House Publications

     Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 28 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

     Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Review of the Conflict of Interest Act”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

    Before I conclude, I want to thank all of our witnesses, the analysts, the clerk, the technicians and translation staff for their work on this report. It is a fairly comprehensive report that provides significant recommendations to changes to the Conflict of Interest Act.

     Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

    I am presenting the 10th report, entitled “National Trade Corridors Fund - Transport Canada”, and the 11th report, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27: Vote 1 under Office of the Auditor General”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.

     I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to a motion adopted on Monday, April 20, regarding section 13 of the Auditor General Act.

     Everyone agrees that the Auditor General and her team should have access to the information they need to do their job. However, certain federal entities under the scope of her audits were withholding information due to access to information disputes. While her office ultimately obtained the requested information, this process consumed significant time and resources that could have been better spent delivering audits to Parliament and services to Canada.

     The committee is therefore reporting to the House on the need to modernize section 13 of the Auditor General Act and will be writing to the Treasury Board Secretariat requesting a written response to this matter within 90 days.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition today that discusses Bill C-260, the care not coercion act. This is in the wake of many veterans' experiences in this country. When they reached out to Veterans Affairs seeking help to live their lives, they were instead pushed towards the idea of medical assistance in dying.

     The petitioners are concerned with these instances and are calling on the government to support Bill C-260, the care not coercion act.

    Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table a petition in support of Bill C-260, the care not coercion act.

     Petitioners highlight many reports of veterans, as well as people with disabilities, seniors and others, who have been seeking unrelated health services or other kinds of services from the government and have, instead of being offered the assistance they are looking for, had those officials, out of the blue, suggest or promote to them that they seek facilitated death instead.

    The CEO of Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr, has recently testified that she hears weekly complaints, from people with disabilities in particular, highlighting these situations where somebody who is seeking unrelated public services is having death promoted to them as a way out instead. This is not the approach that Canadians expect, especially from government employees who are not even involved in the provision of these things.

     With this in mind, petitioners ask that the government support Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, and support additional actions to combat the growing problem of MAID coercion. I understand that the bill is scheduled to have its first hour of debate next Wednesday, April 29.

    Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    [For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

     There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C‑11.

    Motion No. 15 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

    All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

    Motions Nos. 1 to 14 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

    I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 14 to the House.

     moved:

     moved:

     moved:

     moved:

     moved

     moved:

    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. 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.

    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.

    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. 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. 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. 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.

     Mr. Speaker, I, too, sit on the defence committee. I would like to know what the member across the aisle thinks about all the victims who were heard by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, the hundreds of victims who were interviewed and said they did not want their sexual assault to be investigated by their boss. They wanted a separate system. What does the member say to them?

     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.

    Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. My question is quite simple. If it were possible to make just one amendment to this bill, is there a particularly important one that my colleague would want to immediately make to the bill? If so, what is it?

    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 like to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the incredible work he has done in committee respecting victims of military sexual trauma, and the work he is doing to rectify the problems there.

    We heard testimony from civilian police forces that they had significantly limited capacity, sometimes enough to deal with two to three cases of major sexual assault, whereas in their areas, they have data saying that there have been 15, 17 or 20 cases per year. Could the hon. member speak to the capacity of civilian police forces to deal with these cases, and to what would happen with those cases they have no capability to deal with?

    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”.

    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 am very grateful to be here today for the debate at report stage of Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act.

    As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have the privilege and responsibility of supporting the women and men who serve Canada in uniform. I believe that responsibility is shared by all members of the House.

    As the mother and mother-in-law of three serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I know first-hand that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are among the very best of our country: skilled, dedicated, professional and deeply committed to something greater than themselves. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them, and each time, I am reminded of a simple truth: We ask a great deal of them. We ask them to serve in uncertainty, to operate in high-risk environments and to put service before self every single day.

     In return, we have a responsibility, a collective responsibility, to ensure they have everything they need to succeed. That includes the right equipment, the right training and, critically, the right environment.

    It must be a safe, respectful and dignified environment. It must be a healthy work environment, where everyone feels protected and able to serve, because serving one's country should never come at the expense of one's dignity.

     Eliminating unacceptable behaviours, including sexual misconduct, is central to that responsibility. These behaviours cause real harm. They erode trust. They damage morale. They impact recruitment and retention. Ultimately, they weaken operational effectiveness. There is no place for this in our military. There is no place for this in Canada. That is why today's debate is so important.

    Cultural change and growth within the Canadian Armed Forces is simply too important to be exploited for political or partisan gain. Our military members deserve better, their families deserve better and Canadians deserve better.

    Through Bill C-11, we are proposing important amendments to the National Defence Act to modernize the military justice system. The legislation is about ensuring that the system remains fair, effective and worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. At its core, it would strengthen accountability, reinforce independence and ensure alignment with the values Canadians expect.

    As introduced, Bill C-11 would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. These offences would instead fall under civilian authorities for investigation and prosecution. This reflects the practice already in place since 2021, following the interim recommendation of former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, and this legislation would formalize that approach. I would like to note that the interim directive has been an effective measure while we await the passage of Bill C-11.

     The interim directive to implement recommendation five has been in place since December 2021, and since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, as Justice Arbour recommended. Any attempt to undermine or undercut the progress made in the past five years under the interim directive is a disservice to victims and survivors.

    I note that Bill C-11 also advances key recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish to strengthen the system's effectiveness and credibility. These include strengthening and modernizing appointment processes for senior military justice roles, broadening eligibility for military judges, reinforcing the independence of military justice authorities and expanding mechanisms for interference complaints. These are not technical adjustments. They are foundational reforms. They go directly to the integrity of the system.

    The bill also strengthens support for victims by expanding access to liaison officers, including those acting on behalf of victims. It also aligns military justice legislation with recent amendments to the Criminal Code regarding offenders and publication bans. The military justice system is about maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Modernizing it is essential for lasting institutional reform.

     Our objective is clear. It is to strengthen trust and confidence among defence team members and all Canadians.

    Trust must be at the heart of any justice system.

    Trust must be earned through action. The changes proposed in Bill C-11 are part of a much broader transformation. We are undertaking meaningful reforms across recruitment, training, leadership and oversight. In fact, this week the Canadian Armed Forces reached its highest recruitment in 30 years.

    This is excellent news for Canada, but we must not lose sight of the important work we are doing to ensure that the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces has a safe and supportive work environment.

    I can assure members that we are fully committed to implementing the recommendations of Justices Fish and Arbour. These recommendations provide a road map for concrete and measurable change. We have strengthened our recruitment and assessment processes. A probationary period now ensures that recruits comply with security requirements, meet medical standards and, above all, possess the values expected of those who serve their country: respect, dignity and integrity.

    We have clarified how sexual misconduct is defined and addressed, breaking it into clearer categories so that each form can be dealt with appropriately. We have aligned our approach to harassment and violence with the Canada Labour Code, creating a single, consistent framework across the defence team.

    We have enabled direct access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in certain cases because transparency and accountability are essential to cultural change. We continue to track progress publicly through our comprehensive implementation plan, a detailed road map that Canadians can see and follow.

    As noted by the external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, there has been significant effort and meaningful progress, but she also reminded us of something important. This work is never finished.

    Creating a respectful and inclusive workplace is an ongoing commitment.

    It is one that requires sustained leadership, accountability and commitment.

    The measures in Bill C-11 represent an important step forward. More than that, they represent progress: progress toward a military justice system that reflects our values, progress toward a workplace where every member can serve with dignity and progress toward rebuilding and reinforcing trust. It is a step to better protect those who serve and to build a safer, more respectful environment.

    It is also a step towards building confidence in our military justice system.

    We owe this to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. We owe this to all Canadians. Let us continue this work together. Let us get this done for them.

    Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women's study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice.

    When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts.

    I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military?

     I will remind members to please address their questions through the Chair.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

    Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the veteran affairs committee. In fact, the veteran affairs committee submitted a report to the House in June 2024 entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”.

     In that report was recommendation 40, which I will quote:

     That was passed unanimously with the support of the Conservatives.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. By the way, I hold her in high regard, but my question has nothing to do with that. How does she feel about the fact that, for weeks, we have been doing our committee work and now, when the majority of committee members have worked to get amendments adopted, the government is doing everything it can to undo what has been done?

     Is this not a slap in the face to democracy? Has the majority gone to the Liberals' heads?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and also for the work we do together in committee.

    My priority is the women and men in uniform. The chief of the defence staff has had conversations with over 14,000 Canadian Armed Forces members and victims, and they have made it very clear that these cases need to be transferred to the civilian system.

     Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words the member has spoken.

     Through the debate already this morning, one of the greatest concerns I have is that the Conservative Party seems to be saying Justice Arbour's recommendations are limited and have timed out, in essence, and that there is no obligation for us to respond to that report.

     Justice Arbour did an incredible job for members of the CAF, recognizing the importance of the issue, and came back with a specific recommendation. My understanding is that this is the primary recommendation, from a justice who canvassed many members of the CAF.

    If the member could comment in regard to the Conservative Party just throwing that report—

     The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

    Mr. Speaker, it is actually very appropriate to read the preface to Justice Arbour's report into the record, because it still rings true. It says:

    Things have changed in the Canadian Armed Forces for the better. We cannot go back. For the victims who never came forward, out of fear of retribution, out of fear for their lives, today is for them. We heard them. We listened. We are there.

    Mr. Speaker, there are many stories in this whole sad affair. Some of them involve tragic misconduct and victims left with the aftereffects. There is the story, which spanned many years, of continued impunity, as people were protected by successive governments. Then came the bungling and the never-ending delays. Finally, our very democracy plays a part in all this, as well.

    First and foremost, it is the story of victims of misconduct. Members will recall the whole story, which has been told many times in the House, of General Vance, who was protected by successive ministers of governments of all political stripes. This general was able to live with impunity, bragging that he would be forever protected and untouchable at all times because he had control over the military justice system. Members will recall that it took a long time for this story to come to light, and when it did, many said that silence was the best response—that eternal guilty silence that keeps victims voiceless.

    It is also the story of several commissions of inquiry. I am thinking of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Several commissions of inquiry came to a number of conclusions after thousands of people were interviewed. There were thousands of testimonies; thousands of voices were heard in the context of this tragic case. This is an issue that has since dragged on for more than 15 years. It took more than 15 years to come up with the first version of a bill in the last Parliament and, in the current Parliament, the bill now before us.

    This is a matter of democracy. I believe that, as members of Parliament, we are being shortchanged, and democracy is being shortchanged, by what is happening right now. Allow me to digress for a moment because this is important. Let us not forget that this is also the story of a government that called an election last year. What was the outcome of that election? It resulted in a minority government. That means that we go before the voters, present them with options and ideas, and show them where we are headed and what we are proposing. That is where democracy decides. It decides by determining which idea has majority support. In other words, there were more votes and more seats for the current government's proposal, but there are still enough voters who said they did not agree. The result is that the government in power has a majority that is not absolute. It is a simple majority, but one that is not absolute in terms of the number of seats. That was the verdict in April 2025. The message to the government is to work with the other parties, because more people chose the other options combined. If my math is correct, that is what it comes down to. I am no fan of the Canadian parliamentary system, but it seems to me that, in the history of these highly imperfect institutions, that is just how it works. That is the result. That is what it amounts to.

    Let us come back to the story of this government that introduced Bill C-11 and the opposition parties who voted in favour of the principle of the bill because everyone agreed with it and action needed to be taken. People have suffered and others will continue to suffer if nothing changes. After the opposition parties acted in good faith and the House adopted the bill in principle, it was the committee's turn to patiently do its work. For several weeks, it heard from witnesses and reviewed reports and briefs, including one from the Barreau du Québec, which said that it liked the idea of the bill but that some small changes needed to be made. We also heard from a number of victims and victims' associations, who made recommendations and told us that, when cases are being transferred, the military justice option needs to remain open. Even though transferring cases to the civilian system is generally a good thing, we still need to have some sort of military system for certain cases, so we should not close the door on that completely.

    That was the subject of an amendment that was deemed admissible, and I am happy about that because we are the ones who proposed that amendment. The Conservative amendment regarding complete freedom of choice was deemed inadmissible recently, even though it was also adopted in committee. Our amendment does not propose complete freedom of choice, but it says that if experts in the civilian system recommend keeping the case in the military system, then that might be a good thing for some victims.

    It worked, and I am very pleased about that. This is an example of a recommendation made by the Barreau du Québec, which ultimately concluded that Bill C-11, as it stood, was unsatisfactory, even though it was well-intentioned. A whole host of other recommendations like that were also adopted by way of amendments, often with the majority support of the two opposition parties. Some amendments were adopted unanimously with the support of the Liberal Party, but, for the most part, it was the opposition parties that joined forces and managed to gain the upper hand. I am pleased that we managed to achieve this. It was democracy at work. In our committee, the majority consisted of opposition MPs. I would remind members that we patiently listened to victims, experts, the Barreau du Québec and other stakeholders who came to tell us what they believed should be done. Some of the recommendations in the Fish report were even subsequently deemed inadmissible. That report, which remains something of an authoritative reference on the subject, was deemed inadmissible—that says it all.

    It is also the story of a government that secured a majority by getting opposition members to switch sides, swearing up and down that its approach would be collaborative. In the days that followed, however, one of the first things they told us was that they plan to unilaterally change committee composition without even talking to the opposition parties. That is what collaboration, co-operation and working together in the House mean to them. It is also the story of a government that then attempts to throw out all the work that committees have been doing for weeks, along with the democratic decisions of parliamentarians who voted on committee business. This is the story of a committee chair who decided amendments were out of order. We overruled his decision with a majority vote in committee, but he got his way in the end. It is also the story of a Speaker of the House who heard my appeal and that of my colleague, the Conservative Party's defence critic, who rose in the House to say that we heard the victims, that we could not ignore them and that certain recommendations could not be ruled out of order.

    From a procedural standpoint, for example, our proposal to consider establishing an office did not entail the allocation of additional resources, yet it was deemed inadmissible on the grounds that it required additional resources. Our proposal does not run counter to the intent of this bill, which aims to reform military justice to make life more bearable for victims and to better address cases of misconduct. I am sorry, but when we have good ideas to improve a bill and flesh it out, that aligns with the bill's intent. In our case, given that we are stuck with this highly imperfect Canadian parliamentary system, we have decided, procedurally speaking, to include in the bill the need to consider establishing an office. This does not mean creating the office itself or adding new resources. It costs nothing to mandate the government to look into the issue. It does not cost a penny to include it in the bill.

    However, the Speaker decided to reject all of those amendments. Even though a few admissible amendments remained, we found out only yesterday evening after checking the Notice Paper that the government had rejected them in a last-ditch effort—like I said, their majority is going to their heads—to erase, destroy, undo and dismantle everything that members had accomplished in committee. What a slap in the face for the experts, the victims and democracy.

    Mr. Speaker, can I get the member's perspective on the recommendation brought forward by Justice Arbour to do that complete transfer, and can the member acknowledge that there would have been a great deal of effort in coming up with that recommendation? Is it the Bloc party's position, as it for the Conservatives, that they should just disregard that recommendation?

    Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens. He gets up, walks around, talks and then asks a question that I already answered in my speech. We have come to expect it.

    As I said, this is not about complete freedom of choice. The amendment known as BQ‑2 did not involve complete freedom of choice. What the amendment said is that not every case needs to be automatically transferred. Our initial response would be to transfer these cases, but if experts and the civilian system consider it advisable to keep them in the military system, that would be allowed. That is all.

    I will close by saying that Justice Arbour could have come and testified, as she was also invited to do.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that he wants to manage public finances in a wiser, more rigorous way. A House of Commons committee spent hours studying an extremely important report. The committee heard from experts and victims. Members of Parliament and their staff, as well as the committee staff, examined the matter during several meetings. Public funds were used for the benefit of parliamentary democracy.

    Now we are learning that the government is completely ignoring all the work that was done. This government is not looking at it at all.

    I would like my colleague to comment on the frustration this caused him. What does he think this all means? What does all this show about the government's understanding of parliamentary democracy?

    Mr. Speaker, it shows that the government understands perfectly well how things work, but that it could not care less. In other words, it knows exactly what tactics to use to trample on the rights of members of Parliament, and in this particular case, to show utter contempt for the victims who appeared in order to have their say. That is what all this tells us.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence with me.

    I think that today we are talking about victims. We are talking about the issue of victims' trust in a justice system. I would like my colleague to talk about the 14,000 victims who testified before Justice Arbour that they did not trust the military system. Since 2022, all sexual abuse cases under the Criminal Code have been tried in civilian court, and that arrangement is working.

    Why could it not continue to work?

    Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question with a question. I am going to do what the Liberals do during question period and answer with a question. Someday it will be their turn to ask questions in the House, because nothing lasts forever.

    What does my colleague have to say to the victims, the victims' associations, the Barreau du Québec and the experts who told us that they were in favour of allowing cases to be transferred to the civilian justice system, but not at all costs? It may be suitable for some cases, but not all.

    I understand that complete freedom of choice is not necessarily the right option for the sole reason that not everyone always has the information and there can still be things like manipulation behind the scenes. We agree on that. However, BQ‑2, which was adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on the committee, would have made it possible to determine, on the recommendation of civilian court experts, that certain matters were best left to the military justice ssytem.

    What does my colleague have to say to the victims who came to testify?

    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?

     Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague. We worked very well together on this.

    I think this just goes to show that the Liberals' majority has gone to their heads. They are going to be extremely arrogant in the coming years. The next three and a half years are going to feel very long and drawn out, but the public will judge for themselves. The proof will be in the pudding. This shows that the Liberals do not care about what we heard or about the weeks and weeks of work we did listening to what victims had to say.

    That is extremely frustrating, but I am still interested in seeing how the member for Nunavut, a former NDP member, will vote, because she made several recommendations when she came to committee. Now, she is a Liberal, so I am interested to see how she will vote.

     Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and express some thoughts on the amendments and the tactics we see the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives is taking on this issue. The degree to which they try to give the false impression that the government is not listening to members of the CAF and that the government is not sensitive to the issue before the House today is really unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth.

     In fact, the government party is the only political entity out of the three big parties in the House that is actually giving attention and credit to the amazing amount of work Justice Arbour performed on behalf of our CAF members. We are not talking about hundreds through this whole process, but literally thousands of members of the CAF who were engaged in one way or another, and that is not to mention the dozens, if not hundreds of women whom Justice Arbour would have been directly or indirectly in communication with.

    What do we hear today? Whether they are from the Bloc or the Conservative Party, members are taking the position that it does not matter what Justice Arbour had to say—

    An hon. member: Cry me a river.

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member said, “Cry me a river.” Shame on the Conservative member who would say something of that nature when we are taking a look at how important the issue is.

     I will stand up for every woman in the Canadian Forces—

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the record, the member who made that statement is actually from the Bloc Québécois. That is for correction purposes.

    That is not a point of order, but a matter of debate.

    The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton is also rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should stop engaging in demagoguery at the expense of victims, since the Liberals were the ones who showed that they did not care. He should stop pretending to be upset when we know that is not true.

    This is a very emotional topic, but we must be careful about what we say in the House. Members should not use certain words and phrases. I am therefore going to ask all members to be careful about what they say here.

    The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc should be ashamed of the position it is taking on this legislation. I am not going to apologize for standing up for what I believe to be true.

    We have a justice who has done a phenomenal job of reflecting the need for change. I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I had the opportunity to serve very proudly, and I have worked with members of the CAF over the years. I have a deep respect for the work that has been done to date, military, non-military and government, in order to deal with the cultural changes required in our forces.

    We have made significant progress. Listening to the debates during second reading, I thought there was a universal acceptance of the need to transfer to the civil process investigations or the court process, and, where we can, to provide that additional support. We have a government that has recognized that, and that is why we have Bill C-11.

    As opposed to trying to marginalize Justice Arbour, who did the work, why do we not read what she actually said? Allow me to quote the justice, who said:

     Those are the points I amplified when I first spoke to this legislation. We then had the Conservative critic standing up in a response to marginalize what is an absolutely critical and important issue. It is an issue that I honestly thought the Conservative Party was on side with, until the other day, when the Conservatives made the decision to bring forward all of these amendments.

     That is not to discredit the committee process. Whether it has a majority or a minority, I believe we have seen a government that responds very positively to the work the standing committees do. It does not matter if it has a majority or a minority. Quite frankly, there is a responsibility for all of us to be thorough in those recommendations that have been presented.

     I have not heard an argument brought forward that counters what Justice Arbour would have taken into consideration. I have confidence in her holistic approach to deal with the issue in the report that she brought forward. It includes 48 recommendations, and dozens of them have already been implemented. I do not know the exact number, but I can assure members that we are well on the way to the full implementation of that report. That is what this legislation would do. From what I understand, it would take the essence of that report, the most significant aspect, and put it into law.

     Based on the debate we are hearing from the unholy alliance of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, they are now saying we should throw out that recommendation, but on what grounds? There was a committee. The standing committee met. Contrast the discussions that took place there to those Justice Arbour would have had with many members of the CAF. Meetings were done in confidence, no doubt, along with some that would have been done in a public forum.

     I always thought that, as politicians, we are supposed to look at ideas and thoughts and base decisions on the work of the people who have that comprehensive understanding and have done the homework. I would suggest that Justice Arbour did the homework on this issue.

     It is interesting. We put in place, shortly after the recommendation was made, an interim measure that would see the transfer of these files into the civil process. Given the opposition to it today, I would ask how many members of the Bloc Québécois or the Conservative Party have stood in their place in the past year and a half and more, or the last few years, and actually asked a question about it. I cannot recall any. I have been here for a lot of question periods. I do not recall any Conservatives standing up, saying they do not believe in Justice Arbour's position and we need to keep this in the military justice system. Please, when the members opposite stand up and speak, correct me if I am wrong.

    At the end of the day, we are trying to reinforce the strength and confidence our CAF members and Canadians as a whole have in building a Canada strong Canadian Armed Forces. We have a Prime Minister who, in less than a year, has raised defence spending to 2% of the GDP, and we are going beyond that. We just had a record number of candidates recruited to join the Canadian Forces. We are talking about a record number in well over 30 years. The numbers are going up. We are recognizing that we need to increase the pay. We have recognized that we need to build on our military and industrial infrastructure to support the CAF.

    Today, we have legislation to protect the interests of CAF members. We should be talking about how CAF membership contributes in so many ways to who we are as a nation. We should get behind the members, support them and support the legislation, as it has been suggested by the government.

    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. 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, I suggest not only that the member has an obligation to listen to what was said at the standing committee, as the standing committee dealt with the legislation, but that there is also an obligation to look at what has been taking place over the last few years, based on a recommendation by Justice Arbour with regard to this very issue. I can assure the member that she, as a justice, had access to and referenced far more members of the Canadian Forces than the member did.

     Quite frankly, I have more confidence in her recommendation than I do in his suggestion.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, aside from him saying shame on me. It is okay, I will sleep soundly, better than he will, I suspect.

    Let us forget the principle of the amendments. In his last response, the member asked our colleague to listen to what was said at the standing committee. I thought that was funny, because I was there but he was not. He was in the House, as usual. He probably spends Christmas here.

    That said, something that came up often was the Quebec model of a specialized court to deal with misconduct. I moved a motion that was unrelated to the bill but that asked whether, in the long term, we could consider this, look at it and assess this option. The Liberals filibustered for the entire meeting.

    Is that how they feel about institutions?

    Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about standing committees is that everything is recorded. We do not have to physically be there. There is a Hansard. Let me read a quote from a standing committee. This is a quote from Charlotte Duval-Lantoine:

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That did not answer my question.

    That is a point of debate and not a point of order.

     The hon. member.

     Mr. Speaker, the member stood up on a point of order and interrupted another member. I would like to be able to finish my quote. I notice you are going to another speaker. I would like to be able to finish the quote.

    The hon. member has about six seconds to finish his quote.

    Mr. Speaker, I am not going to have enough time to finish the whole quotation.

    The member asked about going to committee. We do not have to be at the committee in order to appreciate—

    We have time for one brief question.

    The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

    Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the reason for Justice Arbour making that recommendation is that members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were sexually assaulted in the military were not coming forward out of fear of retribution. They did not want their case to be investigated and tried by their own employer.

    Can the member elaborate on that?

    Mr. Speaker, I believe Justice Arbour has done an excellent job in making a statement that is very simple and easy to understand.

    At the end of the day, I would ultimately argue that the effort and work that the Canadian Forces did, along with what Justice Arbour did, should be respected within the chamber, and we should be getting behind it.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I was a member of the Canadian Forces for 22 years. I witnessed military justice being applied in various cases. Later, when I became a major, I was trained to preside over summary trials and, as a unit commander, I had to administer military justice. I tried some cases by summary trial. There were some situations and some problems related to sexual misconduct.

    That is why, on the Conservative side, we are very aware of the situation. We do not talk just for the sake of talking. There are people here who have experienced the system first-hand. Our defence critic has been watching what has been going on for years. We are not just talking for the sake of talking. We are proposing meaningful change.

    Let us get back to Bill C-11. Yes, we believe that changes are needed regarding sexual misconduct. However, once again, the Liberal government has missed an opportunity. It has completely missed the opportunity to do the right thing. Instead of addressing the issues in a rigorous, balanced way, it is adopting a rigid approach that is inappropriate and out of touch with the realities on the ground. The result is a bill that ignores critical testimony, rejects reasonable improvements and risks exacerbating the very problems it purports to address.

    Today I will be speaking to Bill C-11, and I want to be clear from the outset that we are not just talking about technical adjustments. We are talking about a fundamental question that all Canadians can understand: When a victim comes forward, do we listen to them, or do we impose a solution on them? That is important. In committee, we heard some powerful testimony. Survivors courageously came and talked to us. They shared their experiences, their realities and their concerns. Experts on the military justice system also testified. These are people who understand both its strengths and its weaknesses. Despite these differing perspectives, one message kept coming up: People want to have a choice. They want to choose the system, the process and what works best. They do not want a decision imposed from on high. They do not want a rigid mechanism decided without their input.

    The Conservatives did their job. We listened and took action alongside the Bloc Québécois. I would like to thank my Bloc colleagues. Excellent parliamentary work was carried out in the Standing Committee on National Defence. As I said earlier, our critic has been there for a long time. He knows his job, as do our other colleagues on the committee. Former lieutenant-colonels sit on the committee. These are people who have experienced the military system and witnessed the problems with military justice. As I said at the start, I myself have seen victims. There have been trials, and we have experienced the situation first-hand.

    The proposals, both those from the Bloc Québécois and those from the Conservative Party, made sense. The aim was really to address the shortcomings of the bill and put victims back at the centre of the process. For example, there is a problem with clauses 7 and 8. In its current form, the bill completely removes the military justice system's jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada. It mandates an automatic transfer to the civilian system. There are no nuances, there is no flexibility and there is no room to adapt.

    We put forward a simple solution: give the court martial jurisdiction if that is what the victim wants. That is essential. There is a system. It can be done. The victim can choose. It seems to me that it does not take a genius to understand that. What matters is recognizing that every situation is different. Judgment must be exercised and victims must be respected.

    We also put forward sound oversight mechanisms: a five-year sunset clause providing for a mandatory statutory review to examine how well the system is working. We also proposed measures to avoid delays in transferring evidence because delays can compromise the truth.

    All too often, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Take the Jordan decision, for example. So many cases drag on, stall, and make no progress. Ultimately, the Jordan decision applies, but it does not work. We end up with a system meant to handle sexual misconduct. Victims, most of them women, end up going through a civilian process that drags on forever. In our view, if the military system can continue to do its job and the victim wants to keep the matter in the military system, that should be allowed. Why not? We do not understand why the Liberals are against this.

    Everything we did was done in collaboration with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, as well as our NDP colleague who has since crossed the floor to become a Liberal. Back then, her thoughts were with the victims. Now, her thoughts are with her Liberal team, which sees things differently.

    Our proposals were reasonable, balanced and based on witness testimony. However, all of it was thrown out and rejected, with a big red X over top. All the important work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence was dismissed out of hand.

    The government does not even have its majority yet, but it managed to knock us back anyway. Imagine what will happen when the government has a majority on committees and in the House. It is going to steamroll right over the work of opposition members who are working to improve bills.

     It would have been a different matter if all the opposition parties had joined forces to demolish the bill. Sometimes that happens. For example, we defeated Bill C‑2. However, we supported this bill. We agreed with it; it simply needed to be improved. What no one can wrap their heads around is the government's refusal to improve it.

    I have been here for 10 years. Often, the Conservatives, and often with the support of the Bloc Québécois, make proposals that the government rejects. A few years later, a problematic situation arises, and we say “we told you so”. However, people quickly forget.

    The bill will pass and, in five years, we may talk about it again. We are going to say that we said in 2026 that it would not work, and we are going to ask why they did not listen to us at the time. Now is the time to do the right thing. We are here now. Why not listen to intelligent proposals from the opposition parties?

    Another key issue is political interference. We can see that political interference in the process is possible. In fact, the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to issue directives in the context of specific proceedings. Politics could interfere in the directives. This is an important power that must be exercised with care, and that is why we proposed giving this responsibility to the judge advocate general, known in military terms as JAG. This person is an independent expert. Justice must never be politicized. Once again, the government rejected this proposal. Why?

    We even proposed what is known as a principled amendment. The bill states that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction. We disagreed. We said that, in a state governed by the rule of law, no one is above the law. To be clear, we said that if a military judge commits an offence, they should be tried like anyone else. It seems to me that this makes sense. Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are not subject to the law, but the Liberals refuse to accept that. Why?

    The pattern is very clear: We make proposals, and the Liberals shut us down. Victims ask for something, and the government imposes something else. Experts make recommendations, and the government ignores them. The Liberals have chosen to impose systematic transfers to the civilian system. This is a system that is already overburdened, a system that is often ill suited to military realities. This is not a solution; it simply shifts the problem.

    The bill could have been improved. It could have been balanced, more respectful of victims and certainly more faithful to the recommendations heard in committee, but the government made a choice to be stubborn and to dictate rather than listening. On this side of the House, we will continue to defend a clear approach. The Liberals talk about listening to victims and respecting their autonomy, but they do the opposite. If they are asked whether they want to strengthen the independence of the system and ensure fairness for everyone, they will say yes, but with this bill and their refusal to accept the amendments, they are showing their contempt for victims.

    Those who serve our country deserve better. They deserve a system that works, that is credible and that can be trusted.

    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Conservatives have really thought the amendments through. What they are doing is making the suggestion that we should have a dual system, one that provides a choice.

     Justice Arbour would no doubt have reviewed that particular option. She has done her homework in the consultations, in working with literally hundreds of victims and others, to come up with a recommendation that clearly states it should be a civilian system.

     My question for the Conservative Party, in particular this member, is this: Is Justice Arbour wrong in her recommendation?

    Mr. Speaker, it would have been very interesting to hear what Judge Arbour had to say to the committee, but she refused to come. She did not come to explain her report. Obviously, if the committee members had been able to ask her questions and gain a clearer understanding of what she intended, that might have changed certain things. Either she did not want to come, or the government advised her not to come. I do not know which it was.

    In any case, our position remains clear, and the Bloc Québécois agrees with us. In fact, I believe it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed the amendment.

    The military justice system exists. It has flaws that need to be addressed, but the civilian system is not the ultimate solution, as it is already bogged down with management issues. In that context, keeping the military system as an option was the best course of action.

    Mr. Speaker, in a response he gave earlier to my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government said how important House of Commons committees are, going so far as to say that we can read everything that is said in committee because it is all on the committee's web page and, as parliamentarians, we have access to all the work done by committees, even if we do not sit on them.

    I find it rather ironic that the parliamentary secretary is telling us how important parliamentary committees are when the Liberals do not even respect the work that was done by all the parliamentarians who were present, regardless of party, and by all the people who came to testify.

    I want to know what my colleague thinks of the Liberals' conception of parliamentary democracy and committee work, especially as it relates to us today.

    Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, like me, my colleague sees the Liberals as having a disregard for democracy. They have no respect for opposition parties, even though we make constructive proposals to improve legislation in the interest of all Canadians. That is what the opposition parties did together.

    The members opposite are rejecting our proposals out of hand, and we cannot get a rational explanation for it, other than that it seems to be based on an ideology or goodness knows what.

    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. 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, the answer is pretty clear: yes. As I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals always turn a deaf ear when victims speak out. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it across the board with respect to the Criminal Code, the justice system, and crimes against women. They have always turned a deaf ear and a blind eye.

    For our part, we can never understand why this government turns a deaf ear to victims' problems and does not seek real solutions to help them get justice.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the report stage of Bill C-11.

     I would first like to note that in rising for this, my first full speech on a bill in the people's House, I do so with the pride of having been sent here with the overwhelming support of the people of the Bay of Quinte and the incredible men and women of 8 Wing CFB Trenton to represent them in addressing important issues like the environment and duty to them in their service to the Canadian Armed Forces, and that duty for me, which brings me here today.

    I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and acknowledge the witnesses, including the brave victims and survivors of sexual assault and misconduct, for their work on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-11 and cultural change at the heart of the Canadian Armed Forces come at a significant time for our military. The norms and rules that once ensured Canada's peace and prosperity are being rewritten. The Canadian Armed Forces is operating in a volatile and unpredictable global security environment. As Canada's new government makes a generational investment into our military, including meeting NATO's 2% target, we cannot forget that the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces are the driving force behind our security and safety. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces must be ready for the threats of today and those of tomorrow.

     A critical component to that readiness is ensuring that members have a work environment where they feel safe, protected and empowered to serve. This is essential to operational effectiveness, productivity and morale, as well as recruitment and retention. Part of these efforts is ensuring that the military justice system evolves alongside the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces and that it is aligned with the aims of Canada's civilian criminal justice system, continuing to ensure fairness and accountability for all involved.

    Bill C-11, first tabled as Bill C-66 in March 2024, as we heard earlier, was reintroduced as Bill C-11 last fall to amend the National Defence Act. This was to help build trust in the military for our currently serving members and for those who are looking to the CAF as a future career.

     Bill C-11 proposes a suite of changes to ensure the continued effectiveness, accountability and alignment of the military justice system with the operational needs of the CAF. The legislation is critical to ensuring the continued safety and well-being of our people in uniform.

     Bill C-11 was introduced to address key recommendations brought forward by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish. This included addressing recommendation 5 of Justice Arbour's independent external comprehensive review report to the Minister of National Defence, delivered in May 2022. This recommendation aimed to remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual assault offences committed in Canada in the majority of cases, from investigation to prosecution and trial of offences. Of all of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations, recommendation 5 is the only one that must be implemented through a legislative amendment to the National Defence Act, which brings us here today.

    The legislation also sought to address eight recommendations made by Justice Fish. The recommendations he proposed relate to the way in which we appoint key military justice actors like the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, by making them Governor in Council appointments. Justice Fish's report recognized the important role of these military justice actors in ensuring a fair and transparent process for victims and survivors. The legislation would also expand eligibility criteria for military judge appointments to include non-commissioned officers, which would diversify the applicant pool further.

     In response to another of Justice Fish's recommendations, the proposed legislation would change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to the provost marshal general. This way, the title aligns more closely with the titles of other senior designations in the CAF, such as surgeon general, chaplain general, judge advocate general, and so on.

     Bill C-11 would also expand the class of people who could make an interference complaint to be addressed by the Military Police Complaints Commission. Further, it would require military police or others carrying out policing duties or functions under the responsibility of the provost marshal general to make such a complaint in certain circumstances.

    Beyond addressing key recommendations from former justices Arbour and Fish, Bill C-11 would exclude military judges from being subjected to the summary hearing system. This is to reinforce judicial independence. Members of the national defence committee heard time and again about the need to reinforce judicial independence to build trust in the system for all involved. Speaking of trust, Bill C-11 would expand access to the victims' liaison officers under the Declaration of Victims Rights. That way, an individual acting on behalf of a victim could request that a victim's liaison officer be appointed to assist them.

     Through Bill C-11, we have brought forward these proposed amendments to ensure that the military justice system grows in tandem with the evolving culture of the Canadian Armed Forces. The military justice system must continue to function in alignment with our civilian criminal justice system and better respond to the needs of victims and survivors. Canadians expect Canada's military justice system to reflect their values at all times. Bill C-11 is an important piece of legislation that does just that. It advances the culture of respect and accountability across all ranks of the defence team, regardless of role, position or rank.

    This legislation makes clear our commitment to modernize Canada's military justice system. It makes clear our commitment to address the recommendations from independent external review reports, namely Justice Fish's third independent review and Justice Arbour's independent external comprehensive review. As well, it makes clear our commitment to the brave and skilled members of our Canadian Armed Forces and their civilian colleagues who serve this country every day.

     At its core, the Canadian Armed Forces is defined by the people who serve in uniform. They are central to our defence and to our national security. We will continue building a workplace free from harassment, discrimination and violence for all who serve and defend this country. Bill C-11 will pave the way for future statutory, regulatory and policy amendments that will further evolve military culture and continue to modernize the military justice system. The legislation before us today represents their commitments to modernizing the military justice system and evolving Canada's military culture.

    We must also continue to strengthen the policies and programs that make a meaningful difference in the lives of those affected by harmful conduct. We are seeing encouraging signs of that today, but our work will not stop with this legislation. This week alone, we saw recruitment of the Canadian Armed Forces hit a 30-year high. This is remarkable progress, but we cannot stop here. We must ensure that we are doing our part to protect our military and civilian members of the defence team who work hard every day to keep us safe. We are sincerely grateful for everything they do.

     Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of times that the government is very proud of the increase in new recruits signing up to our Canadian Armed Forces. Recruitment has risen by 30%. It obviously was very low up until this point, over the last decade.

    Can the member clarify what I heard, that those numbers do not even begin to replace the number who have chosen to leave?

    Mr. Speaker, we were indeed encouraged this week by the news of the recruitment numbers.

    Although we heard reports that the numbers leaving are outstripping the numbers coming in, and I do not have the exact numbers at my fingertips, I have been assured that they, in fact, were a bit misleading. That is why it is important for this legislation to be at report stage.

    Bill C-11 would help us ensure that those people coming in are welcomed into a safe and responsible environment for all genders enrolling in the Canadian Armed Forces.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution at the national defence committee.

    At committee, we heard that 36 recommendations by Justice Arbour have been implemented. That is a tremendous accomplishment and one of the reasons things have improved. However, there is something experts have said. I know the opposition has talked about having choice, but experts say that is a false choice.

    Could you elaborate, please?

    I would remind members to speak through the Chair.

    The hon. member for Bay of Quinte.

    Mr. Speaker, yes, we did hear quite a bit of discussion on choice at committee.

    One thing I would like to acknowledge at this point is that it warms my heart to see members opposite embracing a woman's right to choose in all manners. It is heartening.

    It was a little misleading in the fact that a woman's right to choose was somehow seen as an ideal situation. Since 2021, all cases have gone to the civilian system. The right to choose, as we have heard, is, in fact, an obstacle to a woman reporting in some of the testimony that we heard. While it may have been an option that some had seen as a very responsible position, we heard much evidence of the opposite.

    Mr. Speaker, on the right to choose, the member indicated, which I think was somewhat demeaning, that this only applied to women. Obviously, in the armed forces, there are a lot of issues. On this issue, I can attest, from male members of the armed forces having spoken with me, that this is as much an issue to them as it is to women.

    Would the member like to retract that statement?

    Mr. Speaker, if I misspoke, I sincerely apologize. There are men and women who have reported cases of abuse. I did not in any way mean to impugn anyone in that regard.

     Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleague for his great work on the national defence committee.

     I would like the member to elaborate a bit about what we heard in terms of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who would not come forward to file complaints out of fear of retribution and that their careers would be limited, and that is why we brought forward Justice Arbour's recommendation.

    Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We heard testimony on a different report at the national defence committee yesterday on francophones in the armed forces, and one of the members who testified had testified earlier. This was an officer who, in Afghanistan, was sexually assaulted, but failed to report because the assailant in this case was a superior officer.

    That goes to the crux of why we are making these changes. It is due to a reluctance or fear of reporting because of the chain of command.

    Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-11 follows what I would call a really troubling pattern of behaviour toward veterans in Canada, especially when it comes to women veterans. This is the same party that proudly claims to be feminist, but it will happily disregard what women are advocating for the second it no longer suits its political agenda.

    I will remind everyone in this House that it was the Liberals who propped up Justin Trudeau, the self-proclaimed feminist, who would immediately fire any woman from his caucus who dared to stand up to him. It would appear now that Liberals continue to follow in those footsteps. Much has been said already today about we are seeing happen here.

    [Disturbance in gallery]

    Order. I will remind those who are attending not to make comments from the gallery.

    The hon. member for Airdrie—Cochrane can resume.

    Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about it already, but clearly, in the defence committee, a lot of witnesses came forward, like veterans, and in particular, women veterans. They talked a lot about having the ability to choose and how the justice they needed to receive would be done. The Conservatives listened to that. We worked across party lines to see improvements to the bill.

    The Liberals did not seem to listen so much, which seems to be a pattern. They like to pretend that they care. They are about to have a majority government that they achieved through backroom deals. They think that means that now they do not have to work with others, work across party lines or listen to the victims. Instead, they can just ram through the changes they want to see. Here, they are trying to do what is politically expedient for them, but they are not listening. They are not hearing the concerns that are being raised.

    I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and fighting for our veterans there. Just a little over a year ago, we tabled what I would consider a landmark study on the experiences of women veterans. That is a study we did over several months. There were about 25 meetings to hear witness testimony. We heard some testimony from women veterans that was absolutely heartbreaking. I know many of the same veterans would have come to speak to the defence committee about the experiences they had, like with military sexual trauma. There are a lot of things that women veterans have experienced during their time in the Canadian Forces, like ill-fitting equipment and other things that are not designed for our women in our military.

     The Liberals publicly claimed how important this study was for them and how much they cared about this cause. In the end, out of the recommendations that were made, as far as I can tell, the only thing that was acted upon was the idea of creating a women veterans council to advise the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Of course, what we have seen since that time is that the women who were appointed to this committee were telling us that they were not being listened to. They were expressing their frustration. They were expressing concern about the fact that they had no access to the Minister of Veterans Affairs or to the Government of Canada. They simply felt like they were being used for photo ops or as a showpiece.

    In the end, despite raising these concerns with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and despite many of us raising them at committee, there were still no efforts being made to listen to or address any of the concerns the members of this council were trying to raise. In January of this year, there was a massive resignation of the majority of the members of the women veterans council, because they claimed they were being ignored. We are now seeing that very same thing play out here with the Minister of National Defence. Therefore, after being forced to finally address the issues that were plaguing the Canadian Armed Forces and driving members from its ranks, and after public embarrassment from an Auditor General's report, only then did the Liberals decide there was a need to address these issues.

    As I said, many of these same women veterans we heard from at the veterans affairs committee bravely came forward to recount their experiences, to talk once again to a parliamentary committee and face the trauma they experienced. They offered their advice on ways to amend Bill C-11 to ensure that victims of the broken justice system had their voices heard. Of course, the goal was to ensure that the military justice system would learn from its mistakes, so future members of the CAF would not be subjected to the same cruel experiences that they were subjected to. The amendments made in the national defence committee came straight from veterans. Those veterans had been on the receiving end of the failures of the military justice system. They were the same veterans that the Auditor General reported about and who suffered undue hardship under this system.

    Once again, the Liberals will pretend that this entire initiative is their own doing to support women. Then, as soon as they got their majority, they dropped the charade and completely wiped out some of the amendments that came from the very work of these women who came forward. Not only is this disrespectful to all of those who came forward and all of those who made themselves vulnerable to try to help future CAF members, but it is also a blatant display of disregard by the Liberal government. It is clear that, once again, this is just another “check the box” for them. Rather than trying to fix the issue, it is some kind of a show of pretending they are doing something.

     First, the Liberals sat on this issue for almost 10 years, while the media exposed case after case. I do not think Canadians are going to forget how long the Liberals buried their heads in the sand to avoid this issue. What is clear now is that the Liberals are going to attempt to ram through this legislation, rather than actually accept the things that were heard and the work that was done across party lines so that we could actually address the issues in the way the veterans were calling for.

     The disrespect for veterans does not end there. There have been numerous scandals in just the last few years alone where the Liberal government deliberately continues to ignore what veterans are asking for. I think about the Presence in Absence monument. For those who do not know, this is a monument the Liberals funded, which was supposed to honour those who gave their lives in Afghanistan. The Liberals did not do their due diligence and did not ensure that the project was inspected in the right way. It was constructed listing the names of many surviving veterans as killed in action, and other names, of those who actually did lay down their lives, making the ultimate sacrifice, were left off that monument. As we can imagine, survivors and family members of those who were killed in action were furious. The Province of Ontario put forward a motion to Veterans Affairs, just looking for a simple apology, and there was nothing. It is a clear pattern.

    With the time I have remaining, I will speak briefly about what the Liberals are doing in terms of the $4-billion cuts they are making to Veterans Affairs and what impact that is going to have on veterans. Veterans are screaming out, because they are going to see five-year wait times to get some of their basic benefits as a result of some of these cuts, including to the bureau of pensions advocates and other cuts. It is shocking, disappointing and sad. It just continues on. This is just another example where veterans are being ignored and not listened to, and where they seem to be the last thing the government thinks about or considers. It is not right. Veterans certainly deserve better.

    What I would say to the government is to think about the veterans who came forward and how much courage it must have taken for them to recount their stories. What needs to be done is to ensure that the recounting of their stories and the bravery they showed to come forward and try to make things better for their fellow future veterans are honoured in a way that involves listening to what was said and acting upon it, rather than just trying to ram through a piece of legislation and trying to pretend that the Liberals have done something by checking a box.

     The Liberals need to ensure that these veterans, particularly women veterans, have their voices reflected in this. I do not think that is what we are seeing now, when they are refusing to accept some of the amendments. I really hope that, perhaps, after listening to some of this today, the government will take a step back and say that it needs to make sure these voices are heard and work with the things that have been done across party lines to make sure those experiences are reflected in this. I do not see that now.

    Mr. Speaker, I did listen intently to the intervention of my colleague across the way. He referenced a report that was tabled by the ACVA committee in June 2024. I actually participated in that study as well. That report made a unanimous recommendation, recommendation 40, which states:

    This is exactly what Justice Arbour recommended in her recommendation 5, which is exactly what is in Bill C-11. I am not sure why there is a change of heart. We listened to veterans, and this is what they asked for.

    Mr. Speaker, what I need to remind the member of is that we are hearing, and the committee heard, from veterans, from women veterans, who have come forward, and they are saying that they need to have the choice. That is what the amendments, which the government is ignoring, are seeking to do.

    The government can stand up and pretend it is listening. It can claim that it cares. If it really cared, it would listen to what we have heard and act upon it. That is what the amendments give the opportunity to do.

    The second the government thinks it has a majority government and can do whatever it wants, the idea that it would work together to try to work with everyone and do what is in the best interest of veterans is just completely thrown out the window. That is done the very second it thinks it does not have to listen anymore.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the committee and that sort of thing.

    The hon. member has the role of shadow minister. Could he explain some of the interventions he has had with people outside of the committee, such as the regular forces who have come to him and the everyday experiences he has had, back and forth, with them?

    Mr. Speaker, if I were to really summarize what I hear from veterans all the time, and I hear it frequently, it is probably summarized best in the words of former prime minister Justin Trudeau when he told veterans they were “asking for more than we [can] give”.

    That is what veterans feel like they are being told by the government, consistently and constantly, that they are asking for more than we can give. Frankly, we can never give enough. Our veterans, who serve the country, who are willing to lay down their lives for the country, deserve to be treated with respect. They deserve to have what they are entitled to for the service they gave to the country. Right now, they are not seeing it and they are expressing their alarm.

     Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on workplace safety. Does he know anywhere in the world where someone who reports a sexual crime gets investigated, prosecuted and judged by his peers? Does that make any sense to him?

    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that anyone here is suggesting that.

    If we are to talk about workplace safety, let me talk about the workplace our veterans serve in. Our veterans are willing to lay down their lives for this country. They put themselves in the most difficult positions, ones that any of us could never even imagine. They do that because the government asks them to do that. The only thing that they expect in return is that the government takes care of them and listens to what they need. That is not happening under the government. It is about time the government starts listening to veterans and providing what veterans deserve.

    Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Pays‑d'en‑Haut.

    Today, in the House, we are debating a bill that is very important for the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to begin by thanking Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans and their families for their service to our country.

    This bill seeks to modernize the military justice system and originally included recommendations from the reports of former Supreme Court of Canada justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish. These changes are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team as they continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians.

    The bill responds to recommendation 5 from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour's report and the eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish's report. However, the amendments made by the committee and proposed by opposition MPs run counter to these recommendations. I believe that all my colleagues in the House will agree with me on the following point: Bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our top priorities. That is why I believe it is crucial to hold this debate here, so that we can discuss the importance of upholding the recommendations of former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour.

    Today I will address the importance of recommendation 5. In 2022, Ms. Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, entitled “Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”, contains 48 recommendations that focused on reforming the “institutional shortcomings” and “structural impediments” that have allowed the problem to persist.

    Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 is that civilian authorities should have exclusive jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences alleged against members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I quote:

    She also states the following in her report:

    However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties run directly counter to this recommendation. This will make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill as amended by the opposition parties. The lack of clarity and transparency will have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors.

    Since December 2021, all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges have been laid in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried in the military justice system, and this arrangement is working.

    Justice Arbour also relied on the results of the Declaration of Victims Rights consultation in issuing recommendation 5. In her report, she notes:

    This lack of trust and fear of reprisals were also raised by the vast majority of witnesses during the committee's consideration of Bill C-11. Here is an example of testimony received by the committee. On November 20, 2025, Paula MacDonald made the following statement during her testimony before the Standing Committee on National Defence:

    She continued:

    She also said the following:

    I think it is pretty clear that there is a lack of trust in the military justice system when it comes to sexual offences. That is why the defence team implemented most of Justice Arbour's recommendations, and we need to do the same for recommendation 5.

    This bill should establish a clear framework for investigating and acting on allegations of sexual misconduct in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. That would not happen if we adopted the amendments put forward by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 from Bill C‑11. We are encouraged by the positive changes in the culture of the defence team in recent years. Bill C‑11 and the changes it will make to the National Defence Act are a crucial step in strengthening that trust and ensuring that this change is permanent.

    Canadians who serve our country risk everything for us. In return, we owe them our full and unconditional support.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, having listened to and read a lot of the testimony, that what the member just mentioned about the concerns of one of those witnesses is absolutely true. At the same time, 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.” She goes on to indicate that it should not be an either-or but a both-and. We know that victims come with different perspectives.

    What the government has done is chosen what is best, most applicable and appreciated by itself and the Canadian Armed Forces. It removes it from the very place where the issues are being done. They—

    I have to interrupt the member to give a chance for the member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, Justice Arbour interviewed 14,000 people and most of them did not want these cases to remain in the military system. The trust is not there.

    A change in culture is happening slowly. We hear that things are improving at the Department of National Defence, but they have not yet improved enough. Victims still fear retaliation. They fear being reprimanded, and they fear that their case will not be dealt with appropriately.

    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It is important to take an interest in what we are debating here in the House. While my colleague may take an interest in the debates here in the House, he is not, to my knowledge, a member of the committee that studied this bill. He can correct me if I am wrong.

    The committee members worked very hard on this. Bloc Québécois and Conservative members proposed amendments that came back to the House. It was not the first time that happened. I think we have seen that with other bills in the past. The government says it wants to collaborate, but it just dismisses the committee's constructive work once the bill comes back to the House. This does not bode well for the future when the governing party has a majority in committees.

    Is this how it is going to be from now on, or will there be genuine collaboration?

    I have my doubts.

    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to correct my colleague. I have sat on the Standing Committee on National Defence since I was elected, and I am happy to do so. I sat in on all the testimony that was given in connection with the study of Bill C‑11.

    Some witnesses did say that they would rather have a choice, but the vast majority of witnesses said that they did not trust the military justice system, that they were not convinced that investigations would be carried out properly within the military system and that they chose the civilian system. This has been in place since 2022. All the criminal cases of sexual abuse are already before the civilian courts. It works very well, and we do not see the point of going backwards.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on the Standing Committee on National Defence. He talked about all the other sexual assault victims. Recommendation 5 in Justice Arbour's report stems from the work she has done. She listened to witnesses and victims and made this recommendation, the same one that was in the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Can my colleague talk about the other victims who were not able to appear before the committee? We are listening.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work with the military. Coming from a military family, I appreciate the service of her two sons. We did indeed listen to witnesses, and we are aware that the majority of them do not want their cases made public. They do not want to disclose their assault in public. I think it is important to take their opinions into account, along with everything that was said to Justice Arbour. She heard testimony from 14,000 people, and it is important to consider what they said.

     Mr. Speaker, I have no experience in the military, and I do not serve on the national defence committee, so why am I here? I serve on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have been there since 2015. As a matter of fact, I am the matron of the committee. I am the only one who has been there this entire time, outlasting a decade's worth of 10 ministers and different members every time the government has had an election. I have experienced everything on that committee, in my heart and in my mind, with all of those who have come to share their stories and their concerns. I am standing here today simply on behalf of the survivors of military sexual trauma in whatever form.

    We did a study of women in the military, and out of that study came the report “Invisible No More”. Survivors spoke of their experiences, and I have to say there is no other way to hear what the government should be doing than to sit down and not just read the report but watch and listen to every one of those individuals who took the risk, and were brave and courageous, to come and share exactly what has happened to them in the military.

    I am hearing the concerns that it was so devastating, and it was not treated properly, so we are going to move it all over to civilian court. These women know what is happening here. They are not being heard and are not being respected. They do not want to have everything shifted over to the civilian court. There are reasons for that, which are rational and were shared at the committee, and they are being completely ignored. Why? It is because the government wants it to go away. It wants our national defence to be able to function without this in the rear-view mirror.

    That is not what the survivors want. They want the option to take their perpetrator to civilian court or to do it within the military. As a matter of fact, if members read all of Bill C-11, they will see there were good reasons, and means, to also give them the choice to move between the two. This is not complicated. It could be done, and every member of the military who has been attacked in some way should have the opportunity to have that choice.

    Out of that same report, “Invisible No More”, a recommendation came forward to have a VAC women veterans council. It was announced on December 2, 2024. I was at the installation ceremony for the members who were chosen and celebrated the creation of the council that spring. It joined a plethora of advisory councils that have had minimum input and minimum impact on the decision-making of the government. Believing that their contribution would be different, the members were excited, and then time went by.

    I attended a major conference where members of the council were represented, and they were praised for their participation and input in making this conference take place. I later learned from a number of them that no, it was just word salad. They were not consulted.

    On January 14 came a letter of resignation from six out of the 12, including five of the eight Canadian Armed Forces members, who put in their letter of resignation because they saw none of what they had expected to have happen in that group. This is what the letter said:

    This is something I have come to realize over my decade plus on that committee. These women are always considered, but they are never recognized as experts in what they present at that committee. We are seeing that again today in the way they are being responded to.

    In response to Bill C-11 in its original form, concerns actually came to light at an appreciation event for women who served in the Canadian Armed Forces, including those who had contributed to the study, that was sponsored and put on by the Liberal women MPs on the veterans affairs standing committee. I was not formally invited, but I showed up. It was there that these contributors expressed openly that they were not happy with Bill C-11 and that it would not do what they need it to do. I had the opportunity to represent them and talk to my colleagues in national defence. They listened. The government is not listening. As a matter of fact, it is being punitive to the very people it should be supporting.

    I am just going to quote a couple of the individuals I have come to know and be good friends with. I love their tenacity, their grit, their truthfulness and the fact that they do not see themselves as victims. They are survivors, and they love the armed forces. Their biggest desire is to see this gone, but they do not believe that can happen if suddenly there is no accountability. We know that the chain of command is culpable here. It is part of the problem. I get the rationale, but it is not right, and it is punitive to the very people the government should be supporting.

    I am going to quote Donna Van Leusden. She said:

    That creates trauma. That is sanctuary trauma.

    She was involved in actually putting together a program that they could have function within the Canadian Armed Forces. They were even doing tests, and it was working. There are a lot of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have seen what has gone on and did not want to be part of that, do not want to be part of that, and looked forward to having this as an option. It was shut down.

    I am going to quote Christine Wood, who is the one who bravely said at that meeting of the committee and veterans that they were not happy with Bill C-11, and she explained why. She said:

    We have different views, do we not? However, it is not an either-or. It is a both-and.

    She went on to say:

    This is important.

     Heather Vanderveer said, “Survivor autonomy is one of the strongest predictors of recovery after institutional betrayal and sexual trauma. Bill C-11 risks creating a system where survivors feel processed through the justice system rather than empowered within it.”

    This is wrong, and it is going to cause more problems than it fixes.

     Before we move to questions and comments, the member has a device on her desk that was buzzing, and it was interfering sometimes with interpretation. I would ask the member to just move it away. The buzzing does not sound very loud near her, but it is quite loud here. I could hear it, and for the interpreters, it was even louder.

    Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

     Mr. Speaker, Justice Arbour came up with a recommendation to transfer cases to the civilian process. A previous standing committee of the House put forward a report, which the member indicated that she voted for, that said to do exactly what this legislation purports to do

     Justice Arbour would have met with literally hundreds of victims. Combined, we are probably talking about well over 1,000 people, directly and indirectly. I believe she did her homework. Based on the expertise she brought to the table and the people she consulted with, she came up with that recommendation.

    Does the member believe Justice Arbour is wrong in her recommendation?

    Mr. Speaker, the tone in which the member presented his question is appreciated.

    I voted for the report. When we voted for that report, we were saying to all those suffering individuals that we were there for them, we heard them and we wanted to see change. I voted for that recommendation at that time.

    Over time, those same individuals who gave testimony have had time to process it. What is interesting is that what ended up being the recommendation in that report is also a recommendation that was put forward by that one individual. There are others who did excellent work too.

    It needs to be changed.

    Mr. Speaker, it is 2026. The first allegations against General Vance date back to 2015. At the time, rather than taking action, the Harper government gave him a promotion. Since then, we have had the Arbour, Deschamps and Fish reports, and yet here we are, still talking about this crisis in Canada's military justice system. I have two questions.

    First, I would like to know why all the governments, and by that I mean the Harper government, the Trudeau government and today's government, have shown so little concern for this issue. Second, in my colleague's opinion, why did the government refuse to consider the Bloc Québécois's amendment that sought to give victims a choice between the military and civilian justice systems in circumstances where these victims' trust in the current military justice system may be undermined?

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that nothing around here moves the way I would make it move, if I were the one in charge. “Cathay for prime minister.” No. I am quite happy to not be in charge. That being said, the reality is that politics interfere often. I think the member knows that as well, even from where he sits.

     The member asked why in the world this has happened. That is a really good question, and it does not get asked often enough.

    I firmly believe the reason all of this excellent opportunity to give our veterans the best chance to change the culture of the armed forces has been denied is that it is more politically expedient for the government to make it go away.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful and heartfelt words.

    We may hear the party opposite continually refer to the Arbour report, yet much has changed since then, such as the mandatory duty to report and access to the SMSRC. Military members at that time did not have access to victim liaison services or independent legal support.

     I was wondering if my colleague could explain why the party opposite continues to refer to the report of Justice Arbour's, who did not testify at committee, and has failed to refer to the Deschamps and Fish reports, which supported that choice for military sexual trauma.

    Mr. Speaker, I actually wrote down “cherry-picking” on my paper. The Liberals are not choosing to look at the broad picture of what has been presented to them on behalf of veterans who have suffered military sexual trauma, and who will continue to suffer under the CAF until things improve and the changes are made that truly need to be made.

    Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a piece of legislation that is very important to the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces.

     I begin by thanking the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families for their service to Canada.

     As Canada's new government rearms, rebuilds and reinvests in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is critical that we start with our people. Our work to attract, recruit and retain members of the Canadian Armed Forces requires a safe, healthy work environment where our forces can thrive, grow and contribute.

    The changes proposed in this legislation are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team, which continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians. Bill C-11 aims to modernize the military justice system and incorporate the recommendations from two external reports from former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish.

     The bill would implement nine recommendations in total, including recommendation five of former Supreme Court Justice Arbour's report and eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish's report. At present, the amendments made by members of the opposition during the study of the bill at the Standing Committee on National Defence run counter to the Supreme Court justices' recommendations.

     I believe all of my colleagues in this House will agree with me that bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our highest priorities, free from politicization and partisanship. Canadians expect us to take culture change in the military seriously. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces expect us to take culture change seriously too.

     I will take some time to go through the changes that Bill C-11 aims to implement from Justice Arbour's work.

    In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, known as the report of the independent comprehensive external review, or the ICER, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional shortcomings and structural barriers that have allowed the problem of sexual misconduct in the CAF to persist.

     When the legislation was introduced last fall, before amendments were made at committee, Bill C-11 proposed to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada from the military police to the civilian police. This is Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation in action. As Justice Arbour laid it out, the goal is to remove these offences from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces, putting the investigations into and the prosecution of offenders in the hands of civilian authorities. Moreover, this recommendation fulfills our promise to victims and survivors that they can have confidence that their cases will continue to be handled fairly and with transparency outside of the military chain of command. This change and others proposed through Bill C-11 complement programs, services and initiatives already in place to make sure that survivors receive the support and guidance they need to help them through the difficult process they often face alone.

     Before going into further amendments made at the committee stage, I will take a moment to discuss the existing supports that are available through the Canadian Armed Forces' programs and illustrate how Bill C-11 is yet another piece of the puzzle in supporting victims and survivors.

    The Canadian Armed Forces sexual misconduct support and resource centre is a key tool for victims and survivors. Within this centre is the community support for sexual misconduct survivors grant program. This program extends the support offered through the centre into the communities it serves, increasing collaboration between National Defence and third party, community-based organizations. These organizations can in turn provide valuable support for survivors and have the capacity and expertise to provide support to those affected by military sexual trauma. These essential resources complement the centre's other offerings, ensuring that survivors can access support anywhere in the country when, where and how it is needed most. Through peer support programs, survivors can share their experiences and support one another in groups that include mental health practitioners and trained peer supporters with their own experience of sexual misconduct or military sexual trauma.

    While these programs and tools can help survivors cope with the experience of sexual misconduct or trauma, it is equally important to support them through the complex and difficult process of pursuing justice. Many survivors have said the justice system makes them feel excluded or even victimized all over again. This is one of the driving forces behind the changes to the military justice system proposed in Bill C-11.

     I will speak briefly to Bill C-11's journey through committee.

     Justice Arbour's recommendation five, the recommendation to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct cases from the military police to the civilian police, is at the heart of Bill C-11. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties at the committee stage run directly counter to this recommendation. It would be even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill as amended by the opposition parties. Moreover, the lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system, victims and survivors.

     It is important to remember that an interim directive to implement recommendation five by transferring cases until legislation passed has been in place since December 2021. That means that since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought into the civilian justice system, and none of these offences have been tried by the military justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, just as Justice Arbour recommended. However, opposition amendments propose to reverse this directive, reject Justice Arbour's recommendation and, in fact, go backward.

     Victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces deserve clarity and transparency, not steps backward. It is clear that the interim directive and the spirit of Justice Arbour's recommendation five have been making a tangible, clear and meaningful difference over the past five years. Since December 2021, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case that has occurred in Canada has been successfully transferred to the civilian system. This means that every new case is being prosecuted in a manner that is fair, that is transparent and that inspires trust in the system for the victim. Bill C-11 would take the final necessary step to make this a lasting reality and ensure that all cases would, once and for all, go through the civilian court system.

     Any attempts or suggestions to overturn, stall or block this progress from continuing are a disservice to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

     Bill C-11 would ensure that victims and survivors of Criminal Code sexual misconduct would have a fair, transparent process without any real or perceived influence from their chain of command. Over the past few years, I have watched the Canadian Armed Forces undergoing a period of cultural evolution and change. Like many Canadians and many of my colleagues, I am encouraged by the positive and forward-looking changes that have been made.

     I know that building trust and confidence in our military justice system is a critical element in ensuring that this change continues and endures. The proposed changes in Bill C-11 would modernize the military justice system, and particularly how that system handles cases of Criminal Code sexual misconduct.

    Mr. Speaker, first, I would suggest that my colleagues not use “chain of command” until they understand what it means. People are removed from the chain of command today and put into the JAG system, or at least they were prior to this.

     I want to quote Dr. Karen Breeck, who is a former officer in the Canadian Armed Forces and is also a medical doctor. She testified that the military of 2025 has changed. She said:

    I wonder if my colleague could comment on one of the victims who said much the same thing as—

     I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South a chance to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, certainly, we give great weight to the testimony of victims and of the good doctor my colleague referenced.

     I would note that Justice Arbour, who has a long and illustrious career in the judicial system and who has been recognized as an international champion of human rights, carried out a very extensive investigation for her report, for which she consulted hundreds of witnesses, or possibly close to 1,000. She stated through her review that she still found a deeply deficient culture within the military and she had seen no meaningful improvements. Therefore, I would defer to Justice Arbour's recommendation.

    Mr. Speaker, earlier, I put a question to a member who I believe is sitting right next to my Liberal colleague. Since I did not get a complete answer, I will try asking her that same question.

    Members from my party, the Bloc Québécois, and members of the official opposition, the Conservatives, have worked hard on bills in committee on several occasions. We proposed amendments, worked in good faith, heard from witnesses and really did a thorough job. However, when those bills come back to the House, the Liberals just undo all that work and that is it.

    Is this indicative of how the government intends to manage its future majority?

    Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee at which this was studied. However, I am a lawyer, and I have worked in the space of intimate partner violence and violence against women, so the perspective I bring is my own.

    As far as working through amendments and committees, this is something that I believe every elected member of Parliament wants to do in good faith at all times. That does not necessarily mean that colleagues across the aisle will get the result they want every time.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her incredible support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

    She mentioned that she is a lawyer and has worked in this kind of field. I would like to ask her if she knows of any other workplace where an employee who is a victim of sexual assault would have to report that sexual assault to their employer and have it investigated by their own employer.

    Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has asked really goes to the crux of what Justice Arbour found in her report.

    I would say that no, I do not know of any other situation where a victim would potentially have to come forward to superiors or have the case heard within a workplace.

    I think we have to be very cautious. I know my opposition colleagues have been talking about options, but we have to be cautious about weighing options and certainty, and we have to be very cautious that we do not underestimate the potential pressure or coercion a victim may be subjected to by superiors within the workplace to have their complaint heard, in this example, in a military court because there could be more favourable conditions to the accused in that situation. That is something we have to be very cognizant of.

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, when it first came to the national defence committee, was meant to transfer sexual assault cases from the military to the civilian justice system. It was not supposed to be a controversial bill. It arose because of the need to address sexual assault in the military. All of us in the House have, I believe, deep down, the best interests of Canadians at heart.

    As a former officer, the bill matters to me. All of us in the room value the strength and dedication of our troops, but not one of us wants to see greater physical strength turned against our own. I have another personal reason for taking the bill seriously. I have a daughter who recently earned a university degree and a civilian pilot's license. She has recently applied to the Canadian Armed Forces to fly as a pilot in defence of our country.

    Those of us in the House who are fathers of daughters will understand all too well the deep rage that wells up at the mere thought of someone doing harm to our daughters. I want to assure the House that I take the bill very seriously indeed, and that I really mean what I am about to say. Those of us who have sons should be aware that, because of the higher number of men serving, 40% of sexual assault cases involve male victims.

    Like all of us, I had heard over the years horror stories involving sexual predation in the military, and I assumed, after having listened to the media, that this bill would be a sort of rubber stamp because everyone would want it. I assumed that victims of sexual predation in the military would want to stay far away from anybody in uniform. I assumed the victims would believe they would get a better shake in an inherently less structured and more liberal civilian justice system. I thought the victims would associate the military with the crime and understandably believe that, if their case were to be tried in the military, somehow the chain of command could influence the outcome, even though it has nothing to do with actual chain of command.

    The Liberals told us that the victims of criminal sexual assault would be too traumatized to choose between a civilian investigation and a military investigation. It was best, according to the Liberals, if the state chose for them. This sounded a little bit like the old TV show Father Knows Best.

    When we first started this investigation, I had no reason to believe that the victims would want anything to do with the military system, so I let it go. I think there are all sorts of other problems with the bill that we could fix with other amendments, and I am sure my colleagues will address those, but I want to talk specifically about the importance of choice.

    Like I said, I had assumed that no one would object to moving the crime into the civilian system. I was shocked. I was surprised at the responses of the academics, the military and the civilian police, and I was truly shocked at the response of the victims.

    We talked to academics. One professor pointed out that the conviction rate for sexual offences was not very high in the military justice system. Another academic, former JAG officer Rory Fowler, responded that, if the object were a high rate of conviction, perhaps Canada should emulate the North Korean justice system. He said that, quite likely, the reason for a low rate of conviction was an excellent defence team available in the military and referenced a recent high-profile case in which a JAG lawyer, Major Francesca Ferguson, supplied quality defence for a private who was falsely accused, right up to the Supreme Court.

    Rory Fowler argued that the culture in the military has changed radically over the years. Back in the 1990s and earlier in this century, high-profile cases of sexual predation drew national attention to a real problem with sexual assault and the way it was handled in the military justice system. As a result, the government reacted and ordered high-level independent reviews of the military's handling of sexual assault in the military. The Deschamps report came out 11 years ago and the Fish and Arbour reports followed it. They all had ideas for change. The Arbour report had 48 recommendations, including steering victims toward the civilian justice system.

    The problems in the military had not just kicked off a few reports, like most government studies do. They also kicked off a significant institutional culture change within the military. The senior leaders in the CAF did not just treat the Arbour and Fish reports as annoyances that had to be suffered through; they treated them as a new mission.

    By late last year, the CAF had actioned all 48 of the Arbour report recommendations and were still actively engaged in culture change. Culture change is much faster in a top-down chain of command. When the organization is built around instant obedience, instant cultural change can happen very quickly when it comes from the top in a sincere effort.

     Next, we listened to the defence and prosecution teams from the military. They argued that the studies the bill was responding to were out of date or no longer applied to current military culture. They said that they had both the know-how and the professionalism to handle the job. In fact, they said they were surprised to learn that the Liberals intended to remove jurisdiction because the CAF had made sweeping changes and spent enormous effort reforming the system. They also said the culture of the CAF had changed. We have two bodies of experts who are saying that the culture has changed.

     Then we listened to the civilian police who told us that, although they had the capability, they no longer had the capacity to absorb yet more work, especially in locations with military bases close by. One such police chief told us that the witnesses might be scattered in redeployments to other jurisdictions in Canada or internationally. She said a case in those circumstances would be almost impossible for her department to investigate.

     Then we listened to the victims of sexual assault in the military. These brave soldiers rose above the crimes that were done to them and were brave enough to testify in front of the nation in hopes that what had happened to them would not happen to others. Their testimony shocked me. These are the very people I thought would have the strongest desire to stay out of the military system, but the vast majority insisted that they wanted a choice. For various reasons, they wanted a choice.

     After numerous victims spoke, it became obvious that the victims wanted choice, so we co-operated with the Bloc member on the committee to amend an outdated Liberal motion into one that every stakeholder, from victim to investigator, wanted. Our amendments gave the victims choice. Dr. Karen Breeck, a former medical officer in the CAF and a victim of sexual assault, put it to us succinctly:

    So far so good, but late Friday afternoon, the Minister of National Defence tabled Bill C-11 at report stage. Instead of our amended bill, and in defiance of civilian lawyers, military lawyers, civilian police, military police and even the victims themselves, what came into the House had been stripped of all our amendments. Why? It is because the artificial Liberal majority can now just stiff our soldiers and download the problem onto lower levels of government. The Liberals are not doing it to help our soldiers. They are doing it to push the problem off the federal plate, and then they will just not have to worry about it anymore.

     I appeal to my fellow veterans and to the MPs on the other side of the aisle to listen carefully to what one of our own veterans had to say about this. The veteran said that this bill, if it were stripped of all the amendments that were asked for by victims, cannot claim to be putting people first and that the bill, without the amendments, is not about making life easier for uniformed members but about making life easier for politicians. That is a very different thing and it is, frankly, dishonourable.

     Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the member's assessment.

     I think that he undervalues the many discussions that Justice Arbour would have had with victims. We are not talking about a few dozen; we are talking about hundreds, directly, and indirectly through the Canadian Forces, we are talking about thousands.

     I believe that the Conservative Party has marginalized those victims. There is a reason Justice Arbour came forward with that recommendation. I cannot recall the Conservatives ever asking a question that contradicted the recommendation that Justice Arbour brought forward, and it has been there for four years. Has this member, or any Conservative, asked a question about that?

     Mr. Speaker, the member, a veteran himself, knows very well that, in the military, with a top-down chain of command, culture can change very fast, because it is an order-based society.

     The Arbour report is several years old, and the culture did not stop to wait for the Arbour report. Right away, the military started the culture change, and you know that very well. You know that if you go back—

    I hate to interrupt the member, but he has to speak through the Chair and not directly to the other member.

    I will let the member finish.

     Mr. Speaker, I apologize. However, if the member is acquainted with the military today, he knows very well that the culture has radically changed in a very short period of time.

    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the first allegations against General Vance came out in 2015. The Harper government gave him a promotion. This has been going on for over 10 years. It is now 2026. We got the reports from justices Arbour and Fish, and Justice Deschamps examined suggestions for legislative changes. However, in the bill before us today, the government has decided to ignore a major recommendation made by Justice Arbour, namely that a victim be given a choice between the military and civilian justice systems. When we asked the Liberals earlier why they ignored this amendment, which was not only discussed in good faith but also adopted by the committee, they simply replied that it is all well and good to work in good faith, but we cannot always get what we want.

    What does that say about what the government thinks of victims' rights?

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have put to us that we should remove choice because victims are going to be too traumatized after an assault to actually make a choice. This reminds me of the 19th-century idea that women became hysterical and really had to be directed and taught by men, because when they became hysterical, they were not capable of making good choices. I find that this is paternalistic and insulting to the women who are victims. Frankly, the Liberals are simply throwing out the Arbour report as if it concretizes their point, but it does not. It tends to push people toward the civilian system, but it does not make it mandatory.

    Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated what my colleague spoke to in regard to how things have already progressed and moved along, which has given to a lot of those survivors something that that party does not like to appreciate: hope.

    I just had an interaction with one of those survivors, who was in absolute tears because she sees and knows how many of her colleagues she is going to have to help. She said that they will say “life is over”, and they will be added to those numbers who have lost their lives because of this and not survived. What does the member have to say to that?

    Mr. Speaker, this bill, in its original intent, and that is the reason the amendments were stripped off, is simply to help the government, because the government has to deal with these problems when they arise. If the Liberals get it off their plate and dump it into the municipal police force or into the civilian provincial courts, they will not have to deal with it anymore and it will now be somebody else's problem.

    I just do not see how the Liberals can keep a straight face and keep saying “Arbour” over and over again as if it means something. It does not. The victims want choice.

    Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by recognizing the critical role that the Canadian Armed Forces plays. Every single member of the Canadian Armed Forces makes a commitment to serve this country. They step forward with a willingness to protect others, often at great personal cost and sacrifice.

    Because of that, we, as members of Parliament, have a responsibility to make sure that the systems around them, especially the justice system, work the way they are supposed to work and there is equality, fairness and justice. When these systems do not work, the consequences are very serious. They affect individuals, and they affect people's confidence in the institution. Ultimately, they affect the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.

    At a time when the world is changing and we cannot always rely on the same assumptions that we used to, it is more important than ever that Canada strengthen its own defence capacity. That includes making sure that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces can rely on the systems around them to create a safe workspace for them. The strength of our Canadian Armed Forces is not just about capability; it is also about whether the people serving in it have confidence in the institution itself. That is where Bill C-11 comes in.

    Over the past several years, we have heard directly from survivors of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, and what we have heard has always been consistent: The system was not always clear; accountability was difficult to navigate; and in too many cases, people lost trust in the process.

    The issue has been examined closely, including through the independent review led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. Her findings pointed to a clear problem with how sexual misconduct cases were being handled within the military justice system. In particular, she spoke to the impact this has had on trust and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces and the need for a more consistent and reliable approach.

    One of her key recommendations was that Criminal Code sexual offences should be handled in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 follows through with that recommendation. What Bill C-11 does, in practical terms, is provide clarity. It sets out that Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada involving members of the Canadian Armed Forces are to be investigated and prosecuted within the civilian system. That clarity is important. It means that individuals are not left navigating uncertainty. It means that cases are not delayed by questions of jurisdiction. It means that there is a consistent approach to how these serious matters are handled.

    It is also important to recognize that this direction is already being followed in practice. Since 2021, these cases have been proceeding through the civilian system. Bill C-11 would ensure that this approach is clearly established and consistently applied moving forward.

    Bill C-11 also introduces stronger, practical measures to ensure that victims are not left navigating the system by themselves. For example, it would establish victim liaison officers, who will support victims throughout the process, including during the transfer of cases between military and civilian authorities. The bill would also expand access to these supports to individuals acting on the victim's behalf, ensuring continuity and guidance at every stage.

    It would improve access to information by strengthening obligations to inform victims and witnesses of their rights, including in relation to publication bans, and ensuring that their wishes are considered in the entire process. Importantly, it clarifies that victims can speak about their own experiences, while still protecting the identity of others when required.

    Another important aspect of Bill C-11 is the focus on independence. It takes steps to strengthen how key roles within the military justice system are structured and appointed, so that decisions are made free from real or perceived influence from chain of command. That really matters, because confidence in the system depends not only on outcomes, but on whether people believe the process itself is fair and independent.

    The opposition has put forward amendments that would reintroduce a degree of flexibility between the military and civilian systems, including allowing cases to move between jurisdictions. However, that approach, to me, raises real concerns. It would add unnecessary complexity to an already difficult process, create the potential for delays and place a greater burden on individuals at a time when clarity is most needed. It is also not a trauma-informed approach, unfortunately. It asks individuals, often in the immediate aftermath of harm and trauma, to make complex decisions about how their cases should proceed.

    What we have heard is clear. People are not asking for more complexity. They are asking for a system that works. Bill C-11 is one part of a broader effort to address long-standing concerns within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about making sure that every member of our armed forces can serve with dignity in an environment that reflects the values that we expect as Canadians.

    I am just now coming from the Indonesian embassy, where we were celebrating Ms. Kartini's influence on equality of opportunity for women, not just in Indonesia but across the world. That is exactly it. What Bill C-11 would do for our community and the Canadian Armed Forces is make sure that women and men who have faced sexual violence and sexual misconduct have the ability to take various approaches toward justice, make sure that their harms are acknowledged and rectified, and make sure that the workplace they operate in, which is already a very high-stress one, is one they can function in, where their services are valued and contribute to the growth and progress of Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces provides a very important role within our country and across the world. We need to make sure, through all the measures and tools available to us, that the serving men and women have the ability to serve effectively.

    With that, I do support this legislation. I hope that all members in this House will do the same and that this bill with respect to sexual misconduct, Bill C-11, along with all the other bills we have brought forward in the past few months, such as Bill C-16 to combat coercive controlling behaviour, or bail reforms and Criminal Code reforms across our country, gets quick passage so that Canadian Armed Forces members impacted by this have the swift justice they require.

    I look forward to questions from members.

    Mr. Speaker, we are hearing an awful lot about Justice Arbour's report. It was made in 2022. Since then, a lot of time has passed and a lot of improvements have been made. When a report like that is made, I would think Justice Arbour would want to come to committee, share the rationales and say whether they are still effective or if there needs to be change. For some reason, she did not show up at all.

    Can the member articulate why someone in that position would not show up at committee to give their input?

    Mr. Speaker, one thing I am really a big fan of is efficiency. Justice Arbour put in her time and effort and made some very significant contributions to this issue. I think it is now incumbent upon us, as members of Parliament, to move forward judiciously on this bill and make sure it provides the necessary support for our Canadian Armed Forces in the most efficient and fastest way possible and contributes to the improvement of our justice system in general.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk a bit about the importance of people's trust in the justice system when they are victims of sexual trauma.

    Mr. Speaker, when victims are facing sexual misconduct or violence, it is so important to have a trauma-based response because going through the justice system re-emphasizes the challenges and hurt that they have gone through. We need to make sure that our justice system not only provides support to Canadians who are trying to move forward, seek justice for themselves and end the harm they have been facing, but also provides the perception of justice being conducted so that more people who have been harmed and have faced sexual violence or misconduct are also able to come forward and trust the system to take care of their justice as well.

    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. 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 have to understand that sexual misconduct and violence, even in the Canadian Armed Forces, is not something that came within a day, and it is not something that is going to go away within a day, either.

    Yes, Bill C-11 is very important and there has been a lot of progress made within the Canadian Armed Forces, but there is a lot more that should be done to continue to support victims of violence and misconduct. That requires support from all across the aisle.

    What Justice Arbour provided is a good starting point. What Bill C-11 would do, I think, is an excellent way to move forward, but it would not be the end. We need to do significantly more.

     Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the brave women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces who call the Ottawa Valley their home to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

    Before we get lost in clauses, subclauses and government talking points about modernization, I want to centre this debate where it belongs, which is with the people this legislation is supposed to support and protect. Bill C-11 is not abstract, theoretical or merely administrative. It is about whether a woman who is sexually assaulted while serving her country can expect justice, dignity and protection, or if she will be left to fight alone against the very institution that failed her.

    That reality is embodied in the experience of retired corporal Elvira Jaszberenyi. Ms. Jaszberenyi did exactly what we tell service members to do. She reported her rape. She co-operated with investigators. She trusted the system that promised to protect her. Instead, the system closed ranks. Her assailant was already known to military authorities for sexual assault. Evidence went undocumented or disappeared. Key decisions were shielded from oversight. The Military Police Complaints Commission was denied access to critical prosecutorial briefing notes, despite clear recommendations from Justice Fish that this information be disclosed.

    When the military declined to proceed, Ms. Jaszberenyi did something few victims can afford to do, emotionally or financially. She pursued a private prosecution in civilian court. That trial did not vindicate her; it exposed her. Her credibility was questioned. Her advocacy was used against her. The fact that she continued to demand accountability was reframed as an agenda. She lost. For the government, that may be a completed file. For women watching from within the ranks, it was a reminder. For those looking to join, it was a warning.

    That is the context in which we must judge Bill C-11. The government tells us this bill would restore trust by transferring jurisdiction for sexual offences committed in Canada over to civilian court. Conservatives agree that this change was necessary. It was recommended by justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour and reflects the years of advocacy by victims and experts. However, jurisdiction alone does not equal justice.

    Bill C-11 would remove cases from the military justice system while leaving untouched the very accountability gaps that failed Ms. Jaszberenyi in the first place. It would not require the military police to preserve and fully disclose investigative records to civilian authorities. It would not guarantee that oversight bodies would finally receive the information they need to do their job. It would not ensure that civilian prosecutors or judges are properly equipped to understand military power dynamics, chain of command pressures or the realities on base.

    Crucially, it would not address what happens after a civilian conviction. A service member could be found guilty of a sexual offence in civilian court and yet face no court martial, no automatic consideration under the code of service discipline and no transparent process to protect others still serving alongside them. That is not a survivor-centred system. This is administrative offloading. We heard this repeatedly at committee.

    Victim advocates warned us that Bill C-11 risks creating a jurisdictional void. Military police leaders told us civilian police services lack the capacity to absorb these cases. Prosecutors cautioned that removing concurrent jurisdiction might mean that fewer cases, not more, actually proceed. Ms. Jaszberenyi herself warned us that changing the forum without fixing the evidence handling, oversight and accountability would simply shift the harm from one system to another.

    If we want women to serve, we must give them reason to trust. That trust is already fragile. Canadians recently learned the Canadian Armed Forces is not on track to meet its own targets for recruiting and retaining women. The numbers are not just disappointing, they are damning. Women are not choosing to walk away from military careers because they lack patriotism or resilience. They are walking away because they do not believe the institution will protect them when it matters most.

    Ms. Jaszberenyi is now retired. After her attack, she was removed from her unit and tasked with painting walls. She was not given work commensurate with her skills and training. She was effectively forced out of service when the Canadian Forces was facing a retention crisis. Imagine the kind of message that sends to our serving women and men. Now she has to deal with Veterans Affairs. After giving testimony on this bill last fall, she was informed by Veterans Affairs that her paperwork had been lost. She needed to resubmit her application. There was no pension and there were no benefits, just more process and paperwork.

     No recruitment campaign, no slogan and no equity strategy will overcome a justice system that retraumatizes victims and shields decision-makers from scrutiny.

     That brings me to the procedural context of this debate. How this bill has been handled matters almost as much as what is in it. Committee members from multiple parties worked in good faith to strengthen Bill C-11. Amendments were adopted to improve oversight and support the accused fairly, and to address long-standing gaps identified by survivors and experts alike. Those amendments were passed after the committee overruled the chair's initial rulings, exercising its legitimate authority as a master of its own proceedings. Then, nearly 10 weeks later, the government asked the Speaker to intervene, not to clarify drafting but to strike down amendments, including amendments supported unanimously by committee members. The Speaker ruled them out of order. I respect the ruling, but I do not accept the government's conduct.

     Committees exist to do the hard, detailed work that the House does not have time to do, clause by clause. When the government invites committee members to engage, votes against them and then asks the Speaker to erase that work after the fact, it undermines parliamentary accountability. This matters because those amendments were not abstract procedural tweaks. They dealt with real issues, including access to trauma-informed training, independent oversight, support for both the victims and the accused, and ensuring key positions within the military justice system could not sit vacant indefinitely. The government chose not to persuade the committee. It chose to erase its work.

     On Monday, in debating Bill C-22, I spoke about the government's new-found majority and the choices it faces: to govern and to govern collaboratively or to rule by decree. Bill C-11 gives us the answer. This is not collaboration. It is control. When that instinct is applied to legislation dealing with sexual assault, oversight and victims' rights, the consequences are profound.

    The Conservatives believe that reforms to military justice must do three things. First, reforms must protect the victims, not just symbolically but procedurally and substantively. Second, reforms must preserve fairness for the accused because a system that cuts corners will not survive constitutional scrutiny. Third, reforms must strengthen, not weaken, institutional accountability.

     Bill C-11 would make progress on the first step by removing jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada, but it would fail on the second and third by refusing to fix the structural flaws exposed by cases like Ms. Jaszberenyi's. A justice system that forces a survivor to pursue a private prosecution because internal accountability failed is a system already in crisis. A system that responds by narrowing scrutiny and striking committee amendments is a system interested in optics, not outcomes.

     If the government truly wants to rebuild trust, it must do more than move files between systems. It must control the culture of defensiveness, information control and procedural gatekeeping that allowed known predators to remain on the base and allowed victims to be discredited for demanding better. Women are watching this debate, as are their families and as are potential recruits who want to serve their country without sacrificing their safety or their dignity. They will judge us not on the title of this bill, but on whether its substance reflects reality.

    Bill C-11 is incomplete. It is not beyond repair, but repair requires humility, transparency and respect for Parliament. The experience of Elvira Jaszberenyi deserves more than a legislative shrug. It deserves a justice system that learns from failure rather than papers over it. Canada's armed forces cannot recruit its way out of crisis. It must legislate its way out of it, honestly and courageously. That is the standard this bill must meet, and that is what Canadians expect.

     Mr. Speaker, the legislation does have substance and it does meet the reality. What is absent is any sort of Conservative rationale for what the Conservatives are doing to the bill.

    Justice Arbour's recommendation five is the essence of the legislation. Justice Arbour worked with literally hundreds, going into thousands, of people, either directly or indirectly, with CAF to ensure that we had the right recommendation. Even the standing committee that the member was referencing earlier came up with another recommendation supporting it. I have never heard the Conservatives, prior to today, question Justice Arbour. Why has the Conservative Party flipped its position and is not listening—

    I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke a chance to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, we respect the recommendations made by Justice Arbour. However, while Justice Arbour listened to the victims of sexual assault, she did not have as much breadth as we did in listening to the testimonies of law enforcement, of people who are in the military and of people who had direct involvement in those proceedings, such as former judges and former lawyers in the system. We heard more testimony, and that is why we proposed some amendments, which have been rejected.

     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. 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 thank my hon. colleague, who does yeoman's duty with different cases serving the armed forces.

    We heard from many people, but we need to listen to what the victims said that did not align with what is in the recommendations. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to accuse people who are named in a snitch line and then have to face a court. When a case is taken out of the military system, there is no support for the accused, and there is no guarantee that there is going to be any sense of justice for the victim, because their case may never be heard. The Jordan framework may require that the case be put aside altogether.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her work on the national defence committee.

    In 2024, the ACVA committee undertook an extensive study regarding women in the military. More than 100 witnesses came forward over 23 meetings, testifying before the ACVA committee. From that committee came a report that was tabled in Parliament and included recommendation 40, and this was unanimous. All parties agreed:

     That is exactly what Bill C‑11 would do.

    Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the civilian courts are full. Already, cases of sexual assault in the civilian domain are not being heard, because too much time expires between a case's starting and its coming to trial, so the perpetrator gets off scot-free.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11 at report stage.

     I know the impact that our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have on operations at home and abroad, and I am pleased to speak to efforts that our government is making to keep them safe.

    We know that to fulfill our role as a NATO ally, we must have forces that are ready, able and agile. Just this week, we heard that the Canadian Armed Forces has reached a 30-year record high for recruitment. This is fantastic news for Canada and for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we cannot take anything for granted.

    We must keep up the momentum and work hard to create a safe workplace where our forces and the next generation of forces can thrive and make meaningful contributions to Canada. This starts with making sure we provide our forces with a safe and professional work environment in which to train and to build up their skills for the difficult job we ask of them. This is why I am pleased to rise today to speak about the important work that is being done to modernize our military justice system and to restore trust in the Canadian Armed Forces.

    Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a critical step toward lasting institutional reform, as well as toward strengthening trust and confidence in our military justice system. Over the past four years, Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces members, watched as former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish put forward detailed recommendations on how to create meaningful and lasting cultural change in the armed forces.

    Their recommendations have been compiled into a comprehensive implementation plan, which Canadians can easily access online to track the progress the CAF is making. These reviews and recommendations have helped define how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are undertaking changes to the military justice system and cultural change. Today I would like to provide an overview of those recommendations and to speak specifically about the implementation of Justice Arbour's recommendation 5, which is at the heart of Bill C-11.

    In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the minister of national defence at the time. This report, also known as the report of the independent external comprehensive review, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional gaps and structural barriers that have allowed the problem to persist. In her report, her fifth recommendation proposed a transformative measure to move the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences in Canada alleged against Canadian Armed Forces members to the civilian system. I want to take the time to read out the specific wording of Justice Arbour's recommendation for all members:

    In short, this recommendation would codify in law that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada. This recommendation would also codify in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction for investigating and prosecuting these cases.

     I want to note that Justice Arbour acknowledged in her report that removing concurrent jurisdiction by amending the National Defence Act would take several years to implement, given the size, scale and scope of the changes needed. In fact, she knew how critical this recommendation was, and she proposed that we adopt an interim directive in the meantime to ensure that the change would take place as quickly as possible. She stated:

    The interim directive has been in place since December 2021 and has been working well. Since then, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case has been prosecuted in the civilian courts rather than in the military justice system.

     While the interim directive was in place, the legislation was first introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-66 and was one of the first bills to be introduced in the current Parliament in the fall of 2025, as Bill C-11. That is precisely because our government recognizes the importance of building a more inclusive, respectful and safe workplace for our Canadian Armed Forces members.

    The bill would implement Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 and protect our forces. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties in the Standing Committee on National Defence run directly counter to recommendation 5. The opposition parties put forward amendments to strike down recommendation 5 and to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation from the bill. The opposition's amendments would make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system, due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill. The lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors.

    We cannot go backwards and reverse any of the important changes made on military culture change over the last five years. In fact, since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences covered by the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried by the military justice system. To accept the opposition's amendments would be to reverse this progress and to move backwards.

     In conclusion, the bill would establish a clear framework for investigating and addressing allegations of sexual misconduct, in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. Bill C-11, and the amendment it seeks to codify in the National Defence Act, represents a crucial step towards strengthening the forces' trust in the military justice system. This is not the case with the amendments proposed by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 from Bill C-11.

    We are encouraged by the positive changes and cultural evolution in the Canadian Armed Forces in recent years, but we cannot stop here, and we cannot move backwards. The people who serve our country risk everything for us. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces must always answer the call to keep Canada safe, and it is our obligation to keep them safe from harassment and misconduct.

     Mr. Speaker, the member said that all the sexual assault cases since a certain date have been transferred to the civilian courts. I wonder if he knows how many have been transferred, and of those, how many have been heard, how many are still waiting to be heard, and what happens to the so-called low-level sexual assaults of groping that will not meet the threshold to be heard in civilian court.

    Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am appalled by the member's use of the term “low-level sexual assaults”. Sexual assault is sexual assault.

    With respect to numbers, no, I am not privy to the actual numbers of cases, but we do know that all these cases are being tried, as per Justice Arbour's recommendation, by the civilian courts.

    Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's comment that a sexual assault is a sexual assault. I think that does need to be reinforced.

    As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to seek the best advice possible. The Arbour report contained 48 recommendations, I believe, the vast majority of which have been implemented. The essence of its primary recommendation is in the bill, which is to convert from the military system to the civilian system. Given Justice Arbour's efforts, would the member not agree that we should be abiding by that recommendation, as the Conservatives did just two years ago?

     Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the hon. member that this was Justice Arbour's core recommendation. I am rather disheartened to hear a pattern of members' trying to diminish the results of Justice Arbour by saying, “by this one justice”. It is part of a greater and very disturbing trend of demeaning and diminishing the results of experts and of using “expert” as a pejorative. Justice Arbour was a former Supreme Court justice who talked to hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of victims, and determined that the best course of action would be for these cases to be tried solely by civilian courts.

     Mr. Speaker, while the member opposite may feel that those definitions are distasteful, there are legal definitions and requirements for levels of sexual assault, and frankly put, the civilian police authorities will not deal with mid and lower levels. They do not have the capacity. It is outside the jurisdiction.

    Does the member opposite feel that predators will have a free pass because they know mid- and lower-level sexual assaults will never be dealt with? They are not within the plan of Bill C-11. This has never been addressed.

    What is your solution to have mid- and lower-level sexual assaults addressed?

     I will remind members to speak through the Chair, not directly to members. I cannot speak of solutions, but I invite the member for Winnipeg West to speak of them.

    Mr. Speaker, again, I say sexual assault is sexual assault. We have a justice system that is outside the chain of command. It is outside any coercion and outside any influence on the career of the Canadian Armed Forces member. There is no place for grading these levels of sexual assault. Again, all cases of sexual assault need to be tried in the civilian system.

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I actually travelled together to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. I know his commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces is one that is incredibly supportive.

    I just want to ask him what his thoughts are on the fact that the ACVA committee made the same recommendation, for us to do this, not even two years ago.

     Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I do not get the disconnect, why this was accepted by the committee two years ago and what the change of heart has been. I hear statements that it is different because military culture has changed, but what evidence do they have of this?

    Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart, but I also rise with a profound sense of duty, a duty shaped by nearly three decades in uniform, by the survivors who trusted me with their stories and by the communities I represent. I rise not for partisanship, not for theatre, but for the people who have carried burdens far heavier than any of us in this chamber will ever know.

    I dedicate my words today to the many active members and veterans I have met across Vancouver Island and across Canada. I have spoken with them in legion halls, on bases, in community centres and sometimes in the quiet corners where people finally feel safe enough to share what they have carried for too long. Most importantly, I dedicate my words to the survivors of military sexual trauma who came to committee.

    Before I go any further, I would like to speak to them directly. They were not obligated to share what they shared. They did not owe us their stories, their pain and their truth, yet they came anyway, carrying memories no one should ever have to carry, because they believed that if Parliament finally listened, something might change for the better. They trusted us with the hardest part of their lives, and that trust is something I will not take lightly. It is not something any of us should take lightly. They asked for one thing: choice. They asked not for privilege, not for special treatment, just the basic human right to choose the justice system where they feel safest, can be heard and can be understood. They asked overwhelmingly, consistently and with courage, and I will not stand by while that courage is dismissed.

    I also rise today on behalf of all Canadians who expect their institutions to protect the vulnerable, not retraumatize them. I also rise on behalf of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, where I live and which I have the privilege of representing in the House. It is a region with a proud and deep connection to our Canadian Armed Forces. Our communities include many veterans, many serving members and many families whose lives are directly shaped by the culture and conduct of the military.

    My riding is home to countless individuals who serve or have served at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, one of the largest military installations in the country. It is a base where my wife and I both proudly served, a base that shaped our lives, our understanding of service and our understanding of the sacrifices that military families make every single day. When I speak about this bill, I do not speak in the abstract. I speak for the people I represent and the communities I know. I speak for those who have worn the uniform and those who still do. I speak for survivors across Vancouver Island and across Canada, survivors who trusted us in Parliament to listen.

    I served nearly three decades in uniform. I was trained as a presiding officer, and I believed I understood the culture of the Canadian Forces, but nothing prepared me for what I learned after meeting my wife, who is also a survivor of military sexual trauma. Through her, I saw parts of our institution that too many never see, or refuse to see. I saw the cost of silence. I saw the cost of inaction. Since I first joined the navy in the 1980s, the culture around sexual misconduct has changed. Yes, there have been positive improvements, but there is still much more to do.

    If Bill C-11 proceeds without the amendments survivors asked for, without the choices they pleaded for, then not only will we undo decades of progress, but we will reverse them. We will make things worse than we can imagine. At the very heart of the debate is something very simple: choice, the choice for survivors to access either the civilian or the military justice system. It is a choice that already exists, though too few know about it.

     What we have before us now is a tale of two approaches. On our side of the committee, we have the testimony of survivors, victims, military police, police and legal experts, those who have lived this reality. Their message was overwhelmingly consistent and deeply human. It was, “Do not take away our choice." On the Liberal side is a plan that ignores the evidence, cherry-picks a few quotes and uses one report while ignoring many others and the voices of so many. It dismisses the voices of survivors and disrespects those who came forward at great personal cost.

     If the government removes these amendments, the consequences will be immediate and unavoidable. There will be institutional trauma and revictimization. There will be anger, despair and a profound sense of betrayal among the survivors who trusted all of us to listen and do right by them. Minor cases will go unaddressed. Major cases will go untried. Civilian police forces, already stretched thin, already under-resourced, will be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb. They will take on only the most serious of sexual assault cases.

     As for the mid-level and lesser cases, they are outside civilian jurisdiction or capability. There is no plan in Bill C-11 to address those cases. There is nothing. This is a complete failure for future victims but will be seen as a free pass to predators. Members can let that sink in. The government will point to low numbers in the military system and claim success. They are already doing it in the House today. However, only a few major cases will go forward, and the rest will be unreported and unactioned. This is not accountability, and it is not reform. Simply put, this is not justice. This is burying the problem, handing it off and burying the people who trusted us to fix it.

     I must also address the role of the press. The mainstream media, funded by 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars, has primarily focused on attacking the opposition party and has not covered the survivors' testimony, the amendments we achieved together and the consequences of removing those amendments. Today I challenge the press, directly, to tell this story, interview the survivors, report what they said and explain what is at stake. That is its job. Canadians deserve to know the truth, not the Liberal talking points.

    Removing choices removes protections. The Liberals have been relying solely on the Arbour report, by someone who refused to testify in committee, and yet have failed to mention the Fish and Deschamps reports, which both speak to the benefits of choice for victims.

     I want to speak quickly on something I witnessed in committee, something that has stayed with me. As survivors shared their stories, as they spoke about trauma they endured and offered solutions rooted in courage, I looked across the table to members of the party opposite, and I saw a colleague begin to tear up. I saw his humanity. I saw someone who understood deeply the weight of what survivors are telling us.

     I say this to every member in the House, especially those with family who serve in the military, maybe their sons or daughters: They must hold on to that humanity. They must not let partisanship smother what was felt in that moment. They must not let party discipline override what they know in their hearts to be right.

     Survivors did not come to us as partisans. They came to us as human beings. They asked all of us to do right by them. Emotions must now be matched with action. Compassion must now be matched with courage. We must listen to the overwhelming evidence of survivors and experts, consider all reports and give survivors the freedom of choice.

     Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member is trying to appeal to all members in the strongest way he can.

    However, the reality is that the government is listening to survivors. The government's actions reinforce reports that have been brought forward. We can talk about the Justice Arbour report. He seemed to be offended that it is the report we reference. In June 2024, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which has representation from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals, recommended the same thing.

     I would appeal to the Conservatives to listen to all of the victims, like Justice Arbour did, both in confidence and out of confidence. She came up with the recommendation for a reason. Maybe the member could tell us why it is that Conservatives voted—

    I have to interrupt the member to allow the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, again, the Arbour report did not look at what is in Bill C-11, which simply would leave the majority of sexual assault cases undealt with, unreported and unactioned. It is not even in Bill C-11. Therefore, regardless of what the Arbour report says or all of the other reports, the majority of victims and reports support choice.

    Bill C-11 and the Liberal Party would fail our military in the future. As I directly pointed out, the majority of cases would go unresolved, unreported and unactioned, and that is an embarrassing failure.

    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. 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 thank my colleague for all the amazing work he has done over the many years.

    Simply put, yes, it will retraumatize them. I started receiving numerous phone calls last night. They came flooding in. It will retraumatize victims now and in the future. Simply put, the amendments that we have put forward would make this work. The victims want the choice, and we are supporting them based on fact, emotion and support. Clearly, a bill that would not address the majority of sexual assault cases and let them go unresolved would be a partisan decision that no sane human would vote for.

    Mr. Speaker, the member referred to low- and mid-level assaults and the Liberals getting away with it. We had a prime minister who was a known groper and he just wrote it off, saying he felt it differently or she felt it differently.

    I am wondering if this is what—

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the member said we had a known prime minister who was a groper. It is highly inappropriate and definitely unparliamentary to make assertions of that nature, and I would ask that you have the member either apologize or retract the comment, at the very least.

     I was listening carefully to the member and I just quickly talked to the clerks. The member was not talking about a current member of the House of Commons or the current Prime Minister.

    I will let the member finish.

    Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberals are having a hard time understanding why it is so important that even the low- and mid-level assaults be addressed.

    Could the member give examples of what this entails and why they should not just be let go?

    Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the legal definitions of the various levels. It was delved into in-depth and, as distasteful as it may sound, unfortunately, it is the legal reality that we have to have those levels.

    Only the most serious cases, if there is capacity for them in the civilian system, would be dealt with. The rest would be buried, would not be actioned and would disappear. That is failure, yet burying the truth would be touted as the Liberals' great success.

    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been clear that he is committed to ensuring that the defence team provides a workplace where all members, both military and civilian, feel supported and respected and have the opportunity to reach their full potential in their work. This is a top priority. Bill C-11 is a critical step toward achieving lasting institutional reform that will foster a culture of respect and accountability and strengthen confidence in the military justice system.

    With its proposed targeted amendments to the National Defence Act, the bill represents the next critical step in our efforts to implement the recommendations from the independent external comprehensive review and the third independent review of the National Defence Act. This bill is also essential to support future legislative changes that may be required over time to implement additional recommendations and to advance future efforts to foster culture change.

    Today, I would like to provide an overview of these external independent reviews and talk about the progress that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have made in addressing the recommendations from these reviews.

    Let us start with the independent external comprehensive review, also know as the IECR. The review was launched in April 2021 and led by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour to examine harassment and sexual misconduct within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as the policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture that have allowed these harms to persist. This includes reviewing policies surrounding the administration of military justice.

    The final report was released on May 30, 2022. The then defence minister welcomed the 48 recommendations. When the final report was received, 17 recommendations were accepted immediately, including recommendation 48, which is to appoint an external monitor, mandated to oversee the implementation of the IECR recommendations. The then minister appointed Jocelyne Therrien to the position of external monitor. During her tenure, she regularly provided the minister with updates on the implementation of the IECR recommendations. Those updates, which are available to the public, helped us perform our work in a focused and transparent manner in keeping with the expectations of Canadian Armed Forces personnel and the Canadian public.

    In August 2023, the new defence minister also announced the implementation of recommendations 7 and 9 to change the military grievance and harassment processes.

    Today, any Canadian Armed Forces member who has experienced any kind of sexual misconduct while performing their duties now has the option of filing a complaint directly with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, without being required to exhaust every possible internal grievance and harassment process first. Moreover, as the external monitor underscored in her June 2024 report, the repeal of the duty to report regulations was one of the most significant changes that the Canadian Armed Forces made to its sexual misconduct policy in recent years.

    In her recommendation 11, Justice Arbour underscored that, although well-intentioned, the regulations requiring military personnel to report cases of misconduct deprived survivors of their agency and control over the reporting process and could sometimes end up re-victimizing the very people they were meant to protect. In recommendation 28 and in the first part of recommendation 29, the IECR report also made recommendations concerning the military college system.

    In December 2023, the minister announced the names of the seven individuals selected to sit on the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board to review the situation at Canada's two military colleges. Two members came from the department and the Canadian Armed Forces, and five were external experts on education and culture.

    In March 2025, the review board released its report, which included 49 recommendations covering a variety of areas, including costs, governance and quality of education and training. The implementation of recommendations from the Arbour  report has continued, and the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have already started acting on some of the recommendations at Canada's two military colleges.

    Ultimately, this is a cornerstone of Bill C‑11. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are also taking into account the key aspects of IECR recommendation 15 by seeking to remove military jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences that are committed in Canada. As of December 2021, all new charges for Criminal Code sexual offences are being laid in the civilian justice system, and none of these offences are being tried in the military justice system.

    The Canadian Forces Military Police Group is leading a working group on the operational framework for Criminal Code sexual offences, in conjunction with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Ontario's Solicitor General and Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General, to develop a framework for transferring cases.

    In November 2020, former Supreme Court justice Morris J. Fish was appointed to conduct an independent review of specific provisions of the National Defence Act and their application. In June 2021, the department tabled the report in Parliament. Justice Fish presented the department with 107 sweeping recommendations, the majority of which support the ongoing modernization of the military justice system. He also offered recommendations aimed at strengthening the independence of the military police and others concerning the grievance process. Bill C‑11 also addresses several of these recommendations.

     Mr. Speaker, today the city of Guelph marks its 199th anniversary, nearly two centuries shaped by people who care deeply about learning, community, place and one another.

    Situated on Treaty No. 3 lands held by the Mississaugas of the Credit, home to the Haudenosaunee and the Attawandaron, Guelph brings together nature and ideas, from the University of Guelph Arboretum to the Speed and Eramosa rivers, and to a historic downtown rich in arts, culture and local business. Its contributions to the arts, culture, science, innovation and business resonate nationally and globally.

    As Guelph approaches its bicentennial, I invite members and all Canadians to gather in Guelph to celebrate a city that values words and imagination; is home to celebrated authors; is the birthplace of Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, author of In Flanders Fields; and is the birthplace of two Nobel laureates.

    Guelph is a cornerstone of Ontario agriculture and a leader in advanced manufacturing. I welcome all to gather in Guelph to celebrate this remarkable city.

    I wish a happy birthday to the royal city.

    Mr. Speaker, one month ago I introduced the stand on guard act, and yet today we still have no response from the Liberal government. Not a yes, not a no, just silence. Is silence really the best response that the Liberals can muster for victims of home invasions?

    Our Conservative bill is simple. If someone knowingly and unlawfully enters a person's home, the force used to defend their family should be deemed to be reasonable. A person's home is their safe place. It is where their children sleep, and it deserves special protection under our laws.

    After a decade of catch-and-release Liberal bail, Canadians are telling us that sense of safety is gone. They are asking for something simple: for the law to stand with them. They have received silence, and silence in this moment is not neutral but an answer in itself.

    Conservatives will never stop fighting for the right for Canadians to feel safe to defend themselves and their families.

     Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians marked Earth Day, a call to action to protect the environment we all share.

    In my riding, that call is already being answered. At Collège Sturgeon Heights Collegiate, an unused plot of land is being transformed into a thriving native prairie garden thanks to a $1,500 Go Wild grant from the World Wildlife Fund Canada.

    This project will restore native plants and grasses, support pollinators like bees and help bring back monarch butterflies. These are real and tangible steps to protect local biodiversity. It is being led by the school's garden club and is supported by life skills students, with plans to expand into indigenous studies programming, including traditional medicinal plants.

    I want to recognize Mrs. Zinn, a dedicated teacher whose leadership turned this vision into reality. This is more than a garden. It is a living classroom and a community coming together. It is proof that protecting our environment depends on action, not words. This is how we will build a sustainable future: One community, one project and one generation at a time.

     Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Galt Legion, a milestone that reminds us that remembrance does not happen on its own. It endures because individuals choose to carry it forward.

    In my community of Cambridge, Bill Albers is one of those individuals. Bill has devoted his time and energy to ensuring that important but often overlooked aspects of our wartime history are not lost. Through his work, he highlights the role of carrier pigeons and the pigeoneers who served during the First World War and Second World War. It was a vital form of service relied upon when other communication failed.

    More than the history itself, Bill's efforts reflected deep respect for service, sacrifice and remembrance. Especially in the centennial year of the Galt Legion, his commitment helps connect past generations to the present, reminding our community why we honour those who served.

     Remembrance is strengthened by people like Bill Albers, who ensure that the stories of war continue to be shared, understood and respected. Let us also remember that even the smallest wings carried the weight of great responsibility, saving thousands of lives.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 40th anniversary of the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord. For four decades, the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord has been the heart and soul of our neighbourhood. It supports our seniors, helps newcomers integrate, mobilizes volunteers and builds the bonds of solidarity that make the riding of Bourassa stronger and more inclusive.

    The Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal-Nord embodies the very best of civic engagement: people who choose to get involved, not out of obligation, but by choice and based on their convictions. Without these volunteers, without these men and women, many cultural and sports activities simply could not take place. On behalf of the residents of Bourassa, I sincerely thank them for their commitment, and I wish the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal-Nord a happy 40th anniversary.

    Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and that is truer than ever in St. Thomas, Elgin and London. Our small business owners are an incredible testament to the resilience, grit and innovativeness of our community. Some of our amazing entrepreneurs and professionals were recognized Friday at the St. Thomas and District Chamber of Commerce Impact Awards.

     I hope this House will join me in congratulating this year's Impact Award winners: real estate agent Ainslee Tracey; the delicious Taco House Co.; Dr. Joseph Mai of Central Community Health Centre; Our Place Respite; Element5; Yarmouth Group; and the Business of the Year Award winner, Evelyn's Sausage Kitchen. They and all the nominees represent the best of our community. They create jobs, opportunity and vitality for St. Thomas and Elgin.

     However, entrepreneurs back home do not walk alone. My office is a proud member of the St. Thomas and District Chamber of Commerce. In Ottawa today from the chamber are Maria Fiallos, Paul Jenkins and Christy Hunking. They are here representing our community. They are making sure small businesses can succeed, and I thank them for their efforts.

    [Member spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]

    Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a Mexican immigrant, I rise on April 23 to celebrate Spanish Language Day, recognized by the United Nations and 21 countries around the world.

    Spanish is now the most widely spoken non-official language in Canada, connecting more than 1.7 million Canadians to their heritage, identity and traditions. Three provinces and 14 cities have now proclaimed April 23 as Spanish Language Day. Our Prime Minister has called this day “a wonderful opportunity for Canadians of all backgrounds” to learn from our Spanish-speaking communities.

    Communities across our country have spoken. Let us proclaim April 23 as Spanish Language Day at the federal level.

    [Member spoke in Spanish]

[English]

     Mr. Speaker, on April 8, Saskatchewan's 21st lieutenant governor, the Honourable Vaughn Solomon Schofield, passed away, marking an end to a life of service, strong community values and humility.

     Vaughn will be remembered for her outstanding contributions to Canada's Armed Forces, highlighted by the numerous honours she held including recently becoming the honorary colonel of 15 Wing Moose Jaw. True to her advocacy for our men and women in uniform, Vaughn established the Lieutenant Governor's Military Service Pin and hosted the Support Our Troops gala, which was a national fundraiser for charities that assist military families.

     She had an unwavering and enduring bond with the people of Canada, Saskatchewan and the Canadian Armed Forces. Vaughn's love of service was second to only one thing, her love of family. She was a devoted mother to George and Whitney. She was a loving wife to her best friend and husband Gord, and she truly loved her four grandchildren. They were the light of her life.

     Vaughn will be remembered for her charisma. Every room she walked into brightened with her smile and her charisma. May she rest in peace.

    Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Mirabel. This is a major milestone that deserves to be acknowledged.

    For 50 years, Mirabel's chamber of commerce has been deeply involved in the community. Since I was elected in 2021, I have seen an organization that listens to its members, that is innovative and that is essential to the region's economic development. It is able to pool Mirabel's strengths, whether in agriculture, aeronautics or its many SMEs, and build strong ties between these sectors.

    It is no coincidence that it was nominated for an award this year by the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec in the categories of recruitment and chamber of the year for organizations with up to 400 members. This recognition confirms the calibre of its work and its tangible impact on the ground.

    I would like to commend all the directors who have served on its board over the years, as well as the executive director, Geneviève Brault-Sabourin, and her entire team.

    On behalf of the people of Mirabel, I congratulate the chamber of commerce on its 50th anniversary, and I hope for at least 50 more years.

    Mr. Speaker, Don Valley West is home to the largest community of Shia Ismaili Muslims in Canada. This vibrant community is made up of thousands of engaged, committed Canadians who make our city and our country richer in every sense of the word.

     Recently, I was honoured to join His Highness the Aga Khan and members of the community to celebrate the inauguration of Generations Toronto, a new not-for-profit intergenerational community in Don Valley West. Comprising 390 affordable rental homes, 122 long-term care residences, on-site health care, an early learning centre, space for prayer and community programming, this project represents the best of our efforts to build vibrant and affordable housing: a generational project for several generations to live together.

     This investment of $130 million through the apartment construction loan program is one example of our federal government providing affordable housing solutions for Canadians in need. We are building Canada strong.

     Mr. Speaker, yesterday, hundreds of workers in Nairn Centre and Gogama were told their sawmills will shut down indefinitely. The Liberals have been dragging their feet and have failed to secure a fair deal. Hard-working families are now left in limbo.

     The Prime Minister promised a trade win by last summer. Instead, softwood lumber tariffs have tripled to 45% since 2022, putting immense pressure on Canada's forestry sector. Recycled speeches and photo ops are not enough. It is time for the Liberal government to walk the talk. The alarm bells are ringing. We need results. The Liberals must stand up for our forestry sector and finally fight for the workers who keep northern Ontario communities alive.

     Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call attention to National Volunteer Week, which runs from April 19 to 25, 2026. It is a time to celebrate the outstanding commitment of volunteers.

     Our country runs on volunteers. Everyone in this room can agree that we would not be standing in this House without the tireless work of the volunteer organizers who got us here.

     In Halifax, I would like to give a special shout-out to the dedicated volunteers who helped during the campaign, as well as those who continue to support me in this role.

    I would like to also recognize the volunteer firefighters; event organizers; those who work with our food banks and in health care, environmental and arts organizations; and all those who dedicate themselves to strengthening our community.

    I want to thank all volunteers everywhere in Canada.

    This National Volunteer Week, and in recognition of the United Nations International Volunteer Year, I would like to thank all of Canada's volunteers. Their contributions make a difference in people's lives.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he alone could handle the United States. He went further. He told Canadians, “we will get an even better deal”, so Canadians have every right to judge him by the promises he made.

    On top of that broken promise, we now have contradictions and confusion. This week, the Prime Minister said our relationship with the United States is a weakness, but days later he said he could still get a good deal. Which is it, a rupture with the United States in favour of China or a good deal with the United States?

     Canadians fear that history is repeating itself. Just like the last time, the Mexicans are in advance negotiations with dates scheduled for May. Canada is on the outside looking in. The Prime Minister's contradictions and confusion have led to more tariffs, higher tariffs and broader tariffs on everything from lumber to manufactured goods. Now, his absence from the negotiating table is putting in peril the millions of Canadian jobs that rely on a strong, stable relationship with the United States.

    Mr. Speaker, the Eastern Townships are mourning the loss of Claude Métras following his passing on April 16, 2026.

    As a prominent certified appraiser with Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton in Sherbrooke, Mr. Métras was known to all as a leader recognized for his generosity and profound love for our region. He was a true community builder who chaired many boards of directors and events. He was also a great philanthropist who shone a spotlight on regional culture, particularly by organizing exhibitions at the offices of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton to launch the careers of local artists.

    His outstanding commitment earned him a number of accolades, including the title “Grand Estrien”, the Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Medal, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec's gold medal and the Mérite Estrien award. This devoted family man, loving partner to his dear Marylin and avid tennis fan leaves behind an immense legacy. Everyone who knew him will carry the memory of his dedication and warmth with them forever.

    I want to thank Mr. Métras. It was a privilege to know him.

     Mr. Speaker, while fuel prices are soaring, hard-working Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. We know we cannot opt out of global factors, but we can take measures domestically to help Canadians who are hurting.

     After weeks of pressure, the Liberals finally caved to our demands to remove taxes at the pump during these uncertain times. The half-measure will not deliver the results Canadians need. Canadians need practical and tangible solutions, not more recycled speeches and empty promises.

    We need to take action and Canadians need results. We need to build up our natural gas infrastructure and strengthen our leverage abroad while looking out for folks at home. Therefore, I call on the Liberals to remove all taxes at the pump for the rest of the year so Canadian families can keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary act of generosity that will have a lasting impact on health care in Humber River—Black Creek. Recently, Humber River Health announced a transformational, $50-million donation from Jay and Barbara Hennick through the Hennick Family Foundation, the largest single gift in the hospital's history.

    In recognition of this landmark contribution, Humber's flagship site has been renamed Hennick Humber Hospital. This historic gift will support advanced technologies, clinical programs and research and education, ensuring that patients continue to receive safe, high-quality and innovative care.

    I also wish to commend Barb Collins, the president and CEO of Humber River Health, for her visionary leadership in building one of Canada's most innovative hospitals, and of course, I thank the dedicated staff who deliver excellence every day. This is philanthropy and leadership at their very best.

    Mr. Speaker, with this Liberal Prime Minister, it is more cost, more crime, more corruption, more of the same. Despite the illusions, he is just another Liberal. For example, he is keeping two-thirds of the gas tax in place while Canadians are getting ripped off at the pump. There is the new carbon tax, which he now calls the clean fuel standard, and there is the GST. Both cost 15¢ a litre.

    Will the Prime Minister stop taxing Canadians at the pumps, or is he just another Liberal?

    Mr. Speaker, let me help the Leader of the Opposition. He has no doubt seen that we have always been there for Canadians with our affordability measures. Recently, we suspended the federal gas tax. The suspension is in effect, and the price at the pump has dropped.

    On this side of the House, we will always be there for Canadians in their time of need. Together, we will build Canada strong.