Hon. Danièle Henkel: Honourable senators, first, I would like thank Senator Patterson for her ongoing commitment to this issue. Thanks to her work and perseverance, victims’ concerns have remained at the heart of our debates. I also want to thank the members of the committee and the witnesses who agreed to share their expertise and their sometimes very painful experiences. My colleagues and I were very touched by that.
As an honorary captain of the Canadian Coast Guard and honorary lieutenant-colonel of the Régiment de Maisonneuve, I have had the privilege of working with men and women who chose to serve our country. I admire their dedication so much. I also have a great deal of respect for the sacrifices that they and their families make.
That is why I sincerely believe that those who protect us deserve protection in return. That is basically the question that is put before us today with Bill C-11.
Over the past few days, our committee has heard from survivors, veterans, police officers, and legal and other experts who share the same objective: to better protect members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are victims of sexual offences. However, many of them have different ideas about how best to achieve this. That is what makes this debate especially difficult.
[English]On one hand, we cannot ignore the findings that led to this reform. For more than a decade, report after report and inquiry after inquiry have exposed a profound crisis of confidence within the Canadian Armed Forces. The Deschênes, Fish and Arbour reports were not commissioned without reason; they reflect a painful reality. Too many victims have felt that the very mechanisms intended to protect them were not meeting their needs.
With Bill C-11, the government has chosen to implement the central recommendation of the 2022 Arbour report, which is to remove Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada from the military justice system and place them exclusively under civilian jurisdiction.
This is a significant decision, but it is also clear that it does not command unanimous support.
[Translation]What struck me most during the meetings was that a lot of reservations about the bill were coming from parties that are usually on opposite sides of the legal system.
Survivors, military police representatives, military prosecutors and defence lawyers were raising similar concerns, for different reasons, over the mandatory transfer of these cases to the civilian system.
When people who usually sit on opposite sides of a hearing room have certain concerns in common, Parliament has a duty to listen carefully.
This meeting of minds did not mean that they opposed the bill’s objectives. It just meant that they were worried that certain consequences might not have been weighed carefully enough.
A number of witnesses reminded us that sexual assault is fundamentally a loss of control and that recovery often involves reclaiming autonomy.
[English]Some have raised concerns that this reform could leave victims with the impression that important decisions are being made on their behalf rather than with them.
Others have drawn our attention to a particular dimension of the military context. When sexual misconduct is tied to an abuse of power, the issue is not limited to assessing whether a criminal offence has been committed. It also raises broader questions of leadership, authority, responsibility and institutional accountability.
The testimonies have also reminded us that victims are not a uniform group. They do not all share the same experiences, expectations or needs.
Some believe that transferring these cases to the civilian system is essential to rebuilding trust. Others would have preferred to retain the ability to choose.
I understand those concerns. I also understand the concerns raised about the civilian system’s capacity to take on these cases. Several witnesses pointed to court delays, limited resources and the challenges already encountered in the handling of civilian sexual assault cases.
Some questioned whether we risk shifting the problem rather than resolving it. Indeed, the committee’s discussions and the closed votes that followed reflect the tension surrounding this bill. Only a few senators approached this study with absolute certainty. The committee’s deliberation showed that it is possible to share the same commitment to better protecting victims while differing on the best way to achieve that goal.
It is in this context that I consider the adoption of Senator Batters’ amendment particularly important.
[Translation]This amendment requires an independent review to be conducted within three years of the reform coming into force. This review must be the subject of a report to Parliament and be informed by consultations with victims, military and civilian justice system authorities and advocacy groups.
In short, this amendment establishes an oversight and accountability system so that Parliament can judge, based on facts and concrete results, whether this reform is achieving its intended goals.
This amendment reflects a kind of legislative humility, a recognition that intentions, however laudable, are not enough and that the actual consequences must be measured.
Now that the study is done, I’m not convinced that maintaining the status quo is a fitting response.
For several years now, military authorities have been gradually transferring these cases to civilian authorities. This approach is therefore not entirely new. The bill essentially enshrines in law a practice that’s already in place.
[English]Above all, I believe we must recognize a fundamental reality: When an institution loses the trust of those it serves, rebuilding that trust sometimes requires profound change. It is not enough to say that things have improved. We must also ensure that the mechanisms in place inspire confidence among those who may one day need to rely on them.
It is in that spirit that I will vote in favour of this bill. I do so, however, without triumphalism and without claiming that this reform addresses every concern that has been raised before us.
[Translation]Transferring jurisdiction to the civilian system is not enough on its own to resolve the problems with the organizational culture. It will not replace the need to properly train investigators, prosecutors and judges on how to deal with trauma victims. It will also not replace the Canadian Armed Forces’ obligation to continue the efforts it has been making over the past few years to change the culture.
Most importantly, it will not relieve us of the duty to closely monitor the results of this reform.
[English]Several witnesses urged us to measure the real-world impact of the proposed changes. I believe they are right. We will need to determine whether victims have greater confidence in the system. We will need to assess whether the results truly reflect the objectives we are seeking to achieve. In other words, we must be prepared to judge this reform by its results and not simply by its intentions.
There is another lesson I take from our hearings. Time and again, witnesses reminded us that support for victims does not begin at trial or end with the verdict. Judicial proceedings matter, but they are only one part of the journey. Support services, access to medical care, protection from retaliation, the ability to pursue a career and the opportunity to rebuild one’s life are equally essential and must also be taken into account.
[Translation]The real test of this reform will not just be to see where these cases are heard. It will be to find out whether the people who are going through such ordeals feel more respected, supported and heard than they did before.
If they do, then we will be able to say that we have made real progress.
Thank you. Meegwetch.