Mr. Speaker, it is always important that I get to participate in these debates. First and foremost, I just want to thank the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard, who are out there every day, risking life and limb to keep us safe here at home, to secure our borders and to protect our security.
It is often said that having a strong military actually ensures that we have economic prosperity. Having a prosperous country hardens our national security and our national defence. We need to continue to support those in the armed forces in everything that they do.
On Bill C-11, we have worked very hard on the bill for the last year. As the shadow minister of national defence, this is something that is near and dear to my heart, in standing up for those who have served or are serving and who have been dealing with sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Nobody should have to go to work and experience danger that is imposed by their fellow colleagues. When we have to deal with individuals who are being aggressive, individuals who are going to carry out sexual misconduct, that is not a safe work environment.
We look at the brave women and men who serve. They have already decided to step up and do one of the most dangerous things in the world, which is to protect our great nation. Instead of fighting the enemy, they are actually fighting off their fellow soldiers, aviators and sailors who are carrying out sexual misconduct. We have to stop that.
I tell members that I am so disappointed in the Liberal government for not listening to those who serve, not listening to the survivors, not listening to veterans and not listening to police forces across this country, who have all said that we need to ensure that the agency of the victim is protected and that they have the choice to choose which justice system their cases are heard in, whether it is in the military justice system or in the civilian system.
The Liberal government decided to be performative rather than pragmatic. Rather than taking the advice of veterans, rather than taking the advice of those who carry out military justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, rather than listening to police agencies and barristers and military justice experts, the Liberals are ignoring all of that because of the one thing they continue to hide behind, which is the Arbour report.
The government decided to choose political expediency instead of actually bringing in a function within the military that works for everyone, not just those few at the top of the Canadian Armed Forces who are just trying to push this off their table. The Liberals are trying to pass the buck rather than take responsibility.
We heard from so many of the victims at committee, when we studied Bill C-11. The reasoning they brought forward was the inspiration to make the amendments that we proposed at report stage, which were supported by the committee. I fear that, by the Liberals ignoring that advice, that brave and courageous testimony that we heard at committee, the Liberals are retraumatizing these victims.
It just breaks my heart to know that these brave souls stepped up to tell their personal stories of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, sometimes happening many times over their careers. To have that thrown by the wayside at report stage, by the Minister of National Defence, proves that the government is not listening to those who are impacted.
In reality, with what Bill C-11 does, especially here, as we are at third reading, all sexual misconduct and assault is going to be pushed off into the civilian system. There are higher thresholds there before a case will even proceed to prosecution and actually have success within the civilian justice system.
That means that more of these perpetrators, more of these individuals who are committing sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, are going to walk free. Bill C-11 would remove all accountability, all prosecution and the ability to court-martial and carry out punitive measures against those perpetrators. Whether it is high-level or low-level sexual misconduct, removing that from the military would mean no accountability for those who are accused of carrying out sexual misconduct. That also would mean there would be no justice for those who have experienced sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Liberals decided, now that they have their new-found, stolen majority, to run roughshod over Parliament and run roughshod over committees, and overturn all the hard work we did. We worked across party lines to bring forward very reasonable amendments to Bill C-11 that would make Bill C-11 work for those who are serving and work for those who are having to deal with sexual misconduct. We want to be able to use all the tools that are now available within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside the Canadian Armed Forces.
Instead, the Liberals decided to make the bill narrowcasted and unable to carry out the justice that victims of sexual misconduct are looking for. They are using their stolen majority and are even ignoring the advice of the Liberal members who sat on the national defence committee and helped make many of the amendments that were gutted at report stage.
That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting Bill C-11 at third reading. It is a slap in the face to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It ignores advice that came from the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, who said that they can do the job and that they have changed because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Arbour report. They have upgraded their skills and processes to investigate, to prosecute and to hold those to account within the Canadian Armed Forces.
As a matter of fact, they would still have to do that for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when they are outside Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual assault, as defined by the Criminal Code, would still be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces military justice system and under the superintendency of the judge advocate general. It would still be prosecuted if someone is stationed in Latvia, England or Kuwait. Wherever we have our forces stationed, its members would still be subject to military justice, except when they are in Canada. When they are in Canada, that is taken away from the military and from the victims who want choice.
I have to say how important choice is. It is about making sure that those victims maintain agency and franchise over their rights and decide which system is in their best interest. We know things have changed since Justice Arbour had her meetings and hearings with Canadian Armed Forces members. That is going back seven years now and the military has adjusted. New agencies have been put in place.
Let us look at some of the testimony.
Hélène Le Scelleur appeared at committee a couple of times going back several years. She said the following:
Survivors must have the right to choose between civilian and military systems at all times, regardless of location or rank. Choice is not procedural. It is freedom: freedom from our aggressors and freedom from the silence that institutions have imposed upon us. I want to be clear that even with this choice, neither system is sufficient on its own. The military system understands the operational context. The civilian system provides independence and oversight.
We would have balance and what the government wants to do is remove that balance.
In another committee hearing a few weeks ago, we talked about how important it is to have choice in cases where someone was in a jurisdiction where their official language was not spoken. In her case, being from Quebec, a francophone, even though she is bilingual, she said:
... when we're talking about really specific things related to trauma or sensitive issues, I don't think I would be doing it in my second language, because when you're vulnerable, you don't have access to all of the vocabulary you would normally have. I would rather have the option of choosing the military way to make sure that I am going to have services in French, instead of the example you provided of staying in Alberta and having my case dealt with there when I'm from Quebec.
She went on to talk about how she would not be able to get the high-level French support that she would need to go through the civilian justice system within the province of Alberta.
Brigadier-General Hanrahan, who is the Canadian Forces provost marshal general and also the person in charge of the military police and the National Investigative Services, said, “At any point in the process with concurrent jurisdiction”, which means having both the justice system in the military and having access to the civilian justice system, “there's an ability to have a choice change....Concurrent jurisdiction allows us, from an investigative perspective and a prosecutorial perspective, to work with the victim to help them work through those choices at any point along that process.”
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in its submission to the national defence committee, said when it came to the provisions of Bill C-11:
Bill C-11 would deny victims and survivors the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint might be investigated. This approach departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing.
The one sad part in all of this is that the government is not providing any extra resources to local police forces, when our military bases are set up to take on these extra cases, that they are going to have to investigate on base now. It is not giving any extra resources to the provincial justice systems, so the courts would not be able to deal with the influx of cases that may be brought in. We know that the Jordan framework kicks in, the clock starts ticking and that justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, at the end of the day, we know that with the backlog that already exists within the civilian courts across this country in all jurisdictions, because of the lack of judges, prosecutors and court time, a lot of these cases are going to be thrown out.
We know that, with low-level sexual misconduct cases that are dealt with right now within the Canadian Armed Forces, if they were transferred over into the civilian system the prosecutors would not proceed with the case if they did not think they were going to be successful in front of a judge. That is why, again, we need to provide the choice to our victims and our veterans.
Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who is the former director of military prosecutions, said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.”
That is exactly what Bill C‑11 does. It gives the power to the perpetrator, taking it away from the victim. That is disgusting.
I have to say that we heard from a lot of military experts, some of whom are professors, some of whom used to serve in the military, some of whom are doing both; they are professors of law as well as captains within the Canadian Armed Forces, majors or higher. Afton David is one of them. She said:
I would submit that from my perspective, they should all have a choice…considering both the safeguards and entitlements to the accused, but also the safeguards and entitlements to the victims now within the military justice system, I think we should at least give it a chance to deal with all the levels of sexual misconduct.
Even though all of these changes have happened within the Canadian Armed Forces, the Liberals are throwing it out.
We talked about the civilian system. We heard from lawyers across the country. The Barreau du Québec said it “considers that it would be appropriate to resolve these challenges by amending the bill so as to give victims the choice to decide which system would be best for them, given the circumstances of their situation.”
We should not be going carte blanche and trying to force every case into the civilian system. We need to make sure the lower levels are handled within the military justice system so that appropriate measures can be taken, the code of service discipline is maintained and, at the end of the day, the administration of justice happens, whether it is with respect to a low-level sexual misconduct, inappropriate touching, comments and things like that versus an actual full-on sexual assault.
One thing that came from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that I think we need to consider is that the CACP “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction.” It says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”.
If we look at how Bill C-11, and clause 7 in particular, is written, it would take away the power of the military to actually do its own investigations. If all the evidence is on base or at a training exercise, that evidence could not be collected by the military police. They would have to wait till the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Quebec provincial police or the local municipal police agency showed up to start taking statements from witnesses and making sure it collects all the evidence. What would happen when we are training on Operation Nanook, up in the High Arctic? How would they get there in a timely manner? We always have military police accompanying our forces wherever they are.
We talk about making sure there is ongoing accountability, and I will just touch on some of this quickly. Dr. Karen Breeck is a retired veteran who has worked with members of the veterans community who have experienced military sexual trauma. She says, “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.”
Jessica Miller, who is a survivor, wrote, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates, and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.”
This is important to note. We have already had the civilian system at play since the minister gave the directive to the director of military prosecutions to start prosecuting all cases of sexual misconduct in the civilian system four years ago. We have four years of data now, and that experience has not been in the best interest of the victims. All we have to do is look at some of the high-profile cases that have gone before the courts and have been thrown out or had the charges stayed because of a lack of evidence or because they did not hit the threshold of actual prosecution.
Afton David also said, “Bill C-11 effectively nullifies the code of service discipline's jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences that occur in Canada, rather than transferring jurisdiction. That decision risks passing responsibility to the civilian system without resolving the systemic causes that produce a loss of confidence in military justice in the first place.”
That is a problem. We are going to lose more confidence. We are going to continue to have a situation where all this is going to be removed from the military. That is going to erode leadership and allow leadership to turn a blind eye to the sexual misconduct happening within the Canadian Armed Forces because it will be expected that the civilian system will be handling it.
There is so much more here if we want to really look at doing what is right. Rory Fowler says, “If we want the leadership of the Canadian Forces to ensure that everybody in the Canadian Forces is treated fairly, is listened to and has a voice, then you have to give them the tools to do so. When they fail to use those tools, you have to hold them accountable, and that goes all the way up to the Minister of National Defence.”
He goes on to say that “you can't legislate good leadership and you can't legislate culture change. What you can do is have legislation that allows you to hold leaders accountable.”
Bill C-11 would do none of that. The leadership would still get to pass the buck.
We have talked about the concern that there might be political interference with this bill, that it has been done with political expediency. I have to say, there was a sunset clause, and I asked the parliamentary secretary about it. It was clause 70.3. We added five paragraphs. It was unanimously accepted at committee. The sunset clause is important, and unfortunately, the government took it out.
Knowing that we are opposing the bill, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on National Defence for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 7 to 9, 15, 17, 40, 60 and 61 with the view to amend the bill so as to better reflect the views expressed by military sexual assault survivors and military justice experts in their testimony before the committee”.
