Report Stage

Bill C-11, Military Justice System Modernization Act · Report stage · now law Where it stands

What the law does

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.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

49 statements

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“Military members need this choice so they get the support they need. The report's ideas were good at the time, but the government waited too long to act and there are better ways to fix this now.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for his desire to support the military. As he was in committee, he would have heard that people in the military need this choice in order to be supported. While Madam Justice Arbour’s recommendations were right for the time at which they were made, the government took so long to act that there are better ways to address this.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“The Liberals accuse us of slowing things down, but they are the ones undoing the good work we did on this bill in committee. All parties should work together to make it better.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 24 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 analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question. This is something that I really struggle with, because we face allegations from our colleagues across the way every day in the House, that we are obstructionist or that we are standing in the way. Yet, this bill offers a phenomenal opportunity for members of all parties to work together to listen to Canadians to make a bill better. It hurts my heart that Liberals would use their majority in this way, quite frankly, to strip this House of the good work that was done at committee.

James Bezan, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman

Conservative
“The Liberals want to change the military justice system, but experts, veterans, and victims say they do not want these changes. Moving sexual trauma cases to civilian courts has made it harder to get justice, and it removed accountability for military leaders. I want my colleague to comment on this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her very strong speech, and for taking the time to actually review the testimony that we heard in committee and using that in her debate today on Bill C-11 now that we have closure on it. The Liberals continually use the Arbour report as their shield and explanation for why they are plowing ahead with these changes, which military justice experts and veterans are saying they do not want. The interesting fact is that the committee heard from the very survivors of military sexual trauma, who also talked to Justice Arbour. It was discovered that over the last five years, since they brought choice into the system and things were moved to the civilian system, they were not receiving justice because of the Jordan framework and the higher thresholds to prosecute. At the end of the day, there was no accountability in the chain of command. Could my colleague please comment on that, as well?

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“Justice Arbour wrote a good report that helped our military make progress. I wish the defence minister had listened to people and consulted her so we could have avoided mistakes in this bill.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 41 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 analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege, before I was elected to this place, of being able to work with Madam Justice Arbour for a year when I worked at the ICTY in The Hague. I know the kind of work that she does. There is no doubt in my mind that the work she did and the report she provided allowed our military to make progress with respect to the issues that are addressed in this bill. I only wish that the defence minister had taken the time to listen to people the way that Madam Justice Arbour does, and possibly to consult with her so that we could have avoided the mistakes that were made with this bill.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“All parties worked together in committee to improve this military justice bill and protect victims of sexual violence. Now the Liberals are using their new majority to undo those changes. I want the government to keep the committee's work and protect survivors.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my speech today by sharing with members that before coming to the House a few minutes ago, I was at a screening on the Hill of the documentary film Traces, which is about the issue of conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine. It is a great honour to have with us, on the Hill, the director of that film, who shared directly with us about her own experience of being a victim of conflict-related sexual violence and the work she has done on this film. It is important for the House to know and to reflect on the fact that, as part of the ongoing illegal, genocidal invasion of Ukraine, we are seeing the systematic use of sexual violence as a tool by the invaders for terror. It should underline our knowledge of the horrific nature of this invasion and the need for ongoing Canadian support for the Ukrainian people. We have before us today Bill C-11, which would make changes to the military justice system in this country. Fundamentally, what we are seeing in debate at this stage of the bill is the tragic implications of the Liberals seizing an undemocratic majority, and what they are doing with that majority to undermine the important collaborative cross-party work that was done on legislation in this chamber prior to the seizure of that undemocratic majority. This is a bill about a sombre, serious subject: protecting victims, or trying to protect victims, of sexual violence. It is an issue on which parties should be able to work together. From what I understand, and I am not a member of that committee, work happened at committee on the bill, bringing together people from different party backgrounds to try to incorporate all the feedback that was received from survivors to make this legislation effective. It is not, and should not be, a partisan issue, which is why Conservatives, New Democrats and members of the Bloc listened to the testimony, came together and put forward amendments to the bill that reflected that testimony, strengthened that framework and established, through those amendments, a framework that would have really worked and gone as far as possible to protect these victims and survivors. From what I understand, even government members on the committee supported some of those amendments that the opposition worked on together. At the time, the member for Nunavut was with the NDP caucus and was her party’s defence critic, working with other parties on this legislation. That was the cross-party work that happened, and really that has to happen in a minority Parliament. In a minority Parliament, one party cannot dictate the outcome of legislation, which requires negotiation, listening to witnesses and listening to each other. In the context of a minority Parliament, this legislation was an example of that collaboration at its best, of members of Parliament rising to the occasion, working through the difficult issues, listening and coming to conclusions. However, what do we have now? The government has systematically, regardless of world view, lured and then neutered members of the opposition to join and give the Liberals a majority government, which Canadians did not vote for. Now, they are using that undemocratic majority to undo the work that was done at committee. They have moved motions in the House to undo the work that was done painstakingly at committee: listening to survivors, strengthening the legislation. That work has all been ignored and undone through a motion proposed by the government. The Liberals now believe that they can rely on all the members of their newly formed, undemocratic majority to undermine the collaborative work that was done on this issue at committee. Ryan Turnbull: Majority prevails. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite from, I believe, Ajax is heckling me to say, “Majority prevails.” Ryan Turnbull: Whitby. Garnett Genuis: Whitby. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I do want to make sure that he is held accountable for heckling during a speech about protecting victims of sexual violence. The member for Whitby says the majority rules. Well, this is a majority that Canadians did not vote for and that, in the first instance, the Liberals are using to undo collaborative committee work on protecting victims of sexual violence. They want a majority, they say, to move at speeds unseen in generations. They are moving at speeds unseen in generations to dismantle collaborative committee work to protect victims of sexual violence. At the first opportunity they have, that is what they are using their majority to do. I have to wonder what the member for Nunavut is thinking in all this. Individual members, whatever caucus they sit in, are still personally accountable before their voters, and before whatever other institutions they see themselves as accountable in front of, for the decisions they make in the House and the votes they cast here. When a member sits as part of the NDP and works collaboratively on amendments to strengthen legislation to protect victims of sexual violence, and then that member joins a caucus that is systematically undoing and ignoring the work that was done, it is hard for me to understand the dissonance. Whether a person just changes all of their opinions at once, or whether some members of the government intend on standing up against the efforts of the minister and the front bench to dismantle this legislation, at the end of the day, every member controls how they vote when the time comes. They will have a chance to vote specifically on the decisions of the minister and the government to undo the work that was done. This is the real, concrete outworking of the Liberals’ seizure of an undemocratic majority. It now gives them, in practice, the ability to ignore what witnesses say, to ignore collaboration and to ignore the work that can be done across parties to analyze an issue from different angles and get to a result, and the Prime Minister can act as a kind of executive and direct all of the affairs that happen in this place. That is not how it should happen. That is not what Canadians voted for in the last election, but it seems that it is what they want, and their first test case for this is undermining protections for victims of sexual violence. It is shameful, what is happening. It is undemocratic and wrong, and it will have serious negative implications for survivors who are seeking justice in the future. I want to commend the members of the committee who worked hard on this. I want to commend our shadow minister for defence as well as members of other parties who worked collaboratively on this process but who, sadly, saw all of that work undone when the government decided to move these motions, rejecting these amendments. In this context, with this undemocratic majority, we will continue to use all of the tools we have to hold the government accountable and fight for what is right. Government members and ministers need to hear demands from their constituents that the government reverse course and stand with victims of sexual violence. I think the member for Nunavut needs to hear from her constituents on this, asking her to stand with the work that she previously did on committee. I think we need to see a response from the public that holds the government accountable for what it is doing, right away, with this undemocratic majority.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“This bill is about protecting victims of sexual violence. Our committee listened to victims and experts, and we voted to make the bill stronger. Now the Liberals are trying to undo all that work.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that was a question that went madly off in all directions. This is a bill about protecting victims of sexual violence. We can have a conversation about military spending, capabilities and all of these other issues, but, fundamentally, here is the point. The committee heard directly during its deliberations from victims and from experts. For those who know this process best, a majority of that committee, representative of the House of Commons that Canadians elected, chose amendments to strengthen the bill and respond to the testimony they heard. Then Liberals used an undemocratic, stolen majority to try to undo all that work.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. The Liberals talk about working together, but then they changed this bill completely without us. They are being hypocrites.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 11 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 analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. I also thank him for the work that was done by the opposition parties. He mentioned the Liberal Party’s hypocrisy. The Liberals talk a lot about co-operation, yet they tried to eliminate the need for it. Right after that, they decided to change this bill completely. This truly is an example of Liberal hypocrisy.

Carol Anstey, Long Range Mountains

Conservative
“People were heckling my colleague while he spoke. I want him to tell us what message that heckling sends to victims who are watching this debate.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that was an incredible speech. I just want to draw attention to, once again, the heckling and comments about majority rules, while my colleague was trying to communicate during his speech. I just want to give the member an opportunity to speak to what further message that sends to victims and other people who may be looking to see what the government’s response is on this important piece of legislation.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“All parties should work together on this issue, especially in a minority government. It is wrong for the government to play party politics when we are trying to help victims.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this certainly is the sort of issue where we would hope for cross-party collaboration and hope to not have a spirit of partisanship. From what I understand, that spirit of collaboration was what prevailed at committee. It prevailed in a context where co-operation was required, because of the minority conditions that Canadians voted for. If a party win a majority at the polls, fair enough. It has a mandate from Canadians to proceed as a majority. However, if Canadians vote for a minority that necessitates co-operation, and then a party tries to throw that out the window, and then acts in this ultra partisan fashion while we are trying to advance solutions for victims, that is inappropriate.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 116

  1. Government Orders Military Justice System Modernization Act 35 statements
  2. Private Members' Business Criminal Code 13 statements
  3. Government Orders Government Orders 8 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  13. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Veterans 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Natural Resources 7 statements
  18. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 10 statements
  19. Oral Questions Emergency Management 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  21. Oral Questions Northern Affairs 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 3 statements
  23. Oral Questions The Economy 5 statements
  24. Government Orders Report Stage 86 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements