“Opposition parties worked together in committee to improve this military justice bill. We made military lawyers and police more independent, supported victims better, and protected the rights of the accused. The government wants to remove these changes. I want the House to keep them to protect survivors and support our military members.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue from where I left off. The bill in question now addresses the appointment process for the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, positions that the court justices specifically identified as needing independence from the chain of command. We also added consequences for unreasonable delays in transferring evidence. We strengthened the independence of legal actors so that prosecutions are fair and impartial. We improved supports for victims, including the ability to request a victim liaison officer when trust breaks down because, in these cases, that is very much the currency. We addressed the fairness for the accused ensuring access to defence counsel, regardless of which system hears the case. I think that is the most important change. We included the clause for future review because these changes must be monitored, they must be measured and they must be revisited when it is necessary or when they do not work. Taken together, these amendments represent a serious effort to fix what is broken and to build a system that is more responsive, more accountable and certainly more just. However, these amendments have to be approved by this House and it seems that they are not even going to be considered. We did all of that work in committee for them to not even be considered by the government. That is not really how it is supposed to work. Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that these changes are all necessary, but the Liberals have the power to strip these amendments, and that is really what is at the crux of this conversation today. In doing so, they would weaken the accountability of this bill, they would ignore the voices of survivors, and they would remove the very improvements that the victims themselves asked this Parliament to make. We certainly hope they will reconsider, because without these changes, it is not about making life better for those who serve. It would be about making life better for the politicians and the bureaucrats who oversee this, and it is a very different thing. The men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces do not work a nine to five. They serve without limit, and we owe them this in return. I urge every member of this House, including the members who now sit in the opposite benches who worked on this piece of legislation in committee, to reconsider, to stand with survivors and to support the brave men and women in uniform today and every day in this country.”

• Echo ×5

  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 said →

“I want military members, veterans, and sexual assault survivors to see that the Liberals are undoing the changes made to this bill. The Liberals are ignoring what military members asked for.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak directly to the men and women in uniform who are watching this. They had the committee change this bill with the amendments that they, themselves, asked for, both the survivors of sexual violence and the veterans of our military. I want those at home to witness that the Liberals are paving over all the amendments their own members made to this legislation. Justice Arbour did not even come to committee. They waited 11 years to bring this legislation forward. I want them to witness that the Liberals are ignoring the will of this House and the will of the members in uniform.”

“The Liberals are acting like authoritarians. They have shut down four committees to hold secret meetings that the public should know about.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is more than arrogance. We are seeing the beginnings of a very authoritarian streak with the manufactured majority that the Liberals now have. Members who now sit on their benches worked on this report. This is just one example. The Liberals have now shut down four different committees, going in camera to have discussions that Canadians ought to know about. This is a bad start to a majority, and I think Canadians will start to notice.”

“The Prime Minister ignored a report that has sat on a shelf for 11 years. He had the chance to protect military members from harassment, abuse, and discrimination by accepting our changes to this bill, but he chose not to.”

“Mr. Speaker, this report has been sitting on a shelf for 11 years. The Prime Minister had the chance to appeal to members of the armed forces, to give them an environment free of harassment, discrimination and abuse. He had the opportunity to appeal to them and to give them exactly what they asked for in committee, exactly how this bill was changed, and exactly the amendments that are before the House. Instead, he chose not to and defended the indefensible of his own government.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not support the government's changes to this bill. Military sexual assault victims should be allowed to choose whether their case goes to civilian or military court. The minister wants to force all cases into civilian courts, even though those courts are already overloaded and victims asked for a choice.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was actually going to ask my colleague a question there. I did my officer training in her riding of Saint-Jean. It is a beloved area in my life. Some of that I wanted to forget, because of the gruelling training, but I do appreciate my colleague’s speech, her passion for our military and her passion for Quebec. The motto of la belle province is Je me souviens or I remember. I apologize about my French, but I am practising and I have to overcome my own fear. I will do that by speaking with my French colleagues. I want to talk about what the Minister of National Defence tabled last week, and why it matters to people who trusted the House to get it right. The minister tabled report stage amendments that would undo months not just of Conservative work but of committee work. Bloc and Conservative members of the Standing Committee on National Defence sat together, listened to witnesses and built something worth passing. The minister swept it away. Not satisfied with tabling the amendments last week, the government has now moved time allocation to limit how long the House can even discuss them. Survivors came forward twice and made themselves vulnerable twice. I have been asked to speak to the bill because of the work I have done on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In the last Parliament, ACVA undertook the largest study in its history. It held 23 meetings, with nearly 100 witnesses, with respect to the experience of women veterans. In Parliament we are studying suicide prevention, and in many meetings, MST surfaces as a driver for suicide. The two files are not separate. As part of both studies, the committee undertook dedicated work on trauma-informed practices, what trauma does to memory, to reporting and to the way survivors present themselves in institutional settings. I do not raise this to claim expertise. I raise it because I find myself wondering whether the officials who drafted these report stage amendments, or the members now standing to defend them, have spent comparable time in those rooms. Many of the women who spent months testifying before the veterans affairs committee later came before the national defence committee to speak directly to the bill. They showed up twice. They made themselves vulnerable twice. The minister’s amendments are his response. The cross-party amendments to clauses 7 and 8 would give survivors the right to choose which justice system handled their case, military or civilian. That reflected what witnesses asked for directly. Donna Van Leusden told the committee: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill...survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor‑centred. She is right, and she is not alone. The provost marshal general testified that over the last five years, 270 out of 735 files stayed with the military police because victims specifically asked for them to stay there. That is more than one-third of all cases. These are real people making an informed choice. The minister’s amendments would eliminate choice entirely. Regarding civilian capacity, the picture is equally concerning. Sexual assault cases exceeding the Jordan framework deadline limits rose from just over 15% in 2016-17 to more than 30% in 2022-23. Nearly half of those cases were stayed or the files withdrawn. The civilian system is struggling with its existing caseload. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was direct in its written submission. It said that the proposed provisions would deny victims the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint is investigated. This departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing. CACP recommended maintaining concurrent jurisdiction. The people who would be executing this mandate said it would not work. The minister made his amendments anyway. It is worth noting what the minister acknowledged at committee: He has not spoken to Justice Arbour, Justice Fish or Justice Deschamps on this file. When asked how many victims his office consulted when drafting the bill, he said that he would have to get back to the committee. He had not spoken to any provincial justice ministers since taking the portfolio. Jordan framework delays were not in his briefings. He would be implementing a mandatory jurisdictional transfer into a system he has not even consulted, without the resources to support it and over the explicit objection of survivors, the director of military prosecutions and the chiefs of police. There are real consequences to getting this wrong, and they are playing out right now. A decade ago, the Canadian Armed Forces set a target of 25% women in uniform by 2026. Today, after 10 years of stated commitment, the number sits at 16.7%. The recruitment commander said last week that the target is now impossible to reach. In the past fiscal year alone, 1,070 women left the military, the highest rate in five years, despite pay increases. We cannot recruit and retain women in an institution where they know before they sign up that if something happens to them, the system will not put their choice at the centre. That is precisely what Bill C-11, as the minister has now amended it, would fail to do. The government set a target of 25% women. It could not reach a force of 67,000. What exactly is its plan for half a million? When I spoke to the bill at an earlier stage, I said that I hoped that by the time my daughters are adults, parliamentarians would not still be debating how to get this right for people assaulted in the forces in which they choose to serve. I am standing here at report stage, and nothing has changed. If anything, I am less optimistic than I was then. However, I have not stopped believing it is possible. The committee did the work. The result was something worth passing. What the minister tabled last week is not an improvement. It is the government’s substituting its own preference for that of survivors. That is paternalistic. It is further disenfranchisement of the people who have already been rendered powerless once. Conservatives will continue to fight to restore the amendments. The provisions about choice must stand. Civilian capacity must be resourced before jurisdiction is transferred. Survivors who came forward twice, who trusted twice, deserve better than this. We can do better than this. As I said, I am the father of two daughters, and I hope and pray that the work we have put in to make their lives better would be heard by members on the other side of the aisle. We can do better. We owe it to the next generation. We owe it to those who want to join.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“The Liberals brag about getting over 7,000 military applications, but they do not say how many people failed to get in. They are also failing to protect and support women in the military.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the aisle ran out of time and did not get to ask a question, which is surprising. Here is what I have seen in the last year. The Liberals are pounding their chests, saying that the forces have had over 7,000 applications, but that does not show how many have not made it through. It does not show the failure rate that has happened within the military, nor what the Liberals are doing to fail women who need options and choices when travesty happens to them in the military.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 39 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 →

“We must examine this bill very closely. The government is ignoring my colleagues' recommendations and ignoring the victims.”

“Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. Yes, absolutely, we need to go through this with a fine-tooth comb. My colleagues have already done the heavy lifting. They have already come forward with recommendations that are being ignored, and that is how the victims feel. They feel ignored. That is what the Liberal government is doing to them: ignoring their pleas and the challenges they have faced. It is unacceptable.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Witnesses told the committee that victims want to choose between the military and civilian justice systems. Can the member explain why keeping that choice is so important?”

“Mr. Speaker, witnesses at the national defence committee made it clear that many survivors want a choice between the military and civilian justice systems. Could the member explain why preserving that choice is so important?”

“Victims need to have choices so they feel safe and heard. The government is ignoring them, and we need to give them options instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, it comes down to victims’ having the choice. They need to feel safe. They feel betrayed. They want to have options, because they want to be heard. This is what I am saying: The Liberal government is ignoring and shutting them out, and they have already been traumatized. We have seen that time and time again, not only in the defence committee but also in the veterans affairs committee. It is not time to shut people out. It is time to give them options. It is time to let them be heard.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to change this bill so military sexual assault victims can choose between military and civilian courts. The government took that choice away and ignored the survivors who asked for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be able to rise today to speak to Bill C-11. In the previous Parliament, I was able to speak to this legislation’s precursor, Bill C-66. In that speech, I spoke about the two committees I primarily sat on during the previous session, the status of women and national defence. I was able to provide a unique perspective as it related to what was, at the time, Bill C-66. At FEWO, we studied a number of issues related to violence against women. The committee studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development, intimate partner violence and coercive control. Prior to that, when I sat on the national defence committee, we studied transparency in the Canadian Armed Forces. During that study, we did hear testimony about how complicated and daunting the entire investigative process can be for armed forces members. I will now re-enter into the record the testimony of Patrick White: First of all, you need to put yourself in the perspective of the most vulnerable kind of person. Respectfully, that’s actually not me. I’m an attorney. I have some legal knowledge. I’m not the most vulnerable kind of person. The most vulnerable kind of person may be the 16-year-old who gets parental consent to join. They may be the person who is so affected by aggravated sexual trauma that they can’t even put their hand on the doorknob to get into work, or may vomit when putting on their uniform. That’s just an example. If you design a system so that individuals like that can navigate it rather than requiring us to be Rory Fowler or Michel Drapeau, you will succeed in having a system that works for everyone. The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That’s the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don’t. What particularly struck me was something Mr. White said after the meeting. He highlighted the labyrinth of regulations, the myriad of hidden file numbers, the thousands of initialisms, acronyms and faceless department nooks and crannies in the depths of DND that one has to know the name of in order to get the paperwork. Patrick was a lawyer, a former staffer, someone who was intimately familiar with the machinations of bureaucracy. He knew where he needed to go and what he wanted, and he found it nearly impossible. In any event, Bill C-66 never got beyond second reading in this place, before dying on the Order Paper due to the previous election. However, I am very happy to see an ever so slightly amended version tabled in this place, and even happier to be able to speak to it today. While reviewing the initial draft of this speech, I took the time to briefly go over the testimony of survivors and experts at the national defence committee when it studied Bill C-11. It was refreshing to see all parties working collaboratively, especially on such a serious and sensitive issue. This was echoed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on April 23, when he spoke in this place about Bill C-11. What he also spoke about was a series of unilateral changes brought forward on the day prior by the government. Those changes, only achievable because of a new-found majority, unilaterally changed the determinations of that committee, government members included. In response to his poignant speech, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, if he could save one portion of the original pan-partisan Bill C-11, what would that be? My Manitoban colleague responded: Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims. The testimony agrees. On November 18, Dr. Karen Breeck stated: the bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases. I’ve spoken to many people who fear being labelled disloyal or overreacting if they were to involve civilian police, particularly for the lower-risk sexual assault cases Colonel Bruce MacGregor, retired, similarly reminded us: The expectation that victims would be completely satisfied with the criminal justice system is aspirational and not realistic. Many allegations of sexual assault—if not most—within the military are what we would characterize not as rape but as what may be considered as a lower level of physical violence. Saying this is in no way an attempt to minimize the impact on victims. Christine Wood, a CAF veteran, was unequivocally clear in her testimony. She said: I’m absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. I support it because the CAF must uphold their own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices. The director of the Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group, Donna Van Leusden, stated: This bill removes choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did. The consensus is strikingly clear. As anyone who has ever sat on a committee here knows, there is almost always a multitude of sides to any piece of legislation or study that a committee does. It is shockingly rare to have dozens of witnesses across all walks of life, spread over nearly a dozen meetings, a full day of testimony, be nearly unanimous in their calls for specific change. This is not some regulatory change. This was a call for help from brave survivors who have battled a rotted system designed to silence and diminish them, the very thing Bill C-66 and Bill C-11 were supposed to change. For a while, there was hope. The committee heard the witnesses. Members worked collaboratively. They introduced amendments to Bill C-11. For 62 days, these men and women brought change, and they thought change was coming, from the day the report was tabled before the House up until April 22, when the government tabled a battery of amendments that undid months of collaborative work, completely revoking these changes. One of the first things the government did with its newly secured majority, even before the three new members took their seats in this place, was table a sweeping set of changes that eliminated that hard work. Not only is this an insult to the witnesses who were strong enough to come out and give their testimony, but it is disrespectful to the members of the committee, including the government members sitting on that committee. What the government did was worse than simply not listening. What it did was tell these witnesses and the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of survivors, “We hear you. We quite literally brought you before a standing committee of the House of Commons to listen. We sympathize with you. We even amended the legislation, but we no longer need you.” This is not collaboration whatsoever. This is dismissal.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“The government's deal with the NDP is hurting how we handle this military justice bill. We also need to remember that Justice Arbour chose not to speak to our committee, and her report was written years ago. Things have changed since then.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I brought up in my remarks the mention of the machinations of this manufactured majority, I was speaking to the relevance of how this is impacting this legislation in the House. We are speaking about victims here. We are talking about Bill C-11. The member across mentioned Justice Arbour. I would like to note that she was indeed invited to committee. She declined her opportunity to speak at committee. Let us put this into perspective: Things have changed since she wrote this report upward of seven years ago, and so has the system.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

“The committee worked hard on this bill to fix the military justice system, but progress suddenly stopped. The government is not standing up for victims, and we need to do better.”

“Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and it is absolutely essential that we do better. For those listening at home, we are talking about the military justice system modernization act, or Bill C-11. We are currently at the report stage. Countless numbers of witnesses testified strongly. This committee heard the voices of these victims. Members of the committee collaborated, they were moving forward and then there was a hard stop. What is the change and why is the change happening? We need to do better in this place. Victims need the government to speak up and represent them. This is not the case with the way the government is acting.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

“Most military sexual misconduct cases cannot be handled by civilian courts, and those courts do not have room for them anyway. I am asking my colleague if this change will just make military culture worse and let abusers get away with it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the significant majority of military sexual misconduct cases will not meet the civilian threshold of the civilian justice system. Of the few cases that do meet that threshold for the civilian justice system, witnesses for the system have testified that it only has the capacity to deal with just a fraction of the cases. Perhaps my colleague could speak to whether this is just going to make the culture in the military worse and be a free pass for predators.”

“We need more time to debate this bill about the military justice system. The government is rushing to end the debate, and it is ignoring what victims and survivors asked for.”

“Mr. Speaker, we could speak for hours and debate this bill, but we have to really think hard about what survivors have asked for. Why has this debate not been allowed to go further than the short time today? Supporting victims, supporting survivors, is what we need to get justice, and that is clearly not the case here. I do not understand why the government is rushing to shut down this debate before clear consensus and concerns are heard, and in addition, ignoring and contradicting the actual testimony that was heard.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“This bill makes a mistake by forcing all sexual crime cases in Canada out of the military justice system. Civilian police are already overwhelmed and often do not take these cases, which leaves victims with fewer choices. Military police are well trained and should still be allowed to investigate these crimes.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here again. The last time I rose at second reading on this bill, I talked a bit about my military background, but I focused on why it is so important that we get this bill right, especially for the victims and the accused. This bill would do a number of things, and in fact parts of Bill C-11 are actually very good, a step in the right direction and needed. I do not want to debate those, which are in reference to the independence around the director of military prosecutions, the provost marshal, etc. Nor do I want to focus on any amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. I want to focus around the transfer of jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civilian authorities when the offences take place in Canada and what this would mean for our Canadian Armed Forces, where I had the privilege to serve for 25 years. Today I am wearing my Royal Military College tie. The college’s motto is “Truth, Duty, Valour”, something that I think is essential with this bill. I am also wearing the tie clip of my regiment, the motto of which is pro patria, or “for country”, but the slogan is what I want to focus on, which is “Never Pass a Fault”. I feel that we are in a position right now where the government is making a mistake. I am going to try to lay this out. There are a few things for all listeners here because I am going to use some abbreviations. Criminal Code sex offences is CCSO. When I say MPs, I mean military police, not members of Parliament. I will likely say “police of jurisdiction”, or POJ. Let us back up a little bit. In November 2021, the director of military prosecutions and the Canadian Armed Forces provost marshal decided to transfer all Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian jurisdiction. This was a result of Justice Fish and Justice Arbour’s recommendations, and they were sort of an interim directive to go forward. Prior to that, there were concurrent investigations by both civilian authorities and the military police that resulted in some cases prior to 2021 ending up tried as civilian cases. However, when this interim direction came into place in 2021, it was the intent that ideally all CCSO would be transferred. That direction was clear; however, the military found out that local police of jurisdiction were not accepting the files. Military police then were able to do a victim-centred trauma analysis. They could conduct the investigations for a number of reasons. The civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the capacity or the resources to deal with it. Their threshold is much higher than the standard that the Canadian Armed Forces expects and there is a much larger gamut of tools available within the Canadian Armed Forces for both disciplinary and administrative action that allowed all of this to take place. Part of the reason that the civilian police of jurisdiction pushed back was that they believed that the military police were more than capable and competent to do this. We have seen this with public statements of affirmation from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police of the incredible professional competency of our military police. For some of the cases that were brought forward, the civilian police looked at them and said that there was no public interest in moving forward because some of them might have been historical or that public safety was not being dealt with. Further, in this interim time frame, the declaration of victims’ rights had been implemented. This means that not on purpose, but because of an interim direction in 2021, we now have a choice for victims. Victims are getting the best of both worlds. There is the military police, which has fixed and addressed many of the shortfalls that had existed historically in our system, that is now able to do this in collaboration with the victim and the police of jurisdiction to make a case and go forward. I think that the way the system is functioning today when it comes to dealing with Criminal Code sex offences is right. Now let us talk about what happens if this bill passes with the amendments the Liberal government has made to change what was passed in committee. First off, for the first time ever in Canada, a police force, the military police, would lose jurisdiction to investigate criminal offences within its own jurisdiction. The military police are the police of jurisdiction for the Canadian Armed Forces. As soon as the military police, during an investigation, find any suspicion of a Criminal Code sex offence, they would have to contact, transfer or refer this to the local police of jurisdiction. A CAF victim would go to them and they would have to give them a phone number for the OPP or for the Ottawa Police Service, for example. It is not ideal. The police of jurisdiction would not be compelled to do anything about it. If the Canadian Armed Forces chooses to go ahead with administrative actions, the problem is that they would not be allowed to investigate. Section 70 of the National Defence Act lists all of the sexual offences that are tied to Criminal Code offences. Their hands would be tied and they would not be able to investigate. Right now, the way that local police of jurisdiction are dealing with this is very slowly; they are not keen on sharing that information with the military police. We would basically be taking this choice away from the victims. It would not be clean. It could be something as simple as a lower-level harassment issue that maybe should not be criminal in nature as it would not necessarily meet that threshold, but because it would fall under the changes being forecast to pass in Bill C-11, if the government got its way, they would not be able to do anything. The removal of this would fundamentally undermine the reputation of our military police. As I mentioned earlier, military police are experts. Since 2022, all the former cases that used to be done by summary trial and are now dealt with at courts martial must be investigated by the military police. The civilian police acknowledge their incredible capability. In fact, if I had enough time, I could share stories where victims were so happy to have their situations investigated by military police instead of local police. Let us talk about outside of Canada. I am not talking about a host nation perpetrator or victim, but specifically about where military police can investigate a CAF member, whether a victim or perpetrator, and a Canadian victim. Latvia is a good example. In this case, military police would investigate, weigh the charges and decide whether they should end up in the military or civilian justice system, as they can still do. They would maintain that skill set. I would argue that in the types of operations we are doing now in places like Latvia, where there are DND members and their families, we would see the potential for a higher level of these types of cases because, again, those in the CAF doing that are not perfect. My point is that someone could do something in Latvia and be charged for it, but if a person were to do the same thing in the CAF in Canada, they may not be charged for it. To wrap this up, this is what concerns me. A victim-centred, trauma-informed approach would not happen as the military police would lose this concurrent jurisdiction. More charges would be dropped. There would be less accountability within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current civilian system is already overloaded and, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, has a much higher threshold. We are seeing this in jurisdictions like Ireland right now, which went through this sort of step. It is now trying to figure out how to undo what it did. It is trying to fix the situation it is in. This would break trust with our military police and within the CAF and is basically an abdication of responsibility and leadership, from my viewpoint. This bill, no matter what, needs a sunset clause. What concerns me is that we will be back in Parliament in three years, five years or six years from now saying we messed up. We will be apologizing to the victims for not getting it right. We are not going to be able to fix that harm we caused. I say “we” meaning the Parliament of Canada, this chamber and the other place. It would not do the victims justice. It is important that we get this right. My plea to the government is that we need to do this right. If we cannot fix it in this place, I am praying the other place will be able to fix it, because I have legitimate concerns that we would be making a mistake if this bill passed as the government wants to amend it.”

“The military has already made big changes since the Arbour report. It has more independence, more support for victims, and better military police. We do not need to transfer these cases away from the military justice system now.”

“Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary with respect to Justice Arbour, things have changed. In previous speeches we have outlined this. The victims’ bill of rights is no longer there. We have a sexual misconduct resource centre available. The independence has gone forward. The military police have actually fixed and addressed the key things that allowed for the situations upon which Justice Arbour made her recommendations. It was brought up previously in the debate that unfortunately Justice Arbour chose not to show up at committee to testify. Things have changed. In the military, the last thing we do when we do a mission analysis is ask whether the situation has changed. Since 2021, the situation has changed, as I highlighted during my speech, based on the recommendations that came from Fish and Arbour. The system is pretty much there. Let us use the rest of Bill C-11. With this transfer, I think we are getting it wrong.”

“The government is making a mistake with this military justice bill. We need to focus on the victims. The government should listen to the military witnesses and keep the changes our committee recommended.”

“Mr. Speaker, I could use a really derogatory term, but I will not. My point is that it is the government that is making a mistake. Ultimately, I think we need to get this right. This is about the victims. The committee did so much hard work. The witnesses testified. I am not taking anything away from what Justice Arbour brought forward. This is a tough position for the CAF and the senior leadership of the CAF. However, I dare say that if we go back and review the testimony put forward at committee by the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the Canadian director of military prosecutions, they weighed their concerns on this. Again, this is ultimately about taking care of the victims. I do not think the government is going to get it right if it removes the hard work of the committee and what it put forward as recommendations.”

“I want to know how civilian and military police will work together. Sharing sexual assault cases between them will not work. If a mistake happens, who will be held responsible?”

“Mr. Speaker, as a retired police officer, I can say that only 5% or 6% of sexual assault cases in the civilian world are brought forth, and probably less so in the CAF world. Policing also depends on a lot of clarity, evidence and integrity. When we transfer that between two bodies, the civilian and the CAF, it is not going to work. How is this going to work practically speaking? If there is a mistake, who is going to be held accountable? Is it going to be the civilian world or the CAF world? That is what I would like to know.”

“This bill lets the military avoid responsibility by handing cases to civilian police. Civilian police are already too busy, and their rules are different. This will hurt victims, and we will have to fix this mistake later.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I do not know if anybody is going to be held to account. That is going to be the problem with this, because ultimately it is an abdication of responsibility and accountability within the CAF, which is what I highlighted in my speech. It is about handing this off and saying that police officers are able to deal with this. As the member noted, they are already overloaded. Their threshold is much higher than the military’s and I think we are not going to do the victims justice. They are going to be the ones who will suffer from this and we will be back at this trying to fix this mistake a few years from now.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our committee listened to witnesses and suggested changes to this military justice bill. I want to know why the government is ignoring those changes and ignoring the victims.”

“Mr. Speaker, while I was not personally involved, I would like to note the co-operation between our side of the House and the Bloc in getting amendments in based on the witness testimony. As I have been following the debate today, the question I keep asking myself is this: Why? Why are the victims being ignored? Why is all the testimony being ignored, along with the amendments that the committee worked so hard to put through? Could my colleague venture as to why the government is taking this route as opposed to following the hard work of the committee?”