Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House as the Bloc Québécois national defence critic to address the government's response to an extremely delicate issue, namely the unfortunate occurrence of sexual misconduct. As delicate as the subject may be, it remains our duty to take a serious look at the bill before us to put an end to this scourge and ensure greater accountability as well as a healthier environment.
Let us not forget that the first allegations date back to 2015, under the Stephen Harper government. They were not yet public at the time, but what we now know goes back to 2015. Back then, former justice Marie Deschamps released a scathing report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, which she found had a sexist culture that turned a blind eye to numerous cases of misconduct, and in April of that year, allegations began to surface, first in the back rooms, about the inappropriate behaviour of Jonathan Vance, who had just been appointed the future chief of the defence staff. The investigations went nowhere at the time.
On March 1, 2018, under Justin Trudeau's government, military ombudsman Gary Walbourne held a private meeting with the then minister of defence during which he tried to discuss a case of sexual misconduct implicating Mr. Vance. The victim's decision not to pursue the matter had somewhat tied the ombudsman's hands. The ombudsman wanted the minister to intervene to protect the victim because her employment relationship made her Mr. Vance's subordinate and he could easily have destroyed her career. The minister was reportedly closed and hostile. Allegedly, he flatly refused to look at Mr. Walbourne's evidence and abruptly left the meeting.
Instead, the matter was sent to the Privy Council Office. Afterwards, Mr. Walbourne tried 12 times to speak with the minister, who continued to refuse to meet with him until Mr. Walbourne retired a few months later. The Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office exchanged emails to discuss the situation. On March 5, 2018, Janine Sherman from the Privy Council—the body that had taken the lead on the case by then—wrote Mr. Walbourne asking for more information. On March 5, the minister's chief of staff emailed Mr. Walbourne hoping to get more information. However, on March 9, when Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was accused of leaking documents to journalists showing that the Liberals were attempting to cancel a contract with the Davie shipyard in favour of Irving, the Liberals immediately called for an investigation against Mr. Norman. Justin Trudeau personally intervened, saying that Mr. Norman should face justice. There is a double standard here.
On March 16, 2018, Janine Sherman of the Privy Council met in person with Mr. Walbourne, who told her that the complainant did not want to pursue the matter further and was withdrawing her complaint because she had not received assurances that the Minister of Defence would protect her. That is serious. Sworn testimony subsequently given to the Standing Committee on National Defence—at a time when I was not serving on it—stated that several members of Justin Trudeau's cabinet knew about the situation. As for Prime Minister Trudeau himself, he has always denied being told about sexual allegations against Mr. Vance, stating that Mr. Walbourne never forwarded the requested documents to his office and that he was unaware of any such allegations. However, he did not clearly deny knowing that there were unknown allegations against Mr. Vance. He specified that he did not know there were allegations of sexual misconduct specifically. He did not talk about allegations at all. Of course, that did not prevent Mr. Vance's salary increase in 2019, which the Prime Minister signed off on.
The scandal became public in February 2021 when Global News reported cases of misconduct against Mr. Vance, including his relationship with a subordinate and obscene emails exchanged in 2012 with a much younger female soldier. The woman who was in a relationship with Mr. Vance was allegedly threatened by him on several occasions, according to her public statements. Mr. Vance considered himself untouchable and claimed that he owned the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, which is a serious matter.
The individual named, before he was named, said that he could do as he pleased because he was the one who controlled the process. He thought he was a king.
The Standing Committee on National Defence, of which I was not yet a member, decided to study the allegations against Mr. Vance. The first time he testified, the former minister of defence, Mr. Sajjan, said that he had learned about the allegations against Mr. Vance from the media. He systematically refused to answer questions on the grounds that the matter was before the courts.
The testimony of Gary Walbourne, whom members will recall was the ombudsman, confirmed that he had informed Minister Sajjan and that the minister had refused to even look at the file. That cast the government in a bad light, and rightly so.
Other witnesses who appeared before the committee confirmed that the minister should have taken action and that he had a number of avenues open to him to request an investigation into Mr. Vance. Minister Sajjan appeared before the committee again in March 2021 and, this time, he agreed to speak in an attempt to defend his handling of the file. He said that he had refused to look at Walbourne's file on the grounds that he did not want to insert himself into the investigation himself and that he had not been asked to do so in any case. His explanation fell flat.
The Liberals did not hesitate to obstruct the investigation to prevent Liberal government employees from being summoned to appear before the committee. According to the testimony of Elder Marques, who worked in Justin Trudeau's office, it became clear that everyone around Justin Trudeau knew what was going on. However, Mr. Trudeau himself denied everything.
When other employees were summoned by the House, the Liberals decided to send the defence minister instead and said they would not allow the employees to testify. Well, at least they were clear. The Liberals tried to shut down the Standing Committee on National Defence several times. The committee chair suspended that particular meeting, and the suspension lasted a month.
At both the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Liberals filibustered to prevent the adoption of reports that made recommendations to protect women in the Canadian Armed Forces and to make the military justice system independent from the chain of command.
Unable to escape the scandal, the Liberals decided to give former justice Louise Arbour, who is known for her expertise, the mandate to make the military justice system independent from the chain of command. That was six years after the release of the Deschamps report, which recommended exactly the same measure.
The Liberals realized that they did not know how to handle this problem and that they were starting to get into trouble, so they asked Madam Arbour to rehash the same work and repeat the things that had already been said but not done. At least they were able to buy some time, until she came to the same conclusion as to what had to be done. Even Madam Arbour was surprised when the government contacted her, because, as she said, the work had already been done.
Nevertheless, Madam Arbour's report was released in May 2022. Incidentally, Morris J. Fish had released the “Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence” in April 2021.
That brings us to today, to Bill C-11. Let me be clear: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill so that it can be reviewed in committee. This bill responds to the recommendations of the two former justices I just mentioned, particularly the parts of their reports dealing with the issue of sexual misconduct. I will now speak to the bill itself.
To address recommendation 5 of the Arbour report, the government wants to definitively remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada.
The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for three key military justice authorities: the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. This turns the appointment process into a political process, because the government, not military leadership, would choose these appointees. That way, they would be sheltered from any form of blackmail.
I would remind members that Mr. Vance, who had sexual relations with a subordinate, allegedly boasted about how the victim could not file a complaint because he had full control over military investigations. I quoted him earlier. This bill would scuttle that possibility. Vance's successor, Art McDonald, also left his position after only a few weeks as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct.
This bill now enables non-commissioned members, whose rank ranges from private to chief warrant officer, to become military judges. This measure accurately reflects today's reality: Many lower-ranking non-commissioned members are more educated than officers. For example, a person can join the Canadian Armed Forces without a diploma at the age of 17 and remain a part-time non-commissioned member, while studying full time to earn university degrees. Generally speaking, non-commissioned members are able to earn more advanced degrees.
Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial amendments, such enabling victims to get assistance from a “victim's liaison officer”. That is a good idea.
Bill C-11 responds to recommendations that should have been implemented a long time ago from reports that should not have been shelved. As such, it requires legislative changes and, in some cases, agreements with the provinces.
One of the most important measures in the bill is the removal of the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences that are committed or alleged to have been committed in Canada. In other words, these offences will now be dealt with in civilian courts.
Recommendation 5 was the only recommendation in former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour's report that required legislation for its implementation. That is why it is the only one of Justice Arbour's recommendations to be addressed in this bill. However, military personnel can arrest the accused and gather evidence while waiting for civilian authorities to arrive. It is important to understand that.
However, it remains to be seen whether restricting civilian jurisdiction to offences committed in Canada could be problematic. At first glance, the fact that the bill deals only with offences committed in Canada might seem problematic, but it is important to remember that Canadian jurisdiction normally applies during operational deployments abroad. Otherwise, local jurisdiction would apply, when a military member is on vacation abroad or taking part in training abroad, for example. In the end, it amounts to the same thing, although it will take longer to transfer the file to civilian authorities if an incident occurs during a deployment abroad.
Justice Arbour stated the following in her report: “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.”
In other words, the bill goes as far as possible when it comes to granting jurisdiction to civilian law enforcement, but it remains reasonable thanks to several conditions that enable members of the military to gather evidence, for example, if a member is caught in the act and there is no room for doubt.
The bill also responds to eight recommendations made by former justice Fish in his report, including the recommendation to remove the military hierarchy's power to appoint certain justice officials. Recommendation 2 of that report calls for the National Defence Act to be amended to allow the Governor in Council to appoint military judges, who can be either an officer or a non-commissioned member, as long as they are a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years' standing at the bar of a province and have been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for at least 10 years.
According to recommendation 7, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services should be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence for a term not exceeding seven years.
Recommendation 8 calls for the repeal of certain subsections of the act that indicated that the judge advocate general can issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular prosecution. Rather than repealing these subsections, Bill C-11 amends them to transfer that power to the Minister of National Defence.
Recommendation 10 called for a certain section of the act, stating that the judge advocate general has the superintendence of the administration of military justice in the Canadian Armed Forces, to be amended to specify that the superintendence must respect the independence of military prosecutors, military defence counsel and other statutory actors within the military justice system. Bill C‑11 therefore amends this section by adding provisions to specify the independence of the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.
There are also other interesting recommendations, such as the ones calling for the provost marshal of the Canadian Armed Forces to be appointed by the government and for the position to be renamed so that the provost marshal holds at least the rank of brigadier-general, which is the lowest rank for generals.
The fact that the provost marshal would be appointed by politicians, meaning the military would not have the ability to revoke the appointment, gives that individual greater independence. It avoids a situation where a general could boast of having control over the judiciary.
However, the minister may appoint a judge to conduct an inquiry and report on whether they consider it necessary to revoke, suspend or impose other disciplinary or administrative measures against the director of military prosecutions in the event of misconduct.
Another recommendation is that the minister should not have the power to give directions regarding specific law enforcement decisions in individual cases. That is very relevant and important in light of what has happened in recent years. In other words, the minister does not have the power to take the place of the judiciary.
Finally, one recommendation amends another aspect and subsection of the act to allow any member of the military to make an interference complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission if they believe on reasonable grounds that any military member or any senior official of the department has improperly interfered with a policing duty or function. This will, of course, expand the number of people who can file a complaint, including the victim.
Bill C-11 also removes military judges from the summary hearing system. I would remind the House that summary hearings deal with service infractions, including common offences such as being absent without leave, negligently discharging a firearm, wearing a uniform improperly or maintaining equipment poorly.
Currently, with offences being treated as disciplinary rather than criminal matters and trials being handled by the chain of command, these trials are anything but fair. The unit commander or officer delegated to preside over the trial can judge their own subordinates, and the accused is generally presumed guilty and dealt with summarily. Unfortunately, Bill C‑11 does not change any of that.
Bill C‑11 also expands access to victim's liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of the victim. In other words, whereas this service was previously only for the alleged victim, a person representing the victim may now have access.
Finally, the National Defence Act is amended to ensure that the sex offender information and publication ban provisions align with the Criminal Code. Those amendments were, of course, necessary to ensure that the military justice system is aligned with the Criminal Code.
Those are the reasons we will support this bill at this stage. However, we reserve judgment on its final adoption until the Standing Committee on National Defence, on which I have the honour of serving, has conducted a thorough review.
Having said that, we are finally here, after a very long process. There have been so many years of neglect, and unfortunately, there was a bipartisan consensus to turn a blind eye to this issue and to filibuster at committee. However, we are glad to finally have something. Is it going to address all of the issues? Probably not, but at this point, we are happy that we have something. We will look at this bill and try to improve it if necessary.
