Bill C-11, Military Justice System Modernization Act · Report stage · now law Where it stands
The law removes the military's authority to investigate or try sexual offences under the Criminal Code that are alleged to have taken place in Canada. It alters appointment processes for military prosecutors, defence counsel, and the provost marshal, who is renamed the Provost Marshal General. The law also expands who can become a military judge, removes those judges from the summary hearing system, and lets people acting for victims request a liaison officer.
52 statements
“I want to change this military justice bill. I want to remove its short title and delete section 7.”
“moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting the short title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 7.”
moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting the short title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
“I am proposing a change to this bill about who qualifies for a role in the military justice system.”
“moved That Bill C-11, in Clause 18, be amended (a) by replacing line 24 on page 10 with the following: “officer or non-commissioned member or former officer or non-commissioned member who is a barrister” (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 10 with the following: “province and who has been or was a member of the Canadian””
moved That Bill C-11, in Clause 18, be amended (a) by replacing line 24 on page 10 with the following: “officer or non-commissioned member or former officer or non-commissioned member who is a barrister” (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 10 with the following: “province and who has been or was a member of the Canadian”
“Opposition parties worked together to change this military justice bill so victims of sexual assault could choose between the military or civilian court system. The defence minister is trying to undo our changes. He is ignoring what victims, soldiers, and legal experts told the committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today. Bill C-11, when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward. There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one. They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form. Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country. When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs. I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11, previously Bill C-66. It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side. Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence’s not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level. The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill. What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away. When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11, he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66, never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up. We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French. Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec. When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “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.” Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country. We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims’ being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account. Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF’s authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “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.” I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut, who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence. I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them.”
A repeated line
“The director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.”
Said 5 times by 4 members since April 23.
Every time it was saidMr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today. Bill C-11, when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward. There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one. They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form. Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country. When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs. I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11, previously Bill C-66. It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side. Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence’s not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level. The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill. What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away. When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11, he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66, never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up. We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French. Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec. When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “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.” Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country. We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims’ being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account. Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF’s authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “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.” I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut, who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence. I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them.
“Justice Arbour did not come to our committee to defend her report. Her report is old, and things have changed. The military has made adjustments and is ready to handle these cases today. Her old advice no longer matters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to know exactly what Madam Justice Arbour thought. We invited her to committee, but she did not even bother showing up to defend her report. Let us put this in perspective. Madam Justice Arbour’s study and report were done years ago. Things have changed. The director of military prosecutions had said that, on a short-term basis, they needed to adjust and pivot, and to move all cases under the ministerial directive from one of the former ministers of national defence. Because of that, the military is prepared to deal with the cases today. What Madam Justice Arbour said before is now irrelevant.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I would love to know exactly what Madam Justice Arbour thought. We invited her to committee, but she did not even bother showing up to defend her report. Let us put this in perspective. Madam Justice Arbour’s study and report were done years ago. Things have changed. The director of military prosecutions had said that, on a short-term basis, they needed to adjust and pivot, and to move all cases under the ministerial directive from one of the former ministers of national defence. Because of that, the military is prepared to deal with the cases today. What Madam Justice Arbour said before is now irrelevant.
“I want to keep the parts of this bill that give victims of military sexual misconduct a choice. The minister wants to send all these cases to civilian courts. I disagree with this change because it takes away the victim's right to choose between the civilian and military justice systems.”
“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.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 88 of 100
Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. 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.
“Civilian police told our committee they do not have the resources to handle every major sexual assault case in their areas. Can my colleague talk about what will happen to the cases police cannot handle?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the incredible work he has done in committee respecting victims of military sexual trauma, and the work he is doing to rectify the problems there. We heard testimony from civilian police forces that they had significantly limited capacity, sometimes enough to deal with two to three cases of major sexual assault, whereas in their areas, they have data saying that there have been 15, 17 or 20 cases per year. Could the hon. member speak to the capacity of civilian police forces to deal with these cases, and to what would happen with those cases they have no capability to deal with?”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the incredible work he has done in committee respecting victims of military sexual trauma, and the work he is doing to rectify the problems there. We heard testimony from civilian police forces that they had significantly limited capacity, sometimes enough to deal with two to three cases of major sexual assault, whereas in their areas, they have data saying that there have been 15, 17 or 20 cases per year. Could the hon. member speak to the capacity of civilian police forces to deal with these cases, and to what would happen with those cases they have no capability to deal with?
“This bill forces civilian police to take over military investigations on bases without giving them the resources to do the work. Police chiefs say this hurts teamwork between civilian and military police, and departments like Victoria Police do not have enough staff or money to handle it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file as well. As a veteran, he has always been there to champion people who have experienced military sexual misconduct. We heard from the Victoria Police Department that it does not have the resources or the number of investigators needed, that it is already dealing with a backlog and that it has been offered no support and no resources from the federal government. We also received a written brief from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction” and says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”. Instead of having the ability to collaborate with our military police and national investigative service, they now have to go on base and take over all those investigations, without resources provided by the government.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file as well. As a veteran, he has always been there to champion people who have experienced military sexual misconduct. We heard from the Victoria Police Department that it does not have the resources or the number of investigators needed, that it is already dealing with a backlog and that it has been offered no support and no resources from the federal government. We also received a written brief from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction” and says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”. Instead of having the ability to collaborate with our military police and national investigative service, they now have to go on base and take over all those investigations, without resources provided by the government.
“I do not support the government's plan for military justice. It just pushes victims into courts that are already too busy. I want a plan that actually helps victims and soldiers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women’s study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice. When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts. I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military?”
Question or comment in debate
Signal 28 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women’s study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice. When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts. I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military?
“We worked together in committee to change this military justice bill to help victims. Now the Liberals have a majority again, and I want my colleague to explain why they are ignoring what those victims told us.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his hard work on Bill C-11 at committee, bringing in witnesses and listening to them. We worked across party lines to get the best possible amendments to this bill that listen to victims. The member talked about how the Liberals have now stolen their majority in a very sneaky way by getting floor crossers. Can he talk to the fact that now the Liberals get to ignore what the victims actually said at committee, and why they would do that when this is actually in the best interest of the Canadian Armed Forces and those survivors?”
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his hard work on Bill C-11 at committee, bringing in witnesses and listening to them. We worked across party lines to get the best possible amendments to this bill that listen to victims. The member talked about how the Liberals have now stolen their majority in a very sneaky way by getting floor crossers. Can he talk to the fact that now the Liberals get to ignore what the victims actually said at committee, and why they would do that when this is actually in the best interest of the Canadian Armed Forces and those survivors?
“The member for Winnipeg North is ignoring what victims told the defence committee. Victims asked for the choice of which justice system handles their cases. The government also ignored an earlier report on military justice for years instead of taking action.”
“Mr. Speaker, we always have the same indignation coming from the member for Winnipeg North. He wants to talk about marginalization. He is marginalizing victims because he is not paying attention to what they actually said at the national defence committee in their testimony. They bravely stood in front of the committee, shared their experiences and demanded to have more freedom regarding which justice system they were able to get charges prosecuted under and move forward with. The member talks about Madam Arbour. We thank her for her report, which includes the 48 recommendations. However, the current government, for 11 years, sat on the report from Madam Justice Deschamps without touching it or lifting it. The Liberals never even dusted it off as it sat in the corner of the desk of defence ministers, going back to former Minister Sajjan back in the day. If they had acted upon that, we may not be in this situation now. The director of military prosecutions said if it were not for the directive coming from the government, he would have rescinded the orders and gone back to a concurrent system.”
Mr. Speaker, we always have the same indignation coming from the member for Winnipeg North. He wants to talk about marginalization. He is marginalizing victims because he is not paying attention to what they actually said at the national defence committee in their testimony. They bravely stood in front of the committee, shared their experiences and demanded to have more freedom regarding which justice system they were able to get charges prosecuted under and move forward with. The member talks about Madam Arbour. We thank her for her report, which includes the 48 recommendations. However, the current government, for 11 years, sat on the report from Madam Justice Deschamps without touching it or lifting it. The Liberals never even dusted it off as it sat in the corner of the desk of defence ministers, going back to former Minister Sajjan back in the day. If they had acted upon that, we may not be in this situation now. The director of military prosecutions said if it were not for the directive coming from the government, he would have rescinded the orders and gone back to a concurrent system.
“I want to change this military justice bill. It forces all sexual offence cases into civilian courts. Victims of sexual misconduct should be allowed to choose whether their case goes to a civilian court or a military court. The government also rejected our changes to stop politicians from interfering in cases and to make sure military judges still have to follow the law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I was a member of the Canadian Forces for 22 years. I witnessed military justice being applied in various cases. Later, when I became a major, I was trained to preside over summary trials and, as a unit commander, I had to administer military justice. I tried some cases by summary trial. There were some situations and some problems related to sexual misconduct. That is why, on the Conservative side, we are very aware of the situation. We do not talk just for the sake of talking. There are people here who have experienced the system first-hand. Our defence critic has been watching what has been going on for years. We are not just talking for the sake of talking. We are proposing meaningful change. Let us get back to Bill C-11. Yes, we believe that changes are needed regarding sexual misconduct. However, once again, the Liberal government has missed an opportunity. It has completely missed the opportunity to do the right thing. Instead of addressing the issues in a rigorous, balanced way, it is adopting a rigid approach that is inappropriate and out of touch with the realities on the ground. The result is a bill that ignores critical testimony, rejects reasonable improvements and risks exacerbating the very problems it purports to address. Today I will be speaking to Bill C-11, and I want to be clear from the outset that we are not just talking about technical adjustments. We are talking about a fundamental question that all Canadians can understand: When a victim comes forward, do we listen to them, or do we impose a solution on them? That is important. In committee, we heard some powerful testimony. Survivors courageously came and talked to us. They shared their experiences, their realities and their concerns. Experts on the military justice system also testified. These are people who understand both its strengths and its weaknesses. Despite these differing perspectives, one message kept coming up: People want to have a choice. They want to choose the system, the process and what works best. They do not want a decision imposed from on high. They do not want a rigid mechanism decided without their input. The Conservatives did their job. We listened and took action alongside the Bloc Québécois. I would like to thank my Bloc colleagues. Excellent parliamentary work was carried out in the Standing Committee on National Defence. As I said earlier, our critic has been there for a long time. He knows his job, as do our other colleagues on the committee. Former lieutenant-colonels sit on the committee. These are people who have experienced the military system and witnessed the problems with military justice. As I said at the start, I myself have seen victims. There have been trials, and we have experienced the situation first-hand. The proposals, both those from the Bloc Québécois and those from the Conservative Party, made sense. The aim was really to address the shortcomings of the bill and put victims back at the centre of the process. For example, there is a problem with clauses 7 and 8. In its current form, the bill completely removes the military justice system’s jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada. It mandates an automatic transfer to the civilian system. There are no nuances, there is no flexibility and there is no room to adapt. We put forward a simple solution: give the court martial jurisdiction if that is what the victim wants. That is essential. There is a system. It can be done. The victim can choose. It seems to me that it does not take a genius to understand that. What matters is recognizing that every situation is different. Judgment must be exercised and victims must be respected. We also put forward sound oversight mechanisms: a five-year sunset clause providing for a mandatory statutory review to examine how well the system is working. We also proposed measures to avoid delays in transferring evidence because delays can compromise the truth. All too often, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Take the Jordan decision, for example. So many cases drag on, stall, and make no progress. Ultimately, the Jordan decision applies, but it does not work. We end up with a system meant to handle sexual misconduct. Victims, most of them women, end up going through a civilian process that drags on forever. In our view, if the military system can continue to do its job and the victim wants to keep the matter in the military system, that should be allowed. Why not? We do not understand why the Liberals are against this. Everything we did was done in collaboration with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, as well as our NDP colleague who has since crossed the floor to become a Liberal. Back then, her thoughts were with the victims. Now, her thoughts are with her Liberal team, which sees things differently. Our proposals were reasonable, balanced and based on witness testimony. However, all of it was thrown out and rejected, with a big red X over top. All the important work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence was dismissed out of hand. The government does not even have its majority yet, but it managed to knock us back anyway. Imagine what will happen when the government has a majority on committees and in the House. It is going to steamroll right over the work of opposition members who are working to improve bills. It would have been a different matter if all the opposition parties had joined forces to demolish the bill. Sometimes that happens. For example, we defeated Bill C‑2. However, we supported this bill. We agreed with it; it simply needed to be improved. What no one can wrap their heads around is the government’s refusal to improve it. I have been here for 10 years. Often, the Conservatives, and often with the support of the Bloc Québécois, make proposals that the government rejects. A few years later, a problematic situation arises, and we say “we told you so”. However, people quickly forget. The bill will pass and, in five years, we may talk about it again. We are going to say that we said in 2026 that it would not work, and we are going to ask why they did not listen to us at the time. Now is the time to do the right thing. We are here now. Why not listen to intelligent proposals from the opposition parties? Another key issue is political interference. We can see that political interference in the process is possible. In fact, the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to issue directives in the context of specific proceedings. Politics could interfere in the directives. This is an important power that must be exercised with care, and that is why we proposed giving this responsibility to the judge advocate general, known in military terms as JAG. This person is an independent expert. Justice must never be politicized. Once again, the government rejected this proposal. Why? We even proposed what is known as a principled amendment. The bill states that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction. We disagreed. We said that, in a state governed by the rule of law, no one is above the law. To be clear, we said that if a military judge commits an offence, they should be tried like anyone else. It seems to me that this makes sense. Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are not subject to the law, but the Liberals refuse to accept that. Why? The pattern is very clear: We make proposals, and the Liberals shut us down. Victims ask for something, and the government imposes something else. Experts make recommendations, and the government ignores them. The Liberals have chosen to impose systematic transfers to the civilian system. This is a system that is already overburdened, a system that is often ill suited to military realities. This is not a solution; it simply shifts the problem. The bill could have been improved. It could have been balanced, more respectful of victims and certainly more faithful to the recommendations heard in committee, but the government made a choice to be stubborn and to dictate rather than listening. On this side of the House, we will continue to defend a clear approach. The Liberals talk about listening to victims and respecting their autonomy, but they do the opposite. If they are asked whether they want to strengthen the independence of the system and ensure fairness for everyone, they will say yes, but with this bill and their refusal to accept the amendments, they are showing their contempt for victims. Those who serve our country deserve better. They deserve a system that works, that is credible and that can be trusted.”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I was a member of the Canadian Forces for 22 years. I witnessed military justice being applied in various cases. Later, when I became a major, I was trained to preside over summary trials and, as a unit commander, I had to administer military justice. I tried some cases by summary trial. There were some situations and some problems related to sexual misconduct. That is why, on the Conservative side, we are very aware of the situation. We do not talk just for the sake of talking. There are people here who have experienced the system first-hand. Our defence critic has been watching what has been going on for years. We are not just talking for the sake of talking. We are proposing meaningful change. Let us get back to Bill C-11. Yes, we believe that changes are needed regarding sexual misconduct. However, once again, the Liberal government has missed an opportunity. It has completely missed the opportunity to do the right thing. Instead of addressing the issues in a rigorous, balanced way, it is adopting a rigid approach that is inappropriate and out of touch with the realities on the ground. The result is a bill that ignores critical testimony, rejects reasonable improvements and risks exacerbating the very problems it purports to address. Today I will be speaking to Bill C-11, and I want to be clear from the outset that we are not just talking about technical adjustments. We are talking about a fundamental question that all Canadians can understand: When a victim comes forward, do we listen to them, or do we impose a solution on them? That is important. In committee, we heard some powerful testimony. Survivors courageously came and talked to us. They shared their experiences, their realities and their concerns. Experts on the military justice system also testified. These are people who understand both its strengths and its weaknesses. Despite these differing perspectives, one message kept coming up: People want to have a choice. They want to choose the system, the process and what works best. They do not want a decision imposed from on high. They do not want a rigid mechanism decided without their input. The Conservatives did their job. We listened and took action alongside the Bloc Québécois. I would like to thank my Bloc colleagues. Excellent parliamentary work was carried out in the Standing Committee on National Defence. As I said earlier, our critic has been there for a long time. He knows his job, as do our other colleagues on the committee. Former lieutenant-colonels sit on the committee. These are people who have experienced the military system and witnessed the problems with military justice. As I said at the start, I myself have seen victims. There have been trials, and we have experienced the situation first-hand. The proposals, both those from the Bloc Québécois and those from the Conservative Party, made sense. The aim was really to address the shortcomings of the bill and put victims back at the centre of the process. For example, there is a problem with clauses 7 and 8. In its current form, the bill completely removes the military justice system’s jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada. It mandates an automatic transfer to the civilian system. There are no nuances, there is no flexibility and there is no room to adapt. We put forward a simple solution: give the court martial jurisdiction if that is what the victim wants. That is essential. There is a system. It can be done. The victim can choose. It seems to me that it does not take a genius to understand that. What matters is recognizing that every situation is different. Judgment must be exercised and victims must be respected. We also put forward sound oversight mechanisms: a five-year sunset clause providing for a mandatory statutory review to examine how well the system is working. We also proposed measures to avoid delays in transferring evidence because delays can compromise the truth. All too often, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Take the Jordan decision, for example. So many cases drag on, stall, and make no progress. Ultimately, the Jordan decision applies, but it does not work. We end up with a system meant to handle sexual misconduct. Victims, most of them women, end up going through a civilian process that drags on forever. In our view, if the military system can continue to do its job and the victim wants to keep the matter in the military system, that should be allowed. Why not? We do not understand why the Liberals are against this. Everything we did was done in collaboration with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, as well as our NDP colleague who has since crossed the floor to become a Liberal. Back then, her thoughts were with the victims. Now, her thoughts are with her Liberal team, which sees things differently. Our proposals were reasonable, balanced and based on witness testimony. However, all of it was thrown out and rejected, with a big red X over top. All the important work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence was dismissed out of hand. The government does not even have its majority yet, but it managed to knock us back anyway. Imagine what will happen when the government has a majority on committees and in the House. It is going to steamroll right over the work of opposition members who are working to improve bills. It would have been a different matter if all the opposition parties had joined forces to demolish the bill. Sometimes that happens. For example, we defeated Bill C‑2. However, we supported this bill. We agreed with it; it simply needed to be improved. What no one can wrap their heads around is the government’s refusal to improve it. I have been here for 10 years. Often, the Conservatives, and often with the support of the Bloc Québécois, make proposals that the government rejects. A few years later, a problematic situation arises, and we say “we told you so”. However, people quickly forget. The bill will pass and, in five years, we may talk about it again. We are going to say that we said in 2026 that it would not work, and we are going to ask why they did not listen to us at the time. Now is the time to do the right thing. We are here now. Why not listen to intelligent proposals from the opposition parties? Another key issue is political interference. We can see that political interference in the process is possible. In fact, the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to issue directives in the context of specific proceedings. Politics could interfere in the directives. This is an important power that must be exercised with care, and that is why we proposed giving this responsibility to the judge advocate general, known in military terms as JAG. This person is an independent expert. Justice must never be politicized. Once again, the government rejected this proposal. Why? We even proposed what is known as a principled amendment. The bill states that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction. We disagreed. We said that, in a state governed by the rule of law, no one is above the law. To be clear, we said that if a military judge commits an offence, they should be tried like anyone else. It seems to me that this makes sense. Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are not subject to the law, but the Liberals refuse to accept that. Why? The pattern is very clear: We make proposals, and the Liberals shut us down. Victims ask for something, and the government imposes something else. Experts make recommendations, and the government ignores them. The Liberals have chosen to impose systematic transfers to the civilian system. This is a system that is already overburdened, a system that is often ill suited to military realities. This is not a solution; it simply shifts the problem. The bill could have been improved. It could have been balanced, more respectful of victims and certainly more faithful to the recommendations heard in committee, but the government made a choice to be stubborn and to dictate rather than listening. On this side of the House, we will continue to defend a clear approach. The Liberals talk about listening to victims and respecting their autonomy, but they do the opposite. If they are asked whether they want to strengthen the independence of the system and ensure fairness for everyone, they will say yes, but with this bill and their refusal to accept the amendments, they are showing their contempt for victims. Those who serve our country deserve better. They deserve a system that works, that is credible and that can be trusted.
“Judge Arbour should have come to our committee to explain her report. We need to keep the military justice system as an option. It has problems, but the regular civilian court system already has too many delays to handle everything.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would have been very interesting to hear what Judge Arbour had to say to the committee, but she refused to come. She did not come to explain her report. Obviously, if the committee members had been able to ask her questions and gain a clearer understanding of what she intended, that might have changed certain things. Either she did not want to come, or the government advised her not to come. I do not know which it was. In any case, our position remains clear, and the Bloc Québécois agrees with us. In fact, I believe it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed the amendment. The military justice system exists. It has flaws that need to be addressed, but the civilian system is not the ultimate solution, as it is already bogged down with management issues. In that context, keeping the military system as an option was the best course of action.”
Mr. Speaker, it would have been very interesting to hear what Judge Arbour had to say to the committee, but she refused to come. She did not come to explain her report. Obviously, if the committee members had been able to ask her questions and gain a clearer understanding of what she intended, that might have changed certain things. Either she did not want to come, or the government advised her not to come. I do not know which it was. In any case, our position remains clear, and the Bloc Québécois agrees with us. In fact, I believe it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed the amendment. The military justice system exists. It has flaws that need to be addressed, but the civilian system is not the ultimate solution, as it is already bogged down with management issues. In that context, keeping the military system as an option was the best course of action.
“The Liberals do not respect democracy or the opposition parties. We worked together to suggest good changes to this bill, but the government rejected them without a good reason.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, like me, my colleague sees the Liberals as having a disregard for democracy. They have no respect for opposition parties, even though we make constructive proposals to improve legislation in the interest of all Canadians. That is what the opposition parties did together. The members opposite are rejecting our proposals out of hand, and we cannot get a rational explanation for it, other than that it seems to be based on an ideology or goodness knows what.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 0 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Clarity 46 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, like me, my colleague sees the Liberals as having a disregard for democracy. They have no respect for opposition parties, even though we make constructive proposals to improve legislation in the interest of all Canadians. That is what the opposition parties did together. The members opposite are rejecting our proposals out of hand, and we cannot get a rational explanation for it, other than that it seems to be based on an ideology or goodness knows what.
“Victims should be able to choose where their cases are heard. Experts told our committee that taking away their choice hurts them and helps the attackers. I am asking my colleague if the Liberals are ignoring victims by rejecting our changes to this military justice bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his service to Canada as a veteran, as a former commanding officer, whose family, his own son, is in the Royal Canadian Navy. My colleague talks about what we heard in testimony from those witnesses. There are more experts on military justice than just the one or two or three justices who have filed reports to the Department of National Defence and to ministers of national defence over the last 12 years. Some of them we heard from in testimony, such as the former director of military prosecutions, retired Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who 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.” Does my colleague believe that what the Liberals are doing, by not listening to the victims and not keeping in place the amendments that multiple parties made together to improve Bill C-11, is again going to empower the perpetrators and undermine the freedom of the victim?”
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his service to Canada as a veteran, as a former commanding officer, whose family, his own son, is in the Royal Canadian Navy. My colleague talks about what we heard in testimony from those witnesses. There are more experts on military justice than just the one or two or three justices who have filed reports to the Department of National Defence and to ministers of national defence over the last 12 years. Some of them we heard from in testimony, such as the former director of military prosecutions, retired Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who 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.” Does my colleague believe that what the Liberals are doing, by not listening to the victims and not keeping in place the amendments that multiple parties made together to improve Bill C-11, is again going to empower the perpetrators and undermine the freedom of the victim?
“Yes. The Liberals ignore victims who speak out. They always ignore victims in our justice system, especially women, instead of helping them get justice.”
“Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty clear: yes. As I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals always turn a deaf ear when victims speak out. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it across the board with respect to the Criminal Code, the justice system, and crimes against women. They have always turned a deaf ear and a blind eye. For our part, we can never understand why this government turns a deaf ear to victims’ problems and does not seek real solutions to help them get justice.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 7 of 100
Only 7% of this reply directly addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Signal 7 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, the answer is pretty clear: yes. As I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals always turn a deaf ear when victims speak out. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it across the board with respect to the Criminal Code, the justice system, and crimes against women. They have always turned a deaf ear and a blind eye. For our part, we can never understand why this government turns a deaf ear to victims’ problems and does not seek real solutions to help them get justice.
“The government says military recruitment is up by 30%. I want the member to clarify if that increase is still not enough to replace all the people leaving the military.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of times that the government is very proud of the increase in new recruits signing up to our Canadian Armed Forces. Recruitment has risen by 30%. It obviously was very low up until this point, over the last decade. Can the member clarify what I heard, that those numbers do not even begin to replace the number who have chosen to leave?”
Question or comment in debate
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I have heard a number of times that the government is very proud of the increase in new recruits signing up to our Canadian Armed Forces. Recruitment has risen by 30%. It obviously was very low up until this point, over the last decade. Can the member clarify what I heard, that those numbers do not even begin to replace the number who have chosen to leave?
“The member said the right to choose only matters to women. Men in the armed forces have told me it matters to them too. I want the member to take back what he said.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the right to choose, the member indicated, which I think was somewhat demeaning, that this only applied to women. Obviously, in the armed forces, there are a lot of issues. On this issue, I can attest, from male members of the armed forces having spoken with me, that this is as much an issue to them as it is to women. Would the member like to retract that statement?”
Mr. Speaker, on the right to choose, the member indicated, which I think was somewhat demeaning, that this only applied to women. Obviously, in the armed forces, there are a lot of issues. On this issue, I can attest, from male members of the armed forces having spoken with me, that this is as much an issue to them as it is to women. Would the member like to retract that statement?
“The Liberals claim to support women, but they ignore women veterans when it hurts them politically. They have a history of firing women who disagree with the Prime Minister, and they are doing the same kind of thing with this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-11 follows what I would call a really troubling pattern of behaviour toward veterans in Canada, especially when it comes to women veterans. This is the same party that proudly claims to be feminist, but it will happily disregard what women are advocating for the second it no longer suits its political agenda. I will remind everyone in this House that it was the Liberals who propped up Justin Trudeau, the self-proclaimed feminist, who would immediately fire any woman from his caucus who dared to stand up to him. It would appear now that Liberals continue to follow in those footsteps. Much has been said already today about we are seeing happen here. [Disturbance in gallery]”
Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-11 follows what I would call a really troubling pattern of behaviour toward veterans in Canada, especially when it comes to women veterans. This is the same party that proudly claims to be feminist, but it will happily disregard what women are advocating for the second it no longer suits its political agenda. I will remind everyone in this House that it was the Liberals who propped up Justin Trudeau, the self-proclaimed feminist, who would immediately fire any woman from his caucus who dared to stand up to him. It would appear now that Liberals continue to follow in those footsteps. Much has been said already today about we are seeing happen here. [Disturbance in gallery]
“Women veterans told committees about the abuse they suffered in the military. They suggested changes to this military justice bill, and other parties agreed to them. Now the government is ignoring those ideas and removing the amendments. I want the government to listen to veterans and keep those changes in the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about it already, but clearly, in the defence committee, a lot of witnesses came forward, like veterans, and in particular, women veterans. They talked a lot about having the ability to choose and how the justice they needed to receive would be done. The Conservatives listened to that. We worked across party lines to see improvements to the bill. The Liberals did not seem to listen so much, which seems to be a pattern. They like to pretend that they care. They are about to have a majority government that they achieved through backroom deals. They think that means that now they do not have to work with others, work across party lines or listen to the victims. Instead, they can just ram through the changes they want to see. Here, they are trying to do what is politically expedient for them, but they are not listening. They are not hearing the concerns that are being raised. I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and fighting for our veterans there. Just a little over a year ago, we tabled what I would consider a landmark study on the experiences of women veterans. That is a study we did over several months. There were about 25 meetings to hear witness testimony. We heard some testimony from women veterans that was absolutely heartbreaking. I know many of the same veterans would have come to speak to the defence committee about the experiences they had, like with military sexual trauma. There are a lot of things that women veterans have experienced during their time in the Canadian Forces, like ill-fitting equipment and other things that are not designed for our women in our military. The Liberals publicly claimed how important this study was for them and how much they cared about this cause. In the end, out of the recommendations that were made, as far as I can tell, the only thing that was acted upon was the idea of creating a women veterans council to advise the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Of course, what we have seen since that time is that the women who were appointed to this committee were telling us that they were not being listened to. They were expressing their frustration. They were expressing concern about the fact that they had no access to the Minister of Veterans Affairs or to the Government of Canada. They simply felt like they were being used for photo ops or as a showpiece. In the end, despite raising these concerns with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and despite many of us raising them at committee, there were still no efforts being made to listen to or address any of the concerns the members of this council were trying to raise. In January of this year, there was a massive resignation of the majority of the members of the women veterans council, because they claimed they were being ignored. We are now seeing that very same thing play out here with the Minister of National Defence. Therefore, after being forced to finally address the issues that were plaguing the Canadian Armed Forces and driving members from its ranks, and after public embarrassment from an Auditor General’s report, only then did the Liberals decide there was a need to address these issues. As I said, many of these same women veterans we heard from at the veterans affairs committee bravely came forward to recount their experiences, to talk once again to a parliamentary committee and face the trauma they experienced. They offered their advice on ways to amend Bill C-11 to ensure that victims of the broken justice system had their voices heard. Of course, the goal was to ensure that the military justice system would learn from its mistakes, so future members of the CAF would not be subjected to the same cruel experiences that they were subjected to. The amendments made in the national defence committee came straight from veterans. Those veterans had been on the receiving end of the failures of the military justice system. They were the same veterans that the Auditor General reported about and who suffered undue hardship under this system. Once again, the Liberals will pretend that this entire initiative is their own doing to support women. Then, as soon as they got their majority, they dropped the charade and completely wiped out some of the amendments that came from the very work of these women who came forward. Not only is this disrespectful to all of those who came forward and all of those who made themselves vulnerable to try to help future CAF members, but it is also a blatant display of disregard by the Liberal government. It is clear that, once again, this is just another “check the box” for them. Rather than trying to fix the issue, it is some kind of a show of pretending they are doing something. First, the Liberals sat on this issue for almost 10 years, while the media exposed case after case. I do not think Canadians are going to forget how long the Liberals buried their heads in the sand to avoid this issue. What is clear now is that the Liberals are going to attempt to ram through this legislation, rather than actually accept the things that were heard and the work that was done across party lines so that we could actually address the issues in the way the veterans were calling for. The disrespect for veterans does not end there. There have been numerous scandals in just the last few years alone where the Liberal government deliberately continues to ignore what veterans are asking for. I think about the Presence in Absence monument. For those who do not know, this is a monument the Liberals funded, which was supposed to honour those who gave their lives in Afghanistan. The Liberals did not do their due diligence and did not ensure that the project was inspected in the right way. It was constructed listing the names of many surviving veterans as killed in action, and other names, of those who actually did lay down their lives, making the ultimate sacrifice, were left off that monument. As we can imagine, survivors and family members of those who were killed in action were furious. The Province of Ontario put forward a motion to Veterans Affairs, just looking for a simple apology, and there was nothing. It is a clear pattern. With the time I have remaining, I will speak briefly about what the Liberals are doing in terms of the $4-billion cuts they are making to Veterans Affairs and what impact that is going to have on veterans. Veterans are screaming out, because they are going to see five-year wait times to get some of their basic benefits as a result of some of these cuts, including to the bureau of pensions advocates and other cuts. It is shocking, disappointing and sad. It just continues on. This is just another example where veterans are being ignored and not listened to, and where they seem to be the last thing the government thinks about or considers. It is not right. Veterans certainly deserve better. What I would say to the government is to think about the veterans who came forward and how much courage it must have taken for them to recount their stories. What needs to be done is to ensure that the recounting of their stories and the bravery they showed to come forward and try to make things better for their fellow future veterans are honoured in a way that involves listening to what was said and acting upon it, rather than just trying to ram through a piece of legislation and trying to pretend that the Liberals have done something by checking a box. The Liberals need to ensure that these veterans, particularly women veterans, have their voices reflected in this. I do not think that is what we are seeing now, when they are refusing to accept some of the amendments. I really hope that, perhaps, after listening to some of this today, the government will take a step back and say that it needs to make sure these voices are heard and work with the things that have been done across party lines to make sure those experiences are reflected in this. I do not see that now.”
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about it already, but clearly, in the defence committee, a lot of witnesses came forward, like veterans, and in particular, women veterans. They talked a lot about having the ability to choose and how the justice they needed to receive would be done. The Conservatives listened to that. We worked across party lines to see improvements to the bill. The Liberals did not seem to listen so much, which seems to be a pattern. They like to pretend that they care. They are about to have a majority government that they achieved through backroom deals. They think that means that now they do not have to work with others, work across party lines or listen to the victims. Instead, they can just ram through the changes they want to see. Here, they are trying to do what is politically expedient for them, but they are not listening. They are not hearing the concerns that are being raised. I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and fighting for our veterans there. Just a little over a year ago, we tabled what I would consider a landmark study on the experiences of women veterans. That is a study we did over several months. There were about 25 meetings to hear witness testimony. We heard some testimony from women veterans that was absolutely heartbreaking. I know many of the same veterans would have come to speak to the defence committee about the experiences they had, like with military sexual trauma. There are a lot of things that women veterans have experienced during their time in the Canadian Forces, like ill-fitting equipment and other things that are not designed for our women in our military. The Liberals publicly claimed how important this study was for them and how much they cared about this cause. In the end, out of the recommendations that were made, as far as I can tell, the only thing that was acted upon was the idea of creating a women veterans council to advise the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Of course, what we have seen since that time is that the women who were appointed to this committee were telling us that they were not being listened to. They were expressing their frustration. They were expressing concern about the fact that they had no access to the Minister of Veterans Affairs or to the Government of Canada. They simply felt like they were being used for photo ops or as a showpiece. In the end, despite raising these concerns with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and despite many of us raising them at committee, there were still no efforts being made to listen to or address any of the concerns the members of this council were trying to raise. In January of this year, there was a massive resignation of the majority of the members of the women veterans council, because they claimed they were being ignored. We are now seeing that very same thing play out here with the Minister of National Defence. Therefore, after being forced to finally address the issues that were plaguing the Canadian Armed Forces and driving members from its ranks, and after public embarrassment from an Auditor General’s report, only then did the Liberals decide there was a need to address these issues. As I said, many of these same women veterans we heard from at the veterans affairs committee bravely came forward to recount their experiences, to talk once again to a parliamentary committee and face the trauma they experienced. They offered their advice on ways to amend Bill C-11 to ensure that victims of the broken justice system had their voices heard. Of course, the goal was to ensure that the military justice system would learn from its mistakes, so future members of the CAF would not be subjected to the same cruel experiences that they were subjected to. The amendments made in the national defence committee came straight from veterans. Those veterans had been on the receiving end of the failures of the military justice system. They were the same veterans that the Auditor General reported about and who suffered undue hardship under this system. Once again, the Liberals will pretend that this entire initiative is their own doing to support women. Then, as soon as they got their majority, they dropped the charade and completely wiped out some of the amendments that came from the very work of these women who came forward. Not only is this disrespectful to all of those who came forward and all of those who made themselves vulnerable to try to help future CAF members, but it is also a blatant display of disregard by the Liberal government. It is clear that, once again, this is just another “check the box” for them. Rather than trying to fix the issue, it is some kind of a show of pretending they are doing something. First, the Liberals sat on this issue for almost 10 years, while the media exposed case after case. I do not think Canadians are going to forget how long the Liberals buried their heads in the sand to avoid this issue. What is clear now is that the Liberals are going to attempt to ram through this legislation, rather than actually accept the things that were heard and the work that was done across party lines so that we could actually address the issues in the way the veterans were calling for. The disrespect for veterans does not end there. There have been numerous scandals in just the last few years alone where the Liberal government deliberately continues to ignore what veterans are asking for. I think about the Presence in Absence monument. For those who do not know, this is a monument the Liberals funded, which was supposed to honour those who gave their lives in Afghanistan. The Liberals did not do their due diligence and did not ensure that the project was inspected in the right way. It was constructed listing the names of many surviving veterans as killed in action, and other names, of those who actually did lay down their lives, making the ultimate sacrifice, were left off that monument. As we can imagine, survivors and family members of those who were killed in action were furious. The Province of Ontario put forward a motion to Veterans Affairs, just looking for a simple apology, and there was nothing. It is a clear pattern. With the time I have remaining, I will speak briefly about what the Liberals are doing in terms of the $4-billion cuts they are making to Veterans Affairs and what impact that is going to have on veterans. Veterans are screaming out, because they are going to see five-year wait times to get some of their basic benefits as a result of some of these cuts, including to the bureau of pensions advocates and other cuts. It is shocking, disappointing and sad. It just continues on. This is just another example where veterans are being ignored and not listened to, and where they seem to be the last thing the government thinks about or considers. It is not right. Veterans certainly deserve better. What I would say to the government is to think about the veterans who came forward and how much courage it must have taken for them to recount their stories. What needs to be done is to ensure that the recounting of their stories and the bravery they showed to come forward and try to make things better for their fellow future veterans are honoured in a way that involves listening to what was said and acting upon it, rather than just trying to ram through a piece of legislation and trying to pretend that the Liberals have done something by checking a box. The Liberals need to ensure that these veterans, particularly women veterans, have their voices reflected in this. I do not think that is what we are seeing now, when they are refusing to accept some of the amendments. I really hope that, perhaps, after listening to some of this today, the government will take a step back and say that it needs to make sure these voices are heard and work with the things that have been done across party lines to make sure those experiences are reflected in this. I do not see that now.
“Women veterans told us they need to have a choice. Our changes to this bill give them that choice, but the government is ignoring them. If the government truly cared about veterans, it would listen to them and accept these changes.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I need to remind the member of is that we are hearing, and the committee heard, from veterans, from women veterans, who have come forward, and they are saying that they need to have the choice. That is what the amendments, which the government is ignoring, are seeking to do. The government can stand up and pretend it is listening. It can claim that it cares. If it really cared, it would listen to what we have heard and act upon it. That is what the amendments give the opportunity to do. The second the government thinks it has a majority government and can do whatever it wants, the idea that it would work together to try to work with everyone and do what is in the best interest of veterans is just completely thrown out the window. That is done the very second it thinks it does not have to listen anymore.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 36 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, what I need to remind the member of is that we are hearing, and the committee heard, from veterans, from women veterans, who have come forward, and they are saying that they need to have the choice. That is what the amendments, which the government is ignoring, are seeking to do. The government can stand up and pretend it is listening. It can claim that it cares. If it really cared, it would listen to what we have heard and act upon it. That is what the amendments give the opportunity to do. The second the government thinks it has a majority government and can do whatever it wants, the idea that it would work together to try to work with everyone and do what is in the best interest of veterans is just completely thrown out the window. That is done the very second it thinks it does not have to listen anymore.
