Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Rivière-du-Nord, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9 . My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position.”
“A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing.”
“Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed.”
“However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice , whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country.”
“We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 521 lines we hold for Rhéal Éloi Fortin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 11.
“People are likely more concerned and stressed about those issues than they are about the fate of Bill C‑14. I think we need to look at the issue of young people, criminal organizations and intimidation by criminal organizations. This summer, criminal organizations were selling T-shirts and ball caps to young people in order to fund criminal activities. These items of clothing bore the famous slogan “Support 81”. The eight and the one represent the letters H and A for Hells Angels, respectively, so it means “Support Hells Angels.” I am not sure that a 12-year-old boy who goes to school wearing a T-shirt that says “Support Hells Angels” knows what that means. I am not sure that his parents, who bought him the T-shirt, knew what it meant. We have to tackle this; it is our job.”
“What is the government doing about criminal organizations? I introduced a bill to crack down on criminal organizations three times. Each time, I received an incredibly tepid response from our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. I proposed creating a registry of criminal organizations so that we could identify them and impose sanctions against them. Are the emblems that street gang members wear to intimidate the public acceptable in this country? I am not sure. Are we okay with gangs recruiting young people to commit crimes on the assumption that they will get a lighter sentence than an adult? The answer is no. What are our Liberal colleagues waiting for? They are the government and they need to tackle these problems, which dominate the headlines week after week.”
“There are some questionable aspects to that. I discussed this with some criminal lawyers who work with young people, and they said this is a catch-all bill that needs a lot of cleaning up. Would it have been better to deal with them separately? As is so often the case, the Liberals have introduced a bill that puts all our eggs in one basket. We will have to sort this out in committee, which is unfortunate. That said, we will do it if we have to. At the end of the day, the Liberals are saying that Bill C‑14 is the cornerstone of their tough-on-crime approach. If that is so, I will pass on seeing the rest, because this bill is pretty weak. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps, after working on it in committee, we can improve it enough to make it acceptable, but it is not going to be a game-changer in fighting crime.”
“Between Bill C‑14 and Bill C‑242, which one is the best response to a situation that we are not sure we understand? (1655) I gave the statistics on detention. We do not really have statistics on rehabilitation capacity. No real follow-up has been done. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we asked some experts about this and they told us that it was a problem. Data is not being collected, so there are not enough statistics on rehabilitation and on what happens to inmates once they leave. This needs to be monitored more closely. Maybe we will need to study the bill in committee, hear from experts on the matter and come back with an improved Bill C-14 . Incidentally, I wish Bill C‑14 had been split. The bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Criminal Code. In my view, that may not be wise.”
“We do not want people to take advantage of the the fact they have to wear an electronic bracelet to then further harass and intimidate the partner they had been convicted of abusing. That is a problem, and the other problems are also serious. We have to weigh the pros and the cons. I admit that the more I read Bill C-14, the more questions I have. I understand the dynamic, though. The Conservatives introduced Bill C-242 . Usually these crime issues are not as much of a priority to the Liberals. In any case, no one would accuse them of being tough on crime, as our Conservative friends like to say. Now the Liberals seem to be saying that they are jumping on the bandwagon and that they too will get tough on crime by proposing Bill C‑14.”
“However, I have to say that I do not hate the idea of allowing for human discretion when it comes to sentencing. It helps prevent some problems, although it can certainly create others. This week, there were media reports about an individual who triggered an alarm 93 times in the span of 66 days by coming too close to his ex-partner. He had been ordered to stay away from her. I am not sure how far away he was supposed to stay, but he violated the terms of his conditional sentence 93 times in 66 days. Obviously, he was charged and convicted. I think it was for contempt, but regardless of the conviction, he was being monitored and the problem was resolved. This is an example of a case where there was a major problem with a conditional sentence. We do not want that.”
“We certainly do not want someone who has been accused of threatening to kill their spouse, for example, to carry out their threats a week later. In all cases, quite likely, or at least in many cases, the judge will determine that a conditional sentence is not appropriate. However, judges are not all dummies. I have good friends who are judges and who do a really great job. Judges already have the option of deciding whether to give an individual a conditional sentence. They are not required to give an inmate a conditional sentence. They will assess the case and decide whether it is better to send the inmate home with an electronic bracelet or something else, or whether it is better to keep them in prison. Obviously, judges are not perfect. They are human and they make mistakes from time to time.”
“There is no reason to believe that we can solve everything by putting people in prison before their trial. As I said, this could lead to even more serious problems than if those individuals had been released. It is important to study this carefully. Bill C-14 proposes to bring back consecutive sentences for certain offences. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that many of these sentences are unconstitutional. Are we not just setting ourselves up for another Supreme Court decision that will invalidate the work we are doing? That may be the case. When I hear about consecutive sentences, I see a red flag. This needs to be examined thoroughly. It is the same thing with conditional sentences. I generally think that getting rid of conditional sentences for sexual assault is a good thing.”
“If the prisoner spent a year in remand and was subsequently sentenced to five years, they would be considered to have served a year and a half already. In a way, it could be said that some accused persons stand to gain by being detained before their trial. (1650) It is even better if the trial drags on a bit, because if someone serves two years, they will be credited for three. I am not saying it is bad to detain people preventively. That is good for public safety in particular. We certainly do not want to release someone into society and find out the next week that they have gone and killed someone else or committed a crime, serious or otherwise, because they were released pending trial. That would not be good news. The fact remains that this is not a perfect solution.”
“After that year, if the court finds the accused not guilty, it means that they were kept in prison for a year even though they were innocent of the crime they were charged with. To me, that is serious. It means that, during that year, the individual in question had no choice but to associate with people charged or convicted of other crimes. Is that advisable? The answer is obvious. However, let us say that after a year, the individual is found guilty. Then it may seem like detaining them was a good idea after all, because they were guilty. However, the time that this person spent in prison before being convicted will count as time served. It used to be counted as double time, but now it is counted as time and a half.”
“I think that the federal government has an obligation to meet the needs of the provinces. Our reflection on Bill C-14 on bail conditions inevitably leads us to ask the same question: Does the federal government transfer enough money to the provinces to enable them to fulfill their obligations with regard to inmate rehabilitation? I can say that in Quebec, that is not the case. I am also pretty sure that it is not the case anywhere in Canada. Preventive detention is not a perfect solution. What does pre-trial detention mean? It means holding someone in custody before they are found guilty or not guilty. As we know, trials rarely occur within three months. They often take one or two years, if not longer. Say it takes a year, and someone is held for a year before their guilt or innocence is proven.”
“We should focus on rehabilitating all those who have already committed crimes. The problem is that we cannot get there. We cannot do it because we do not have the budget. We do not have the resources. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, as we know, and they have to provide those resources to the prisons, but the provinces do not have the money. The money is in Ottawa. When we ask for transfers to Quebec and the provinces, whether for health, education or any other area, the same always happens: We always get the brush-off. The Bloc Québécois made six requests for the budget that is being tabled next week. The indications we have received so far lead us to believe that none of our requests will be granted. Does anyone think that is normal? I do not think that is normal.”
“Every time a repeat offender commits a crime, somebody always makes the following criticism, and rightly so: They may have been released too soon, or, they were not rehabilitated. That is a key issue. When someone is sentenced to prison for committing a crime, what happens in prison? Do we genuinely rehabilitate them? Personally, I believe in rehabilitation. I think we should strive to build a perfect society. Obviously, it will never be perfect, but I am saying that we should strive for that. We should ensure that all residents of this land behave in accordance with the societal rules we have set for ourselves and do not commit crimes. Of course, there will always be some who do. I am not that naive, although I may be at times. There will always be people who commit crimes, but I do not think we should throw in the towel.”
“Does this add anything? I am not convinced it does. The number of inmates in our prisons who are awaiting trial rose from 66% in 2018 to 72% in 2024. I am not making these numbers up; they are out there. That means that 72% of inmates, a big number, are in prison not because they were found guilty of a crime but because they are awaiting trial. The remaining 28% have been found guilty and are serving their sentence. (1645) Do our courts release people automatically? These statistics lead us to believe that this is not the case. They suggest that judges are diligently exercising the discretion granted to them under the law. Does that mean that the release conditions should not be reviewed? I am not saying that. It certainly makes sense to look at everything and try to see if we can improve things.”
“In the future, it will not be up to the Crown to prove that the individual will fail to appear, is dangerous or will bring the administration of justice into disrepute; it will be up to the accused to prove to the judges that there is no chance that they will fail to appear at the subsequent steps of their trial, that they are not a threat to public safety and that their release at this stage, as they await trial, will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The bill keeps the same criteria, but adds a few more. It is true. For example, the bill adds that the judge must take into account the individual's criminal record and any crimes they were found guilty of in the past 10 years. However, the courts already took these criteria into account, even though they were not clearly set out in the Criminal Code.”
“Is the charge so serious that releasing this individual would cause public outrage? Is the charge serious? Are the events documented? For example, some crimes are caught on camera. Perhaps the individual can say that they are not guilty for such-and-such a reason but, if it truly is a serious crime, then the courts will certainly rule that, given the circumstances, this individual must remain in custody to keep the public peace. Those are the three criteria that the courts currently apply. When someone commits a crime, they appear in court and the judge asks those three questions. If there are any concerns in these three areas, the individual will be kept in custody. Bill C‑14 tells us many things, including the fact that there will be a reverse onus for certain crimes and charges.”
“First, are they convinced that the individual before them will participate in the subsequent stages of their trial? If a judge thinks there is a high risk that the accused will not be present, then that person is kept in custody to ensure that they are. Second, the judge will consider public safety. Is there a danger that, if this individual is not kept in custody, they will commit one or more crimes in the short or medium term, regardless of why? If the judge believes that releasing them would indeed be a danger to public safety, the accused will be kept in prison. Third, the judge will consider whether releasing the accused will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. They will look at a number of issues with that in mind to determine how the average person would respond.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives and Liberals seem to fighting over who gets to respond to an issue that has been raised. There is an expression in French for that, but I will not say it because I am not sure that it would be parliamentary. Let us just say that they both want to be more tough on crime than the other. The Conservatives introduced their Bill C‑242 , while the Liberals introduced Bill C‑14 , which will obviously be examined before the Conservative bill. Now, we just need to wait and see who will be the toughest on crime. That seems to be the expression of the day. What exactly are we talking about here? Judges are not obliged to automatically release individuals who appear in court after having been charged with a crime. Judges use their discretion. Basically, they look at three things.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the questions for the last while. At one point, the Liberals asked what changed. The law has been the same for a while and everything was fine. What changed? I feel like asking my colleague whether a virus is unfortunately spreading among our colleagues across the way, who all end up infected. I tend to agree with him that not much has changed. We had ethical problems with the former Liberal prime minister and we have new ethical problems with the new Liberal Prime Minister . Needless to say, they are not the same problems, but they are always ethical. I fear that a virus is spreading in the House of Commons. Does my colleague share my fear, or does he think that we are safe from this virus on this side of the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Bill C‑12 is basically Bill C‑2 with minor improvements. For one thing, the government has removed the infamous provision that allowed mail to be searched without a warrant from a judge. Does my colleague agree with us that it was a good idea to remove that provision? If so, why did her government initially propose to allow mail searches without a warrant?”
“Mr. Speaker, I raised the issue of investments earlier. There is a shortage of personnel to carry out public safety inspections at ports and airports. I am very interested in this issue. Implementing these provisions also presents a number of other challenges. I wonder if my colleague can enlighten me. In his opinion, what measures should be put in place to strengthen border security, without necessarily passing a bunch of new legislation, but with a focus on concrete action to make it work?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the practical implementation of these measures. We all agree on the principle of strengthening border security. We may differ on how to achieve it, but we agree that it must be done. However, border officers who testified before House committees repeatedly told us that there are not enough staff to carry out the necessary searches. For example, at the Port of Montreal, barely one container out of every hundred is searched. I agree with the principles of the bill, but how are we going to implement it? Would my colleague support the government in investing more to increase border services personnel at ports and airports? I also have a follow-up question: If his party wins the next election, can we expect additional funding to be allocated to border services?”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government talks out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to hate speech. Canada banned Uthman Ibn Farooq from entering the country because of his hateful comments. That is true. He is too dangerous for our country. We agree. However, those same hateful comments are protected under section 319 of the Criminal Code. In Canada, hate speech is permitted if it is done under the guise of religion. If the preacher's comments are hateful enough for Canada to ban him from entering the country, would the government not agree that they are hateful enough to be banned from the Criminal Code as well?”
“Let us free up the funding necessary so that the people and governments that need to work on this are able to do so. With regard to the presumption of innocence, there is a balance between the rights and freedoms provided for in all of our charters and laws. This is important, but we also need to work on it. The Supreme Court has set maximum time limits for holding trials. However, the provinces and Quebec do not have enough money to build courthouses, appoint judges, and hire court clerks and bailiffs. Grand principles are all well and good, but they must be reflected in concrete measures. I therefore call on our government to free up the necessary funds and to work with Quebec and the provinces so that we can uphold the presumption of innocence and keep our streets safe.”
“I am committed to doing everything I can to make sure that nothing like this happens again. I am extending an invitation to my government colleagues. Yes, we have a job as legislators, but the government also has a job. It needs to free up the funding required to fight crime. It is all well and good to talk about rehabilitation. When I say that I believe in rehabilitation, I mean that it is part of my values. I believe that this is what we should be striving for. Are we able to rehabilitate people today, though? Perhaps not as much as we would like. It takes money and organizations. Programs need to be set up. Are we able to do that? If so, let us go ahead and do it. If not, let us acknowledge that and ensure that we do whatever it takes to find a way to do it. Rehabilitation falls mainly to Quebec and the provinces.”
“For example, some people are saying that spousal homicides have skyrocketed over the past five years. That may be the case. However, other people are saying that the number has actually gone down. Some folks are saying that we need to put more people in prison, while others say that prisons are already too full of people awaiting trial. According to some, there are more people in our prisons who have not yet been tried than there are convicted criminals. That makes no sense. How do we find the right balance? I do not know where the right balance is. What I do know is that I have to try to find it. That is my job and the job of everyone here. To do that, as I said, we will need to hear from experts who will help us understand these issues. The case of Gabie Renaud strikes a particular chord with me.”
“There are options available in 2025 that did not exist 20 or 40 years ago, like electronic bracelets. This creates some issues because it infringes on individual freedoms, yet imprisonment also infringes on individual freedoms. Should we use electronic bracelets more often? Maybe the answer is yes, or maybe it is no. Maybe we should do that in some circumstances but not others. That is the kind of question I would like to ask experts when this matter comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I think a little more imagination is needed in order to come up with solutions and to eliminate the problem. I would very much like to hear some actual statistics. We hear all sorts of things. As parliamentarians, we hear from our constituents. That is fine, and actually it is quite a good thing. We are accountable to them.”
“I also think that when someone is charged with a violent crime for the third, fifth or 10th time, it should force the realization that rehabilitation programs have not worked for that individual. Different measures need to be taken than those that would be used for their first offence or first charge. Of course, we always need to be careful not to go overboard. I do not want innocent people to be detained. That should happen as little as possible. There are some such cases, there always have been, and there probably always will be, because to err is human. Judicial error is also human. However, we still need to be cautious in our approach. We should take a prudent approach and find a middle ground between throwing everyone in jail and letting everyone out of jail.”
“What our Conservative colleague is proposing today is not exactly the same as what was proposed back then, but it is still worthwhile for us to come together to reflect on this problem and find solutions. (1135) A typical knee-jerk reaction is to present simple solutions. If everyone is put in prison, there will be no more crime. Obviously, I know that no one is suggesting that. However, there is this mentality that individuals should be put in prison as soon as there is a risk. The opposite mentality is that everyone is presumed innocent, regardless of the danger to public safety. I think we need to find a middle ground, a balance between those extremes.”
“It is a challenge that I accept, and I look forward to hearing from people and experts in committee. They will come and help us identify the major principles that need to be addressed and how to implement them. We have been through this process before. The Assistant Deputy Speaker was there. No doubt she remembers that we addressed this subject several times in previous Parliaments. In the last Parliament, a bill was introduced by our colleague, whose riding I forget, but it is on Vancouver Island. He introduced a bill that touched on this aspect of coercive control, which we all agreed on. All of us welcomed it with open arms. It went to the Senate, but one thing led to another, and Parliament was prorogued. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper. Now we need to take a look at this problem again.”
“I continue to believe that offender rehabilitation is a valuable goal that we must strive for. However, I also continue to believe that we owe it to each and every person in this country to keep our streets and our communities safe. I also continue to believe that we can and must stand in solidarity with individuals who may be victims of controlling and coercive behaviour, violence or any other similar behaviour. We must stand in solidarity with them and help them every day. Every one of us must look at our families, our friends and the people around us, identify potentially problematic situations and intervene as best we can. This brings me back to our work as legislators. Striking this balance between the presumption of innocence, rehabilitation and keeping our streets safe will not be easy. However, that is the challenge before us.”
“People tend to get carried away and to want revenge. There is no other word for this crime: It is revolting. However, I think we need to take a step back. We need to look at the situation with wisdom and perspective in order to make decisions that will be applicable, first of all, and, second, that will promote societal harmony now, in 2025. As I was saying, yesterday, I was in the mood to revolt, not only against these situations, but also against myself and this entire legislative body, because so far, it has not demonstrated that enough resources are being put in place to prevent such tragedies from happening. However, I think that we need to proceed in a balanced way. Unlike some people, I continue to believe that the presumption of innocence is essential in our society.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by reiterating my solidarity and compassion for all victims of violence, particularly victims of intimate partner violence. This morning, I am especially thinking of the family and loved ones of Gabie Renaud, whose partner is accused of murdering her. There was a demonstration in her honour yesterday, and hundreds of people came out to express their support for Gabie Renaud's family and loved ones. This is the kind of tragedy that should never happen. It is the kind of tragedy that we, as legislators, must prevent if we can. I am very pleased that my colleague is bringing this issue to the House and that we can discuss it in committee. I hope for calm discussions. Obviously, it is very difficult to stay calm when faced with situations like this one.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the open letter from the five premiers, the signatories point out that the notwithstanding clause allowed for the patriation of the Constitution. What the Liberals want to do is rewrite history and make Quebec and the provinces fully subject to the federal charter. In short, the Liberals want to erase the 1982 constitutional compromise. This government is using a power grab to weaken the National Assembly of Quebec and the provinces. Will the minister listen to reason, uphold the notwithstanding clause and stop undermining the parliamentary sovereignty of Quebec and the provinces?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister accused us of distorting his words. He is the one who referred to the Russian invasion of Ukraine when justifying his opposition to the notwithstanding clause, not me. He is the one who sent a factum to the Supreme Court in which he used slavery and summary executions as arguments, not me. He is the one who claims that the notwithstanding clause could be used to ban places of worship, abolish trade unions and shut down newspapers. Frankly, who is distorting reality? Is it the minister or those who defend the notwithstanding clause?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Justice was asked this morning about the federal government's attack on Bill 21 and the notwithstanding clause, he once again got off track. He defended his crusade by saying that democracy is under strain around the world, and he used the war in Ukraine as an example. In his view, Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause to protect state secularism is as dangerous for democracy as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Come on. Will he immediately withdraw this flawed and offensive analogy?”
“Mr. Speaker, five premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, have written to the Prime Minister of Canada asking in clear terms that he withdraw the federal government's legal submission to the Supreme Court in the case against Bill 21. The five premiers refuse to allow Ottawa to weaponize the courts for its political fight against the notwithstanding clause. To quote the five premiers, “the federal government's arguments represent a complete disavowal of the constitutional bargain that brought the Charter into being”. Will the Liberals finally stop their constitutional power grab and withdraw this court submission?”
“Mr. Speaker, either the former minister of national defence did not have the guts and acted in a cowardly manner, or he was instructed to act in a cowardly manner. Given the accusations at the time, it makes no sense that he refused to meet with the ombudsman, refused to look at these cases and refused to make a decision. That is not why he was appointed minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. I have never testified before a court martial or a military court, so I cannot speak from experience. That said, I am well aware that a judge who has to hear a case like this will need some guidance on what military life is like. However, that sort of thing is an everyday occurrence in the courts. A judge can hear a case involving engineering without being an engineer or a case involving medical malpractice without being a doctor. Judges are used to having to familiarize themselves with a topic before handing down a ruling. In my opinion, the same will apply to cases involving the military. Judges will need to be informed and receive explanations from the lawyers involved in the case. Surely that is better and more effective.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I understand very well why female members of the armed forces may have been quite hesitant to file a complaint against a superior for sexual assault or misconduct. I would have been too, knowing that the person conducting the investigation is largely subject to the orders of that individual and that the judge who will handle the case is also a member of the same military hierarchy. That would be pretty awkward. Ethically, it is rather obscene. It is just not right. This situation must change so that women can feel comfortable filing complaints if they need to. That does not mean that all complaints will be founded, but at least there will be a serious complaint process so that they can be judged impartially.”
“I thank these women for helping to change the hierarchy and the way the armed forces operate. This is the best news we have had in a long time.”
“The pool is being expanded. The idea is that the person closest in rank is not necessarily the person who should be appointed and that the person could come from any military rank. There are individuals who have undergone training their entire military careers and who may be qualified to be appointed as court martial judges. In many cases, they would probably be better suited to the job than the highest-ranking officer who wanted to do it. This group is going to be expanded. That is good news for us. The group of people who can file complaints will also be expanded. That is more good news. We must help victims emerge from the shadows and leave behind the era when allegations of sexual misconduct undermined the credibility of our military forces and the lives of women who served in the armed forces.”
“As a lawyer, I am aware that allegations of misconduct do not necessarily result in a guilty verdict. These individuals must be presumed innocent. That is fine, but it is still problematic at the social level. Society sees that people who lead the Canadian Armed Forces are the subject of repeated allegations of sexual assault or misconduct. Despite this, they are kept in their positions or even promoted. It makes no sense. I hope that Bill C‑11 will enable us to move beyond that era. The bill also removes the military's power to investigate. Yes, that is obviously needed. Members will agree that a military investigator whose boss is accused of sexual assault or sexual misconduct is in no position to conduct an impartial and effective investigation. I also want to talk about the process for appointing military judges.”
“He had been the focus of allegations of sexual misconduct long before the Conservative government decided to appoint him chief of the defence staff in the summer of 2015. He was alleged to have committed sexual misconduct, but the Conservatives did not see that as a problem and appointed him chief of the defence staff anyway. That seemed rather odd to us. Then, in the fall of 2015, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government came to power. That government also did not bother removing General Vance from his position or do anything at all to limit the problems of sexual misconduct. On the contrary, allegations of sexual misconduct have escalated since 2015. I will not go so far as to name every single person who has been the subject of allegations of misconduct.”
“(1610) As I was saying, Bill C-11 will make it possible to modify the appointment process so it is no longer hierarchical. The following appointments will now be made by the governor general in council, at the recommendation of the Minister of Defence: the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. As I was saying earlier, this was among Justice Fish's recommendations, which were made a long time ago. Now it is in Bill C‑11, which is a good thing. Bill C‑11 also proposes to remove the military courts' jurisdiction to try individuals for Criminal Code sexual offences. This is very important. Some troubling situations have surfaced in recent years. We need only think of the case of General Jonathan Vance.”
“Minister of National Defence said that victims need to have the confidence that the system is transparent and predictable and that they have the support that they need to come forward and to reveal what has happened to them. Not surprisingly, we agree. That is how it needs to be. The armed forces as we knew them a century ago have given way to an army that is more open to the realities of our society. While the presence of women in the military was once an exception, even an anachronism, today it is the norm for about 15% to 20% of armed forces members. However, the organization of the armed forces has to adjust to this reality. Every member of our armed forces must feel comfortable and fully able to provide the services they are called upon to provide.”
“Patrick LeSage, former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court, also submitted a report, which contained 55 recommendations. Finally, there was the Hon. Louise Arbour, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who, after pointing out that the exercise had already been done, tabled her report in October 2025, more than 10 years after her colleague Justice Deschamps. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that it is time to take action. We intend to support this bill and hope that it comes into force quickly so that we can have a military justice system that reflects Quebec and Canadian society. In a recent media interview, the hon.”
“However, we must remain vigilant to ensure that politicians do not interfere in the justice process, which desperately needs reforms. We must not get to a point where we get rid of one form of interference in favour of another. As has been mentioned several times in the House, the appointment process in our common law courts justice system is often manipulated. For one, we have often heard about the infamous “Liberalist”. I hope that the “Liberalist”, or the Conservative list, if they are elected in the next election, will not become the tool for appointing judges to the courts that will have to judge or act as prosecutors in cases of sexual assault in the military. Prior to Justice Fish, in 2003, the late Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, a retired former chief justice, also submitted a report containing 88 recommendations. In 2012, the Hon.”
“Justice Marie Deschamps, who tabled her report on March 27, 2015. That was over 10 years ago. Then there was the Hon. Morris J. Fish, who tabled his in June 2021. That was the third independent review. It contained 107 recommendations, including one to review the process for appointing three key positions in the military justice system: the provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. I think everyone can agree that, in a justice system, the judge, the prosecutor and the defence attorney are pretty important. Justice Fish proposed better safeguards to protect these individuals from any pressure they might have been subjected to by the military hierarchy. Bill C‑11 addresses that recommendation, and we think it is a wise decision.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑11 gives us something we have been hoping for for a long time, namely an opportunity to improve the military justice system. Acts of sexual misconduct have been widely reported in the media over the past few years, severely affecting the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces and its leaders. Although I have not been able to find data on this, it goes without saying that the situation has also likely severely affected recruitment efforts, as well as morale among female military members. This bill is almost the same as Bill C‑66 , which died on the Order Paper in January when Parliament was prorogued and later dissolved, leading to the election in April. Several former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have already studied the issue and made recommendations. First, there was the Hon.”