Debates of Feb. 28th, 2019

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

National Defence Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

On debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has eight minutes remaining in his speech.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House that I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Before question period, I was talking about the intervention by our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on Bill C-77. The beauty of the House is that when one pays attention to debate, we can learn things. So many of our colleagues bring expertise and knowledge to the debate. One only has to just pay attention and listen.

My hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke brought up two areas of Bill C-77 that were missing. I want to bring them up as well and address them.

One is the issue of mental illness and injury of those who serve in our Armed Forces and their death by suicide, self-harm, and the fact that section 98(c) is still in military law. The simple act of removing that could do so much to break down the stigma for those who still suffer in the shadows.

I worked tirelessly in getting my Bill C-211 through the House and to royal assent, which took place on June 21 of last year. I am proud to say that the round tables for Bill C-211 are taking place within a month in Ottawa. Stakeholders, representatives from the provinces and territories, ministerial colleagues from across the way as well as military from Veterans Affairs and National Defence are coming together to have that overall discussion on mental health and how we can stem the tide of the epidemic of suicide due to mental illness and mental injury. This is so important.

It is very important that at all times we build trust not only for those who suffer from mental illness and mental injury, but fort hose who suffer from sexual assault as well so they know they will be believed and they can get the services they require. It is very important we build that environment of trust so they feel they can come forward and there will not be that stigma attached to them. Throughout this debate, we have heard that this still remains, because Bill C-77 does not address that.

My hon. colleague talked about his Bill C-426, which could address the removal of section 98(c). Again, it is a simple thing. I do not accept the argument that we need to study it. The wheels of bureaucracy move slowly. We tend to study things to death and then we are victims of our own inaction. We refuse to act when simple things could be done that would have such a major impact. Section 98(c) is one that my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman mentioned it as well.

This is not my file, but I read some of the amendments put forward by the my colleagues in the official opposition, and this was brought up by a number of colleagues. I did not know that in military law there there is no provision for reporting the proceedings of a summary hearing. There is also no provision compelling an officer presiding over a summary hearing to give reasons for his or her findings. I had no knowledge that no notes were taken or recordings of proceedings. I am shocked that there would be not requirements in military legal procedure to take copious notes. That makes it very difficult for the appeal process.

As Conservatives, we always believe that the rights of victims should come before those of the criminal. We will always stand tall to ensure the rights of victims and their families are considered first and foremost.

Over the course of the last week, and indeed leading up to Christmas, we had a lot of opportunity to talk about victims' rights and ensuring that those who we trusted to protect us and serve our country were armed with the tools to complete their mission. We must ensure they are safe and secure and remain healthy when they come back to their families.

Earlier this week, we were talking about the rights of victims. I brought up Cody Legebokoff, Canada's youngest serial killer and how the families of his victims had been re-victimized time and again. We recently found out that he was transferred from a maximum-security to a medium-security facility.

Our hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has committed to reviewing that case. It is my hope that he will take swift action to reverse the decision, similar to what he did with Terri-Lynne McClintic. I am not sure why things always have to get to this point.

Going back to my earlier comment about subsection 98(c), I note there are simple things we can do as leaders and elected officials within the House. The 338 members of Parliament have been elected to be the voice of Canadians. There are simple things we could do to make the lives of Canadians better. Rather than overthink things, we should use a little common sense.

Sometimes in this place we get mired under the bubble in which we work. If common sense could prevail, we would be far better off.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way seemed to focus a great deal on removing subsection 98(c) or that aspect of the legislation. The member indicated before question period that he had been following the debate. Certain elements currently in the legislation were generated in the dying days of the Stephen Harper government.

We have added a couple of things to it. I note in particular the indigenous factor, which is so critically important to take into consideration when administering military justice, like our civilian courts do.

With respect to the subsection he has referred to, could the member tell the House why Stephen Harper would not have addressed that point in the Conservative legislation? We have made it very clear that this is of interest to us and we would like to explore it. At the time, when it was in committee, it was considered outside of our scope, yet now the Conservatives and the NDP are telling us we should be making changes. Stephen Harper did not do this.

We as a government are saying that we will take a look at it to see what can be done. That seems to be the responsible approach to deal with this.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I took a very non-partisan approach to my intervention. My hon. colleagues across the way, as the Liberals do, always has to place blame. I was merely offering that when the committee was studying Bill C-77, our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, with the best intentions, put forward a motion for us to consider the removal of subsection 98(c). That would have been an opportune time to get Bill C-77 right.

I also have offered that Bill C-77 is being supported by all opposition members on this side of the House. It is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-71, which was put forward by our strong Conservative team in the previous Parliament.

It is unfortunate that our hon. colleague has taken the opportunity to turn things partisan when we are having a reasoned debate and discussion on the merits of Bill C-77 and the opportunities to amend it.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, removing paragraph 98(c) is about removing self-harm as an offence. He talked about that himself.

When the amendment moved by my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke was rejected, he decided to introduce his own private member's bill, Bill C-426, to correct this issue.

Does my colleague plan to vote in favour of Bill C-426 to correct the problem he was talking about?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to see Bill C-426 in its entirety. I only just heard about it an hour ago from our colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. It seems well-intended. I imagine that our national defence critic will provide a reasoned approach to it.

I believe our colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman also referenced Bill C-426 in his intervention. While I have not seen the full text of the bill, I look forward to seeing it. I am sure it will have support from all sides of the House.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to again speak to Bill C-77. This is important legislation that I believe has a good amount of support from all sides of the House.

Before I get into the heart of my remarks today, I want to take a few moments to applaud the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, the former attorney general, for the courage she showed yesterday at the justice committee. All Canadians have been watching this story very closely. The hon. member laid out a very clear picture of what has happened.

It is now crystal clear that the Prime Minister and his office carried out a coordinated effort to try to obstruct the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It is shameful, and it needs to be looked into further.

The Criminal Code defines the charge of obstructing justice as anyone who “wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding.” Applying sustained pressure to the former attorney general once she had already made the decision to proceed to trial would 100% constitute a wilful attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.

The RCMP needs to look into this and needs to hold all of those responsible accountable for their actions, including the Prime Minister. The buck stops with him. It was his office and people in his government who carried out this pressure, and he needs to own up to it, something he is not very good at.

Further, the Prime Minister has to agree to call for a public inquiry so all Canadians can once again have faith in an independent judiciary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is some onus on the member to be relevant to the legislation at hand. We are talking about Bill C-77. The member is reading, verbatim, a speech that he has prepared and it is completely irrelevant to the legislation. At least, if he is going to be off topic, he should try to make it a little more spontaneous.

I would suggest that the member is not being relevant to the bill at hand. Bill C-77 is a good bill that should be debated.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member knows full well that he should not be talking about spontaneity or anything like that. However, I do want to remind members, as the parliamentary mentioned a while ago, that there is some leeway when speeches are being given.

For the members who are delivering speeches, their speeches do have to be relevant. They may have some stuff that may not be as relevant to the legislation before us, however, they need to bring in that relevancy. Therefore, I would ask the member to ensure the relevancy is part of his speech.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, if my partisan colleague across the way had just given me another 10 seconds, that is where my next paragraph was going. The issue of carrying the course of justice is, in fact, not out of place within the context of the debate here today on Bill C-77, so there is relevancy.

Bill C-77 is all about carrying out the course of justice within our military in a way that protects victims. The legislation would bring forward changes to our military justice system that would give some protection to victims. That is something the Conservative government was working on, and as we heard earlier today from my colleague for Cariboo—Prince George, the bill is almost a duplicate of what we had proposed in the last Parliament.

As I said, the legislation would bring forward changes to our military justice system that would give some protection to victims, which is vitally important. Our previous government recognized this. It is why we brought in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and worked to enshrine those rights within our military justice system.

Former Bill C-71, which did not pass before the last election, looked very much like the legislation before us today. Our proposed legislation would have given victims the following: first, enhanced access to information through the appointment of a victim liaison officer; second, enhanced protection through new safety, security and privacy provisions; third, enhanced participation through impact statements at sentencing; and four, enhanced restitution, meaning a court martial would be required to consider making a restitution order for losses.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery and that is on full display here. The Liberal government knows that what the Conservative government tried to do in the previous Parliament was the right thing to do, and that is why it is copying it with this legislation. However, there are a few differences that I would like to highlight.

Perhaps the most glaring difference between the two bills would be the addition of the Gladue decision, in relation to paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada, into the National Defence Act. This addition would mean aboriginal members of the Canadian Armed Forces who face charges under the National Defence Act may face lighter punishment if convicted.

There is absolutely no place in the Canadian Armed Forces and in Canadian society, for that matter, for discrimination of any kind. No one should ever be discriminated against based upon race, gender, religion, culture or any other factor. That being said, the insertion of this principle has the potential to result in different consideration of offences committed by aboriginal forces members than for those committed by non-aboriginal forces members. This could lead to sentences that are less harsh, could undermine operational discipline and morale in the forces and could even undermine anti-racism policies.

I truly believe, and I think all of us in this place do, that judicial systems, military or otherwise, operate most effectively when the defining principle is equality before the law. By definition, equality applies to all. If we want true equality before the law, we cannot have separate levels of standards or sentences for some segments of the population. It must be applied uniformly.

Furthermore, while I am pleased the government is moving forward with legislation to help the men and women who are currently serving our country, it must be reminded that our veterans need our support as well.

A recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed our veterans are paying for the mistakes of the government. The PBO's report, titled “The cost differential between three regimes of Veterans Benefits”, is clear proof that the pensions for life scheme by the government is falling well short of the mark when it comes to supporting the men and women who have served our country. The report confirms veterans with severe and permanent injuries will be worse off by an average of $300,000 under this scheme. This is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

That said, it is my hope that Bill C-77 moves on to consideration in the Senate and that those in the other place will conduct a fulsome review of the bill to ensure that military justice reform works for all those who serve our country.

We cannot ever do enough for our veterans. A lot of veterans from the Second World War and many from the Korean War have left us and there will be more as time moves on. It is times like this, in their later years, when they need veterans services more than ever. I remind the government to change its attitude, change its ways and change Veterans Affairs so that the main goal is to serve these veterans instead of keeping the strings on the bank book unreasonably.

When Conservatives were in government, the same type of thing happened and it is happening now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I was a bit concerned when my friend talked about indigenous people. We want to get military law to more closely resemble what is taking place in our civil court system. My understanding is fairly clear in that what is being proposed in the legislation is no different from what is currently being applied in civil law.

If the member follows me on this, does that mean the Conservative Party's principles that he talked about today are the same principles he would apply to civil law, that we should not be giving any consideration to the indigenous conditions, the issue of reconciliation or things of that nature? I understand what he is saying about military law, but would he expand that to include civil law?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is obviously trying to distort what I said. I simply pointed out that there is a difference. We should not start applying laws based on race, gender or whatever. In the military, if there are four soldiers, and two of them are aboriginal and two of them are not, and they make a mistake, two of them would have the potential of being treated differently than the other two. That is all I was trying to point out. I do not think that is right. I do not have a clear answer on it, but doing anything race-based is not acceptable, even less so in this day and age. That is all I was trying to point out.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was also my impression that he thought it would be discriminatory to take into account the reality of an indigenous community or indigenous representative in a ruling.

I have to wonder whether, instead of talking about discrimination, we should not be talking about mitigating factors, the opposite of aggravating factors, that the judge must take into account before issuing a ruling, as is the case in all criminal and civil proceedings.

Could indigeneity, for example, be considered a mitigating factor in some cases and not a matter of discrimination?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the conditions under which somebody would make a ruling. I would point out that the conditions in the military for all members, male, female, native, non-native, whatever one's race or background, are the same. They are treated the same way, except for what is coming in the bill. That is all I am pointing out.

Again, I do not have the complete answer, but when we start treating people differently because of the colour of their skin, it is unacceptable in today's society, no matter how good one's intentions are.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a form of discrimination that continues in this country for veterans and other people who are within the superannuation acts of the government, which is, if they remarry after age 60, their spouses are denied survivor rights that they would otherwise have. What has been perpetually and continually asked for, going back to the late and wonderful Jim Flaherty, is to get this fixed. I have also asked the current Minister of Finance.

It really is unfair that veterans are treated differently and that spousal benefits are denied to surviving spouses if they happen to find love after 60, as just happened to me.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for a great question. It is one I can relate to because that has happened to constituents in my riding.

Also, I want to officially, albeit belatedly, congratulate her on her new-found love later in life and wish her the best.

Coming back to the issue, I remember talking to my good friend Jim Flaherty, who was working on this at the time. Unfortunately, it did not get fixed, but it needs to be.

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Fredericton.

My thanks for the opportunity to outline some of the many ways the Canadian Forces would strengthen the administration of military justice through Bill C-77.

“Strong, Secure, Engaged”, our new defence policy, unveiled in July of 2017, marks our first step in the priorities of everything we do in the Canadian Forces, now and for years to come.

We have a concrete vision, informed by diligent consultation with our fellow citizens from coast to coast to coast. The commitments we have made to our women and men in uniform will provide them with a more dynamic, prosperous and resolutely positive work environment that guarantees respect for the individual rights of all. The changes introduced in Bill C-77, coupled with the steps taken to respond to the Auditor General's report, will make it even stronger.

I want to start by reminding the House that Canada maintains a unique system of military justice. The Code of Service Discipline mandates that the military justice system deal expeditiously and fairly with service offences while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That said, there are some fundamental differences between the two systems, and for very good reason.

The military justice system is vital to maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is crucial, given the unique environment in which it operates. Military personnel often risk injury, or even death, as they perform their duties in Canada and abroad. Discipline and cohesion within military units can literally be a matter of life and death. Equally important, the military justice system enables Canada to comply with its obligation under international law to hold its military personnel accountable for their conduct during naval, land and air operations.

The military justice system is continually evolving to comply with Canadian law and Canadian values, and we will ensure that it remains responsive to both the accused and the victims. We are proud to continue in this direction and to promote the progress of justice in Canada and within our forces.

This legislation would ensure that the military justice system could satisfy both the expectations of Canadians and the unique needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. In addition, the legislation would improve victim support through information, protection, participation and restitution rights.

The bill would also introduce indigenous sentencing considerations to mirror similar provisions within the civilian criminal justice system, and it would provide sentencing and sanctions provisions for service offences and service infractions rooted in bias, prejudice or hate toward individuals based on their gender expression or identity.

Bill C-77 would also complement the positive actions resulting from the recommendations of the Auditor General's office on ways to strengthen the administration of military justice. The judge advocate general had already initiated a number of measures to improve the administration of the system prior to that report, and the department is implementing an action plan to ensure that all nine recommendations are addressed.

The Office of the Judge Advocate General and the director of military prosecutions have implemented or amended various policies to address the Auditor General's recommendations. For instance, the Office of the Judge Advocate General has begun to develop a new electronic case management tool and database to capture the relevant data on all military justice cases. This case management system directly responds to several recommendations to identify and address delays in military justice system processes.

However, our goal is not simply to speed up the system. We want to make sure that the system continues working, and working well. The case management system will assist the Canadian Armed Forces in maintaining the discipline, efficiency and morale of Canadian Armed Forces members as they work in the service of Canada, both at home and abroad.

The judge advocate general has also re-established the military justice round table to increase and improve communications among key actors in the military justice system. The round table brings together key stakeholders from across the military justice system to discuss best practices in its administration.

As “Strong, Secure, Engaged” makes clear, we are ensuring the long-term health and wellness of military members and civilian personnel. Bill C-77 is one of the many ways we are delivering on that pledge. That pledge also means that we work together to build a more inclusive and respectful environment in our military.

This is an important achievement for all our members in the military, and we hope to have the support of all parties to pass the bill. Our military justice system is vital to maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale in the military. This carefully balanced legislation would ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces could do exactly that.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP supports Bill C-77 at third reading. However, even with the proposed changes in the bill, acts of self-harm continue to be considered an offence in the military justice system. Asking for help in the military comes with a risk of disciplinary action.

What protections will the Liberals propose to ensure that military personnel have access to mental health services without fear of reprisals or risk of disciplinary action?

[Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important point. From my own knowledge, having been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces in the past, we did not take mental health as seriously as we needed to. Under the current government, with its universal commitment to mental health care and mental health care funding, this is also being reflected in the Canadian Armed Forces itself.

It is the example we set and the funding we put forward, the investments we make in mental health care, that are going to make the difference in the long term.

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

Madam Speaker, this legislation covers a number of areas that are very important, including better mental health care.

I want to raise with the government member the point I raised earlier about what is called the gold-digger clause, which denies veterans, retired RCMP, judges and other classes of people under the Superannuation Act, an opportunity to leave their pensions to their spouses if they remarry or marry after the age of 60. It actually goes way back to the Boer War, and that is why it is called the gold-digger clause. Many Liberal finance ministers and Liberal motions at their conventions have said that they will remove it. I wonder if the member has an update.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Speaker, my reading has indicated that it goes back even further than the Boer War. It goes back to the Civil War in the United States. I know it is an issue. I know it is being studied. There are a lot of people out there who believe that this needs to be changed. We need to find a way to support the spouses of military members and others, even if the members remarry at or after the age of 60. People are living longer now. It is not as unusual as it might have been in the past to get married over the age of 60. It is an issue the government is taking seriously, and it is being looked at.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I support the leader of the Green Party, because as the former minister for seniors, I definitely will support anything that helps seniors. As the hon. member opposite has just said, we all live longer. The age of 80 is now considered by WHO to be the real start of being a senior, so there is still a lot of life before 80. I definitely want the government to look very carefully and support those who get married at the age of 60.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Speaker, it is important that more people are advocating for our seniors. I am happy to know that our life expectancy is extending, and therefore some of our government programs and policies will also need to change. I would like to thank the member for bringing up that particular issue.

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I stand here today as the member of Parliament for Fredericton. I am proud that over the last three-and-a-half years I have had the distinct privilege to meet with many of the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who serve at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown.

Centred in the town of Oromocto, Base Gagetown is the second-largest military base in Canada and the home of Canada's army. Gagetown is not just a place of work for the 7,500 military members and civilian personnel, it is home to countless families. It is a school. It is a medical centre.

Base Gagetown is an economic driver for New Brunswick. It is the second-largest public sector employer in the province and the third-largest employer overall. It contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to our local and provincial economy each year. The benefits the base brings to our community are far too many to count.

Canadian Armed Forces members at Base Gagetown do not only make Fredericton, New Maryland, Oromocto and the Grand Lake region a more vibrant place to live, as members of the military, they put their lives on the line for our country and give up their own safety to defend ours.

We can never match that honour and sacrifice, but what we can do is ensure that the structures within the military are as strong as they can be so Canadian Armed Forces personnel and their families never have to see their own system as an obstacle to overcome.

Military members keep us safe, but we must protect them as well. By amending the National Defence Act, Bill C-77 is ensuring better protection for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces under the military justice system. Bill C-77 means a more just and equitable future for the 6,500 members of the Canadian Armed Forces at Base Gagetown and for thousands more who serve across the country.

The very nature of the military means its justice system must consider a different set of demands, from the hazards of war to the hierarchal chain of command. The Canadian Armed Forces must always be able to enforce discipline within that chain of command, so it can be ready and able to respond to any threat.

Bill C-77 commits to strengthening the victims rights within the unique framework of the military justice system. From ensuring that victims of inappropriate conduct by members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the right to information, protection, participation and restitution to establishing a new victim liaison officer to help guide victims through the military justice system, we are ensuring that the victims rights are not only respected but that they are strengthened.

When victims come forward with a complaint, we must ensure they are fully supported. Anything less is unacceptable. Bill C-77 is about making real changes in the lives of our service members. The impact of those changes will be felt across the country, from the Military Family Resource Centre and the Royal Canadian Legion in Oromocto all the way to Alert to Esquimalt to St. John's.

Victims rights matter, and that is why these changes matter as well.

As the Minister of National Defence has made clear, the Canadian Armed Forces welcomes the Auditor General's recommendations on ways to strengthen the administration of military justice. Our government is committed to maintaining a fair, modern and robust military justice system. We thank the Auditor General for this important work and accept the recommendations.

Unfortunately this review reflects the previous government's neglect of not only the military, but also the military justice system, which is an important part of military discipline and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Unlike the previous government, we are committed to ensuring the efficiency of the military justice system. Unlike the previous government, which allowed delays to fester, we are committed to ensuring a reliable military justice system.

We have already started to address some of the Auditor General's recommendations, including a case management system to monitor and manage cases as they progress through the system, extending the postings of defence counsel and military prosecutors to better serve both the accused and the Crown and reinstating the military justice round table, which the previous government abolished. These are just some of the measures we have taken to address the report and we will continue to work to ensure an effective military justice system.

To get back to the matter at hand, the Auditor General's findings reinforce that the judge advocate general of the Canadian Armed Forces, or JAG, is taking the right approach to modernizing the system. The JAG, Commodore Geneviève Bernatchez, oversees the administration of military justice in the forces. She has embraced the Auditor General's recommendations, which will guide her efforts to ensure the military justice system meets the expectations of Canadians and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. She has already developed a detailed action plan to respond to all nine recommendations, and members of the military are already seeing improvements to the administration of the military justice system.

Many important changes are already under way, with the office of the JAG and the director of military prosecutions actively implementing measures to improve how military justice is administered. For instance, even before the Auditor General made his recommendations, the office of the JAG began to develop a new electronic case management tool and database to capture the relevant data on all military justice cases. This will directly respond to a number of the Auditor General's recommendations to identify and address delays in military justice processes and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

The justice, administration and information management system, JAIMS, will allow for the real-time tracking of files as they proceed through the system. It will incorporate and enable the enforcement of time standards that will be established following a review conducted by the JAG as part of the response from the Department of National Defence to the Auditor General's recommendations. JAIMS will allow military justice stakeholders and decision-makers to access case data in real time and be prompted when their action is required. This will help reduce delays by improving how the military justice system's files are managed.

This is not simply about speeding up the system. We want to ensure the system is working and working well. As members may have heard my colleagues say, the military justice system is vital to the ability of the Canadian Armed Forces to achieve its missions in Canada and around the world. lt cannot and will not remain static. The military justice system, like the civilian criminal justice system, is constantly evolving to remain fully compliant with Canadian law, norms and values. That is why our government tabled Bill C-77, which proposes to introduce a declaration of victims rights to incorporate indigenous sentencing considerations and reform summary trials.

In Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, our government has made an unprecedented commitment to provide the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces with the support they need and deserve. That includes the assurance that military members will continue to have access to a fair and effective military justice system as they bravely serve Canadians at home and abroad. With Bill C-77 and the many progressive changes being instituted by the Office of the Judge Advocate General, we are clearly delivering on this pledge.

The Auditor General's report offers valuable insights and tangible recommendations that will help us further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the military justice system. The changes the Auditor General has urged, many of which we are already acting on, will ensure the military justice system remains valuable and relevant in contributing to the operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.