Bill C-66 (Historical)

Military Justice System Modernization Act

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts

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

Motions in Amendment

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11 at report stage.

I know the impact that our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have on operations at home and abroad, and I am pleased to speak to efforts that our government is making to keep them safe.

We know that to fulfill our role as a NATO ally, we must have forces that are ready, able and agile. Just this week, we heard that the Canadian Armed Forces has reached a 30-year record high for recruitment. This is fantastic news for Canada and for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we cannot take anything for granted.

We must keep up the momentum and work hard to create a safe workplace where our forces and the next generation of forces can thrive and make meaningful contributions to Canada. This starts with making sure we provide our forces with a safe and professional work environment in which to train and to build up their skills for the difficult job we ask of them. This is why I am pleased to rise today to speak about the important work that is being done to modernize our military justice system and to restore trust in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a critical step toward lasting institutional reform, as well as toward strengthening trust and confidence in our military justice system. Over the past four years, Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces members, watched as former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish put forward detailed recommendations on how to create meaningful and lasting cultural change in the armed forces.

Their recommendations have been compiled into a comprehensive implementation plan, which Canadians can easily access online to track the progress the CAF is making. These reviews and recommendations have helped define how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are undertaking changes to the military justice system and cultural change. Today I would like to provide an overview of those recommendations and to speak specifically about the implementation of Justice Arbour's recommendation 5, which is at the heart of Bill C-11.

In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the minister of national defence at the time. This report, also known as the report of the independent external comprehensive review, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional gaps and structural barriers that have allowed the problem to persist. In her report, her fifth recommendation proposed a transformative measure to move the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences in Canada alleged against Canadian Armed Forces members to the civilian system. I want to take the time to read out the specific wording of Justice Arbour's recommendation for all members:

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

In short, this recommendation would codify in law that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada. This recommendation would also codify in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction for investigating and prosecuting these cases.

I want to note that Justice Arbour acknowledged in her report that removing concurrent jurisdiction by amending the National Defence Act would take several years to implement, given the size, scale and scope of the changes needed. In fact, she knew how critical this recommendation was, and she proposed that we adopt an interim directive in the meantime to ensure that the change would take place as quickly as possible. She stated:

As previous experience with changes to the military justice system have shown, this will take several years to implement. In the meantime, I expect the [Canadian Armed Forces] and civilian authorities to continue to abide by my interim recommendation. The [Canadian Armed Forces] should cease to investigate and prosecute sexual offences over which it presently has concurrent jurisdiction. Civilian authorities should investigate and prosecute those cases in accordance with their existing concurrent jurisdiction.

The interim directive has been in place since December 2021 and has been working well. Since then, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case has been prosecuted in the civilian courts rather than in the military justice system.

While the interim directive was in place, the legislation was first introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-66 and was one of the first bills to be introduced in the current Parliament in the fall of 2025, as Bill C-11. That is precisely because our government recognizes the importance of building a more inclusive, respectful and safe workplace for our Canadian Armed Forces members.

The bill would implement Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 and protect our forces. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties in the Standing Committee on National Defence run directly counter to recommendation 5. The opposition parties put forward amendments to strike down recommendation 5 and to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation from the bill. The opposition's amendments would make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system, due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill. The lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors.

We cannot go backwards and reverse any of the important changes made on military culture change over the last five years. In fact, since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences covered by the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried by the military justice system. To accept the opposition's amendments would be to reverse this progress and to move backwards.

In conclusion, the bill would establish a clear framework for investigating and addressing allegations of sexual misconduct, in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. Bill C-11, and the amendment it seeks to codify in the National Defence Act, represents a crucial step towards strengthening the forces' trust in the military justice system. This is not the case with the amendments proposed by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 from Bill C-11.

We are encouraged by the positive changes and cultural evolution in the Canadian Armed Forces in recent years, but we cannot stop here, and we cannot move backwards. The people who serve our country risk everything for us. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces must always answer the call to keep Canada safe, and it is our obligation to keep them safe from harassment and misconduct.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the report stage of Bill C-11.

I would first like to note that in rising for this, my first full speech on a bill in the people's House, I do so with the pride of having been sent here with the overwhelming support of the people of the Bay of Quinte and the incredible men and women of 8 Wing CFB Trenton to represent them in addressing important issues like the environment and duty to them in their service to the Canadian Armed Forces, and that duty for me, which brings me here today.

I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and acknowledge the witnesses, including the brave victims and survivors of sexual assault and misconduct, for their work on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-11 and cultural change at the heart of the Canadian Armed Forces come at a significant time for our military. The norms and rules that once ensured Canada's peace and prosperity are being rewritten. The Canadian Armed Forces is operating in a volatile and unpredictable global security environment. As Canada's new government makes a generational investment into our military, including meeting NATO's 2% target, we cannot forget that the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces are the driving force behind our security and safety. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces must be ready for the threats of today and those of tomorrow.

A critical component to that readiness is ensuring that members have a work environment where they feel safe, protected and empowered to serve. This is essential to operational effectiveness, productivity and morale, as well as recruitment and retention. Part of these efforts is ensuring that the military justice system evolves alongside the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces and that it is aligned with the aims of Canada's civilian criminal justice system, continuing to ensure fairness and accountability for all involved.

Bill C-11, first tabled as Bill C-66 in March 2024, as we heard earlier, was reintroduced as Bill C-11 last fall to amend the National Defence Act. This was to help build trust in the military for our currently serving members and for those who are looking to the CAF as a future career.

Bill C-11 proposes a suite of changes to ensure the continued effectiveness, accountability and alignment of the military justice system with the operational needs of the CAF. The legislation is critical to ensuring the continued safety and well-being of our people in uniform.

Bill C-11 was introduced to address key recommendations brought forward by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish. This included addressing recommendation 5 of Justice Arbour's independent external comprehensive review report to the Minister of National Defence, delivered in May 2022. This recommendation aimed to remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual assault offences committed in Canada in the majority of cases, from investigation to prosecution and trial of offences. Of all of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations, recommendation 5 is the only one that must be implemented through a legislative amendment to the National Defence Act, which brings us here today.

The legislation also sought to address eight recommendations made by Justice Fish. The recommendations he proposed relate to the way in which we appoint key military justice actors like the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, by making them Governor in Council appointments. Justice Fish's report recognized the important role of these military justice actors in ensuring a fair and transparent process for victims and survivors. The legislation would also expand eligibility criteria for military judge appointments to include non-commissioned officers, which would diversify the applicant pool further.

In response to another of Justice Fish's recommendations, the proposed legislation would change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to the provost marshal general. This way, the title aligns more closely with the titles of other senior designations in the CAF, such as surgeon general, chaplain general, judge advocate general, and so on.

Bill C-11 would also expand the class of people who could make an interference complaint to be addressed by the Military Police Complaints Commission. Further, it would require military police or others carrying out policing duties or functions under the responsibility of the provost marshal general to make such a complaint in certain circumstances.

Beyond addressing key recommendations from former justices Arbour and Fish, Bill C-11 would exclude military judges from being subjected to the summary hearing system. This is to reinforce judicial independence. Members of the national defence committee heard time and again about the need to reinforce judicial independence to build trust in the system for all involved. Speaking of trust, Bill C-11 would expand access to the victims' liaison officers under the Declaration of Victims Rights. That way, an individual acting on behalf of a victim could request that a victim's liaison officer be appointed to assist them.

Through Bill C-11, we have brought forward these proposed amendments to ensure that the military justice system grows in tandem with the evolving culture of the Canadian Armed Forces. The military justice system must continue to function in alignment with our civilian criminal justice system and better respond to the needs of victims and survivors. Canadians expect Canada's military justice system to reflect their values at all times. Bill C-11 is an important piece of legislation that does just that. It advances the culture of respect and accountability across all ranks of the defence team, regardless of role, position or rank.

This legislation makes clear our commitment to modernize Canada's military justice system. It makes clear our commitment to address the recommendations from independent external review reports, namely Justice Fish's third independent review and Justice Arbour's independent external comprehensive review. As well, it makes clear our commitment to the brave and skilled members of our Canadian Armed Forces and their civilian colleagues who serve this country every day.

At its core, the Canadian Armed Forces is defined by the people who serve in uniform. They are central to our defence and to our national security. We will continue building a workplace free from harassment, discrimination and violence for all who serve and defend this country. Bill C-11 will pave the way for future statutory, regulatory and policy amendments that will further evolve military culture and continue to modernize the military justice system. The legislation before us today represents their commitments to modernizing the military justice system and evolving Canada's military culture.

We must also continue to strengthen the policies and programs that make a meaningful difference in the lives of those affected by harmful conduct. We are seeing encouraging signs of that today, but our work will not stop with this legislation. This week alone, we saw recruitment of the Canadian Armed Forces hit a 30-year high. This is remarkable progress, but we cannot stop here. We must ensure that we are doing our part to protect our military and civilian members of the defence team who work hard every day to keep us safe. We are sincerely grateful for everything they do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today.

Bill C-11, when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward.

There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one. They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form.

Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country.

When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs.

I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11, previously Bill C-66. It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side.

Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence's not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level.

The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill. What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away.

When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11, he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66, never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up.

We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French.

Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec.

When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.”

Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country.

We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims' being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account.

Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF's authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.”

I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut, who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence. I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could my hon. colleague share his thoughts on that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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