Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, there are many stories in this whole sad affair. Some of them involve tragic misconduct and victims left with the aftereffects. There is the story, which spanned many years, of continued impunity, as people were protected by successive governments. Then came the bungling and the never-ending delays. Finally, our very democracy plays a part in all this, as well. First and foremost, it is the story of victims of misconduct. Members will recall the whole story, which has been told many times in the House, of General Vance, who was protected by successive ministers of governments of all political stripes. This general was able to live with impunity, bragging that he would be forever protected and untouchable at all times because he had control over the military justice system. Members will recall that it took a long time for this story to come to light, and when it did, many said that silence was the best response—that eternal guilty silence that keeps victims voiceless. It is also the story of several commissions of inquiry. I am thinking of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Several commissions of inquiry came to a number of conclusions after thousands of people were interviewed. There were thousands of testimonies; thousands of voices were heard in the context of this tragic case. This is an issue that has since dragged on for more than 15 years. It took more than 15 years to come up with the first version of a bill in the last Parliament and, in the current Parliament, the bill now before us. This is a matter of democracy. I believe that, as members of Parliament, we are being shortchanged, and democracy is being shortchanged, by what is happening right now. Allow me to digress for a moment because this is important. Let us not forget that this is also the story of a government that called an election last year. What was the outcome of that election? It resulted in a minority government. That means that we go before the voters, present them with options and ideas, and show them where we are headed and what we are proposing. That is where democracy decides. It decides by determining which idea has majority support. In other words, there were more votes and more seats for the current government’s proposal, but there are still enough voters who said they did not agree. The result is that the government in power has a majority that is not absolute. It is a simple majority, but one that is not absolute in terms of the number of seats. That was the verdict in April 2025. The message to the government is to work with the other parties, because more people chose the other options combined. If my math is correct, that is what it comes down to. I am no fan of the Canadian parliamentary system, but it seems to me that, in the history of these highly imperfect institutions, that is just how it works. That is the result. That is what it amounts to. Let us come back to the story of this government that introduced Bill C-11 and the opposition parties who voted in favour of the principle of the bill because everyone agreed with it and action needed to be taken. People have suffered and others will continue to suffer if nothing changes. After the opposition parties acted in good faith and the House adopted the bill in principle, it was the committee’s turn to patiently do its work. For several weeks, it heard from witnesses and reviewed reports and briefs, including one from the Barreau du Québec, which said that it liked the idea of the bill but that some small changes needed to be made. We also heard from a number of victims and victims’ associations, who made recommendations and told us that, when cases are being transferred, the military justice option needs to remain open. Even though transferring cases to the civilian system is generally a good thing, we still need to have some sort of military system for certain cases, so we should not close the door on that completely. That was the subject of an amendment that was deemed admissible, and I am happy about that because we are the ones who proposed that amendment. The Conservative amendment regarding complete freedom of choice was deemed inadmissible recently, even though it was also adopted in committee. Our amendment does not propose complete freedom of choice, but it says that if experts in the civilian system recommend keeping the case in the military system, then that might be a good thing for some victims. It worked, and I am very pleased about that. This is an example of a recommendation made by the Barreau du Québec, which ultimately concluded that Bill C-11, as it stood, was unsatisfactory, even though it was well-intentioned. A whole host of other recommendations like that were also adopted by way of amendments, often with the majority support of the two opposition parties. Some amendments were adopted unanimously with the support of the Liberal Party, but, for the most part, it was the opposition parties that joined forces and managed to gain the upper hand. I am pleased that we managed to achieve this. It was democracy at work. In our committee, the majority consisted of opposition MPs. I would remind members that we patiently listened to victims, experts, the Barreau du Québec and other stakeholders who came to tell us what they believed should be done. Some of the recommendations in the Fish report were even subsequently deemed inadmissible. That report, which remains something of an authoritative reference on the subject, was deemed inadmissible—that says it all. It is also the story of a government that secured a majority by getting opposition members to switch sides, swearing up and down that its approach would be collaborative. In the days that followed, however, one of the first things they told us was that they plan to unilaterally change committee composition without even talking to the opposition parties. That is what collaboration, co-operation and working together in the House mean to them. It is also the story of a government that then attempts to throw out all the work that committees have been doing for weeks, along with the democratic decisions of parliamentarians who voted on committee business. This is the story of a committee chair who decided amendments were out of order. We overruled his decision with a majority vote in committee, but he got his way in the end. It is also the story of a Speaker of the House who heard my appeal and that of my colleague, the Conservative Party’s defence critic, who rose in the House to say that we heard the victims, that we could not ignore them and that certain recommendations could not be ruled out of order. From a procedural standpoint, for example, our proposal to consider establishing an office did not entail the allocation of additional resources, yet it was deemed inadmissible on the grounds that it required additional resources. Our proposal does not run counter to the intent of this bill, which aims to reform military justice to make life more bearable for victims and to better address cases of misconduct. I am sorry, but when we have good ideas to improve a bill and flesh it out, that aligns with the bill’s intent. In our case, given that we are stuck with this highly imperfect Canadian parliamentary system, we have decided, procedurally speaking, to include in the bill the need to consider establishing an office. This does not mean creating the office itself or adding new resources. It costs nothing to mandate the government to look into the issue. It does not cost a penny to include it in the bill. However, the Speaker decided to reject all of those amendments. Even though a few admissible amendments remained, we found out only yesterday evening after checking the Notice Paper that the government had rejected them in a last-ditch effort—like I said, their majority is going to their heads—to erase, destroy, undo and dismantle everything that members had accomplished in committee. What a slap in the face for the experts, the victims and democracy.
