Uqaqtittiji, I will start by sharing that the NDP supports Bill C-11.
I dedicate this speech to the victims of abuse in the military, who deserve justice.
Canadians who serve and have served in the armed forces and reserves deserve our respect and gratitude. Women, men, members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, indigenous people and racialized minorities have all served in our military. Too many of them have been subject to sexual assault. Too many have to endure racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia in the course of their service.
Members of the Canadian Armed Forces put their lives at risk to defend our sovereignty at home and abroad. They and their families sacrifice so much in order to serve Canada. The NDP is committed to ensuring their health, well-being, safety and protection. We advocate to ensure that they have supports and services while serving and when they leave military service.
The Canadian Armed Forces is important for our security and, indeed, our sovereignty. We are all shocked by the news stories of military sexual trauma, and we all want to see meaningful culture change in our military.
I begin by sharing a historical perspective on why we support the bill. In 2015, Justice Deschamps issued her report, with important recommendations. It took the Liberals years to respond.
In 2022, the Liberals accepted recommendations in a separate report by Justice Arbour. The Liberals told Canadians that they would begin transferring all criminal sexual offence investigations to civilian courts. This is another Liberal broken promise. Three years later, approximately half of the cases remain within the military justice system. Why? We do not know.
There were major problems with the cases that were transferred. Retired corporal Arianna Nolet was one of the first military sexual trauma victims to have her case transferred to civilian courts. Unfortunately, her case was stayed because of time delays in the back-and-forth between military and civilian police.
Since this incident, multiple other cases have been stayed because of delays, resulting in a lack of justice for survivors. The causes for the delays were twofold: First, civilian authorities were wary of taking over a case, and because of concurrent jurisdiction, they were not mandated to accept the case. Second, the transfer of case files by the military police was significantly delayed, causing commentators to speculate on whether the military police was unduly stalling the transfer.
New Democrats continue to advocate for better outcomes for survivors of military sexual trauma. My friend and colleague, NDP MP Rachel Blaney, was responsible for the landmark parliamentary study on the experience of women veterans. They gave first-hand accounts of the horrific treatments they endured while serving in Canada's military. The study culminated in a powerful report in 2024 entitled “Invisible No More.” This report was the catalyst that finally pushed the Liberal government to act.
NDP MP Lindsay Matheson undertook a summer of consultations with survivors and subsequently introduced a private member's bill. Bill C-362 would have immediately ended concurrent jurisdiction and ensured that no future cases were caught in the tug-of-war over jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Lindsay's bill, Bill C-362, died on the Order Paper when Trudeau prorogued Parliament.
Given the state of Bill C-11 and the way it was tabled, some questions must be studied at committee. I will name a few. First, the bill does not adequately address incidents in the reserves, the navy, the cadets program or international deployments. Why are they not included? Do they not deserve justice?
Second, survivors feel betrayed by the federal government. Survivors tell us they need more pathways to justice. They say pathways to justice will be taken away. What consultations included victims, and in what way are their voices included in Bill C-11?
Third, the bill may have the unintended consequence of creating a binary between criminal behaviour and lesser forms of harassment, which may become more permissive and have fewer supports. What amendments will be needed to ensure victims of any abuse see the justice they deserve?
Fourth, since the sexual misconduct by senior leadership scandal, the NDP calls to make the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces ombuds an officer of Parliament are amplified. This position must have the power to compel documents and conduct systemic investigations. Will other parties support amendments to ensure greater civilian oversight?
Fifth, amendments are needed in terms of the new victim liaison officer. The commanding officer must not be the one to appoint the officer. Given that many cases directly or indirectly involve the commanding officer, we need to find an alternative to this proposal. The appointment must occur outside the chain of command. Further, parliamentarians need to review legal assistance for survivors and the independence of counselling services for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Sixth, the Prime Minister warned of an austerity budget. Expanding the mandate of civilian law enforcement without a corresponding increase to their budget will create problems, and, indeed, potentially cost more. The November budget could include cuts to legal services and law enforcement agencies. This makes no sense. Will the budget further cut funding for the military police?
Seventh, given the composition of the Canadian Armed Forces, investigations may include victims, witnesses and others across multiple jurisdictions, and potentially in secure military locations. A local police unit does not have the resources for these cases. It may be logistically difficult to recruit and deploy civilian law enforcement on an ad hoc basis. How will cases be investigated by civilian police when incidents occur across jurisdictions, especially for incidents that may occur during domestic operations, including routine operations in the north and Arctic naval coastal patrols? What about incidents that happen abroad? What tools will civilian courts have in international deployments, navy ships, etc. that cannot immediately be accessed by civilians?
We need to ensure issues such as custody of evidence are considered to avoid having cases thrown out.