Bill C-11, Military Justice System Modernization Act · Third reading · 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.
13 statements
“I want to share my speaking time with my colleague.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.”
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.
“I support fixing the military justice system, but I am angry that the government erased good changes we made to this bill. We agreed to let victims of sexual crimes choose between civilian or military courts, to create an independent watchdog, and to make military judges independent from the army. The government used its new majority to remove all those changes. I want the government to work with us again and explain why it removed these protections for victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a friend who passed away. It is related to the issue before us, because he was a great citizen who believed in justice. For him, justice meant leaving a healthy planet and clean water for future generations. We have lost a great citizen in Louis Trudeau. He devoted much of his life to protecting the Bayonne river, and he worked to raise awareness of water issues by giving talks and writing books. He encouraged people to plant trees along riverbanks and get involved in community cleanups. He was the co-founder of the Bayonne watershed organization, and he used the proceeds from his books to fund that organization’s work. As his team said so well: Louis like[d] to remind us that water knows no political boundaries. What happens upstream also affects those downstream. His actions reflect[ed] this universal connection. Today, his legacy lives on. It flows through the rivers, whispers in the forests and echoes in the decisions that we make and in the partnerships that we build. Mr. Trudeau will always be an inspiration. I thank him. I am going to take a moment to compose myself before talking about military justice. I would like to set the record straight from the outset, as the Liberal Party’s comments this morning were somewhat ambiguous: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑11. We always have and always will, because it is important to look after victims and it is also important to make the Canadian Armed Forces a safe place to work. A strong army is one of the foundations of a lasting democracy. We need people who are trained and properly equipped, but Canada’s performance on that score has long been shoddy. We are gradually putting that right. We just need to ensure we do so reasonably, but it is essential. It is the foundation. Not being able to guarantee the safety, physical well-being and freedom from intimidation of those who serve is a major shortcoming. That is why we have always supported the idea of improving this justice system. Stories like the ones we have heard, including those involving Mr. Vance and Mr. McDonald, who left their posts amid scandal or allegations, must never happen again. In that sense, we agree with the bill. However, we condemn this arrogant government for using its new backroom majority, courtesy of floor crossers, to completely scrap all the work that was previously done. To me, that is serious. I hope that people on the other side are hearing me, because this is very important. Scrapping constructive, collaborative work accomplished through negotiation and goodwill is a serious matter. The first Liberal speaker this morning said that reforming the military justice system is not, and should never be, a partisan issue. I completely agree with that statement, but her rhetoric contradicts the government’s actions in recent weeks. That is where I see a major discrepancy, a major problem. It feels like I have been doing this constantly for the past few weeks, but I am once again asking the government to collaborate. We are reaching out to the government and offering to work together. However, the government has to be willing to hear us. I am going to say something in the interest of the common good, which all of us here are expected to promote: Just because the government has secured a majority does not mean that it suddenly has a monopoly on the truth. The fact that people are members of the opposition does not make them idiots. They are capable of coming up with intelligent proposals. I am not saying that partisan politics never happens, but in the case of Bill C‑11 especially, I believe that we did some very high-quality work. Incidentally, the last person who crossed the floor from the NDP had worked on that bill. She had moved her own amendments, but she voted against them after crossing the floor. I am struggling to make sense of that. I will get to the crux of the matter, because I do not have much time left. I want to talk about one of the things we find particularly troubling. After having met with victims’ representatives and some victims themselves, it became clear that victims wanted charges related to sexual offences to be handled outside the military justice system. There was a consensus on this. However, and this is crucial, these victims also asked, with all the nuance and sensitivity that such a matter requires, that the final decision be left up to the victims. The bill was amended to reflect that. We negotiated that with the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, and it is fundamental. Then the Liberals got a majority and said the amendments were no longer acceptable. It is terribly sad, because some victims might prefer the other option, and that is their fundamental right. Members here can give lofty speeches about caring about victims’ rights, about how they need support and proper representation, and about how our justice system unfortunately often gives the impression that it cares more about the fate of the accused than that of the victims. Then, all of a sudden, the government comes up with something like this and takes away that option. Personally, I do not understand. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary will be able to explain it to me. I would like him to explain it to me, because I really do not understand that part. We also ensured that the legislation clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That was removed too. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans could be appointed as military judges, and we insisted that military judges should be released from the army. The government removed that. I think it was a good measure. If we are carrying out a reform and want to ensure that judges are independent, they cannot be judges and also be subject to the directives of their superiors. They may well be called upon to interpret their superiors’ actions. It is nonsense. I do not understand the logic. The Liberals might say that they have a majority and can do as they please. Message received. Nevertheless, I would like an explanation today as to why the amendment concerning victims’ choice to go through the civilian court system was removed. Also, why was the amendment that would have made judges more independent removed? It is truly sad, especially since, in their speeches this morning, the Liberals told us that they had listened to numerous victims, that they had done a really good job, that they had listened to thousands of people. I do not doubt that, but it is not enough just to listen to them; we must hear them and act accordingly. The job of a politician is not to come in with their own solutions, to claim they have the answer and say this is what we are going to do. No, their job is to listen to citizens, the people involved in the issue, and to try to implement the best possible solution with a view to solving problems for the next generation and for the future. We are supposed to make things better, but I do not see that happening in this case. The bill is still good, of course, but it is not as good as it used to be. That is a shame. The recommendations of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish are there, at least in large part. An amendment proposing to refer the bill back to committee was introduced this morning, and we will study it carefully. I am not saying that is the solution, but it is worth considering. In closing, I urge the government to work with opposition members. It needs to stop just saying it and actually do it.”
Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a friend who passed away. It is related to the issue before us, because he was a great citizen who believed in justice. For him, justice meant leaving a healthy planet and clean water for future generations. We have lost a great citizen in Louis Trudeau. He devoted much of his life to protecting the Bayonne river, and he worked to raise awareness of water issues by giving talks and writing books. He encouraged people to plant trees along riverbanks and get involved in community cleanups. He was the co-founder of the Bayonne watershed organization, and he used the proceeds from his books to fund that organization’s work. As his team said so well: Louis like[d] to remind us that water knows no political boundaries. What happens upstream also affects those downstream. His actions reflect[ed] this universal connection. Today, his legacy lives on. It flows through the rivers, whispers in the forests and echoes in the decisions that we make and in the partnerships that we build. Mr. Trudeau will always be an inspiration. I thank him. I am going to take a moment to compose myself before talking about military justice. I would like to set the record straight from the outset, as the Liberal Party’s comments this morning were somewhat ambiguous: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑11. We always have and always will, because it is important to look after victims and it is also important to make the Canadian Armed Forces a safe place to work. A strong army is one of the foundations of a lasting democracy. We need people who are trained and properly equipped, but Canada’s performance on that score has long been shoddy. We are gradually putting that right. We just need to ensure we do so reasonably, but it is essential. It is the foundation. Not being able to guarantee the safety, physical well-being and freedom from intimidation of those who serve is a major shortcoming. That is why we have always supported the idea of improving this justice system. Stories like the ones we have heard, including those involving Mr. Vance and Mr. McDonald, who left their posts amid scandal or allegations, must never happen again. In that sense, we agree with the bill. However, we condemn this arrogant government for using its new backroom majority, courtesy of floor crossers, to completely scrap all the work that was previously done. To me, that is serious. I hope that people on the other side are hearing me, because this is very important. Scrapping constructive, collaborative work accomplished through negotiation and goodwill is a serious matter. The first Liberal speaker this morning said that reforming the military justice system is not, and should never be, a partisan issue. I completely agree with that statement, but her rhetoric contradicts the government’s actions in recent weeks. That is where I see a major discrepancy, a major problem. It feels like I have been doing this constantly for the past few weeks, but I am once again asking the government to collaborate. We are reaching out to the government and offering to work together. However, the government has to be willing to hear us. I am going to say something in the interest of the common good, which all of us here are expected to promote: Just because the government has secured a majority does not mean that it suddenly has a monopoly on the truth. The fact that people are members of the opposition does not make them idiots. They are capable of coming up with intelligent proposals. I am not saying that partisan politics never happens, but in the case of Bill C‑11 especially, I believe that we did some very high-quality work. Incidentally, the last person who crossed the floor from the NDP had worked on that bill. She had moved her own amendments, but she voted against them after crossing the floor. I am struggling to make sense of that. I will get to the crux of the matter, because I do not have much time left. I want to talk about one of the things we find particularly troubling. After having met with victims’ representatives and some victims themselves, it became clear that victims wanted charges related to sexual offences to be handled outside the military justice system. There was a consensus on this. However, and this is crucial, these victims also asked, with all the nuance and sensitivity that such a matter requires, that the final decision be left up to the victims. The bill was amended to reflect that. We negotiated that with the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, and it is fundamental. Then the Liberals got a majority and said the amendments were no longer acceptable. It is terribly sad, because some victims might prefer the other option, and that is their fundamental right. Members here can give lofty speeches about caring about victims’ rights, about how they need support and proper representation, and about how our justice system unfortunately often gives the impression that it cares more about the fate of the accused than that of the victims. Then, all of a sudden, the government comes up with something like this and takes away that option. Personally, I do not understand. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary will be able to explain it to me. I would like him to explain it to me, because I really do not understand that part. We also ensured that the legislation clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That was removed too. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans could be appointed as military judges, and we insisted that military judges should be released from the army. The government removed that. I think it was a good measure. If we are carrying out a reform and want to ensure that judges are independent, they cannot be judges and also be subject to the directives of their superiors. They may well be called upon to interpret their superiors’ actions. It is nonsense. I do not understand the logic. The Liberals might say that they have a majority and can do as they please. Message received. Nevertheless, I would like an explanation today as to why the amendment concerning victims’ choice to go through the civilian court system was removed. Also, why was the amendment that would have made judges more independent removed? It is truly sad, especially since, in their speeches this morning, the Liberals told us that they had listened to numerous victims, that they had done a really good job, that they had listened to thousands of people. I do not doubt that, but it is not enough just to listen to them; we must hear them and act accordingly. The job of a politician is not to come in with their own solutions, to claim they have the answer and say this is what we are going to do. No, their job is to listen to citizens, the people involved in the issue, and to try to implement the best possible solution with a view to solving problems for the next generation and for the future. We are supposed to make things better, but I do not see that happening in this case. The bill is still good, of course, but it is not as good as it used to be. That is a shame. The recommendations of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish are there, at least in large part. An amendment proposing to refer the bill back to committee was introduced this morning, and we will study it carefully. I am not saying that is the solution, but it is worth considering. In closing, I urge the government to work with opposition members. It needs to stop just saying it and actually do it.
“I want an answer to my question. Victims should have a choice in what happens, and I want to know why this bill does not give them that choice.”
“Mr. Speaker, we agree on that, as I said in my speech. The question I asked my colleague opposite, to which I have not yet received an answer, is the following: Why not retain the flexibility to give victims a choice? In any crime, in any unfortunate event that can happen, the most important person is the victim. That person’s choice and free will should always come first. I do not understand, and I imagine that my colleague does not have an answer for me because he did not give me one.”
Mr. Speaker, we agree on that, as I said in my speech. The question I asked my colleague opposite, to which I have not yet received an answer, is the following: Why not retain the flexibility to give victims a choice? In any crime, in any unfortunate event that can happen, the most important person is the victim. That person’s choice and free will should always come first. I do not understand, and I imagine that my colleague does not have an answer for me because he did not give me one.
“Victims should be allowed to choose how their cases are handled. Military judges should also be made independent from the armed forces. We all agreed on these ideas, but the government used its majority to throw them out. I want the government to explain why it did that.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I certainly agree on that. The problem I have is that it seems to me that giving victims a choice should be obvious. What is more, there was consensus, and that is the sad part. All of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done. I do not know what principles it used to do that. If someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it. As for the recommendation to make judges more independent by having them be released from the armed forces, it seems to me that this recommendation also made sense. We did not get an explanation. The government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen. I hope that this power trip will be over soon, because otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.”
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I certainly agree on that. The problem I have is that it seems to me that giving victims a choice should be obvious. What is more, there was consensus, and that is the sad part. All of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done. I do not know what principles it used to do that. If someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it. As for the recommendation to make judges more independent by having them be released from the armed forces, it seems to me that this recommendation also made sense. We did not get an explanation. The government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen. I hope that this power trip will be over soon, because otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.
“Even with a majority, the government still needs to listen to opposition parties. I want my colleague to share his thoughts on what happens to our work and to this bill when the government does not listen to us.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to something. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé clearly described the new dynamic in his speech. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they sometimes forget that democracy is not about saying, “I won, so shut up”. They still have to listen to what the opposition parties have to say. I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is also our whip, is very wise. I would like to hear his thoughts on what it means, for both this bill and our work as legislators in general, to have a government that does not necessarily listen to the opposition parties.”
Question or comment in debate
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 analysisMr. Speaker, I want to come back to something. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé clearly described the new dynamic in his speech. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they sometimes forget that democracy is not about saying, “I won, so shut up”. They still have to listen to what the opposition parties have to say. I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is also our whip, is very wise. I would like to hear his thoughts on what it means, for both this bill and our work as legislators in general, to have a government that does not necessarily listen to the opposition parties.
“The government should work with opposition parties on this bill. We worked hard in committee to pass good changes, but the government is ignoring our work.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whom I hold in high regard. It is unfortunate, but what this means is that the common good will not always be the priority. It means that a majority government thinks that it has the corner on truth. There is no harm in taking an opposition party’s amendments into account, particularly on a sensitive and delicate issue like this one. It seems to me that the least the government could do is work together. That does not mean that we will always manage to reach an agreement, but, once again, what bothers me is that the amendments had been adopted. We worked hard and then the government just ignored everything that we did, without taking into account the work that was done and the testimony we heard in committee.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whom I hold in high regard. It is unfortunate, but what this means is that the common good will not always be the priority. It means that a majority government thinks that it has the corner on truth. There is no harm in taking an opposition party’s amendments into account, particularly on a sensitive and delicate issue like this one. It seems to me that the least the government could do is work together. That does not mean that we will always manage to reach an agreement, but, once again, what bothers me is that the amendments had been adopted. We worked hard and then the government just ignored everything that we did, without taking into account the work that was done and the testimony we heard in committee.
“Ten women have been murdered in Quebec this year because they were women. That must stop. My party supports this bill to fix the military justice system and help victims of sexual misconduct. But I am angry that the government used its majority to vote down our committee changes.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to add my voice to those of all women and the entire population of Quebec who, this week, have experienced yet another tragedy: the 10th femicide of the year in Quebec in just four months. It is incredibly sad. It is unacceptable. As we speak, 10 women have been murdered by someone close to them simply for being women. At the beginning of the year, I agreed to join forces with organizations whose primary mission is to support women, so that we can flag this very important message: The next one is still alive. I am joining their efforts. Yesterday, there was a rally in front of the D’Main de Femmes women’s centre to say that enough is enough, that this is unacceptable, and that the entire community stands behind all these organizations dedicated to standing up for the cause of women. There are also organizations that help men better manage their anger, because it is together, as a team, that we will be able to build a more humane society and also care for women who are victims of violence. I would like to commend them and also offer my deepest condolences to the family of the woman who was murdered in Gatineau this week, the 10th woman to have been murdered in Quebec since January. I am rising to speak to Bill C-11, which is somewhat related to women’s issues. I think that sexual misconduct gave rise to this bill, which is almost the same as legislation that has been introduced before and which addresses serious needs. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We have always supported any initiatives to ensure justice and to protect women in uniform who have been the victims of sexual misconduct and who have not always felt as though the military has been on their side since it did not take the necessary steps to look after them. Bill C‑11 amends the National Defence Act and other acts. As I said, the government already attempted to introduce Bill C‑66 in a previous Parliament, but that bill died on the Order Paper. As everyone knows, Bill C‑11 follows the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Morris J. Fish and Louise Arbour, who, in their report on the issue of sexual misconduct, made several recommendations. Bill C‑11 implements several recommendations, including recommendation number five from the Arbour report, with the aim of removing the Canadian Armed Forces’ jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. The government would select these individuals rather than having the military leadership do so, and those individuals would therefore be immune to any form of blackmail, so to speak. The bill now allows military personnel from the rank of private to that of chief warrant officer to become military judges. Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial changes, including the option for victims to receive help from a victim liaison officer. As we know, when someone wants to report sexual misconduct, harassment or sexual violence, having a neutral party by their side to support them in everything they do is very important. Bill C‑11 has made it through a significant portion of the legislative process, including committee work, and it has been a lot of work. I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the tremendous work he did on making it possible to improve the bill. On that point, the Bloc Québécois members are proud to have secured amendments that improved the bill. Here are a few examples. We added the option for victims to request that a trial be held before a military court rather than being transferred to a civilian court. We also ensured that the bill clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. We also made a compromise amendment that is more realistic by allowing civilian authorities to transfer cases in accordance with victims’ recommendations, rather than imposing an automatic transfer. This would allow for the resolution of contentious cases, such as when there are multiple victims or when transferring the case could jeopardize the possibility of a trial within a reasonable time frame. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans can be appointed as military judges and so that military judges are released from the Canadian Armed Forces. In the meantime, the government secured a majority, as members well know. I would say that there has been an abuse of this majority, which was secured, as we all know, through floor crossers. The committee’s work was thorough. The committee listened to victims, who expanded on everything that Justice Arbour had heard and recommended. Victims spoke before the committee and their testimonies were used to form the basis of the amendments that were made to improve this bill. It is understandable, then, that we see this as an abuse of the majority. The government’s action is not consistent with what the Prime Minister always tells the media when he does interviews, which is that he expects members to be serious and thorough and that he does not want to see any obstruction. What we are seeing today is a bill whose amendments were completely thrown out by a majority government, which put them to a vote and disputed them. Because of the government’s majority, of course, virtually all of our amendments were defeated. Committees do serious work. If the government can do without the work of committees, perhaps it wants to abolish them. If this is happening now, will it also happen with regard to future bills? At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we work in relative harmony. I would say that we are working to improve Bill C-22, but I have concerns. I wonder whether I will end up working on amendments that go absolutely nowhere. Will I end up putting effort into a bill whose fate has already been decided by the government? Will the government reject every amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party or the Green Party? As we know, our democratic system is designed so that the opposition can help improve bills. In the case of Bill C-11, I think the government really missed the mark. I do not think it was really listening, and that is unfortunate. I hope this does not set the tone for all our work moving forward. I do not appreciate having my time wasted, and neither do most of my colleagues. We do not want to waste our time in committee deliberating, listening to witnesses, and then, in the end, not really knowing whether the government is going to challenge everything that had passed. In closing, as I said, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at third reading. The bill addresses a problem that was swept under the rug by both the Harper Conservatives and the Liberals. Even though we agree in principle, we had to speak out against the government’s lack of seriousness when it comes to the democratic process in place in parliamentary committees. I would like to use my remaining few seconds to commend the courage of my friend, Alain Therrien, who decided this week to pursue his political career by running in Quebec’s next provincial election and confronting the Premier of Quebec. That is to his credit. When he sat here, he was a very active leader in our parliamentary lives. I want to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in wishing him the best of luck and success in Quebec’s next election.”
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, before I begin my speech, I would like to add my voice to those of all women and the entire population of Quebec who, this week, have experienced yet another tragedy: the 10th femicide of the year in Quebec in just four months. It is incredibly sad. It is unacceptable. As we speak, 10 women have been murdered by someone close to them simply for being women. At the beginning of the year, I agreed to join forces with organizations whose primary mission is to support women, so that we can flag this very important message: The next one is still alive. I am joining their efforts. Yesterday, there was a rally in front of the D’Main de Femmes women’s centre to say that enough is enough, that this is unacceptable, and that the entire community stands behind all these organizations dedicated to standing up for the cause of women. There are also organizations that help men better manage their anger, because it is together, as a team, that we will be able to build a more humane society and also care for women who are victims of violence. I would like to commend them and also offer my deepest condolences to the family of the woman who was murdered in Gatineau this week, the 10th woman to have been murdered in Quebec since January. I am rising to speak to Bill C-11, which is somewhat related to women’s issues. I think that sexual misconduct gave rise to this bill, which is almost the same as legislation that has been introduced before and which addresses serious needs. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We have always supported any initiatives to ensure justice and to protect women in uniform who have been the victims of sexual misconduct and who have not always felt as though the military has been on their side since it did not take the necessary steps to look after them. Bill C‑11 amends the National Defence Act and other acts. As I said, the government already attempted to introduce Bill C‑66 in a previous Parliament, but that bill died on the Order Paper. As everyone knows, Bill C‑11 follows the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Morris J. Fish and Louise Arbour, who, in their report on the issue of sexual misconduct, made several recommendations. Bill C‑11 implements several recommendations, including recommendation number five from the Arbour report, with the aim of removing the Canadian Armed Forces’ jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. The government would select these individuals rather than having the military leadership do so, and those individuals would therefore be immune to any form of blackmail, so to speak. The bill now allows military personnel from the rank of private to that of chief warrant officer to become military judges. Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial changes, including the option for victims to receive help from a victim liaison officer. As we know, when someone wants to report sexual misconduct, harassment or sexual violence, having a neutral party by their side to support them in everything they do is very important. Bill C‑11 has made it through a significant portion of the legislative process, including committee work, and it has been a lot of work. I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the tremendous work he did on making it possible to improve the bill. On that point, the Bloc Québécois members are proud to have secured amendments that improved the bill. Here are a few examples. We added the option for victims to request that a trial be held before a military court rather than being transferred to a civilian court. We also ensured that the bill clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. We also made a compromise amendment that is more realistic by allowing civilian authorities to transfer cases in accordance with victims’ recommendations, rather than imposing an automatic transfer. This would allow for the resolution of contentious cases, such as when there are multiple victims or when transferring the case could jeopardize the possibility of a trial within a reasonable time frame. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans can be appointed as military judges and so that military judges are released from the Canadian Armed Forces. In the meantime, the government secured a majority, as members well know. I would say that there has been an abuse of this majority, which was secured, as we all know, through floor crossers. The committee’s work was thorough. The committee listened to victims, who expanded on everything that Justice Arbour had heard and recommended. Victims spoke before the committee and their testimonies were used to form the basis of the amendments that were made to improve this bill. It is understandable, then, that we see this as an abuse of the majority. The government’s action is not consistent with what the Prime Minister always tells the media when he does interviews, which is that he expects members to be serious and thorough and that he does not want to see any obstruction. What we are seeing today is a bill whose amendments were completely thrown out by a majority government, which put them to a vote and disputed them. Because of the government’s majority, of course, virtually all of our amendments were defeated. Committees do serious work. If the government can do without the work of committees, perhaps it wants to abolish them. If this is happening now, will it also happen with regard to future bills? At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we work in relative harmony. I would say that we are working to improve Bill C-22, but I have concerns. I wonder whether I will end up working on amendments that go absolutely nowhere. Will I end up putting effort into a bill whose fate has already been decided by the government? Will the government reject every amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party or the Green Party? As we know, our democratic system is designed so that the opposition can help improve bills. In the case of Bill C-11, I think the government really missed the mark. I do not think it was really listening, and that is unfortunate. I hope this does not set the tone for all our work moving forward. I do not appreciate having my time wasted, and neither do most of my colleagues. We do not want to waste our time in committee deliberating, listening to witnesses, and then, in the end, not really knowing whether the government is going to challenge everything that had passed. In closing, as I said, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at third reading. The bill addresses a problem that was swept under the rug by both the Harper Conservatives and the Liberals. Even though we agree in principle, we had to speak out against the government’s lack of seriousness when it comes to the democratic process in place in parliamentary committees. I would like to use my remaining few seconds to commend the courage of my friend, Alain Therrien, who decided this week to pursue his political career by running in Quebec’s next provincial election and confronting the Premier of Quebec. That is to his credit. When he sat here, he was a very active leader in our parliamentary lives. I want to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in wishing him the best of luck and success in Quebec’s next election.
“We will support this bill. We agree with the recommendations, but we wanted changes that would give better support to victims. The government chose not to make those changes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s commentary. I think he realizes that the Bloc Québécois truly cares about helping to improve bills. We always say that if a thing is good for Quebec and good for Canada, so much the better. We always approach bills this way, and we take our work on parliamentary committees seriously. As we have said, we are going to support this bill, but what we had proposed was not a rejection of Justice Arbour’s recommendations, quite the contrary. I think that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I said as much in our two speeches. We agree with the recommendations, but we think that certain amendments could have improved the bill to provide better support to victims. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.”
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s commentary. I think he realizes that the Bloc Québécois truly cares about helping to improve bills. We always say that if a thing is good for Quebec and good for Canada, so much the better. We always approach bills this way, and we take our work on parliamentary committees seriously. As we have said, we are going to support this bill, but what we had proposed was not a rejection of Justice Arbour’s recommendations, quite the contrary. I think that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I said as much in our two speeches. We agree with the recommendations, but we think that certain amendments could have improved the bill to provide better support to victims. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.
“The official opposition is using House rules to show the government it made a mistake. The government rejected changes to this bill that MPs from several parties agreed on. I hope the government changes its mind to help the victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe the official opposition is using the tools at its disposal to make the government realize that it has taken the wrong path by outright rejecting all the amendments that had been adopted by Conservative, Bloc Québécois and Liberal MPs, too; it is worth pointing that out. I hope that the government, through this permissible parliamentary strategy, will realize that it made the wrong choice and will make amends on behalf of the victims.”
Mr. Speaker, I believe the official opposition is using the tools at its disposal to make the government realize that it has taken the wrong path by outright rejecting all the amendments that had been adopted by Conservative, Bloc Québécois and Liberal MPs, too; it is worth pointing that out. I hope that the government, through this permissible parliamentary strategy, will realize that it made the wrong choice and will make amends on behalf of the victims.
“I want to talk about moving military sexual assault cases to civilian courts, and letting victims choose where their cases are handled. Given my colleague's experience as a social worker, I want her to speak about why it is important to respect victims in these situations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of transferring sexual assault cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system, as well as to the amendment aimed at granting victims the right to speak, or even a right of veto, so that they can make a choice in this regard. I know that my colleague is an experienced social worker. She has extensive experience in mediation and conciliation. She has met many people in her career. I would like her to speak to us about the importance of respecting victims in this type of situation.”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of transferring sexual assault cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system, as well as to the amendment aimed at granting victims the right to speak, or even a right of veto, so that they can make a choice in this regard. I know that my colleague is an experienced social worker. She has extensive experience in mediation and conciliation. She has met many people in her career. I would like her to speak to us about the importance of respecting victims in this type of situation.
“Victims should be allowed to decide how their cases are handled. I want to know why the government did not give them that choice.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of my professional association of social workers, so I cannot use that title anymore. However, I had a very rewarding career as a social worker that helped me to realize that when we are helping or supporting a victim, their consent is important. It is also important to understand how the victim wants to approach the process, how they want to go about it, so that they can feel as though justice has been served for the injuries, violence and harassment they experienced and for their work environment’s failure to listen and to provide support. In that sense, I think that the decision should rest with the victims. Since I did not participate in the work of the committee, I would also like to understand why the government did not agree that victims should have the right to make their own decisions.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of my professional association of social workers, so I cannot use that title anymore. However, I had a very rewarding career as a social worker that helped me to realize that when we are helping or supporting a victim, their consent is important. It is also important to understand how the victim wants to approach the process, how they want to go about it, so that they can feel as though justice has been served for the injuries, violence and harassment they experienced and for their work environment’s failure to listen and to provide support. In that sense, I think that the decision should rest with the victims. Since I did not participate in the work of the committee, I would also like to understand why the government did not agree that victims should have the right to make their own decisions.
“The government has a new majority and is ignoring other parties. It ignored our suggested changes to this military justice bill. I want the member to explain why the government will not listen to us.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon pointed out in their speeches that, with its new majority, the government has a frustrating tendency to no longer listen to the opposition parties. That is what happened with this bill. Some amendments were set aside. I know that the member for Winnipeg North enjoys sparring in the House. Since he rises on just about every issue, he can probably tell me whether the government’s new way of doing things involves ignoring the opposition parties’ opinions and adopting an “I won, so shut up” attitude.”
Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon pointed out in their speeches that, with its new majority, the government has a frustrating tendency to no longer listen to the opposition parties. That is what happened with this bill. Some amendments were set aside. I know that the member for Winnipeg North enjoys sparring in the House. Since he rises on just about every issue, he can probably tell me whether the government’s new way of doing things involves ignoring the opposition parties’ opinions and adopting an “I won, so shut up” attitude.
“I want a straight answer to my question. We proposed a change to let victims of sexual assault choose between a civilian court or a military court. Why did the Liberals remove that change from the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else. We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think. I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed? I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it? I would like to hear a rational explanation.”
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else. We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think. I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed? I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it? I would like to hear a rational explanation.
