of domestic violence should not have been partisan either. That did not stop us from witnessing an unfortunate circus this summer at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Hence my suggestion to have these individuals testify in camera, if they request it. The goal is to give ourselves an opportunity not to engage in partisanship, which we may be a little more quick to do when the cameras are rolling. That is a solution I am proposing. Perhaps there will be others. I would be more than happy to discuss it with my colleagues. I think it is critical for this issue.

I will pick up where my hon. colleague from Joliette left off. It is true that the minister is very attentive and available. I appreciate that. We know that he cares deeply about all issues affecting the forces. We do not always agree on how to resolve them, but we are able to talk about them in a very courteous way and that is appreciated.

The House resumed from September 18 consideration of the motion 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.

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

Madam Speaker, today is an important day for many survivors. I want to begin by recognizing the women and men who are watching this debate on the bill today. There are generations of survivors of military sexual trauma who will be closely following the debate on the legislation. I have heard from many of them. They told me about how they felt invisible. Some have felt invisible to the institution they committed their lives to in the Canadian Armed Forces. Some have felt invisible to the senior leadership of the military they served. Some have felt invisible to the greater public, who do not know all the complex layers of their experiences. Some have felt invisible to us, the few hundred Canadians with the rare privilege to serve in the House of Commons, who hold a sacred obligation as decision-makers to protect those who protect us.

Every day these survivors are working for change. They build resilience by supporting and holding each other up when the institutions will not. They empower each other and assist with making claims when institutions will not. They organize and demand reforms to politicians when our priorities do not meet them where they are at. They come together to support each other when they choose to make the impossible decision to share and reshare their trauma to the media or to parliamentary committees.

Today is another chapter in their fight. I want to highlight this to the women and men watching, to those brave survivors. This piece of legislation is not the last chapter, but one step in a large list of changes that are needed, and I am with them. We will not stop until there is justice for survivors and until everyone who steps up to serve their country can do so in a safe environment. I want them to know they are not invisible. They are remarkable, and they are not alone.

Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act, which, among other things, is legislating Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation of the independent external review to remove criminal sexual offences from the military justice system. This will give exclusive jurisdiction to the civilian justice system.

This legislation also works to implement some of the recommendations by Justice Fish's third independent review of the National Defence Act, expanding the eligibility criteria to be appointed as a military judge to allow non-commissioned members to become judges, not just military officers. This legislation removes the minister's power of appointing and removing the director of military prosecutions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Point of order. There seems to be a problem with interpretation. Is that the issue?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, the interpreters are saying that there is a phone on vibrate near a microphone, so they are having difficulty doing their job.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it working now?

Sorry, I will put my earpiece in.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

The interpreter said that there was a phone on vibrate next to a microphone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This happened during presenting of petitions as well. I want to remind members to please put their telephones away from the mic, not even have them on the desk or put them on airplane mode, because it does interfere with interpretation. We want to make sure that the interpreters are able to interpret properly, and make sure that their health and safety is taken care of.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my appreciation to the member opposite for her lifelong dedication to ensuring that every member of the Canadian Armed Forces and all employees of the Department of National Defence are treated with respect and compassion and are provided with the appropriate supports.

I agree wholeheartedly with the need for action, and we are taking that action, but first of all we need to listen. We need to hear the voices of survivors, victims and witnesses. To hear their lived experience, their advocacy and their testimony is important. I want to assure the member that in this process the Canadian Armed Forces has interviewed over 16,000 of those people and heard their voices. Madam Justice Arbour interviewed hundreds of witnesses and advocates in order to reach conclusions.

I believe that what we brought forward in this bill is helpful and has important steps—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. minister might be able to get up for other questions after, but at this point it is time for the response from the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

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

Madam Speaker, we can never do enough to hear, and it is true that we also have to listen. A lot of the people I heard from were referring to the fact that, specifically about this legislation, they were not consulted. It may have been in other formats, done by other people, but not by this government and not for this legislation.

I hope we can continue to work together to ensure they are brought to committee, but also to bring forward the recommendations we heard in the veterans committee study about women's health to be included in the work of the national defence committee.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, would allow criminals convicted of sexual assault to serve their sentence at home in front of a television. Does the member believe survivors of military sexual trauma should have to endure their attacker serving out their sentence in the comfort of their house right down the street?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is new to this place, and I congratulate him on his win. I certainly congratulate him on becoming a new member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. I look forward to working with him in the future.

I think the Conservatives have a long way to go to understanding what listening to the voices of survivors of sexual trauma and violence truly is. I would point out that at the Conservative Party convention in 2023, one of their main spokespeople said in his speech that “Canadian values are being destroyed due to a lack of leadership and a woke movement that panders to narrow special interests.” He continued on a Jordan Peterson podcast and openly questioned the existence of a sexual misconduct crisis.

I would ask the Conservative Party to look within as to who Conservatives are listening to regarding sexual misconduct and violence instead of taking the time to listen to survivors.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from London—Fanshawe, with whom I have worked on this file, notably as part of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

What strikes me about her speech—what strikes me again today—is that we are still talking about this in 2024, when in 2015, before the Liberals even came to power, the Conservatives knew things about the general. The things they knew were simply accepted and tolerated. There was a report by Justice Deschamps. Even Justice Arbour, when she was appointed, said that recommendations had already been made several years earlier, yet she was asked to produce another report.

Does my colleague agree that the real lack of political will to change the culture within the armed forces is why we are still talking about this today, in 2024?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her work. We worked very well together on the status of women committee. We were dedicated to hearing the women and the survivors who came forward, and I certainly am grateful for her continued work for women.

It is one of my concerns, and I addressed this in my speech, that there is just a shifting of responsibilities and not a true desire to shift the culture. It is absolutely true that in 2015, with the Justice Deschamps report, moving forward through the various reports and institutions, we heard the same thing and it was not acted upon. Even Justice Arbour said she feared her report would move into “the graveyard of recommendations”.

This is, again, one piece. There is a huge amount of work that we need to do, and listening to the victims is a huge part of that moving forward.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all those across Canada who are serving our country. I want to acknowledge the victims of sexual trauma and assault serving in the armed forces who have not received the justice they deserve or the reassurance that things will be different for those who choose to serve after them.

I am thankful for the work of my colleague from London—Fanshawe. I want to ask my colleague about a bill she has worked really hard on, Bill C-362, which is calling to make the national defence ombudsperson an officer of Parliament.

Can the member share how the bill she put forward relates to the bill we are talking about today?

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

Madam Speaker, that specific bill is one I brought forward at the same time I brought forward the changes moving sexual assault cases from the military system into the civilian system and to do it quickly.

I have met often with the national defence ombudsperson. He and his predecessor have asked that the role become one of an independent officer of Parliament in order to provide survivors with greater transparency, accountability and independence; to ensure their stories are heard; and to give the ombudsman the opportunity and ability to fully investigate in a safe and secure way, as opposed to having to go through chains of command within the military system.

That independence is really key, and it is something I will continue to fight for in collaboration with the new ombudsperson, who I want to congratulate today.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for London—Fanshawe and add my words to those of the members thanking her for her work. I also worked with her mother, and I would like to thank Irene Mathyssen for consistent leadership on the issue of justice for women who suffered sexual violence in the course of their military service.

Having studied the bill, does the member believe it is possible to make sufficient amendments in clause-by-clause in committee to make Bill C-66 ready for speedy passage?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a bit of a tug-of-war because we want to make sure the bill is moved through. I do not want any more women to find themselves in this tug-of-war between the two systems. It is unfair that they see their cases stayed because of it and that they have to go through that back-and-forth. It is also one of the reasons we asked for consistent reviews of this legislation after it is passed. It needs to happen, considering we are changing things back to how they once were in investigating and dealing with sexual trauma within the military.

I wish the consultation had happened with survivors before, so the legislation, slow as it was to come forward, had been done in a better, more fulsome way. It is work we can do in committee. We have to work together. We have to get through a lot of partisanship to do it, but it is possible. I have seen it happen in the status of women and I hope to see it in national defence.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

It is truly an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑66 and the important work that our government is doing to modernize the military justice system and the culture of our armed forces.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces work tirelessly to defend Canadians, our way of life, and this magnificent country that we call home. Military members are deployed around the world to defend Canada's interests and support our international partners and allies. They also help communities across the country in times of natural disasters or other emergencies. As the minister said in his speech, supporting members of the Canadian Armed Forces is one of our top priorities.

The Canadian Armed Forces are the backbone of Canada's defence and we have their backs. For our military members to contribute their best work, it is our responsibility to ensure that they can show up every day as their true and authentic selves.

Our government is fully committed to ensuring that military members continue to have confidence in the military justice system. We are taking deliberate, coordinated action across the defence team to create this change in a sustainable and meaningful way.

The changes proposed in Bill C‑66 are designed to reform the military justice system, making it more transparent and more responsive to the needs of our constituents.

However, these crucial institutional changes are only one piece of the puzzle. For decades, the defence team has been grappling with the tough realities and experiences of military members and employees, including those who have been affected by misconduct, harassment and crimes of a sexual nature.

Since 2015, the Minister of National Defence has taken significant steps to prevent this behaviour and find solutions to the problem. One key step was the creation of the sexual misconduct response centre, which became the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre, an organization that provides support services to those directly and indirectly affected and is not subject to the military chain of command.

The sexual misconduct support and resource centre is available to current and former defence team members, as well as cadets and junior Canadian Rangers aged 16 and older and family members of the wider defence community.

Other efforts put forward at this time were steps in the right direction and laid some important groundwork, but they did not meet the need, nor did they go far enough to achieve enduring change. That is why in 2021, the department launched the chief professional conduct and culture, or CPCC, to redouble its efforts to create this lasting change.

The CPCC is the single functional authority for professional conduct and culture at National Defence. The CPCC is responsible for developing policy and programs to address systemic faults, enhancing tracking mechanisms for reporting professional misconduct and leading efforts to develop a professional conduct and culture framework that tackles discrimination, harmful behaviours, biases and systemic barriers.

By making this organization the focus of our efforts to change the culture, we ensure that all of our institutions can move forward in a unified and coherent manner. The CPCC has taken the time to listen to defence team members past and present at all levels, so that efforts to change the culture reflect the experiences and suggestions of our members.

The CPCC's work contributed to the publication of “The Canadian Armed Forces Ethos: Trusted to Serve”, which aims to ensure that military members carry out their duties professionally and with respect for the dignity of all persons.

The department's work is closely linked to the CPCC's efforts to respond to the recommendations outlined in four key external review reports related to culture change and the modernization of the military justice system.

The reports are the following: the independent external comprehensive review by Justice Arbour, which focuses mainly on the issue of harassment and sexual misconduct; the third independent review of the National Defence Act by Justice Fish, which includes recommendations for modernizing the military justice system; the report of the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination, which aligns closely with the priorities of the Government of Canada; and the report of the national apology advisory committee board, which was developed to provide recommendations about the Government of Canada's apology to the descendants of No. 2 Construction Battalion.

We have already made significant progress on a number of these recommendations. We have taken measures to implement Justice Arbour's recommendation on how we define sexual offences in policies and how we talk about them. We have also repealed the duty to report in order to prioritize trust and safety, as well as the agency of victims, survivors and affected individuals. We also launched the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board, which is tasked with evaluating the quality of education, socialization and training at our two military colleges. Lastly, we published a new digital grievance submission form that allows armed forces members to access services and recourse options more easily, quickly and efficiently.

The department has also developed a plan to prioritize and sequence work across the defence team in a coordinated and collective effort to implement the remaining recommendations from all four reports. When the CPCC consulted with current and former defence team members from across the country, a common theme emerged: the need for the continuing evolution of the military justice system in response to developments in law and society, and the need to maintain trust in the system.

Through Bill C-66, we are introducing reforms to the National Defence Act to address key recommendations from the reports by former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish. They include Madam Arbour's fifth recommendation, as well as eight recommendations from Justice Fish's third independent review of the National Defence Act, designed to, among other things, increase confidence in the military justice system and help remove real or perceived influence from the Canadian Armed Forces' chain of command. Most notably, through Bill C-66, Criminal Code sexual offences that take place in Canada would be under the exclusive jurisdiction of civilian authorities.

Through Bill C-66, Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada will fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of civil authorities.

Bill C-66 also seeks to modify the process for appointing the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the Canadian Forces provost marshal. It will also expand the class of persons who can be appointed as military judges or non-commissioned members and it will expand the class of persons who can file an interference complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission. It will enable those acting on behalf of a victim to have access to a victim's liaison officer under the victims bill of rights.

The well-being of the members of our armed forces is one of our top priorities. They work hard to defend us, our country and our partners around the world. It is our responsibility to ensure that they can work in an environment that is free from any kind of discrimination, harassment or misconduct.

Our government is committed to changing the culture within our armed forces so that every member of our defence team can be authentic and feel valued, included and encouraged to give the best that they can in service of Canada every day.

The changes that our government is making to the culture within our armed forces and our military justice system are part of an ongoing process.

In closing, I would like to salute our armed forces.

I thank all our members here in Canada and abroad for their extraordinary service. I really hope the House will find a strong resolution to send the bill to committee.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, on one level, this is a relatively simple bill that would transfer the issues of sexual offences from the military's jurisdiction to civilian jurisdiction so that military personnel are treated in the same fashion that civilians are. This flows from a rather lengthy response.

No bill nor change in culture happens quickly, whether it is in the military or otherwise, but in the “House Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN), MND Update to Parliament on Arbour Recommendations”, from December 13, 2022, on the last page of the 50- or 60-page document, is recommendation number five, which is that the Government of Canada proceed with this bill. It goes into some detail, which is not necessary, but I am happy to table it. It also outlines the implications of the efforts the government has made to complete this recommendation, including consultations with territories and provinces, and ministers, such as the national defence minister, public safety minister and justice minister, meeting with all the provinces and territories.

I will not detail all of the work that has gone into responding to this recommendation. It may well appear that it is a simple thing to take the jurisdiction from the military courts and put it into the civilian courts, but it is a lot of work, and I want to commend the ministers who have worked diligently on bringing us to this point today.

I understand that this bill will gain a lot of support in the House, and so it should. It is in some respects symbolic of what has been a slow and painful culture change in the military. It is a very symbolic bill, in that it is a particular marker of response by the military.

Canada's military today is not our fathers' military and it is certainly not our grandfathers' military. It is a far more sophisticated organization, and it calls upon a range of talents and abilities that probably could not have been dreamed of even 10 or 20 years ago. Therefore, Canada's military needs to be a welcoming and inviting organization for all of Canada's citizens to participate in.

I will point members to the first recommendation of the defence committee, from June 2022: “That the Government of Canada take decisive steps to transform the institutional culture within the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure an inclusive, safe and respectful workplace for all Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence personnel.” That is the core reason this bill is in front of the House. It is because we need to change.

The threat environment, even in the last two years, has dramatically changed. We can think of Ukraine. We can think of the South China Sea. We can think of Palestine. This morning we had a threat briefing from three very able individuals, and I must admit that all of my colleagues on the committee came up to me afterwards and said that it was really excellent.

Because the threat environment has changed and we need a whole-of-society response to this change in culture, this bill needs to be passed, as it is essentially treating these kinds of offences in the same manner that offences would be treated in a civilian court. There should be no difference. There are difficulties with the military justice system. If there is an incident of some kind with two uniformed personnel, somebody is saluting somebody, and after the incident takes place, people still have to carry on their regular business of the day. It is extremely awkward and difficult. While we properly focus on the victim, we also need to keep in mind that there is justice on both sides.

In the Canadian military, we need a wide diversity of skills. I want everyone to think for a moment of a young woman or man contemplating a career in the Canadian military. In the past, and I hope no longer, there was a perception that over the course of a career, there was a high percent chance that a sexual incident would happen. Think of a young woman or man being invited into an organization where there is a significant chance that something will happen and, if something happens, there is a significant chance that the resolution will be unsatisfactory. They are not going into the same justice system as they would if the exact incident happened on the street, for want of a better term. That is going to affect their career, and the discharge arrangements for their career will not be as satisfactory as they otherwise could be. We should ask ourselves how that works for a military that is trying to recruit people. If we think of it from the standpoint of a young woman or man, that aspect of a career in the Canadian military is not attractive, but we need their skills.

In some respects, this bill would deal with one of the more egregious aspects of recruitment and retention. The Canadian military is significantly undermanned, somewhere in the order of 16,000 people. When I asked General Allen how many people were applying, she said 70,000 people. I then asked how many we are processing and she said about 4,000 or 5,000 a year. That is not a great outcome.

We need to up our game. The threat environment has changed dramatically. This bill would be a symbolic and real response to the need for culture change. We need skills available to the Canadian military, and I am rather hoping that with the co-operation of our friends and colleagues, we will move on this legislation so that we can demonstrate that we are serious about making this cultural change and reflecting it.

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

Madam Speaker, I was on the status of women committee when it studied sexual assault in the military, and the heartbreaking stories of the trauma that had been experienced demanded urgent action. However, here we are two and a bit more years later with nothing much done by the Liberal government. It is bringing forward a bill that may not even make it through the Senate by the time the next election happens.

In the bill, I am specifically concerned about the increase in ministerial powers to get involved in individual cases. We saw in the past the same members and ministers of defence obstructing in the General Vance case and in several other cases. Could the member comment on what protections will be in place to ensure that ministers do not intervene in a way that is detrimental to survivors?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, a proper reading of the bill deals with the concern raised by the member. There is a concerted effort to simply treat this kind of incident in the same fashion as a civilian incident, period; end of sentence. I encourage the hon. member to read the response of the defence department in the final paragraph. The ministers and the governments have made efforts to make what appears to us to be a simple change, but it actually turns out to be fairly complicated and with some resistance on the part of civilian courts and the various governments they represent.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood. He is a wise man.

When he says that the example has to come from the top, I would remind him that former chief of the defence staff Vance was appointed in 2015 by the Conservatives and then protected by the Liberals. He was never charged during his entire tenure, but matters of sexual misconduct in his file shadowed him the entire time.

My question is this. The first report in 2015, the Deschamps report, covered essentially the same sexual misconduct information. In 2022, Ms. Arbour was asked to prepare a report. Her report said exactly the same thing. Ms. Arbour also said that she failed to understand why another report on this matter was even necessary when one had already been released.

Can my colleague explain why we are dealing with this issue today, after such a long time, and in such an important file?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, we would all wish to move more rapidly; that is a given. Even Madam Justice Arbour, who is very familiar with how legislation gets created and implemented, recognized this was going to take time. I am rather pleased that during the interim, the government has, in many instances, responded quite significantly to the other recommendations that Madam Justice Arbour put forward and that have been in various stages of implementation. It is legitimate on the part of the hon. member to continue to call the government to account for the recommendations she has made.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been fighting for meaningful legislation to be brought forward since government first announced the transferring of cases, but the government's delay in bringing this legislation forward has had the tragic consequence of survivors being robbed of justice by concurrent jurisdictions causing cases to be stayed. We want this legislation to reach committee quickly, we are hearing that around here, so we can strengthen the bill and ensure more cases are not stayed. We also know this bill needs to pass to protect future cases from potentially being stayed by undue delays in the transfer of evidence. Many survivors have expressed their frustration that this bill was created by Ottawa lawyers without their input.

How can the government protect survivors when the minister is not actually consulting them?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am as interested in getting this bill to committee as the hon. member is. I chair that committee. Insofar as I have any authority in that committee, it will move as quickly as we can move it. I am looking forward to the co-operation of my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back after the summer break and have my first speech in the House and represent the good people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I would like to start off by saying that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

I am happy to have been given the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-66, a bill to introduce changes to national defence aimed at modernizing the military justice system, and responding to the recommendations made by two former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the government's long-overdue legislation to try and finally apply recommendations made in numerous reports regarding sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We must continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. The previous Conservative government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment from the Canadian Armed Forces. This important report was ignored by the government, and it is disappointing that the Liberal government has failed to act on this important report. Liberals cannot be trusted to stop sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces because of their soft-on-crime policies. After nine long years of the Liberal government and two more reports from former Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly.

I support Bill C-66, but let me make this perfectly clear: it needs to be carefully studied at committee to ensure concerns from all stakeholders are taken into consideration and amended appropriately. There are also outstanding concerns about the ability of the civilian judicial system to handle these particular cases, given that the court system and courtrooms are already backlogged due to the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies and repeat offenders getting out of jail on bail and committing more crimes. It is a continual cycle that the Liberal government has created. Its present catch-and-release system is failing the people of Canada and, if implemented in the military, will fail both the military and the people of Canada.

The Liberals have had many reports that they could have already acted on, but instead we are in the last year of a parliamentary session, and only now are they taking any legislative action. The reports that I am speaking of include the 2015 Deschamps report, which I mentioned earlier; the 2018 Auditor General report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces; the 2021 Justice Fish report; the 2021 DND Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman report on sexual misconduct; and the 2021 “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces” report from the status of women committee. There would also have been a report by the Standing Committee on National Defence, but the Liberals instead chose to filibuster and keep the committee in the same meeting for three months, then prorogue Parliament for the Prime Minister's impromptu election in 2021. Instead of taking action, they asked for another report by another former justice and got the 2022 Arbour report.

I will add here that according to Statistics Canada data reported since 2015, disappointingly, total sexual assaults in Canada were up 74.83% and increased an additional 71% last year. These are horrific to hear. These are stats that we do not want to hear but we cannot ignore.

We did our own study in veterans affairs committee on women veterans, and spent a lot of time speaking with survivors of military sexual trauma. This study took the better part of a year. We heard several difficult stories, dating back to when women were first admitted into the Canadian Armed Forces. For me, personally, these were horrific to hear and have left a lasting impression on me that we need to act correctly and do better.

One of the issues we heard about was the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to investigate these claims. Jennifer Smith said in her testimony:

I've spoken about it in Federal Court. I've given this information to many, many high-ranking officials. I've even provided the names of some of my attackers as well as pictures. Again, I've never been offered the opportunity [to file a complaint]. I still don't know what avenue I have to go forward with this. I've been told to write it down on a claim form. I feel that this goes beyond that. This is criminal activity. I know who did it. I know some of the people who did it. I'm just wondering why no one has come to me or reached out to me. I've given the information. I haven't been asked if I want to go forward with that or been presented with some options. That has not happened.

Clearly, there is a need to have civilian courts investigate these cases outside the chain of command of military. Our committee made that recommendation. However, this same recommendation has been made several times before, going back to the Deschamps report of 2015, nearly a decade ago.

Just now, a year away from the next scheduled federal election, the government is finally going forward with legislation on this. It is instances like this that make it so difficult to take the Liberal government seriously, to reconcile horror stories I hear first-hand of pain and suffering and not acting.

On top of that, the Liberal government has spent the last decade pushing our courts to the breaking point. The Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, have led to a skyrocketing crime rate in Canada. Statistics Canada lists total sexual assaults as increasing by 75% since 2015.

The Prime Minister has continuously shown that he does not take the safety and security of Canadians seriously. His Liberal government is watering down serious offences. These offences include date rape, drugs and human trafficking, which is on the rise. They once again prioritize the rights of criminals over the rights of victims. At a time when our courts are overworked and understaffed, this legislation aims to add more cases to their dockets. This is one of the serious issues that needs to be examined in committee.

I want to share that I have seen the military justice system work while I served. Whether it was summary trial, court martial, or dismissal of military personnel, I have seen it work. However, there has to be another level of oversight.

The next Conservative government would rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces by cutting down the bureaucracy and the consultants. We would make sure that the money is going to the Canadian Armed Forces. We would restore the honour and integrity of our military heroes that Canadians can be proud of. Finally, we would reverse the left-wing Liberal woke culture and return the war-fighting capabilities of the brave women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is talking about a previous government that allegedly did all sorts of great things for military justice reform. His party did nothing. It did nothing at all during the nine years it was in power, and yet my colleague comes here to criticize.

We all agreed that this bill is important. A number of measures have been taken in recent years. Twenty of Ms. Arbour's 48 recommendations have been implemented. We are going to keeping working until 2025 to implement them all.

However, today, we are here to talk about Bill C-66, because recommendation 5 provides for a change to the National Defence Act.

Will my colleague agree to send this bill to committee so it can be studied and moved forward?

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

Madam Speaker, as I pointed out, under the Conservative government we did initiate reports, and they were delayed by the Liberal government. As I also stated, we believe not everybody has been heard on this, and because of the way this report is written, we want the bill to go to committee so we can make some adjustments and have input.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech, which was very sensible. There is still important work to do. We must continue to do it in order to protect people and especially our soldiers. Sending this bill to committee is a first step. We also need to leave enough time so that the bill can get to the Senate and then be given royal assent. That is part of our responsibility.

My colleague does not have confidence in this government, and we cannot blame him. That being said, does he have confidence in all of the opposition parties?

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

Madam Speaker, my answer is no. I have no confidence in the other parties in the House. I have full confidence in the Conservative Party, and I am grateful to represent the Conservative Party in my riding.

I want to see this report go to committee so we can have input and so some of the reports we have dealt with in the past can reflect this.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am on the veterans affairs committee with the member. I was one of the lead people who put forward the study on women veterans. A focused study on women veterans had never been done in Parliament before.

One of the things we heard from those women was that because they were serving federally and moving from one province to another, sometimes where the incident happened was not where they were moved to, so cases got dropped. We need to figure this out in the civilian world so that does not happen.

I am wondering if the member is going to work seriously in this committee. I hope to see the committee move rapidly, because it is a big issue that needs to be addressed immediately. I hope the Conservatives will be dealing with real issues that matter to women veterans and, of course, not playing the games the Conservatives like to play.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work on the veterans affairs committee.

As the member has heard during committee, when I served with the Canadian Armed Forces, we always wanted to protect everybody in our platoon. We always protected them, and it did not matter what race or sex a person was. Obviously, I want to make sure that everybody is protected.

Conservatives would like the bill to be expedited as quickly as possible, but we also have to take the time to make sure that there is input and that people are truly protected and looked after. It does not matter what province or country a person is in when serving.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House.

On behalf of the wonderful people of Calgary Midnapore, whom I continue to be so proud to represent, I am here today speaking to Bill C-66.

I will start by saying that as a Conservative and as a woman here in the House of Commons, I believe and Conservatives believe we need to continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. I believe this as the shadow minister for the Treasury Board as well. I will also say, with a lot of pride, that Conservatives are proud of and support all of our men and women in uniform who serve Canada. Let us give a round of applause in the House of Commons right now for all the men and women who serve Canada.

The principle of this bill is to be respected and appreciated. However, we need to really consider two major factors when we consider Bill C-66. Number one is the results we have seen from the Liberal government so far. Is its money where its mouth is? Second is what is really important in our military and what is really going on with our armed forces at this time.

The Liberal government has had several reports it could have acted on, but instead, here we are in the last year of a parliamentary session for the current government and only now is it taking action. These reports include the 2015 Deschamps report; the 2018 Auditor General report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces; the 2021 Justice Fish report; the 2021 DND-CAF ombudsman report on sexual misconduct; and the 2021 “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces” report from the status of women committee, which my colleague the member for Sarnia—Lambton alluded to in her question to the previous Liberal speaker. There also would have been a report by the Standing Committee on National Defence, but the government instead chose to filibuster and keep the committee in the same meeting for three months and then prorogue Parliament for the Prime Minister's impromptu election. Instead of taking action, the Liberals asked for another report by another former justice and got the 2022 Arbour report.

Meanwhile, according to Statistics Canada, since 2015, total sexual assaults at all three levels were up 74.83% and increased 71% last year alone.

My point is that the current government has had the opportunity through several reports to take action and it has deferred taking action. Most insulting, which my colleague referred to, is how the government handled the sexual misconduct cases in 2021. For over six months, the Prime Minister and the then defence minister, now Minister of Emergency Preparedness, continually covered up information on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are not surprised on this side of the House to see that these concerns, pleas and issues of great importance would only be spoken to, be given platitudes, with no real action taken.

The Liberals then went to great lengths to block investigations and hide the truth from Canadians. Again, this is not only with regard to harm within the Canadian Armed Forces. As a result of soft-on-crime bills, like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, Statistics Canada data since 2015 states that total sexual violations against children are up 118.85%, forcible confinement and kidnapping is up 10.63%, indecent harassing communications are up 86.41%, incidents of non-consensual distribution of intimate images are up 801.17% and trafficking in persons is up 83.68%. This is what we are seeing as a result of the inaction of the current government.

The Liberals put forward bills like Bill C-66, but they have done nothing. All of their previous platitudes and grandstanding were fake efforts to make real change, not only within Canadian society but within the Canadian Armed Forces. The annual number of reported incidents of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces was 256 in 2018-19; it went up to 356 in 2019-20, to 431 in 2020-21, to 444 in 2021-22, and was 443 in 2022-23.

The Liberals talk a lot about things they want to do, reports they are doing and announcements they make, but the results speak for themselves. Nothing has changed. Nothing has improved in the Canadian Armed Forces. Our first point is that we are not seeing the results for the Liberals' efforts, because frankly, the Liberals are not doing anything.

The second is that we need to admit to the serious status of our Canadian Armed Forces, and after nine years of the Liberal government, our military is in a state of disrepair. The government has failed our Canadian Armed Forces and the men and women who serve. Our troops are hurting at home and abroad. They have been sent overseas and forced to pay for their own meals and buy their own equipment. Military families are turning to charity because they cannot afford the basic necessities.

In 2017, the Prime Minister promised to invest more in our forces, but has instead let $10 billion lapse and is now cutting the defence budget by another billion dollars. This cut affects operational spending. This means the situation facing our troops is not getting better. It is getting worse after nine years of Liberal neglect. The Liberals have overspent in every department except our military. They have shown that they do not care about our troops or the Canadian Forces.

This is being noticed internationally. It is being noticed at NATO. It is being noticed by what is historically our greatest neighbour and ally to the south, the United States of America. It is the reason Canada was excluded from AUKUS, the Australia-U.K.-U.S. arrangement, as well as the quadrilateral security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. There are even discussions to exclude Canada from the G7, if members can believe it, as a result of our lack of commitment. We do not put our money where our mouth is.

Then again, this is not a surprise coming from a Prime Minister who told our heroes they are asking for more than we can give. We are not taken seriously abroad as a result of the constant lack of judgment, whether the Prime Minister is praising the Cuban regime or siding with Hamas over Israel and refusing to support the U.S. in moving its embassy to Israel. It is just a constant lack of making the decision to stand with our allies.

As I said on funding, the Prime Minister and the defence minister are cutting $1 billion per year over the next three years and allowed $10 billion to lapse in the defence budget over the last several years. In fact, according to the most recent public accounts, $1.2 billion lapsed in defence spending in 2021 alone.

In conclusion, the Liberals can say that they care, that they are doing these nice things. They have had the opportunity to do much. They have constantly kicked the ball down the field and not done anything. The results speak for themselves. The numbers show that crime and acts of violence have not improved in society with their legislation, nor within the Canadian Armed Forces. Most humiliating is the standing we have lost with our allies around the world, as kicking us out of the G7 is being considered. The numbers and the spending show it.

A Conservative government would commit the spending, stand with our allies and show our men and women in uniform that it supports them. I look forward to doing that along with the member for Carleton.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to inquire. There were a couple of important votes here in the House just recently, in the last six or seven months, where we were voting on money for the Canadian Armed Forces. We were voting on money, for example, to support its Operation Unifier, the work it was doing in support of Ukraine. We voted on money for its raise.

The member opposite, who just proclaimed her support for the Canadian Armed Forces, actually voted against those supports. Over the past eight years, we have more than doubled the defence budget, and every single time those votes came up, the member opposite, while she has been a member of the House, voted against them. I just wonder how she reconciles her statement of support with her actions. I would remind her that deeds speak.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves: $1.2 billion in defence spending alone. The minister is trying to stand up to defend helping Russia export oil and natural resources, relative to Ukraine, to help stand against our allies. The turbine is what I am talking about.

The government is making efforts not to help our ally Israel, not sending equipment that would actually help our allies. It does not matter, because it has reduced spending, which shows disrepute to our allies. As well, the actions consistently go against what they are saying. He can say whatever—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Nunavut has the floor.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I thank the member for her passion. This is an important piece of legislation that requires such seriousness, especially thinking about the survivors. We have heard that survivors say that the bill was not thought through well enough, especially for survivors. I wonder whether the member could tell us whether the Conservatives would agree at committee to extend the study so we could make sure that more survivors' voices will be heard at committee.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the NDP member when she says that the survivors feel that the bill was not thought through well enough, because nothing that has been done by the government has been thought through well enough, or it has been thought through well enough with the bad intention of covering up, which is what we saw in the status of women committee.

I stand with the NDP member in her concern for the survivors, and I hope the government will take them seriously and start to take actions that show not only that their intentions are better but also that they are making true efforts to stand behind what they are saying.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am wondering something about this bill, since neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives took action in the Vance case. What is the Conservatives' vision for this bill and the improvements that need to be made?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Right now, the Canadian Armed Forces are in bad shape, but I think that our leader and our party will make them a priority. We will give our armed forces the funding necessary to do their job. Respecting our friends around the world will create a better armed forces from which all Canadians will benefit.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, carbon pricing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, foreign affairs; and the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, indigenous affairs.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has made it clear that he is committed to ensuring that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are workplaces where all members, military and civilian, feel supported, respected and included. While much has been accomplished toward this goal, there is still more to do.

Bill C-66 is another critical step toward lasting institutional reform, as well as toward strengthening trust and confidence in the military justice system. It is the next step in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces' efforts to implement recommendations from the independent external comprehensive review and the third independent review of the National Defence Act.

Apart from the recommendations addressed in Bill C-66, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have also made progress on recommendations from the minister's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination report and the national apology advisory committee report.

Overall, these four reviews have helped define how DND and CAF are undertaking changes to the military justice system and culture change. That is why today I would like to provide the House with an overview of these independent external reviews and the progress the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have made to implement their recommendations to date.

I will begin with the independent external comprehensive review, also known as the IECR. This review was launched in April 2021 and led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour to examine harassment and sexual misconduct in National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture, including the military justice system.

I apologize; I should have mentioned at the outset that I need to split my time with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

The final report was made public on May 30, 2022, and the minister at the time welcomed all 48 recommendations. When the final report was received, there were 17 recommendations for which implementation could actually be undertaken immediately. These included, but were not limited to, the implementation of recommendation 48, appointing an external monitor to oversee the implementation efforts of the IECR's recommendations.

The minister at the time appointed Madame Jocelyne Therrien as the external monitor, who provides monthly progress reports to the minister on the implementation of the IECR's recommendation. She also provides biannual progress reports that are made available publicly.

The minister also announced the implementation of recommendations 7 and 9, changes to the military grievance and harassment process, in August 2023. With the implementation of these recommendations, any CAF member who has experienced sexual harassment can now choose to direct their complaint directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission without first exhausting the internal grievance and harassment process.

More recently, in June 2024, the minister announced that in response to recommendations 1 and 2, the CAF had issued interim policy guidance to abolish the definition of sexual misconduct for its policies and to include sexual assault as the stand-alone definition, referring to the Criminal Code as the applicable law.

In response to these recommendations, the term “sexual misconduct” has been replaced with three new terms: “conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature”, “harassment of a sexual nature” and “crimes of a sexual nature”. Sexual assault is also included as a distinct definition in relevant policies. These changes will provide better coherence and clarity, reduce confusion and better capture the range of inappropriate conduct.

The minister also announced the repeal of the duty to report regulations in response to recommendation 11. Madame Arbour found that these regulations, while well intended, took away the agency and control of survivors in the reporting process, potentially leading to the revictimization of those they were meant to protect.

The repeal of the duty to report came into effect on June 30, 2024. As we see with Bill C-66, the department is seeking to remove the CAF's investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over the Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, which would address a part of recommendation 5 of the IECR. Since December 2021, all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges are now being laid at the civilian justice system and no new sexual offence charges are being adjudicated in the military justice system. Bill C-66 would also address recommendations from the third independent review of the National Defence Act.

In November 2020, the hon. Justice Fish was appointed to conduct an independent review of specified provisions of the National Defence Act and their operation. In June 2021, the minister tabled the report before Parliament. Justice Fish provided the minister with 107 wide-ranging recommendations that support the ongoing modernization of the military justice system, military policing, military police oversight and the grievance process. This is the most comprehensive independent review and far-reaching examination of the military justice system since the reviews led by former chief justice of Canada Brian Dickson in the late 1990s.

Bill C-66 would address eight recommendations from the review. The amendments would seek to, among other things, modify the process for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. They would also expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge to include non-commissioned members, and change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to the provost marshal general, to align with the titles of other senior designations in the CAF. The amendments would seek to strengthen trust in the military justice authorities operating independently from the chain of command and to bolster the trust and confidence of Canadians in the military justice system.

DND and CAF are also building on previous external and internal reports and recommendations focused on racism and discrimination. The minister's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination was created to identify ways of eliminating racism, prejudice, discrimination and gender bias within the military. Through the report, DND and the CAF have established the director of anti-racism implementation, formerly the anti-racism secretariat, under chief professional conduct and culture to inform and focus our institutional efforts to address racism and discrimination. We are also collaborating with other government departments in the development of Canada's anti-racism strategy and expanding the availability of anti-racism resources.

There are many intersections between this report and the national apology advisory committee report, which included eight recommendations for the Government of Canada. These included an apology for the treatment of the No. 2 Construction Battalion, the largest all-Black military unit in Canada's history. The government made this historic apology in July 2022.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces maintain an unwavering commitment to implementing the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish, as well as the recommendations from the minister's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination and the national apology advisory committee. The legislative changes proposed in Bill C-66 would play a critical role in helping us implement some of the recommendations from former justices Arbour and Fish and help rebuild trust in the military justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, I see that this bill proposes transferring matters involving military tribunals to common law court judges. I agree in principle. I think it is an excellent idea, and it will solve a lot of problems.

However, it will also add to the workload of the common law courts. Take the Superior Court, for example, which is already overwhelmed. Then there are the vacancies that I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Justice to fill through appointments, and more positions need to be created. There is a need for judges, just across the bridge from here in Gatineau. Just last week, people were telling me how badly new positions need to be created, to bring in new judges. Meanwhile, they are increasing the workload of the judiciary.

I was wondering if my colleague could give us some good news on this issue. Is his colleague, the Minister of Justice, able to confirm that positions will be created soon, that candidates will be appointed to the judiciary in the days or weeks to come, so that we can undertake this new, but important task?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we absolutely need to make sure that we are working very closely with the provinces on this issue. We want to make sure that this transition is smooth. I will say this has been the case for some time now. No cases of sexual misconduct are being adjudicated within the military justice system. All of those cases are being tried in the civil courts.

I will say that ensuring that we are working with the provinces on this is critical. We have heard a number of comments this evening criticizing our government with respect to delays that are provincial in focus. We have to encourage the provinces to make sure they are investing effectively, so there are no backlogs within their court systems.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his history of what has gone on. We heard testimony earlier today about how, when survivors of sexual assault had their cases transferred from the military justice system to the civil justice system, many of the cases were thrown out because they took too long. Why did the government not recognize that, because it had not appointed enough justices, rapists were already going free? Why did it not take earlier action to put more judges in place so the survivors could have sought justice?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to speak to specific cases, because I do not have all that information in front of me. However, I will say once again that we have to work closely with the provinces. We have to encourage the provinces to make sure they are investing effectively.

This recommendation to move recommendation 5 from the Arbour report was a pillar recommendation. This was not a soft recommendation. This absolutely needs to be done, and we have moved in that direction. We know that this is what the stakeholders were asking us to do. We know that there are going to be challenges as we move forward with respect to resourcing and making sure that the provinces are properly equipped to manage. However, again, this is a provincial-level issue and a provincial-level question.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention in the House. I also sit with him on the veterans affairs committee, and he was part of the significant study we did on women veterans. What was horrible about that study was watching woman after woman come in and talk about things that had happened to them and, by the way, whether they were also a victim and now a survivor of sexual interference.

One thing that is very clear to me in any marginalized group is that there is nothing about us without us. That is a common thing we hear all the time. I want the bill passed very quickly because I want to protect these women. I want to have their voices heard. However, of course, my concern is that, if they are not a key part of the consultation process, then that would not be reflected.

Could this member talk about whether this is going to happen and whether the minister will be held to account to make sure it does?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try to keep it brief, but there is a lot in the question that deserves an answer. I too want to see the bill go to committee. I was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence when the meat and potatoes of the study from Arbour came through, and the work we have done on this has been critical.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member opposite, and I think we will work together. I will point out that this is the first piece of legislation in 18 months that I hope and believe we will see full party support for.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to explain why I heartily support Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act. The legislation now before us aims to advance culture change within the Canadian Armed Forces, the CAF, and the Department of National Defence, or DND. In particular, the legislation aims to foster a culture free from sexual misconduct, sexual abuse and misogyny, all of which are forms of gender-based violence.

Bill C-66 envisions a safe work environment for all CAF and DND employees, with supports for victims and survivors of sexual misconduct, including ready access to mechanisms of justice that are currently available to all other Canadians. The vision of Bill C-66 is aligned with “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence” and the “National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence”, which guide the Government of Canada in preventing and addressing gender-based violence.

Through my work as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, I have travelled the country and heard from survivors about the work that still needs to be done to ensure women veterans are heard and are represented and visible in this strategy. The whole of government must address the issue of gender-based violence, not only through the national action plan to end gender-based violence but through all departments. This is why Bill C-66 is so important. All federal departments must be part of the strategy.

In recent years, Canadians have come to understand the gravity of sexual misconduct and the effect it has on victims, survivors and their families, and on our wider society. The #MeToo movement inspired thousands of victims and survivors to tell their stories, often for the first time, and we started to see some real change.

Women were not allowed to serve in combat roles in the Canadian military until a Human Rights Tribunal decision in 1989. That was the year Heather R. Erxleben became the first woman to join an infantry unit. I have learned that at the time there was little thought or effort to accommodate the needs of women who joined the armed forces, like properly fitted uniforms and safety equipment, and an appropriate military culture.

Recently, as part of my role on the Standing Committee for Veterans Affairs, I participated in a study that led to the report “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. I am going to share some of the things we heard at that committee, but I want to start with a warning, because these are stories of sexual violence. They are difficult to hear, and I imagine some of the people watching will want a moment to turn away. They might be triggered by what I am about to share.

One witness told us:

I was drugged, kidnapped and gang-raped while attending mandatory training. The last thing I remember is dozing off in class after our lunch break in the cafeteria, and waking in complete fear in an unknown location, with motel staff waking me. I was completely naked, with no identification, covered in blood and bruises, and I couldn't walk. While the military government covered up a crime, the criminals climbed the ranks.

Another witness said:

I have seen it over and over again. I have seen, on basic training, warrant officers sleeping with cadets and using it as a tool to get sex—convincing a cadet that, if they do this, they'll pass basic training....

Sexual abuse was used as a way of almost controlling...women. I spent a year, at one time, in my career as a commander hiding from senior officers. I mean that literally.

Another veteran said:

How do I tell you what it's like to be in the middle of the ocean, with no land in sight for days, or in the Gulf of Oman, or off the coast of Panama, or even 12 nautical miles off the coast of Vancouver Island, and be told that if there was an “accident”, no one would hear my screams, or sailing with people who would grab my body, manipulate me, brainwash me and use me as a sex toy?

The final quote I will share is this:

From the beginning and throughout my career of 26 years, I was subjected to misconduct by men. In the beginning, it was to make me give up, but later on it was to appropriate my body—from verbal harassment to touching to forced kissing by superiors. It was also the invasion of my private life as a way to force me to accept the unacceptable. However, I consider myself lucky: I am not one of those who was raped.

Canadians are now more aware than ever that acts of sexual misconduct have occurred far too often and been tolerated far too readily, and that the impacts are deep, powerful and persistent. Bill C-66 is a step toward ensuring the goal that all CAF members are respected and safe while they serve. Canadians have also heard about policies and practices, formal and informal, that help create a culture of secrecy and tolerance and make perpetrators feel like they can get away with their actions without any consequences.

By eliminating some of these policies and practices, Bill C-66 would put an end to this sense of impunity and help CAF and DND establish and maintain more trauma-informed, progressive, respectful and positive organizational cultures.

The effective elements of Bill C-66 are rooted in studies led by two of Canada's former Supreme Court justices. The Hon. Morris Fish completed the third independent review of the National Defence Act three years ago, and the Hon. Louise Arbour published the independent external comprehensive review of DND and CAF two years ago. Both of these landmark documents come with recommendations for improving organizational culture, particularly when it comes to sexual misconduct.

One of the most effective recommendations can only be adopted through legislative change, and it is recommendation 5 from the hon. Louise Arbour. It calls for a complete overhaul of the way that sexual offences listed in the Criminal Code and involving CAF personnel are investigated and prosecuted. For sexual offences committed in Canada, Bill C-66 would assign exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities. This change would put a much-needed distance between the chain of command and the team of investigators and prosecutors. For victims and survivors, the current lack of distance makes it very difficult for them to pursue and achieve justice.

Bill C-66 would also implement several recommendations made by former Supreme Court justice Fish, making it easier to hold offenders to account. Furthermore, Bill C-66 proposes a series of amendments to other legislation to ensure that the military justice system remains constitutional and aligns with the Criminal Code and the civilian criminal justice system. Bill C-66 is just one important element of the government's larger strategy to advance culture change within the CAF and DND.

A few months ago, the third report of the external monitor documented recent progress made toward implementing Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations, including the following: transforming the complaint system, including grievances; making improvements to enrolment and recruitment processes; creating the Canadian military college review board; doing a comprehensive review of basic training in the CAF and creating a framework to enhance education related to conduct and culture; making a 10-year plan to identify promising candidates among women and other equity-deserving groups; and creating a stronger promotion process for senior leaders to better assess character, talent and competence. Each of these accomplishments is important. The external monitor's report notes that the CAF's commitment to change seems genuine.

As my hon. colleagues recognize, systemic change often lags behind social change, and this description certainly seems apt when it comes to sexual misconduct within CAF and DND. The justice report suggests that, for a long time, DND and CAF have failed to properly investigate allegations, prosecute legitimate offences or hold perpetrators accountable. Abhorrent behaviour has been tolerated for far too long, and the confidence and trust that Canadians once had in the CAF and DND has diminished as a result.

Canadians are no longer willing to look the other way. They expect organizations to prevent and address sexual misconduct and misogyny and for elected representatives to do their part. The legislation before us would help foster culture change and ensure a more trauma-informed and safer work environment for our CAF and DND members. It would ensure accountability and support victims and survivors by providing them with the mechanisms they need to pursue justice and hold offenders to account.

I encourage all of my hon. colleagues to join me and support Bill C-66.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, the Arbour report did clearly recommend this legislative change, but so did the Deschamps report years earlier.

This was a legislative change that was recommended almost 10 years ago and accepted by the previous government, but it sat on the current government's desk without movement for years. Here we are now, nine years into the Liberal government, in the twilight of this Parliament, trying to implement a change that should have been at least initiated close to 10 years ago.

Does the member know why the government, for which she is a spokesperson, waited so long for this legislative change?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate how the member opposite noted that the previous federal government did not do anything on this. In my speech, I outlined several improvements that have already been made to help improve the culture at CAF and DND.

This is not the first step we have taken. This is not the only thing we have done. It has taken some time. We heard from Louise Arbour that it was going to take time to implement some of these recommendations, but we are working on it. We are moving. We are action-focused.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very much in favour of giving sexual misconduct victims in the military the possibility of being heard in our civilian justice system. However, I hear that some victims are asking to have the option of choosing between the civilian justice system and the military justice system. I am a bit surprised, to be honest.

What does my colleague think of the possibility of letting the victims choose?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who works with me at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Yes, I think that it is very important for victims to have choices. I also find this situation to be surprising. I am not sure, I am not a legal expert, but I think that we should have a system for everyone and that everyone should use it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the more I learn about this bill, the more I see how important survivors of violence in the military are.

I am sure that it is already very traumatizing to have to serve in the military, especially in today's society, globally, with all the violence that we are seeing. In particular, with survivors of abuse within the system itself, it makes me quite concerned that there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. For example, we have been told that law enforcement in different provinces might not be equipped to deal with investigations or those kinds of things.

I wonder if the member agrees that once this gets to committee, expanding the committee to study this bill specifically with a focus on survivors will be so important that that extension is going to be necessary.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very smart question. Absolutely, the focus should be getting this study to committee as soon as possible so that it can become legislation as soon as possible.

I am a little concerned about any delays that may happen. I do not want to see any overextension. I want to see a committee look at this study, make any improvements that are possible and necessary, and get it passed in this House of Commons as soon as possible.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House.

I am going to split my time with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

I support Bill C-66. I support the principle of the bill. This is a legislative change that is needed to implement a recommendation that was made to the previous government in March 2015, which was only a few months before the House rose in 2015. The present government was elected in the election that followed. This government came into office with the Deschamps report freshly in hand, and did absolutely nothing to make this legislative change happen until this year. Last March, six months ago, the Liberals tabled the bill before us, and here we are this week, finally attempting to make the legislative change needed to implement this important recommendation.

The approach on this legislative change for moving the investigation and prosecution of sexual misconduct from military justice to civilian justice is exactly the same approach as everything else that this government does when it comes to the Canadian Armed Forces. Just like everything else, we see delay in the implementation.

We have, right now, ships resting out at sea. We also have fighter jets that have still not been delivered, which is another thing that, nine years ago, the Liberals could have made a decision on. We would have the fighter jets by now, but after years and years of delay, we do not have them.

We are lucky to have one submarine in the water for maybe a few dozen days of the year. The submarines we have were cast-offs from the British navy from decades ago. This government has been in power for nine years and has done nothing to procure new submarines. Yes, the government has the word “submarines” in its defence policy update, but that is not the same as actually taking concrete actions to procure and build submarines, and have submarines delivered. We also had testimony at the defence committee about the incredibly small number of tanks that are available, even for training, never mind deployment.

On offshore patrol aircraft, the government recently, finally, signed a contract to replace the 40-year-old aircraft that are very close to the end of their operational lives. Also, we do not possess air defence systems. The previous minister of defence did announce, and accepted extraordinary credit for promising, an air defence system to be sent to Ukraine almost two years ago now. It was actually announced to a television audience that it was en route to Ukraine. However, we subsequently learned that not only was it not en route to Ukraine, but there was not even a contract signed to procure it. In fact, it has not even been produced. This is, again, the culture of delay and neglect of this government.

We hear at defence committee that information technology lacking. As well, base housing is in deplorable condition with houses falling apart and a 7,000-unit backlog for people wanting to access base housing. The barracks are in horrific, unsanitary conditions. Health care is also lacking for military families.

New transport and refuelling aircraft are beginning to be procured without a hangar to place them or even a commitment for where they will be based. Howitzers and artillery pieces are entirely lacking, as well as shells. This government let a production line mothball in the threat environment that was emerging, and now Canada and its allies desperately need artillery shells. We do not have the production. The Liberals have, for a year and a half, been dithering without firm contracts to industry or being able to send a firm enough signal to industry for industry to make the investments necessary to get our production lines up and running for artillery shells, and 2,500 a month is nothing. It is less than the Ukrainian army would fire before lunchtime on a given day, if they had the equipment ready.

That is the nature of contemporary threats that we have. Artillery matters. If the present conflicts in the world have taught us anything, it is that these equipment pieces and their ammunition supplies are critical.

With respect to training, 10,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not have adequate training to be deployed. These men and women want to be trained. They want to be up to deployable levels. They want to do missions. Ten thousand members are under-trained and there are 16,000 vacancies. Even the defence committee chair, earlier in this debate, talked about the inability of the Canadian Armed Forces to adequately take in people. Thousands of people are applying to join the forces, and it does not have the capacity to take people in. There are 16,000 vacant positions in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This bill is addressing the well-known and well-documented problem with sexual misconduct in the military, which is a factor in recruitment and retention and certainly a factor in morale. I travelled this past summer to Latvia with the defence committee, where I met some of our troops who are deployed on a critically important mission. These people are the best. I met a 19-year-old private who has more responsibility than I can imagine any young person being given. This very young man was responsible for training and for helping allied soldiers improve and get up to the best of their ability to execute their roles in Latvia. He is a 19-year-old man from northern British Columbia. I met a young lieutenant. She was a platoon commander there. Again, she was a very young woman with extraordinary responsibility for the defence of allied territory. These people are the best and they deserve protection. They deserve access to justice when sexual misconduct happens.

We have talked 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, the culture of cover-up. That culture has permeated to the very top levels. We saw the former minister of 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. We have heard testimony at the defence committee from victims of sexual assault who say that they cannot access justice; not just because of the issue around the lack of access to civilian systems, which this bill would ultimately change, but the inability to get information that they need to file a complaint. The reflexive secrecy around even members of the Canadian Armed Forces accessing their own information is a big part of the problem, and this bill would not fix that, so there is a long way to go in ensuring justice for members of the Canadian Armed Force who are victims of sexual misconduct.

As has been pointed out in this debate as well, it is not like civilian access to justice for sexual assault victims is assured, and far from it. 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 have seen an acceleration of crime. We have seen a lack of urgency in appointing judges so that assault victims can access justice and this bill would not change that. Yes, this bill is important. Yes, it should go to committee. However, it should not skip any of the legislative steps.

We need a robust committee study on this. We need to make sure we get it right, that all the victims are heard from and the details of this bill are correct.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite, in his speech, acknowledging the importance of the bill and his indication that he intends to support it. We wholeheartedly agree. We think this bill is important. Let us get it to committee. Let us get on with the work that needs to be done.

I heard a long litigation of all his previous grievances with respect to the government, but he indicated his personal support for members of the military. How would he reconcile that with the fact that, when a vote came before the House to provide money to give members of the Canadian Armed Forces a pay raise, he voted against it? Deeds speak, and your words are betrayed by your actions. How would you reconcile that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. minister that he needs to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I voted against confidence in the government. When the estimates were presented, Conservatives voted every chance we had to bring down the government.

The estimates he speaks of, which we voted against, contained a cut to the military budget. I will not take any lessons from him on who supports the military. The government has failed the military every step of the way and continues to do so, notwithstanding this bill.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague rambled a bit at times, but he kept coming back to the subject at hand, which is Bill C-66. That is better than nothing.

I would like to draw his attention to one aspect. I understand that the Conservatives are prepared to support the bill so that it can at least go to committee. That is more or less our position as well. We will take a closer look and see how we can work together to improve it.

In the current version of the act, subsection 18.5(4) states that, “[t]he Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines...are available to the public.” Apparently, that is no longer included in this bill.

Does my colleague agree that this opens the door to potential abuses?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member brought up a good point. This is why we have legislative processes. This is why the bill needs a thorough study at committee.

While the passage of this bill is urgent, given the length of time the government has caused delay in creating this legislative change, it still cannot be rushed. It has to be done right so we make sure the bill best serves victims and the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important bill, and we have seen for far too long the reality of women serving our country who are being put in positions that are incredibly unjust, in a system that really continues to press silence upon them. I hear what the member is saying about his concerns, about how long it has taken. I share those concerns. It would have been nice to see a lot of things happen a lot faster.

In this process, when this bill gets to committee, will it be a priority of the Conservatives to get this done as quickly as possible, knowing that it has to be done well, so we can see people in the service fully protected in a new and important way?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am actually no longer a member of the defence committee, but my colleagues who remain there always prioritize important work to ensure the best for our troops, and they will take that approach. They will ensure this bill is examined correctly, and identify if there are any issues and if amendments are required.

We had an intervention a moment ago about some of the details of this bill. I fully expect my Conservative colleagues on that committee will do their jobs, do the jobs they were elected to do, and ensure this bill is done right and returned as expeditiously as it can be, while not neglecting their duty to examine the legislation.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my previous role, I had the great privilege of sitting on the national defence committee, and I dealt with a great many issues related to our Canadian Armed Forces, from housing to procurement, access to medical care and supports, recruitment retention and closing the commitment capability gap. I was honoured to get a near first-hand account of many of the issues the DND and the CAF were facing every single day.

While these are all incredibly important issues, they desperately need the immediate and full attention of the government. There was one in particular that stuck with me, an issue that my colleague on the status of women committee has seen and studied far too often: violence against women.

In this session alone, the committee has studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development and inter-partner violence, and we are currently in the middle of a study on coercive behaviour. In fact, in the last Parliament, I studied the very issue that led to today's legislation, which is sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Having sat on these two committees at length, so far the intersection of national defence and violence against women is an issue that I, along with my colleagues, am acutely aware of and uniquely positioned to speak to. Sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces is particularly close to my heart, as I have the honour of representing the brave woman who first brought the issue into the public sphere 26 long years ago by appearing on the front cover of Maclean's magazine.

Dawn McIlmoyle appeared with the words “Rape in the military” emblazoned on the front page beside her photo. I honestly believe that the discourse we are having at several committees at the highest level in the Canadian political process would not be happening today if it were not for individuals such as Dawn, as well as the litany of other survivors who have courageously chosen to come forward with their stories.

To each and every single one of them, I am so sorry that their government has failed them time and time again, but now we thank them for bravely sharing their experiences with us. We as legislators need to hear it. We as legislators need to act on it. There is so much we need to do.

While Bill C-66 is a start that I look forward to perhaps studying in that committee, if they will have me, it is a very limited start, and there is a Herculean amount of legislative and cultural changes in the CAF, particularly in leadership, that need to happen to properly address this crisis. On this last point, I want to make something very clear. It will take years to change this culture.

I have had the pleasure of speaking with General Eyre on many occasions, as well as many other members of the CAF, from flag officers to privates, and I have received nothing but the utmost assurances that they are taking the issue very seriously. I have never doubted any of them for a second, but all of us sitting in this room are not fools. They are not going to allow a CAF member who could be a liability to the matter to speak to someone sitting on the national defence committee. This is why the entire public relations branch exists.

I trust the new chief of the defence staff, General Carignan, will take this matter extremely seriously. It is up to us to ensure that she and her team, as well as the Department of National Defence, have the tools at their disposal to get the job done.

I would like to highlight exactly what I mean when I say Bill C-66 is limited in scope. I think the best way to do this is to read into the record the testimony that someone far more knowledgeable on this matter than I had to say on April 17 of this year at the national defence committee.

On that day, Patrick White, a witness who came forward to committee, shared his own sexual harassment story within the CAF as it related to access to information, a key point of contention in properly addressing misconduct in the armed forces. He spoke of the grievance process, the very method through which this entire process starts. It is massively flawed. One of his many salient points is as follows:

The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't. What annoys me more than anything is when senior members who have never been affected in the way some of us have flippantly say, “If you don't like it, grieve it,” knowing full well that they've never had to go through those processes, or maybe they did in a minor way and had success.

Unfortunately, Bill C-66 would not amend the grievance section of the National Defence Act in any way, shape or form. It addresses a very specific element of a crisis that is caked in generations of institutional rot, flippant indifference and outright arrogance in the Canadian Armed Forces, National Defence and Parliament. In that same committee meeting was Gary Walbourne, a former national defence ombudsman. He actually had to go to war with the government, so to speak, to get the information he needed to do his job. He said this:

We're talking about people who have been put in positions of authority. There are guidelines on what they're supposed to do. They're well written.... However, it is funny that the farther you get up the ladder, the thinner the air gets—I'm sure that's what happens—and the blood rushes to their heads or their egos.

We have a system in place.... It's circumvented by people in the system.

How do we change the culture? I'll go back to this again: We have to start rewarding proper behaviour and punishing bad behaviour. Why do we promote people when they do the wrong thing? Others come forward and offer themselves up, saying, “Listen, guys, this is what's going wrong. Can we get a little help here?” These people are turned on.

You absolutely have a fundamental flaw here, but it's not with your policies. Your policies need updating, sure they do, and you need to adjust a few, add a few things to them and bring in a few more nuances and codicils there, but what we have to get at is the behaviour of the people currently sitting in the seats.

Mr. Walbourne is extremely clear: We do not have a policy problem; we have a people problem. We cannot fix our policy problem if we do not fix the people problem. Any framework set up by any legislation will just fall victim to the same institutional cancer. Every single policy framework in DND and CAF related to justice for victims and survivors has fallen victim to it since women first entered our armed forces, and, quite frankly, this cancer festered for decades beforehand.

Again, to quote committee witness Patrick White:

If I could leave the committee with one final point to think about, it's that if you really want to get to culture change and solve these issues, you need to look at every single aspect of the system and understand how it feeds back in. That includes the honours and recognition system, the promotion system, the grievance system and the military police system—all of it—but with a central view of what the effect would be on these sorts of things that we get to.

Correcting the colossal problem starts with us. It comes through our willingness to, first, actually address the change and, second, strengthen, entrench and enforce legislation and policy that holds public officials accountable, including people in the Canadian Armed Forces, public servants and us, as legislators. While Bill C-66 does address some very specific issues in the CAF, there is still no single 35-page bill that will solve a crisis that was 50 years in the making. Bill C-66 needs to be the first of a suite of legislation brought forward in this place to fix this crisis in the CAF, and it needs to continue past the Liberal government, whenever that may be, into the next, whatever it may be. It also needs continued support from all parties involved. Without that willingness to move forward, men, women and marginalized Canadians will continue to be victimized, not only in our armed forces but also in our public service and society at large.

I would like to end by addressing the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, both current and former.

To those who are victims, to those who are survivors, we have failed them. We know we have, but change is coming because of what they have told us. The vast majority of armed forces members recognize there is a problem, but they feel helpless because of a broken system that punishes speaking out or drawing attention to inappropriate behaviour. To them, I say to stay strong. I am not here to admonish them.

Finally, to those who are a part of this problem, they are complicit. This goes for everyone from the new recruit right up to the flag officer, those who think they are entitled to another person's agency because “that is just how it goes here” and those who continuously look away because they believe the individual is a really good guy. If what I have said today upsets them, good. I want them to be upset. I want them to lie awake every night and worry that the system that has enabled and protected their behaviour for generations will collapse and expose them for what they are. They have no place in the Canadian Armed Forces, and they never have.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, given that all members in the House have spoken in favour of the legislation before us, would there be unanimous consent to allow Bill C-66 to be sent to committee?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.