James Bezan
Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Manitoba · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals themselves are warning that public investment in ag research and development has fallen by 15%. Private sector R and D outsourced to universities is down 77%. The number of firms conducting research in Canada has dropped by 30%.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us separate the fiction and actually have some reality here. Most of our troops are not seeing a bump in their paycheque because the Liberals continue to claw it back at every opportunity. Rents are up by more than 5% for military housing. Housing support is down in more than 10 of the major housing posting locations.”
“Mr. Speaker, everything the Liberals say about our military is just an illusion. They promised our troops raises, but they never materialized. Retention benefits for reserves are missing in action.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has driven Canada into a full-scale recession. Our economy has been shrinking for three of the last four quarters. We are the only G20 country in an economic downturn. While the government tries to downplay it, families know something is wrong. They feel it every day at the checkout counter.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to poke holes in the justice minister's argument over the length of debate on Bill C-16 . We only debated this for two days at second reading, and then we let it go on division so we could get it to the justice committee for study.”
“Madam Speaker, although we are legislators, it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to carry out our fiduciary duties and responsibilities to the taxpayers of Canada and to properly vet all of the legislation and spending of the government. This bill opens up a huge abyss of extra spending.”
The complete record
Every one of 360 lines we hold for James Bezan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“We know things have changed since Justice Arbour had her meetings and hearings with Canadian Armed Forces members. That is going back seven years now and the military has adjusted. New agencies have been put in place. Let us look at some of the testimony. Hélène Le Scelleur appeared at committee a couple of times going back several years. She said the following: Survivors must have the right to choose between civilian and military systems at all times, regardless of location or rank. Choice is not procedural. It is freedom: freedom from our aggressors and freedom from the silence that institutions have imposed upon us. I want to be clear that even with this choice, neither system is sufficient on its own. The military system understands the operational context. The civilian system provides independence and oversight.”
“As a matter of fact, they would still have to do that for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when they are outside Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual assault, as defined by the Criminal Code, would still be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces military justice system and under the superintendency of the judge advocate general. It would still be prosecuted if someone is stationed in Latvia, England or Kuwait. Wherever we have our forces stationed, its members would still be subject to military justice, except when they are in Canada. When they are in Canada, that is taken away from the military and from the victims who want choice. I have to say how important choice is. It is about making sure that those victims maintain agency and franchise over their rights and decide which system is in their best interest.”
“They are using their stolen majority and are even ignoring the advice of the Liberal members who sat on the national defence committee and helped make many of the amendments that were gutted at report stage. That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting Bill C-11 at third reading. It is a slap in the face to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It ignores advice that came from the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, who said that they can do the job and that they have changed because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Arbour report. They have upgraded their skills and processes to investigate, to prosecute and to hold those to account within the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“The Liberals decided, now that they have their new-found, stolen majority, to run roughshod over Parliament and run roughshod over committees, and overturn all the hard work we did. We worked across party lines to bring forward very reasonable amendments to Bill C-11 that would make Bill C-11 work for those who are serving and work for those who are having to deal with sexual misconduct. We want to be able to use all the tools that are now available within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, the Liberals decided to make the bill narrowcasted and unable to carry out the justice that victims of sexual misconduct are looking for.”
“There are higher thresholds there before a case will even proceed to prosecution and actually have success within the civilian justice system. (1035) That means that more of these perpetrators, more of these individuals who are committing sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, are going to walk free. Bill C-11 would remove all accountability, all prosecution and the ability to court-martial and carry out punitive measures against those perpetrators. Whether it is high-level or low-level sexual misconduct, removing that from the military would mean no accountability for those who are accused of carrying out sexual misconduct. That also would mean there would be no justice for those who have experienced sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“The reasoning they brought forward was the inspiration to make the amendments that we proposed at report stage, which were supported by the committee. I fear that, by the Liberals ignoring that advice, that brave and courageous testimony that we heard at committee, the Liberals are retraumatizing these victims. It just breaks my heart to know that these brave souls stepped up to tell their personal stories of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, sometimes happening many times over their careers. To have that thrown by the wayside at report stage, by the Minister of National Defence , proves that the government is not listening to those who are impacted. In reality, with what Bill C-11 does, especially here, as we are at third reading, all sexual misconduct and assault is going to be pushed off into the civilian system.”
“Rather than taking the advice of veterans, rather than taking the advice of those who carry out military justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, rather than listening to police agencies and barristers and military justice experts, the Liberals are ignoring all of that because of the one thing they continue to hide behind, which is the Arbour report. The government decided to choose political expediency instead of actually bringing in a function within the military that works for everyone, not just those few at the top of the Canadian Armed Forces who are just trying to push this off their table. The Liberals are trying to pass the buck rather than take responsibility. We heard from so many of the victims at committee, when we studied Bill C-11 .”
“I tell members that I am so disappointed in the Liberal government for not listening to those who serve, not listening to the survivors, not listening to veterans and not listening to police forces across this country, who have all said that we need to ensure that the agency of the victim is protected and that they have the choice to choose which justice system their cases are heard in, whether it is in the military justice system or in the civilian system. The Liberal government decided to be performative rather than pragmatic.”
“As the shadow minister of national defence, this is something that is near and dear to my heart, in standing up for those who have served or are serving and who have been dealing with sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Nobody should have to go to work and experience danger that is imposed by their fellow colleagues. When we have to deal with individuals who are being aggressive, individuals who are going to carry out sexual misconduct, that is not a safe work environment. We look at the brave women and men who serve. They have already decided to step up and do one of the most dangerous things in the world, which is to protect our great nation. Instead of fighting the enemy, they are actually fighting off their fellow soldiers, aviators and sailors who are carrying out sexual misconduct. We have to stop that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always important that I get to participate in these debates. First and foremost, I just want to thank the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard, who are out there every day, risking life and limb to keep us safe here at home, to secure our borders and to protect our security. It is often said that having a strong military actually ensures that we have economic prosperity. Having a prosperous country hardens our national security and our national defence. We need to continue to support those in the armed forces in everything that they do. On Bill C-11 , we have worked very hard on the bill for the last year.”
“The parliamentary secretary sat on the committee, heard the witnesses say that they wanted a sunset clause, voted for a sunset clause, and then her very own minister gutted the bill and she voted for him to gut the bill of these amendments. Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday here, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean asked a question on Bill C-11 of the Minister of National Defence . It was a Liberal member asking the Liberal minister if the Liberals would include a sunset clause, which they had removed and which we had already agreed to at committee stage. The parliamentary secretary actually voted for that amendment, to go from a three-year to a four-year anniversary to bring in a review and a sunset clause. Then the Liberal minister , not listening to our committee, with the report we brought forward, and not listening to the survivors of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault, decided to ram it through and take that out. Now the Liberals are saying, according to the minister, that they would be open to the unelected Senate bringing forward that amendment.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister can sit here and spin his numbers all he wants, but he fails to mention that he actually knew that basic training success rates have fallen down to 77%. It is so bad that one platoon graduated only 48% of its recruits. A military that cannot graduate its recruits, cannot integrate its members and cannot maintain basic standards is not a military that is ready to defend our country. When will the Liberal defence minister stop prioritizing his press releases over the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces?”
“Mr. Speaker, the defence minister told Canadians that he fixed the recruitment crisis, but like everything with these Liberals, it was just another illusion. A leaked military memo tells a very different story. Some recruits were unable to communicate in either official language, and there are damning reports of misogyny and racism. This is more Liberal mismanagement and more of the same. These Liberals did not fix the military; they lowered the bar so low and hoped nobody would actually notice. When will the minister stop ignoring the facts and admit that his recruitment reforms have failed?”
“The petitioners are calling on the government to hire back the 665 researchers and scientists within Agriculture Canada, and to reopen all those facilities to support Canada agriculture and Canadian food consumers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petition 451-00928, which is calling on the government to reinstate the agriculture research stations to be closed, announced on January 23. Over 665 positions were cut. This is a great concern to farmers and producers, as well as consumers in Canada, as we continue to undermine leading-edge research that is happening at Agriculture Canada research stations. To recap, the government announced it was going to cut the research facilities at Lacombe, Guelph, Quebec City, Indian Head, Scott, Portage la Prairie and Nappan, as well as the organic and regenerative research program at Swift Current Research and Development Centre.”
“At the end of the day, there was no accountability in the chain of command. Could my colleague please comment on that, as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her very strong speech, and for taking the time to actually review the testimony that we heard in committee and using that in her debate today on Bill C-11 now that we have closure on it. The Liberals continually use the Arbour report as their shield and explanation for why they are plowing ahead with these changes, which military justice experts and veterans are saying they do not want. The interesting fact is that the committee heard from the very survivors of military sexual trauma, who also talked to Justice Arbour. It was discovered that over the last five years, since they brought choice into the system and things were moved to the civilian system, they were not receiving justice because of the Jordan framework and the higher thresholds to prosecute.”
“The only justice who did not show up and whom the Liberals continue to use as their shield is Justice Arbour. She did not show up at the committee to defend her report, and that report has now been discredited by the testimony we heard from veterans, including in the military justice system. Why will the Liberals not listen to veterans and military experts rather than try to push through on their own political agenda?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to do a bit of a recap on the history, including pointing out the fact that in 2014 when sexual misconduct was becoming a major issue, the previous Conservative government commissioned Justice Deschamps to write a report. That report then sat on the desk of the former Liberal minister Harjit Sajjan, who was in the process of trying to cover up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance. The Liberals would rather cover things up than deal with the issues, and they ignored the nine great recommendations from Justice Deschamps. As a point of interest, I note that Justice Deschamps showed up at the committee's study on Bill C-11 . The Liberals always talk about Justice Fish's appearing. He appeared as well and also submitted a written submission. All of them said that choice is an option.”
“If he had been listening, he would have heard from police stations and police organizations across the country, as well as lawyers, saying to give victims the choice, so that they could choose which system they believe they are most comfortable in, whether it was the military system or the civilian system. If he listened to his own members of the Canadian Armed Forces, like the director of military prosecutions, like the director of defence counsel services, like the provost marshal general of the Canadian Armed Forces, they would have told him that they are all now at a better place, five years since the Arbour report, to actually bring in the changes that are needed to do what is right.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence admitted at committee that he took an old bill, Bill C-66 , and brought it back to the current Parliament as Bill C-11 . He never talked to anybody in the veterans community. He did not reach out and talk to members in the justice system within CAF. He never talked to anyone at the provincial level about the problems they are having in carrying on these prosecutions. If he had listened to veterans, and read the testimony that appeared in committee, they would have told him that they do not have faith in the civilian system, especially for low-level sexual misconduct; that they are going to be dismissed; and that there is then no recourse within the military system for any sort of administrative or disciplinary measures against those offenders.”
“Why is the minister ignoring veterans and survivors of military sexual trauma and not making sure they have a choice in what justice system they want to use, whether it is the military justice system or the civilian system?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is disgusting to see the government actually using closure to shut down debate on such a serious issue, sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is disgusting that it is taking away the voice of veterans, of people who are surviving military sexual trauma, and not listening to the amendments being brought forward on Bill C-11 . I do not know why the government is in a hurry on this. We brought it through committee in a relatively organized manner. We had cross-party support from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP to make amendments based on the testimony we heard at committee, and now the government wants to ignore all that, shut down debate and use its sneaky majority to stifle democracy right here.”
“By the Liberals rejecting their testimony today in this debate, will that revictimize them knowing that the Liberals are brushing everything off?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his service to Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy and his great work in standing up for victims. I first met the member's wife, Angel, who has also been a strong advocate of fighting for the survivors of military sexual trauma, when I was doing town halls across this country on military injuries, including military sexual trauma. Ever since then, she has been fighting for justice. After all of the committee hearings, the member and I and many others here have talked to veterans and current serving members across the country, and, particularly, the brave witnesses who stepped up at the national defence committee to look at Bill C-11 and lay out all their experiences.”
“Christine Wood said she “opposed the transfer of all cases to civilian court, and that was for three reasons: number one, it's broken; number two, it offers victims no choice; and number three, I believe the CAF has to maintain control over its jurisdiction and demonstrate it can be responsible for fixing its own harms.” A veteran who served, who experienced sexual misconduct and deals with military sexual trauma, is saying she needs choice. Other victims have said the exact same thing. Why will the Liberals not listen?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, who has been a long-time member of the defence committee. She has heard from more veterans, I am sure, than Justice Arbour did in her hearings several years ago. There is a base in the member's riding, and she is always advocating on behalf of members who serve, including the victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. The member has fought long and hard for victims and for the rights of women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard from many victims.”
“All those things are in place now. The Canadian Armed Forces has changed, so why not give the rights back to victims so they can choose what system best suits their need, regardless of their rank or where they are, whether in or outside Canada, on training, on base or in the community? They should have the supports they are asking for, not what the Liberals are shoving down their throats.”
“Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the Liberals use the Arbour report as their shield in why they are gutting all the amendments that were made by the defence committee, some of which were even supported by the Liberals, where we worked across party lines as Conservatives, Bloc members and the NDP. Much has changed since the Arbour report came out. We know that at the time, there was a mandatory duty to report; the military police and health care providers were not fully ready or trained, but now they are; military members were not under the victims' rights charter, but now that charter is in effect; military members did not have access to a fully mature SMSRC for supports; military members did not have access to independent legal supports; and finally, military members did not have access to victims' liaison services.”
“Some of them we heard from in testimony, such as the former director of military prosecutions, retired Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.” Does my colleague believe that what the Liberals are doing, by not listening to the victims and not keeping in place the amendments that multiple parties made together to improve Bill C-11 , is again going to empower the perpetrators and undermine the freedom of the victim?”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his service to Canada as a veteran, as a former commanding officer, whose family, his own son, is in the Royal Canadian Navy. My colleague talks about what we heard in testimony from those witnesses. There are more experts on military justice than just the one or two or three justices who have filed reports to the Department of National Defence and to ministers of national defence over the last 12 years.”
“The Liberals never even dusted it off as it sat in the corner of the desk of defence ministers, going back to former Minister Sajjan back in the day. If they had acted upon that, we may not be in this situation now. The director of military prosecutions said if it were not for the directive coming from the government, he would have rescinded the orders and gone back to a concurrent system.”
“Mr. Speaker, we always have the same indignation coming from the member for Winnipeg North. He wants to talk about marginalization. He is marginalizing victims because he is not paying attention to what they actually said at the national defence committee in their testimony. They bravely stood in front of the committee, shared their experiences and demanded to have more freedom regarding which justice system they were able to get charges prosecuted under and move forward with. The member talks about Madam Arbour. We thank her for her report, which includes the 48 recommendations. However, the current government, for 11 years, sat on the report from Madam Justice Deschamps without touching it or lifting it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his hard work on Bill C-11 at committee, bringing in witnesses and listening to them. We worked across party lines to get the best possible amendments to this bill that listen to victims. The member talked about how the Liberals have now stolen their majority in a very sneaky way by getting floor crossers. Can he talk to the fact that now the Liberals get to ignore what the victims actually said at committee, and why they would do that when this is actually in the best interest of the Canadian Armed Forces and those survivors?”
“Instead of having the ability to collaborate with our military police and national investigative service, they now have to go on base and take over all those investigations, without resources provided by the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file as well. As a veteran, he has always been there to champion people who have experienced military sexual misconduct. We heard from the Victoria Police Department that it does not have the resources or the number of investigators needed, that it is already dealing with a backlog and that it has been offered no support and no resources from the federal government. We also received a written brief from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction” and says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”.”
“Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence , the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to know exactly what Madam Justice Arbour thought. We invited her to committee, but she did not even bother showing up to defend her report. Let us put this in perspective. Madam Justice Arbour's study and report were done years ago. Things have changed. The director of military prosecutions had said that, on a short-term basis, they needed to adjust and pivot, and to move all cases under the ministerial directive from one of the former ministers of national defence. Because of that, the military is prepared to deal with the cases today. What Madam Justice Arbour said before is now irrelevant.”
“I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them.”
“A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.” I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut , who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence .”
“We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims' being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account. Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF's authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members.”
“When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country.”
“Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec.”
“We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French.”
“What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away. (1015) When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11 , he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66 , never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up.”
“Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence 's not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level. The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill.”
“When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs. I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11 , previously Bill C-66 . It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side.”
“They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form. Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today. Bill C-11 , when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward. There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one.”