Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say this is a tough bill or a tough speech for me to give, but I do have my own unique military background, which includes having spent 25 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I spent a lot of that time as a presiding officer. Fortunately, as a presiding officer, I did not have to oversee sexual misconduct cases. Those would go to court martial and were never in my purview.
Let us back up to how we got to where we are today. Reference has been made to Madam Arbour's report, and before that there was Madam Deschamps' report. I want to share with everyone how shocked and disappointed I was when the Deschamps report came out. I was literally flabbergasted.
The Canadian Armed Forces is representative of a cross section of Canadian society. We are going to have bad apples and phenomenally good people. I was somebody who was an infantry officer, who served in a combat arms unit, which gets a bad rap a lot of the time, and I had never personally witnessed any of these cases. It was shocking when it came out because I had not had feedback shared with me by my former female colleagues in our Canadian Armed Forces. I reached out once that report came out and asked some of them about it. Some of them were senior officers. The horror stories that I heard just absolutely blew me away. Unfortunately, there have been challenges within the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to sexual misconduct and justice for the victims being delivered.
I am sharing this because it is important that we get it right. We cannot just overreact. The military is no different than any other organization. Sometimes a solution creates two other problems. We have to make sure we are looking at this from all angles, both for the victims and the accused. The reason I bring up the accused is that we just have to go back over the last half-dozen years or so to see that some very senior officers had allegations brought up against them that in the end turned out to be unsubstantiated. In some cases, the officers were acquitted.
One of my best friends, a still-serving brigadier general, has done a phenomenal job. This goes back to almost 10 years ago. I think it was around 2015 when he was unjustly accused. Fortunately, due to the system finally sorting it out, he has been able to successfully maintain his career in the Canadian Armed Forces. He has been promoted a couple of times since then and currently serves.
I am just bringing that up because it is important that the system works in an impartial way to address the issues. We absolutely have to stamp out any sexual misconduct that occurs anywhere in society, while at the same time making sure that due process is followed.
There are about five elements to this bill from a summary perspective. I want to touch on each one of them slightly, except for one. The first one is that it obviously amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of sexual misconduct offences to civilian courts when they take place here in Canada.
The parliamentary secretary talked about this in her speech. I asked her how it is working so far, and she is committed to getting the data. This ties into another question that I had already asked. We now have about three-plus years of data. I want to know how many cases are being accepted by the civilian courts. What are the findings? Are any of them being delayed? I am concerned about the Jordan principle, because, again, if justice is delayed, these victims will not get the justice they need.
Another aspect to this transfer is that, unfortunately, the cases that occur overseas while our military members are deployed would still be prosecuted by our military police within the Canadian Armed Forces and within our military justice system, with its prosecutors and judge advocates general. This was a question that was brought up during a technical brief. It was asked, and I do not want to say we have been reassured, but the government has been talking about the fact that there is going to be training. My concern is that training has to be really good because why are we saying that our military police, judge advocates general and the military justice system are not good enough to deal with cases here in Canada, but they are good enough when they happen overseas?
Those are the first two points of the bill that would change certain things.
Another aspect of the bill is that it would increase the independence of the director of military prosecution, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general by having them appointed by the Governor in Council and report directly to the minister of national defence with term limits. I am not going to get into depth on that. I do think there are questions that can be asked in the review process of the bill as to how it would actually change anything internally or externally with the independence.
I think it is a little, I do not want to say mythical, but in my experience, and I can speak only from my experience, our military police were very much granted independence for everything they did. It was very much frowned upon and stamped out if somebody in the chain of command tried to interfere with the process going forward. I have had nothing but positive feedback in dealing with our military police, our national investigation service and our judge advocates general in the prosecutions that have taken place.
I talked about the importance of the data. One of the issues, though, that needs to come up as well is that if somebody is alleged to have done something wrong in the military system, they are provided with military defence counsel, but as soon as a case goes into the civilian courts, and if it is one of our soldiers, sailors or air crew who has been alleged to have done something wrong, they are no longer entitled to military defence; they are on their own dime.
I have already provided one example, and there are a couple of others I can think of, where the people who have been alleged to have done something wrong went through the process, and rightly so, but when it was determined that they in fact had done nothing wrong, it cost them literally tens of thousands of personal dollars, if not more. Their only way to get any coverage back was to sue the government or the Department of National Defence and the chain of command, to be reimbursed through civil litigation, which takes way more time.
It is a question I have; I do not know what the right answer is. I am hoping that when the bill gets to committee or goes through the amendment processes, the government considers how it is going to handle that.
What I want to talk about in the last bit of my speech is a bit more technical in nature. I have asked the question; I have not gotten a response back from the ministers or the department yet, but it is interesting that the bill would lay out a deadline for the provost marshal general, as it would now be called, to provide an annual report, a deadline of three months. I am wondering, so it is more of a question the government can take note of because I do not have a response yet, why was there not a similar timeline included for the judge advocate general when the government was updating the military justice system with the bill ? They are mandated to provide an annual report, but there is no timeline on it.
The second question I have that is tied to the previous one is this: What is the “so what”? What would be the repercussions if the provost marshal general did not submit a report on time? What would happen to them?
Ultimately the military justice system is a system that I believe is crucially needed within the military. It ensures service disciple. However, obviously we need to make sure the victims are taken care of. The decision has been made; this has gone forward, and we are moving to civilian courts to prosecute any sexual misconduct. Our military justice system, I fully agree, needs to be improved; however, my only concern is, let us not fix the one problem while creating one or two others.
I am optimistic that all parties can work together to come up with a way to make sure that the bill is the best bill possible to ensure that everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces, men and women who serve this nation, are properly protected.