Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be able to rise today to speak to Bill C-11.
In the previous Parliament, I was able to speak to this legislation's precursor, Bill C-66. In that speech, I spoke about the two committees I primarily sat on during the previous session, the status of women and national defence. I was able to provide a unique perspective as it related to what was, at the time, Bill C-66. At FEWO, we studied a number of issues related to violence against women. The committee studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development, intimate partner violence and coercive control. Prior to that, when I sat on the national defence committee, we studied transparency in the Canadian Armed Forces. During that study, we did hear testimony about how complicated and daunting the entire investigative process can be for armed forces members.
I will now re-enter into the record the testimony of Patrick White:
First of all, you need to put yourself in the perspective of the most vulnerable kind of person. Respectfully, that's actually not me. I'm an attorney. I have some legal knowledge. I'm not the most vulnerable kind of person. The most vulnerable kind of person may be the 16-year-old who gets parental consent to join. They may be the person who is so affected by aggravated sexual trauma that they can't even put their hand on the doorknob to get into work, or may vomit when putting on their uniform. That's just an example. If you design a system so that individuals like that can navigate it rather than requiring us to be Rory Fowler or Michel Drapeau, you will succeed in having a system that works for everyone.
The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't.
What particularly struck me was something Mr. White said after the meeting. He highlighted the labyrinth of regulations, the myriad of hidden file numbers, the thousands of initialisms, acronyms and faceless department nooks and crannies in the depths of DND that one has to know the name of in order to get the paperwork. Patrick was a lawyer, a former staffer, someone who was intimately familiar with the machinations of bureaucracy. He knew where he needed to go and what he wanted, and he found it nearly impossible.
In any event, Bill C-66 never got beyond second reading in this place, before dying on the Order Paper due to the previous election. However, I am very happy to see an ever so slightly amended version tabled in this place, and even happier to be able to speak to it today.
While reviewing the initial draft of this speech, I took the time to briefly go over the testimony of survivors and experts at the national defence committee when it studied Bill C-11. It was refreshing to see all parties working collaboratively, especially on such a serious and sensitive issue. This was echoed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on April 23, when he spoke in this place about Bill C-11. What he also spoke about was a series of unilateral changes brought forward on the day prior by the government. Those changes, only achievable because of a new-found majority, unilaterally changed the determinations of that committee, government members included.
In response to his poignant speech, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, if he could save one portion of the original pan-partisan Bill C-11, what would that be? My Manitoban colleague responded:
Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems.
With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims.
The testimony agrees. On November 18, Dr. Karen Breeck stated:
the bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases. I've spoken to many people who fear being labelled disloyal or overreacting if they were to involve civilian police, particularly for the lower-risk sexual assault cases
Colonel Bruce MacGregor, retired, similarly reminded us:
The expectation that victims would be completely satisfied with the criminal justice system is aspirational and not realistic. Many allegations of sexual assault—if not most—within the military are what we would characterize not as rape but as what may be considered as a lower level of physical violence. Saying this is in no way an attempt to minimize the impact on victims.
Christine Wood, a CAF veteran, was unequivocally clear in her testimony. She said:
I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. I support it because the CAF must uphold their own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices.
The director of the Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group, Donna Van Leusden, stated:
This bill removes choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. 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. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did.
The consensus is strikingly clear. As anyone who has ever sat on a committee here knows, there is almost always a multitude of sides to any piece of legislation or study that a committee does. It is shockingly rare to have dozens of witnesses across all walks of life, spread over nearly a dozen meetings, a full day of testimony, be nearly unanimous in their calls for specific change. This is not some regulatory change. This was a call for help from brave survivors who have battled a rotted system designed to silence and diminish them, the very thing Bill C-66 and Bill C-11 were supposed to change.
For a while, there was hope. The committee heard the witnesses. Members worked collaboratively. They introduced amendments to Bill C-11. For 62 days, these men and women brought change, and they thought change was coming, from the day the report was tabled before the House up until April 22, when the government tabled a battery of amendments that undid months of collaborative work, completely revoking these changes. One of the first things the government did with its newly secured majority, even before the three new members took their seats in this place, was table a sweeping set of changes that eliminated that hard work.
Not only is this an insult to the witnesses who were strong enough to come out and give their testimony, but it is disrespectful to the members of the committee, including the government members sitting on that committee. What the government did was worse than simply not listening. What it did was tell these witnesses and the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of survivors, “We hear you. We quite literally brought you before a standing committee of the House of Commons to listen. We sympathize with you. We even amended the legislation, but we no longer need you.”
This is not collaboration whatsoever. This is dismissal.