Bill C-77 (Historical)

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system.
It adds a new Division, entitled “Declaration of Victims Rights”, to the Code of Service Discipline, that specifies that victims of service offences have a right to information, protection, participation and restitution in respect of service offences. It adds or amends several definitions, including “victim” and “military justice system participant”, and specifies who may act on a victim’s behalf for the purposes of that Division.
It amends Part III of that Act to, among other things,
(a) specify the purpose of the Code of Service Discipline and the fundamental purpose of imposing sanctions at summary hearings;
(b) protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences;
(c) specify factors that a military judge is to take into consideration when determining whether to make an exclusion order;
(d) make testimonial aids more accessible to vulnerable witnesses;
(e) allow witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in appropriate cases;
(f) on application, make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 mandatory;
(g) in certain circumstances, require a military judge to inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to inform the victims of any plea agreement entered into by the accused and the prosecutor;
(h) provide that the acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims and to the community is a sentencing objective;
(i) provide for different ways of presenting victim impact statements;
(j) allow for military impact statements and community impact statements to be considered for all service offences;
(k) provide, as a principle of sentencing, that particular attention should be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders;
(l) provide for the creation, in regulations, of service infractions that can be dealt with by summary hearing;
(m) provide for a scale of sanctions in respect of service infractions and for the principles applicable to those sanctions;
(n) provide for a six-month limitation period in respect of summary hearings; and
(o) provide superior commanders, commanding officers and delegated officers with jurisdiction to conduct a summary hearing in respect of a person charged with having committed a service infraction if the person is at least one rank below the officer conducting the summary hearing.
Finally, the enactment makes related and consequential amendments to certain Acts. Most notably, it amends the Criminal Code to include military justice system participants in the class of persons against whom offences relating to intimidation of a justice system participant can be committed.

National Defence Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for speaking so eloquently on this legislation, as so many of his other colleagues have done for 20 minutes each in the last several hours.

I would note, although I find it very interesting, that this legislation was brought before the House by the former Conservative government five days before the House rose in 2015, and essentially would lead to the dissolving of Parliament. I cannot imagine how all of those Conservative MPs who wanted to speak to this issue were going to be able to do that plus see the bill go to committee, come back to the House, go to the Senate and go through the process there in order for it to be ratified.

I am wondering if my colleague would agree that perhaps the approach that the Conservative Party is taking on this issue now is slightly disingenuous given that it brought this forward a mere five days before the House rose in 2015.

If they were genuinely concerned about this issue, then they would agree that it is time to vote in favour of the bill and let it go to committee so that the proper work can be done there. It can then come back to the House where it can be ratified and become a reality for the people that it affects.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his disconcerting tone. We are now dealing with this. I certainly did not have the opportunity to speak to it three years ago, but now we have had three years and he is concerned about the three hours that we are going to get to speak to this bill. If the government were really concerned about this on the day we have now, why did it take it three years to get it here? We have three hours to talk to it. That is why so many on our side are concerned about it.

They want to have their say, and this is again about victims' rights, not the offenders' rights. The Liberals are so concerned about offenders' rights every day they speak in this House that they forget about the victims in many cases.

This is a prime example of why I am pleased. As the member may know and may have heard me say, I am in favour of moving this forward. However, I do believe it is very important for each colleague from all sides of the House, and I notice that the Liberals think it is so important that they are not even speaking to it. I wonder about their sincerity in their efforts to bring this forward.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been plenty of Liberals to speak to this. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and I have been asking question after question and receiving no response from the Conservatives, so I will ask the question again. The Conservatives are ragging the puck on this issue. Speaker after speaker is bringing up the same speech and same talking points. They are saying they cannot possibly appear on the committee. Any member can go to a committee. I am sure the hon. members of the defence committee would love to have all of these Conservatives go there and sit in and participate and bring forward amendments. It is their right as members of Parliament.

However, there seems to be a reason for it and it has not been answered. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and I have asked this numerous times: Why are they ragging the puck on this if it is the same talking points? I understand it if it is a nuanced debate and there are different speeches every time. However, if we are getting the same speech time after time, what is the point in ragging the puck on this? I would like to know.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I kind of alluded to just a few minutes ago, in reply to his colleague's question, if they want to talk about ragging the puck, why has it taken three years to get the bill before the House again? The government is allowing a few hours for us to be able to put our views forward on this bill. I can assure the member that CFB Shilo is in no other member's riding than my own. That is why I started off, if the member was listening to my speech today, by crediting the fine members of the Canadian Forces Base Shilo under Lieutenant-Colonel David MacIntyre there, and Lieutenant-Colonel Jay MacKeen as well.

I have had the occasion to attend many great events of the base in Shilo and deal with a whole host of areas. One of them is a favourite program of my own. I do a charity golf tournament every year. In the very first one that I ever put on, half of the proceeds went to the Military Family Resource Centre at the base at Shilo. It was dealing with the languages, with French and English, and learning more from each side, as well as the opportunities for the families to be able to use that centre better. This is purely an example of why we wanted to have the opportunity to move forward with this bill.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh at the other side talking about being disingenuous. Let us go back to the throne speech of the government where it says, “And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.”

The member here behind me represents CFB Shilo. There is the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who represents Petawawa. I represent Borden. The member for Simcoe—Grey spoke, and she talked about Borden. What is it with the Liberals that they do not respect the military enough to give this debate enough time that it deserves, and to give those members those free and open debates that they rightfully deserve and that the government made clear were going to happen in the House of Commons based on its throne speech? Why is that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for making the sincere point that he has made, that many of my colleagues on this side of the House represent Canadian Forces base areas. I thank him for pointing that out, because I know that a number of my colleagues have spoken about this bill here.

I think the government has, to a certain extent, recognized that this is following up on a bill that was brought forward by the Conservative government. However, there are still improvements that we could put into this bill. I think there will be some amendments come forward. Maybe the government will have some of its own, as it moves forward with this bill, to make sure that it is giving more rights to victims.

As I pointed out earlier, we all have to follow the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, there are military rules for justice that military members follow on their own bases across the country. I look forward to seeing this bill dealt with at committee.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the Victims Bill of Rights. However, the best way to deal with victims is to prevent them from becoming victims. There are all sorts of provisions that are being put in for victims. However, in my experience, the people who are on the receiving end of the most egregious assaults are the ones who are just entering the military. They do not know what is or is not normal, what is acceptable, and how far this control in the military and the pain that is inflicted upon them actually goes. Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague this. At what point in the career of recruits should they be receiving education as to what their rights are with respect to being victimized?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that excellent question deserves a great deal of thought. From day one someone joining the military needs to know. At the onset of joining they could be told, “If something happens down the road, here are the things that could happen.” It would be a very simple understanding and obligation of our military to be able to provide that to our young force members who are coming in.

I experienced another first-hand case myself just a few short weeks ago at CFB Shilo when I was there for the Battle of Medak sunset ceremony. It was the 25th anniversary. There were 78 retired and active military people. Some members from that battle 25 years ago are still active members. They were very much impressed by the new troops who were marching that day at the Shilo base, so much so that when they came back to do their parade on Sunday morning, those who were involved in the battle at the time paraded in front of the stand with their colonel. They then formed two rows of retired veterans and had the new troops march between them. Afterward, these new troops told me that they will never forget that. However, the people who will really never forget it are the retired ones. They were most impressed by the beginnings of these young soldiers as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, the Environment; and the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Justice.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to stand in the House today to speak about what we on all sides of the House know is an important bill, one that will seek to put victims at the centre of military law going forward.

Before I go directly into the bill, there are a few things that I want to address. Last week was a very telling week for the government and Canadians watching the government, with regard to those who have served in the military and have been victimized in different ways and through different avenues, some through PTSD and other things. We heard the Minister of Veterans Affairs refer to the underfunding of Veterans Affairs, such as for prepaid phone cards or credit cards and getting those back. If that is the attitude toward our veterans after they have served our country, the government's attitude is probably not much different toward those who are currently serving. Therefore, I can understand why it took three years to finally bring this bill, which was already written, to the House.

This bill reminds me a lot of Bill C-71. We have waited three years for anything to come to the House for other victims of society. For those who deal with accessibility or disability issues, we were promised movement in six months, and we have it now finally after three years, and even then, we are not seeing anything with any teeth.

Over the last few weeks, we have also seen government not putting victims of crime at the centre of care. An individual who was convicted of murder has been given post-traumatic stress support by psychologists and funding from Veterans Affairs, while former members of the military go into any or all members' offices requesting the same. I do not think this is a partisan issue. I would guess that MPs whose ridings are near bases, like my riding, which is about 10 kilometres from a base, have dealt with and heard some very difficult stories from those currently serving, about the services they are looking for and not having those services signed off on by Veterans Affairs, or if they are currently serving, by the Department of National Defence.

There are incredibly heart-wrenching stories that MPs and these individuals deal with. They are just not put at the centre of the process. They are not cared for in the way we would hope. I feel it is the same in the case of Mr. Christopher Garnier, seeing the way he was treated versus many veterans who fought for our country and those currently serving fighting for our freedom or others' freedom around the world.

I will go directly into the bill at this point. Despite the fact that it has taken three years, I want to congratulate the minister for bringing the bill to the House. It is said that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, so it is wonderful to see the government copy and paste from the previous Conservative government's work on Bill C-71 and continue this march forward.

This is a bill that politicians from all parties in the House want to support, as there is no greater duty of the Government of Canada, indeed, any government, than to provide for the physical safety of its citizens, especially those serving within our military. Unfortunately, in many instances, the government cannot be everywhere at all times to prevent a crime from occurring. When such a thing does happen, it is the duty of the Canadian government to ensure that justice is administered in a fair and equitable way. Conservatives have always stood up for the victims of crime and we take pride in knowing that we stand on the side of justice and to ensure that victims have an effective voice in the criminal justice system.

It is because of these core values that our previous Conservative government enacted the Victims Bill of Rights, and why we support enshrining victims' rights within the military justice system. It is because of these core values that our Conservative government brought forward Bill C-71 in the last Parliament.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would again like to applaud the members of the government for reintroducing Bill C-71 under its new name. I would also like to reiterate that a Conservative government will always have the backs of victims of crime. That said, it should come as no surprise to the members opposite that we will be supporting Bill C-77's getting to the committee stage.

An essential requirement of justice is that justice is blind. There can be no preference in a court of law for a person's race, religion, sex, age or anything else. All Canadian citizens must be given equal and fair treatment in any case before the judiciary. This is a principle that is completely intertwined with the concept of justice. Equality before the law is something that stretches back almost a thousand years to the signing of the Magna Carta in England. Sadly, we have not always lived up to that high principle, but the concept of equality before the law has served as an excellent guiding compass in creating an ever more just society.

The military justice system in Canada comes from a long and distinguished history, going back to the roots of the British military. Any serious military force in the world requires a robust military justice system to improve and maintain the fighting effectiveness, discipline and morale of its fighting forces. It is because of our armed forces' effectiveness, discipline and morale that Canada and our allies have been so successful in protecting our God-given freedoms from aggressive foreign enemies.

With Remembrance Day very quickly approaching, we would all do well to reflect upon the sacrifice of our valiant men and women who made Canada, and how the military justice system contributed to their ultimate success. An effective military justice system is essential for both operational efficiency and to ensure that Canadians see justice being served and completed in a fair way. It is why the previous government brought forth legislation that mirrored the Victims Bill of Rights and made sure it was put into military law as well.

The previous Conservative government understood that the highest priority for every and any government must be the safety of its own citizens, and to ensure that justice is properly administered when prevention impossible. It is why putting the rights of victims front and centre of the criminal justice system is a central tenet of our party.

Prior to the previous government, the criminal justice system leaned far too heavily toward protecting the rights of criminals. The previous Conservative government believed that balance needed to be brought back to the criminal justice system, and so we took concrete steps to hold criminals accountable for their misdeeds.

One such concrete measure was to introduce the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which introduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain sexual offences and for drug dealers. Another such example was the Victims Bill of Rights, which gave victims of crime enhanced access to information, protection, participation and restitution. Taking that and applying it to our military justice system is certainly something we will stand behind. Through this process, I am sure there are going to be ideas brought to the table on how to better this bill and strengthen it where it perhaps has failings. However, on the whole, I want to see, as I know all members of this House do, this move forward in principle.

In terms of the victims of crime, I said that last week was a defining week for what Canadians saw of their government, especially when it comes to victims of crime and to criminals themselves. At question period, question after question was asked about one of the killers of Tori Stafford. The killer was moved from one medium security facility to another, and in this case, she was removed from behind bars to a healing lodge. Canadians were very upset. However, no one was more upset than the father of Tori Stafford. We saw that through the media. We saw that through statements from him. We certainly saw that through Canadians who were around the family.

I found it incredibly telling when members on this side asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do to correct this injustice and support the victims rather than the person who had participated in this brutal murder. After question after question, the answer consistently seemed to be that the Prime Minister was outraged that members of the House would stand up in defence of the victims in this case and talk about the crime that was committed. The Prime Minister asked us to no longer speak about the details of the crime itself.

What really struck me was why the Prime Minister was not upset about the crime itself. Why was the Prime Minister admonishing members of the House for bringing up the factual details of how a person who had murdered an eight year old was moved to a healing lodge, instead of standing up and saying that the person who committed this crime was not serving out what Canadians would consider justice in moving to this place, and condemning the change in the facility, and moving forward hand in hand with Canadians and, more importantly, hand in hand with the victims of this crime, Tori Stafford's family?

I could not get over it. I did not understand it, especially when we consider that Bill C-77 is coming forward and we are talking consistently, as a House, about standing up for Canadians who are unable to stand up for themselves. I do not remember going to a single door where someone said that criminals needed more rights, that people who commit murders need more rights and that we need to be talking about their rights more and more. However, I do remember hearing over and over again from Canadians that we need to ensure that we protect our citizens. We need to ensure that we support victims. It does not matter where in this country they are. It does not matter the colour of their skin. It does not matter their religion or faith. It does not matter their sexual orientation. It does not matter whether they are male or female. We need to ensure that we are protecting Canadians, and one way we protect Canadians is by ensuring that those who are victims are given the supports they need.

However, that was not demonstrated in the House by the government and the Prime Minister last week. Instead, we saw the Prime Minister going in the complete opposite direction of what I believe the bill being presented by the government is trying to do. When laying the facts out and asking questions about cases in which victims have been severely hurt, we were admonished in this case for talking about what happened to this young lady. However, it was not deemed terrible that the person who did it has seen a form of freedom they do not deserve and is completely unjust. I just do not get it. I am trying to rationalize the same government bringing forward the bill before us, which sat on a shelf for three years, with a government that could not come out and say this was unjust.

Day after day, we need to be consistent. The message to Canadians needs to be consistent, that we will take the side of victims, that if people commit crimes, especially heinous crimes, as in the two situations I brought up today, they will pay the full penalty, the full price. Even when they are paying that penalty, that full price, it will never, ever undo the pain that has been caused to their victims.

We, as parliamentarians, need to ensure from this moment forward that when we are talking about these crimes and these victims, when there are individual cases that need to be delved into because of some injustice that has happened, that we are respectful on both sides of the House. However, the first piece of respect needs to be that it is not wrong to speak about the crime that has happened, but it is wrong to let the injustice continue.

I know, as we look forward with respect to changes to the military justice system, with respect to changes that are brought forward by the bill, that they will be done with the best of intentions, that some banter and some debate will occur at the committee level, that there will likely be amendments brought forward and that there will be testimony from those who serve in the military, from different organizations, victims' organizations, etc.

I hope, as we go through that process, we can sincerely put the victim at the centre of that process, not just a bill, not just our talking points. I hope we can move forward putting victims at the centre of the bill to ensure that what comes out committee is even better than the one that goes in and that we can win the support of everybody in the House.

I would like to end with one piece. I have a mother who is an incredible woman. I got my activism from her. For many years she lobbied, and many of the members in the House have received letters and requests, that victims, specifically of sexual crimes, be put first. I take notice of being able to stand to speak to this bill, of being able to look back, whether it was at the white ribbon campaign against child pornography, or human trafficking or many other things, which the Victims Bill of Rights was originally brought in to help with and now is being applied to the military justice system.

I take a lot of pride in knowing that one Canadian, and I am sure there was at least one in every riding, stood up and put pressure on the government of the day to bring something forward. I take a lot of pride in standing up as a Conservative, knowing that it was our government that brought forward the Victims Bill of Rights. I take pride in knowing that we brought forward this bill, before the end of our mandate. I take pride in knowing that I will be able to be part of this hopeful solution at the end.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during his remarks, the member made a comment, which many members on the other side of the House have been making, about why it had taken so long to get this legislation to the House.

I would argue that it is exactly because of the reason why we seem to be stalled on it right now. Time and again the Conservatives put up road blocks to moving forward with legislation. We all know that we all agree on this. We are all going to, pretty much unanimously, vote in favour of this.

Why are we not sending it to committee so it can be properly studied, so the people who could be impacted by it will genuinely have an opportunity when it becomes legislation? I have already asked that, and I do not expect to get a clear answer. I will ask the member something else.

The member also mentioned vets. He talked about the record of Liberals versus Conservatives when it came to vets. Interestingly enough, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry posted something on his Facebook page last week. He asked which party defended the rights of veterans. Then he put a Conservative logo and a Liberal logo. He had a whopping 1,400 votes on that. The Conservative member's own poll yielded 26% for the Conservatives and 74% for the Liberals.

Would the member agree that the poll is correct, or would he suggest that the constituents from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry do not have their facts straight?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the first part of the member's question, if it was a question. I believe he was asking how parliamentarians on this side of the House, and I have heard him speak at other times on this, could stand, represent our constituents, represent our armed forces, represent victims of crime, represent veterans and do our job to ensure the voices of Canadians were heard in the people's House. Are you kidding me? This is day two. You waited three years and this is day two. That type of politics has no place in the House, especially when we are dealing with such an important subject as victims of crime being added into the military justice system.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would encourage you to encourage the member to refer to me through you. As he was saying “you”, I do not think that is proper parliamentary practice.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Indeed, he is correct that we do encourage all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair and use the third person. It does avoid the inflection of personal remarks to individual members as opposed to the neutral chair occupant as is the case.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I knew you were not kidding me.