Debates of April 26th, 2021

National Defence

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening on behalf of women and men who have been victimized by sexual misconduct in the military. Each case of sexual misconduct is significant, and addressing this issue and the systemic causes behind it must be a top priority for the government.

Our women and men in uniform, as well as our veterans, entered into our military with the highest ideals of service. They understood that they were going to be asked to serve in the most difficult of situations and perhaps give up their lives. What they did not expect or deserve was conflict and assaults from within our own ranks. They deserve a fair hearing and meaningful action in response to their trauma, not half measures, lip service and shameful attempts to sweep allegations under the rug.

On March 12, I posed a question to the Minister of National Defence. I framed my question around the March 11 edition of The Fifth Estate. In the segment “Broken honour”, Sergeant Jessica Miller revealed her experiences of sexual abuse by a superior while at sea. Under the guise of Operation Honour, Jessica hoped for justice. However, it was revealed that Jessica's abuser received a mere code of conduct discipline violation, no criminal charges and a move to a posting of his choice.

Jessica Miller is only one of the victims who have come forward in an effort to expose systemic issues of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces ranks. What is more, the lax consequences applied to Miller's perpetrator are just one example of the lack of seriousness with which they are being addressed.

We have recently come to learn that this pattern of impunity can be found all the way to the top. For three years, the Minister of National Defence knew about the sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance and did nothing to address them. I asked for a justification from the minister, but the response I received was troubling.

How can the government claim that it has “no tolerance for misconduct”? Clearly that is not the case when a perpetrator received no criminal charges and was given an alternative posting of his own choice. Where is the accountability in that?

I heard words from the member who responded that rang with excuses and indifference, like “institutional culture is complex and change takes time”. It does not have to be that way.

My colleague, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, recently wrote about military sexual misconduct in the context of a similar situation in the U.S. Tailhook, of course, involved up to 83 women and men sexually assaulted by U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officers at an event over the course of a weekend. The U.S. military response was swift and decisive. Top brass were fired and a policy of zero tolerance was established. As my colleague wrote on the fallout from Tailhook, “There was to be no doubt that the U.S. military would be a place where women could serve equally and with pride.” My colleague wrote that this is Canada's Tailhook moment, and I wholeheartedly agree with her.

We need a wholesale change of perspective and culture within our military, and we need it now. Sexual assault and harassment go largely unreported because of fears that complaints will not be taken seriously or that victims will face repercussions. As I mentioned earlier, Jessica Miller is just one example of a service member who has voluntarily come forward, but she is an exception. As it stands, women and men are not comfortable with coming forward. It is saddening to realize that there are far more victims sitting in silence.

At the outset of Operation Honour, General Vance stated, “Any form of harmful sexual behaviour has been and always will be absolutely contrary to good order and discipline.... It is a threat to operational readiness and a threat to this institution.” Clearly Operation Honour is a misnomer when our top soldier is not a part of the solution but a part of the problem.

I hope and pray that continued exposure to this systemic issue will encourage more victims to break their silence and that this critical mass will persuade the minister to undertake wholesale reform and fire those who need to be fired.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing such an incredibly important issue to the floor of the House.

Let me start by stating our position in the clearest possible terms. Our government does not, and will not, accept any form of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence from anyone, regardless of rank or position.

We are committed to ensuring that survivors and affected persons have access to a range of supports, and are treated fairly and compassionately. We must take care of our people, providing them with a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. It is written into our defence policy. It is written into the minister's mandate letters, and it is my personal belief system.

Everything that we do must be informed by those with lived experiences. Sexual misconduct is harmful beyond measure. Our government has worked hard, first by responding to Justice Deschamps' report. We put measures in place focused on understanding the issue, preventing harm from occurring in the first place, addressing incidents when they happen, and providing support to survivors and those impacted.

We created the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, completely independent from the chain of command. We launched new mandatory training and education. We partnered with Statistics Canada to conduct surveys so we could better understand the scope of the problem. We reviewed 179 old cases that had been categorized as unfounded. We created new specialized teams within our military police and our prosecution service to address sexual misconduct. We sought out expert external advice, and we implemented new programs and policies. Last year we released a preliminary cultural change strategy. All of this work was essential and foundational.

However, we have heard recent survivors, coming forward so bravely, with very traumatic and difficult stories. This is something that is heartbreaking. Those who have come forward, and those I have personally heard, have stories that have shaken me deeply. I will remember and carry them with me forever. It has to stop.

It is clear that Operation Honour has not produced the solutions we had hoped it would. It is extremely clear that we have a lot more work to do. We will learn from what has not worked and develop a deliberate plan to go forward. It must be an evergreen process, and it is urgent.

We need to make it easy and accessible for anyone, at any level and any gender, to report an incident. They need to have confidence in those reporting mechanisms. That is why we will be developing an independent reporting structure to look into all allegations. We must ensure that this kind of abuse of power, and that is what it is, an abuse of power, ends and never happens again.

As the minister and Prime Minister have stated, all options are on the table. We are listening. Eliminating all forms of misconduct, abuse of power and violence, and creating a safe work environment for everyone in the defence team has always been our top priority. We know that any organization, including the Canadian Armed Forces, must work hard to eliminate the toxic masculinity that creates an unacceptable culture.

All avenues to a safer future for the women and men serving in the Canadian Armed Forces are going to be considered in order to change that culture. We owe it to our members and to Canadians to get this right.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed the deep lack of confidence our serving members, veterans and Canadians have in the Liberal government's ability to deal with the military sexual trauma pandemic taking place within our military.

In this House, I called upon the Prime Minister to extend the deadline for the CAF-DND sexual misconduct class action, currently scheduled to close on November 25. That is too soon. This is a painful experience for victims, who have to recount traumatic experiences in great detail. It is overwhelmingly difficult. Ultimately, the deadline is going to prevent victims from coming forward.

Extending the deadline, at least until those responsible are held responsible, is one measure the government could take right now, in good faith, to indicate to our service members and veterans that justice will be served.

Will the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Liberal government do the right thing and remove the looming deadline on the sexual misconduct class action?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member opposite that all options are on the table. That is why budget 2021 committed over $236 million to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces, including expanding the reach of the sexual misconduct response centres and providing online and in-person peer-to-peer support.

It is clear that the measures we have taken already are not enough, and we will have more to announce in the coming weeks for the next steps. We know the solutions we have put forward have not moved fast enough, and we are listening to survivors and those impacted. Canadian Armed Forces members make enormous sacrifices to protect Canadians, and regardless of rank or gender, they have an undeniable right to be able to serve in safety. We can and we must do better, and we will.

Public Safety

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in March I asked the public safety minister why his government is moving to confiscate legally purchased firearms from hunters and sport shooters instead of getting tough on real criminals. In response, the minister claimed that his government is putting “Canadians' safety first.” However, if the Liberals were trying to put safety first, they would not have voted against a Conservative bill to impose tougher sentences on criminals caught with smuggled guns. They also would not have introduced a bill allowing lighter sentences for people convicted of serious gun crimes.

In February, the government introduced a bill removing mandatory minimum sentences for crimes like weapons trafficking, using a firearm in commission of an offence, possession of a loaded handgun, illegally firing a weapon with intent, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and more. I fail to understand how this is putting Canadians' safety first.

The Conservatives have a plan to actually keep Canadians safe from violent crime. That plan includes strengthening anti-gun and anti-gang units, supporting the CBSA in cracking down on cross-border smuggling, supporting mental health initiatives and bringing in real consequences for real criminals. Our plan does not include cracking down on duck hunters while letting violent criminals off with a slap on the wrist, as the Liberals are.

The Liberals' plan to confiscate guns from law-abiding Canadians is, frankly, overreaching and incoherent. They hide behind vague terms like “military style” without ever defining what that label means, all the while passing legislation and moving forward on measures to ban many rifles used for sport shooting and hunting. With the latest firearm ban they announced last year, it was reported that several hunting rifles and shotguns were included on the list. This is truly not putting Canadians' safety first; it is only criminalizing lawful gun owners and law-abiding Canadians.

I raise this issue again because I have heard from many in my riding who are deeply concerned about the government's approach to this. Aside from COVID, it is far and away the single biggest issue I have heard about in my riding. I get the greatest number of calls and emails about this, and people are writing by mail too. They are concerned about the government's approach.

I have heard from countless constituents about this, who reached out to me from Weagamow, Fort Severn, Lac Seul and first nations across the region. They are concerned that the government is limiting their ability to hunt.

When I visited the Lake of the Woods Gun Club, I heard many concerns about the Liberals' misguided priorities. When I went shooting at the Sioux Lookout Handgun and Rifle Club, I heard about the already robust set of rules that members must follow. When visiting the Vermilion Bay Rod & Gun Club, I was urged to stand up against the government's heavy-handed attack on our way of life in northwestern Ontario. I have heard similar concerns raised by members of the clubs in Ear Falls, Dryden and Red Lake and by residents across northwestern Ontario. Some residents who are not even living in my riding have reached out to me to share their concerns.

I will take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary my question again. Will the government stop targeting law-abiding hunters and sport shooters and instead take real measures to fight real criminals?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kenora for this interesting adjournment debate. It is a topic that concerns us.

To answer the question he asked at the very end, I can assure him that there is nothing in Bill C-21 that takes aim at the vast majority of law-abiding Canadians, whether they are hunters, sport shooters or collectors who obey the law and who have our respect. There is absolutely nothing in Bill C-21 that targets law-abiding Canadians who own guns.

As for the gun smuggling he referred to in his question a few weeks ago, which he addressed to the Minister of Public Safety, it should be noted that Bill C-21 includes tougher sentences for those who are involved in smuggling operations. The maximum has increased from 10 to 14 years. It is rather surprising to see the Conservatives oppose such a measure. As for the bill he talked about in his speech, there was nothing in there that addressed smuggling as such.

Now let us look at what we are actually doing. Next Saturday marks the first anniversary of the measures we put in place to ban over 1,500 models of military-style firearms and their variants.

While the Conservatives listen to the gun lobby, we listened to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which has been calling for such measures for decades, as have many civil society groups. Last May, we took extraordinary and necessary steps to ban more than 1,500 models of military-style firearms. These are weapons that were designed not for hunting or sport shooting, but for tactical situations for their effectiveness on the battlefield. They have a lethal character that makes them inappropriate for civilian use and makes them too dangerous in our society. That is why we decided to ban them on May 1, 2020, and I am very proud of that.

Last month, we introduced Bill C-21 to make further headway in our fight against gun violence. This bill will complete the ban on military-style firearms, which have no place in our society as I mentioned. Once passed, the bill will help reduce domestic violence and prevent suicide with the implementation of a red flag and yellow flag regime. These measures will allow individuals and the authorities to act more quickly and remove weapons from individuals who are a danger to themselves, society or their families.

The bill will help fight the criminal use of firearms and their diversion to the black market by requiring that a firearms licence be presented to import ammunition and by giving police organizations greater powers to share information when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a licence holder is supplying weapons to criminals. It is a measure that the Conservatives should support. We are surprised that they are not supporting these types of measures, which are enshrined in Bill C-21.

The bill will also create new offences for altering a gun's cartridge magazine and for depicting violence in firearms advertising.

In short, we believe it is essential to reduce firearms smuggling and trafficking in Canada to make our communities safer. I sincerely hope that our opposition colleagues will help us pass this bill, which, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, will also amend the Criminal Code to increase the maximum penalty of imprisonment for smuggling and trafficking firearms from 10 to 14 years. That is important. It sends a message to all judges about how significant these types of offences are and how seriously we take them because they have very clear impact on violence in our communities. I would certainly like to see my colleague from Kenora support Bill C-21.

This bill will also prevent people who have been arrested for smuggling from entering Canada by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I see that my time is running out. We could continue to talk at length about the good things that Bill C-21 has to offer, as well as the investments our government has made in budget 2021 to provide more resources to police authorities, whether the RCMP or border services, to combat trafficking and smuggling.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary once again used those terms, “military style” and “assault style”, without a clear definition of what those are. He claims that the firearms that the government has moved to ban are not used for hunting or sports shooting. However, in my riding, many people are seeing the guns that they do use for hunting and sports shooting on the Liberals' list of now illegal firearms. There is clearly a disconnect between his talking points and what is actually happening on the ground.

Also, I am surprised that the Liberals, who claim to want to make Canada safer, voted against a Conservative bill that would impose tougher sentences on those who are found in possession of an illegally acquired firearm, a smuggled firearm. If the government is so committed to combatting gun crime, why did its members vote against this common-sense, Conservative motion?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always puzzled to hear those types of criticisms from the Conservative Party.

When the Conservatives formed the government, they proceeded to make the biggest cuts to our intelligence services and our police forces, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP, and border services officers. Their austerity plan included massive cuts to technical resources and staff deployed on the ground to fight smuggling or illegal gun violence. The Conservatives talk a big game, but do very little.

In contrast, without looking back to the past five years, but simply looking at the investments we made in the past year, the 2020 fall economic statement provided $250 million to target the causes of violence and prevent it upstream by investing directly in our communities. More recently, just last week in the budget, we allocated $312 million over five years to the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to better support their efforts to fight gun violence. All of that speaks much louder than the Conservative rhetoric.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:30 p.m.)