Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by going over the timeline of the bill we are debating today and by looking at the fact that the government is shutting down debate and completely undermining the hard work completed in committee by opposition and government members alike.
If we look back at the relatively recent past, we can see that the whole issue of changes to the military justice system stems in particular from the report by Justice Deschamps, which was published on March 27, 2015, about 11 years ago. It was a scathing report dealing with misconduct in the armed forces. It was around the same time that Jonathan Vance was appointed chief of the defence staff by the Conservative government of the day.
Not long after that, a huge scandal broke out involving Jonathan Vance. Members may recall that. Back in February 2021, we learned from media reports that, as early as 2018, the government had been receiving information alleging sexual offences committed by the new chief of the defence staff, but the government kept a lid on that at the time. The chief of the defence staff retired in 2021, shortly before the scandal exploded.
Then, in April of that same year, 2021, Justice Fish submitted a report containing recommendations specifically aimed at cleaning up the armed forces. Following that, after the Liberals had engaged in a very, very long filibuster in committee in an attempt to keep the Vance file under wraps, we got a new defence minister, who seemed keen to take the bull by the horns.
She asked Justice Arbour to revisit the work that had been done. Justice Arbour replied that this had already been done, but, in good faith, she nevertheless decided to do it again, in order to update Justice Deschamps' work and also to include Justice Fish's work. The aim was to present recommendations aimed at reforming the CAF's legal environment.
At that time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We hoped that all this would lead to a bill aimed at reforming the CAF's legal system. It took some time, but it eventually arrived. In March 2024, the government finally introduced Bill C-66, which aimed to overhaul the judicial system.
We thought this bill would be brought before the House because it was so important. We had been talking about it for so long. Everyone was waiting and waiting. I decided I was going to start reading the bill in detail, knowing that it would end up at the Standing Committee on National Defence once the government put it on the agenda for debate in the House, which it did not do until September.
The bill was introduced in March, and the government did not bring it up for debate until September 2024. Each of the major parties at the time—the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—was given a single opportunity to speak. After that, the government never brought the bill back into the House before the prime minister resigned. The House sat from September through December, but the bill was never brought up again.
Members will recall that the prime minister resigned, Parliament was prorogued and an election was called. Now we have the new version, Bill C-11. The Liberals wasted all that time, and now they suddenly want to get it done, so they are throwing a gag order in our face.
This gag order has specific and shocking consequences. In many respects, the work has been done in committee. In particular, witnesses commented on the importance of the government's decision to transfer sexual misconduct cases from courts martial to civilian courts in accordance with Justice Arbour's recommendation and the amendments set out in Bill C‑11. The witnesses told us that the vast majority of victims would have preferred it if they could still choose which court would handle their case. Some of them told us that it was important for certain cases to be handled by the military system for reasons related to deadlines or evidence or to avoid revictimizing someone by forcing them to restart a process that was already well under way. In some cases, the reasons concerned complexity or trust in the system.
These are all good reasons. Victims said that they would still rather choose for themselves. In collaboration with other parties, the Bloc Québécois submitted a recommendation aimed at striking the proper balance.
I will now read the clause of the bill as amended by the Bloc Québécois:
Choice of victim
(2) Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, the victim of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(d) to (h), or an individual acting on their behalf, may choose whether the person charged with the offence is to be tried by a court martial or a civil court.
We had raised the possibility of this option. We suggested, through a legislative amendment, that the civilian court take into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and other factors in deciding whether, at the victim's request, the case should instead be heard by a court martial. We had nevertheless established guidelines to avoid situations where, for example, multiple victims might have made different choices if the decision had simply been left entirely up to them. The goal was to prevent one victim from opting for a court martial while another chose a civilian court. We would still respect their wishes.
I had replaced my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton on the committee that day, and I recall that even the NDP was involved, through the member for Nunavut, who had also proposed an amendment so that victims could exercise their freedom of choice in the context of a decision regarding the court that would hear their case.
Today, the government is taking advantage of its majority to set aside the work that was done in committee and to set aside the committee members' vote to adopt the amendment that the Bloc Québécois had proposed as a compromise. I am interested in hearing how the member for Nunavut, who is now on the government side, will vote on this matter. Even though the NDP does not have a seat on this committee, she took the time to attend the meeting, make a recommendation and request permission to be heard and have her recommendation be debated. The goal of her recommendation was for people to have freedom of choice. Now that she is on the government side, I am looking forward to seeing how she will vote.
The same thing was done with some Bloc Québécois's proposals, including one to establish an office of the inspector general for misconduct. The chair of the committee ruled that it was out of scope, that it went too far, that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The entire committee, including the Liberals who had voted in favour of this Bloc Québécois recommendation, agreed to overturn the chair's ruling. We now see that today in the House, the Liberals, who now have a majority, are going to try to overturn the committee's decision to overturn the chair's ruling and go back to the original version of the bill.
The same thing happened with another proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois, which sought to ensure that military judges would automatically cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces at the time of their appointment in order to ensure their independence. That recommendation was also made by the Barreau du Québec. It came out of the Fish report. We did not just pull this recommendation out of thin air. The recommendation to create an office of the inspector general came from former Colonel Michel Drapeau, who spoke about this at length in committee. All of this work was done rigorously and conscientiously. We also listened to from the people for whom this bill was intended, who waited so long for this bill. I am completely dumbfounded by the government's approach today.
The government offered us an olive branch following the three by-elections on April 13 and said that it would take the viewpoints of the opposition parties into consideration, that it would work collaboratively. However, it quickly changed its mind when, for example, it decided to unilaterally change the composition of committees, when that is something on which there should be consensus in Parliament. In the past, that was decided by consensus. The Liberals betrayed the legacy of the House in that regard.
It is hardly surprising to us anymore when they pull such a stunt, because we have seen them doing these kinds of things for almost a week now. However, I think it is unspeakably sad for the people the bill is primarily aimed at: the victims who took the time to come and testify before the committee, even though it must have been emotionally draining. These victims are being told by the government that muzzling the House was not enough; they are going to muzzle the victims as well. If I were a victim today, I would be outraged by the government's behaviour, and I hope it realizes that. I still dare to hope that it will reconsider its decision regarding the amendments.
We will see how all this leads us to vote on this bill, which is otherwise crucial and could have been handled in a very different way.