House Publications

     moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

     He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say good morning to colleagues and to the Canadians who are watching today's debate. I am pleased to rise to open second reading debate on Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

    As Canada's new government makes a generational investment in the Canadian Armed Forces, we know that any work to support our forces starts with our people. Simply put, this legislation is about the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is about ensuring their safety.

    The people of the Canadian Armed Forces are central to our activities, whether they defend our sovereignty at home, support our allies abroad or serve in wings and bases across Canada. Since taking on this role earlier this year, I have had the great privilege of meeting with hundreds of Canadian Armed Forces members across the country and abroad.

    They are among the finest individuals one could meet, and as I am sure all parliamentarians are, I am deeply grateful for their steadfast dedication to Canada and Canadians. It is our responsibility to foster an environment where they feel protected, respected and empowered to serve, free from all behaviours that harm our people, threaten morale and undermine team cohesion, including the reprehensible act of sexual misconduct. Eradicating these behaviours is essential to our operational effectiveness, to recruitment and to retention, and above all, it is the right thing to do.

    Through Bill C-11, we are proposing a range of important changes to the National Defence Act, which are designed to support this essential work. Canada's military justice system must not only reflect the values of fairness, accountability and respect, but also uphold the trust Canadians place in the institutions that serve them. Through Bill C-11, we would fulfill the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish, and we are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces.

    First, this bill would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. With this bill, civilian authorities would have the exclusive responsibility to investigate and prosecute these offences.

    Second, Bill C-11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review. This includes establishing stronger, more transparent appointment processes for senior CAF members who play crucial roles in the military justice system. We are modifying the appointment process and the tenure for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services by, first, making them Governor in Council appointees and by, second, changing the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services' terms to a fixed non-renewable term of up to seven years. We are also modifying the process and authority for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, appointed by the Governor in Council, and, finally, changing the title from Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general to align with the title of other senior designations in the CAF, such as the surgeon general, the chaplain general and the judge advocate general.

    Third, Bill C-11 builds on supports provided under the Declaration of Victims Rights by expanding access to victim liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of a victim.

    Fourth, the bill harmonizes the military justice system's offender information and publication ban provisions with the amendments already made to the Criminal Code in 2023. These comprehensive recommendations that aim to reform our military justice system are only one part of a broader transformation of this institution.

    Among other things, we are making critical changes to how we screen new recruits, how we manage Canada's two military colleges and how we collect, retain and use data on workplace harassment.

    For example, we have instituted a probationary period for new recruits, which allows applicants to enrol and begin their training while the administrative work related to their application file is completed. During this probationary period, applicants must pass the required security clearance check, meet medical standards and show that they live by the CAF's ethics and values. We need to ensure that our military better reflects the country it serves, drawing from the very best people Canada has to offer.

    We are starting to see our recruitment efforts pay off. Last fiscal year, we surpassed our recruitment goals, bringing in over 6,700 new regular force members. That is a 55% increase from the year before, but we still have work to do to build a culture that is truly rooted in dignity, inclusion and respect for everyone who serves.

     We know we need to keep our foot on the gas and remain laser-focused on creating lasting change. As I previously mentioned, Bill C-11 would fulfill several recommendations put forward in the reviews conducted by former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish. We are also making important progress on many of their other recommendations to aid in our broader culture change efforts.

    In the independent external comprehensive review, Justice Arbour detailed 48 recommendations on everything from recruitment to training to oversight.

    As of July, DND had successfully implemented 36 of these recommendations, and we expect that the remaining 12 will be implemented by the end of the year, although some will take much longer than others to fully implement.

    We are making progress on Madame Arbour's first and second recommendations, strengthening our approach to addressing sexual misconduct by clarifying the full spectrum of terms and definitions into three categories: conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature, sexual harassment and sexual assault. This will ensure that we are better able to address each form of inappropriate conduct through the proper legal, administrative and disciplinary means.

    The CAF has also adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of “harassment” and “violence”. This change has made it so that the defence team has one single approach for dealing with harassment and violence in the workplace, applicable to both DND public service employees and CAF members. All incidents of harassment and violence on the defence team will be managed by the workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This addressed Madame Arbour's third recommendation.

    We have also acted on recommendations 7 and 9 of Justice Arbour's report by allowing members of the CAF who experience sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, sexual offences or any other form of discrimination based on sex or gender in the performance of their duties to apply directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

    As many members know, the external monitor, Madame Jocelyne Therrien, provides regular public evaluations of our progress in implementing these recommendations, including by releasing biannual status reports.

    She published her fifth progress report in early July. In that report, she highlights the sincere desire to improve working conditions for DND team members across our organization, as well as the concrete progress we have made, particularly with regard to integrating new recruits and promoting current staff to management positions.

    Her final and sixth report is expected in the coming weeks. Madame Therrien's thorough and objective assessment of our progress has been critical in informing how we are implementing these recommendations, and we thank her for her commitment, her good guidance and her dedication.

    In April 2021, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces launched a comprehensive initiative to align defence culture and the professional conduct of its staff with the fundamental values and ethical principles that we, as a national institution, aspire to uphold.

    Since then, we have taken significant steps to shift our culture and bring about meaningful change, including taking action to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination. This work encompasses a wide range of responsibilities, such as developing programs and policies to address systemic misconduct, improving mechanisms for tracking and reporting misconduct and overseeing the creation of a framework for professional conduct and culture that combats discrimination, harmful behaviour, prejudice and systemic barriers.

    To support these efforts, as we reaffirmed in budget 2024, we are investing nearly $1 billion over 20 years to support the changes to the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are introducing amendments to the National Defence Act to deliver key recommendations to advance culture change. Last year, we also launched a comprehensive implementation plan to guide efforts to address the various recommendations we have received.

    We know culture change is incremental, we know it is a step-by-step process that takes time, and we know it requires a sustained and continuous effort, but we also know it is absolutely essential to the well-being and operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

    We will continue to listen to members of the defence team, external stakeholders, communities and partners. We will continue to learn from them as we strive to create a safer and more inclusive work environment. We are making real and tangible progress, but we know that there is still a lot more work to be done.

    While we work to modernize our military justice system and change our culture, we also need to ensure that people affected by sexual misconduct get the support, the care and the resources they need. Much of that work comes from the sexual misconduct support and resource centre.

    This centre, which operates independently of the chain of command, recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. It delivers expert advice, guidance and recommendations to armed forces and national defence personnel on all matters related to sexual misconduct.

    Among other things, it operates a 24-7 helpline offering confidential support to personnel, information about the options available, advice on helping others and referrals to care and services.

    It also runs the response and support coordination program to provide individuals who have experienced sexual misconduct in a DND or CAF environment with a dedicated civilian counsellor who can help access health services, prepare for police interviews and more. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre also runs a grant program to fund community-based programs to broaden the range of support services available to the wider defence community, and it offers peer support programs in partnership with Veterans Affairs Canada.

    I would also like to mention that the independent legal assistance program is another valuable support mechanism for victims. It provides free and confidential legal assistance, including legal information and advice on incidents of sexual misconduct in contexts involving the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces. It also provides legal representation for certain proceedings involving criminal offences of a sexual nature, service offences, victim safety and victim participation in the judicial process.

    By offering this timely, independent and trauma-informed support, the program plays a critical role in expanding access to justice and choice for affected persons. This is all in line with Madam Justice Arbour's recommendation 14 of the independent external comprehensive review.

    The work I have outlined today is comprehensive and meaningful. We believe, and I think all sides of the House would agree, that it is important. We are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces and confidence in our military justice system.

    As the House begins debate at second reading of the important piece of legislation before us, I will close by saying this: The time has come for Bill C-11 to be moved swiftly through the House to committee, where it can undergo thorough study and perhaps, with the good will and good faith of all members on all sides of the House, be passed forthwith.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for bringing the bill forward. It was Bill C-66 in the last Parliament, and we never got it completed at second reading.

    The minister talked about trust, and I want to ask him why Canadians and the people in the Canadian Armed Forces should trust him and trust the Liberals. We have to remember that one of his predecessors, Harjit Sajjan, was complicit in a cover-up of sexual misconduct of one of the very highest-ranking officers in Canada, the former chief of the defence staff, Jon Vance. When the minister at the time was presented with evidence of sexual misconduct by Jon Vance, former minister Sajjan refused to accept it.

    Why should Canadians trust the minister, when his predecessor covered up that sexual misconduct for three long years and refused to accept evidence? The prime minister of the day, Justin Trudeau, was complicit in the cover-up for those three years. Finally, they also sat on the Justice Deschamps report that was commissioned under our previous government, and they never acted on any of those recommendations at that time.

    Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for members of the House to trust a few things. The first thing they should trust is the incredibly important, probative and complete work done by Mr. Justice Fish and Madam Justice Arbour, and their recommendations for improvement.

    The second thing they should trust is the judgment that has been exercised through the commissions of inquiry, which basically indicate that we need to take the question of Criminal Code sexual offences out of the situation where they are located now, which is inside the Canadian Armed Forces and subject to CAF investigation and CAF prosecution, and put them into the police of local jurisdiction. This is something that has received widespread support, including from all sides of the House, with the previous bill that my colleague mentioned.

    I think we should really rely on the trust and the judgment of those two independent thinkers and, for that matter, of the victims groups that have spoken very clearly about this.

    Mr. Speaker, let us just say right off the bat that this issue should have been resolved decades ago. When I hear people say that the government has not been proactive enough since the recommendation was made in 2021, I feel like answering that both parties need to look in the mirror. The Bloc Québécois obviously agrees that it is about time.

    I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and I would say that we are dealing with something really important here, especially if the government plans to increase its national defence spending to 5%. I urge the minister to listen to the testimony of people who have attempted suicide because they feel abandoned by the system.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Now we must listen. I look forward to seeing what will happen in committee, and I would like to hear the personal stories of these witnesses. We are more than willing to see if we can improve the bill. There is work to be done.

    Today, we are focused on the future and implementing change. I agree that it has taken too long. This bill was introduced in March 2024, and then there was an election. This is the third time the bill has been introduced in the House, and we hope to pass it as quickly as possible.

    Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation for the minister's and the government's approach to the legislation and for taking very seriously what they have been hearing from citizens. The approach of taking it outside the CAF, as the minister explained, is a very reasonable one to ensure that there is transparency and consequences for unfortunate circumstances.

    I recognize that the bill deals with CAF members on CAF members. Constituents within the riding of Waterloo have shared concerns regarding CAF members on civilians. I would like to hear the minister's comments as to whether the bill would address this or what the approach is on that situation.

    Mr. Speaker, the bill would catch both Canadian Armed Forces members and civilian employees at the Department of National Defence. It is important also for us to recall that recommendation 5 under Madam Justice Arbour's incredibly comprehensive work is the only recommendation that actually requires legislative change, which is why it finds itself in Bill C-11. That is why we have moved so quickly in implementing so many of the other recommendations. Recommendation 5 is the important recommendation that requires statutory change, as are a series of Mr. Justice Fish's recommendations when it comes to military justice actors.

    We are looking forward to formally making those changes, but it is also important to remember that we are well down the path of implementing all 48 recommendations. We have more to do. Our plan is to have those done by the end of the current calendar year. We are moving forthwith. We could certainly use the support of all members of the House to have the bill move through the House with speedy passage.

    Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging, after over 10 years since the Deschamps report, to see the adoption of the move to remove sexual assault cases to the civilian court. However, in theatre, the military police would still be responsible for this.

    What training and dollars associated with this training would go into preserving the chain of evidence, investigation and rape kits? Are there going to be rape kits available, is there a protocol, what is the protocol and, most importantly, for military police here at home and deployed abroad, when is their pay increase coming?

    Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the reminder. I should have reminded members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are watching that the pay increase is coming, of course, and it is predicated on years of service, as well as annual bonuses and retention bonuses for instructors and beyond. We are very pleased to be able to offer the most significant pay and pay package increase in a generation. We hope it will help with retention and recruitment. I think we are seeing it in the early numbers, as I mentioned in my speech.

    The member raises some very important questions around the capacity of our military police overseas in particular, in theatre or on ships, for example. That is a very good question that I will take back. I will look into the question of rape kits and endeavour to get back to her with more detail.

    Mr. Speaker, this bill is essentially about justice for victims of the military and its lack of transparency.

    About 10 days ago, I attended the premiere of the film Out Standing, which is based on the life of Sandra Perron, Canada's first female infantry officer. It is an incredibly powerful film. She started an initiative called The Pepper Pod, which I would like to commend.

    Considering the bill before us today, I would like the minister to tell us whether measures are being put in place to support victims in the short, medium and long terms, particularly by investing in initiatives like The Pepper Pod that are created by and for women.

    Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting Sandra a few days ago at the National Arts Centre. What a film, what a story, what a woman, and what an inspiring person. She really helped iron out the details of this bill.

    We hope that Sandra's voice, along with many others, will be heard and listened to in committee. If there is progress to be made and improvements to be made, we are here to listen.

    For my colleague who asked a question a moment ago, I just checked my notes, and, yes, rape kits will be available both here and abroad.

    Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the minister's presentation.

    We know the legislation is sorely needed, and we have noted that the victim liaison officer's position would be appointed through the chain of command. I wonder if the minister would be amenable to making sure this appointment is outside the chain of command so that victims can truly be heard.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting suggestion, and I have taken due note of it.

    I thank the member for her contribution.

    Mr. Speaker, as the shadow minister for national defence, I am always honoured to stand in this place to talk about the great work of the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and how we can do more to support them, which is what Bill C-11 is trying to do.

    The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect Canada, protect our citizens, as well as to protect those who serve us. There has been a rapid escalation of threats, and what we are facing in Canada is continuing to evolve. There is Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. There is the ongoing conflict we are seeing with Hamas first attacking Israel and now Israel's clearing operation to neutralize the terrorists in the Gaza Strip. There is the ongoing escalation we are experiencing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait as the People's Liberation Army Navy of China continues to escalate in that region, using air power, as well as resources and its coast guard to exercise its power in the region but ignoring international rules such as UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    Those hostile powers want our resources, whether in the Arctic or our maritime domain, and they want to be within striking distance of our continent. We have to do more to protect ourselves here and invest in our military. This means supporting those who serve us. As Conservatives, we take our national security very seriously and want to make sure we always put that first and foremost. This is why we have to invest in the people, in their kit and in the training they need to undertake to deal with the hybrid warfare, the asymmetrical warfare, we are experiencing around the world.

    First and foremost, Conservatives have always said and believed that those who serve, who proudly put on the uniform, are the best of the best Canada has to offer. They deserve to have a respectful workplace that is free of discrimination, racism, sexual misconduct, and abuse of authority and position. All members deserve to be respected. We also believe that the victims, those who are dealing with military sexual trauma, deserve justice. We hope this is going to culminate in the move from the military justice system to the civilian system, if the capacity is there and it would actually result in prosecutions and true justice for the victims of sexual trauma in the military.

    It has been years: The Liberal government has been in power for 10 years. There have actually been three reports done. The first report came out in 2015, and it is interesting to note that the only time the current Minister of National Defence and I have had an interchange in the House on military sexual misconduct was when he was a member of the third party and the Liberals were sitting way down in that far corner. I was the parliamentary secretary for defence, and he asked a question about what steps we were taking. At that time, we had initiated the Madam Justice Deschamps report, and Justice Deschamps had made 10 recommendations.

    Then of course there was an election, and that report sat on the corner of the desk of both former chief of the defence staff Jon Vance and former minister of defence Harjit Sajjan and collected dust. They did nothing during that time. There was then the Jon Vance scandal and all of that, and I will talk about that a bit later.

    We know that through the process, the Liberals finally took action. There was the Arbour report and now the Fish report, which brought about some of the things that would happen with Bill C-11. However, it has taken 10 years to get to where we are today. For 10 long years, the Liberals sat on their hands and did nothing to actually change the National Defence Act and the military justice system under it.

    When we look at Bill C-11, we are concerned that it would potentially open the door for more political interference. There would be an opportunity for partisan-style appointments, such as the Liberals' giving more power to the minister of national defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions. That would not happen in the normal system in Canada because it would be considered political interference. The Liberals would also be changing the appointment process in that the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal are all now going to be appointed by the Governor in Council rather than the minister. We know that when things go into the PMO and into cabinet, things become quite political and partisan.

    Conservatives will continue to support those in the armed forces, and we are going to make sure that we are carefully studying Bill C-11 to ensure that concerns from all stakeholders, including those in the military justice system, those in the defence industry and, especially, those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as victims' rights groups, and that their voices are heard when we study this at committee.

    As I said earlier, Bill C-11 is the former Bill C-66, with minor tweaks in language, translations and interpretation of certain clauses: 6, 67 and 68. It would amend the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of most offences of a sexual nature from the military justice system to civilian authorities, including the courts, municipal police, provincial police and the RCMP. This would depend on the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, with the exception of a sexual offence that takes place outside Canada when troops are deployed. In that case, those who are deployed would have access to the current regulations under the military justice system and the National Defence Act, and military police and the JAG, the judge advocate general's office, would still undertake those investigations with the national investigative service.

    We know that section 273 of the National Defence Act provides for that. It has provided for the way that this has been dealt with historically, but there is concern about whether the civilian courts would have the capacity to take on extra cases in those jurisdictions, from the standpoint of both the court level and the police level. What are they going to do with historic cases? We already know of historic cases that have been transferred into the civilian court system that have not resulted in convictions. Instead, we have seen high-level flag officers and general officers who were found innocent or had their proceedings stayed; we have seen cases that the Crown rejected because of the way the evidence was collected by the military police and the national investigative service of the Canadian Armed Forces. We question whether that provides the justice that the victims were looking for. We definitely want to make sure that all are given a fair trial and that we support those who were erroneously charged in the first place.

    What are we doing about the issue of capacity, as was previously asked by my colleague, within the military police and national investigative service when they have to do investigations outside Canada? How do they coordinate with provincial, municipal and RCMP police agencies when we are talking about things that happened on base and will require investigations done by local authorities?

    Bill C-11 seeks to increase the independence within the military, one of the recommendations coming from Madam Arbour and Justice Fish, so we would avoid a situation like what happened with Jon Vance. Because he was chief of the defence staff and everybody reported to him, nobody was prepared to take on that investigation and prosecute, including the then minister of national defence, who actually had authority over the chief of the defence staff. Harjit Sajjan refused to accept evidence and walked away.

    We know there are questions about how this would all work. The provost marshal, who has traditionally been a colonel, would be made a general, so we are seeing a creep of the number of flag officers again.

    Conservatives question the term limits. There is an inconsistency here on how people are being appointed, now being done through order in council in the Prime Minister's Office, and we know there is going to be the ongoing issue of the length of terms: Some are for four years; some are going to be eligible for reappointment whereas some are not. Some are for seven years, and some are for 10 years. It just gets a little confusing in terms of how this is all going to work.

    When we talk about the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, we just want to make sure there is a criterion as to what we want to see for qualifications for service in positions that normally would have reported to the vice-chief of the defence staff and/or the judge advocate general. Those things are going to give these guys their independence, so they report straight to the minister and to the government. There are questions about chain of command and how that is going to work. However, these are things we can look at in committee. The same is true for the director of defence counsel services.

    Consistency is important here. Qualifications are important in these appointments. We want to make sure the partisanship that happens within the Prime Minister's Office does not percolate into the Canadian Armed Forces through those who serve the forces.

    The minister talked about trust. As I suggested in my question for him, Liberals cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to talking about bad political appointments. If we look at 2022, the Liberals appointed Laith Marouf to do a project. It turned out he was an anti-Semite, but they were supposed to be working on diversity. The Liberals appointed Martine Richard as the Ethics Commissioner. She had to drop out because she was related to one of the cabinet ministers, who currently sits today. It was a complete conflict of interest. They appointed Birju Dattani as the human rights commissioner; he turned out to be anti-Semitic. Of course, it was another terrible appointment by the Liberals.

    Justin Trudeau completely ignored the Ethics Commissioner's warning about appointing Annette Verschuren as the head of the green slush fund. This resulted in a huge scandal of over $2.1 billion that she and her cohorts were able to take from that Liberal slush fund and stuff into their own pockets. We should not forget the current Prime Minister recently appointed Doug Guzman as CEO to the defence investment agency. It turns out Doug Guzman is a former banking buddy of the Prime Minister's from Goldman Sachs.

    I do not know if we need to have these close personal friends and partisan Liberal bagmen actually getting these types of appointments. I would hate to see this being the case when we look at appointments within the national defence apparatus, when we look at those who are going to be in charge of our military justice system. That would not be fair.

    The Liberals also cannot be trusted when it comes to criminal justice. They have been soft on crime right from the beginning. Bill C-75 brought in the whole principle of restraint, which puts the least onerous conditions on those who are seeking bail. This is where we get bail, not jail and repeat violent offenders going back on the street. Now, potentially, those who are committing sexual assaults within the Canadian Armed Forces will have access to that same lax and soft-on-crime approach the Liberals have implemented.

    Bill C-5 is another reason we should not trust the Liberals when it comes to reforming the military justice system. The bill reformed the criminal justice system by repealing mandatory jail time and allowing very serious violent offenders to serve their sentences at home. This includes getting house arrest, not jail time, if they commit sexual assault, sexual interference or sexual exploitation. Those conditions are now going to be transferred from the military justice system, or the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, to the civilian system, which the Liberals have almost completely destroyed.

    As I mentioned earlier, we cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to dealing with sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces; our members know that. Again, it has been 10 years since Madam Justice Deschamps brought forward her recommendations in her report, and they did nothing, which could have stymied this whole problem.

    Take Jon Vance, who was CDS at the time. He started up, after the Liberals formed government, Operation Honour, which turned into a complete fiasco and did nothing to support victims, did nothing to stop sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and did not live up to the code of service discipline and the ethics that those who serve should be living up to.

    As I said, we know that Minister Sajjan, at that time in 2018, refused the evidence of the sexual misconduct charge against Jon Vance. We know there are memos that went back and forth between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office on how they could cover this up to protect Jonathan Vance and, later, also protect Minister Sajjan for not acting upon evidence that was given to somebody who reported directly to him.

    Gary Walbourne, who was the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman at the time, tried to provide that evidence and was pushed away. He was completely in the right because the only person who could deal with it in the chain of command was the Minister of National Defence. We know this went back and forth. We did an in-depth study of this in the Standing Committee on National Defence. I was vice-chair at the time, as I am vice-chair right now.

    That was covered up by the Prime Minister's Office through Justin Trudeau, Katie Telford and Zita Astravas. They continued to cover up that sexual misconduct and protect the minister and Jon Vance, which is beyond me. At the end of the day, when it came to charging him and prosecuting within the civilian court, the government accepted the lesser charge of obstruction of justice. It never prosecuted on sexual misconduct and sexual assault. That, again, does not live up to victims' rights in any way, shape or form. The victims of Jon Vance still feel that they were never properly served or got the justice they deserved.

    This went on. The defence committee was suspended for months on end. The chair of the committee, Karen McCrimmon, refused to hear testimony and motions. She kept suspending meetings. We were in the same meeting for three months and could not do our work as the defence committee, and we could not do our work as parliamentarians. I firmly believe that our privileges as parliamentarians were violated through that process.

    We did find out, through that study, that the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's Office, former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Katie Telford were all aware of this over the entire three-year investigation.

    To make things even worse, at the end of the day, even though Harjit Sajjan, the minister of defence at the time, knew about the sexual misconduct and the gravity of the problem that was happening within the Canadian Armed Forces, the government still gave Jon Vance a raise as the chief of the defence staff. That, I think, was just adding insult to injury.

    We know that when it comes to political interference, the Liberals cannot be trusted. We can look at the ongoing F-35 debacle and how they continue to politicize the procurement. Our Royal Canadian Air Force and our Canadian Armed Forces right up to the chief of the defence staff today have all said that this is the jet they need and that we should buy more of them. Of course, the Liberals continue to play political football and kick the can and delay that procurement, which is only undermining the ability of the Royal Canadian Air Force to protect us here at home and work alongside our allies.

    We know about things like cash for access and the wealthy Chinese billionaires that Justin Trudeau was involved with. We know they tried to cover up the expensive holiday that the former prime minister took on his private island. The ethics commissioners found multiple breaches. We know about the witch hunt that went after former vice-admiral Mark Norman back in 2018, which was politically motivated.

    We cannot trust the Liberals. They have failed our Canadian Armed Forces. They have failed our brave women and men. Our warships continue to rust out. Our jets are worn out. The army has been hollowed out and our troops no longer feel like they are respected and honoured by the government.

    When we really dig in and look at Liberal policies, it is a book of empty promises, like the 2017 defence policy and the defence policy update, which are all irrelevant. The government has allowed money to lapse. Because of this lack of respect for our forces, we have a recruitment problem. We are short over 13,000 troops today. Over 10,000 are undertrained and undeployable. Our forces are short 6,700 houses.

    Conservatives will rectify all the mismanagement and wrongs of the Liberal government and serve our Canadian Armed Forces.

    Mr. Speaker, there are many issues the member has raised that I take exception to, especially when he talks about support for the Canadian Forces. In fact, when he was a parliamentary secretary and his current leader was part of the Harper cabinet, Canada was most in danger of not financially supporting our Canadian Forces, to the degree where it came to 1% of Canada's GDP. In contrast, the Prime Minister's commitment is to achieve 2%. The Conservatives failed in comparison.

    Having said that, I think it is important, when we look at the legislation, that the jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions and investigations for sexual offences be the essence and principle of this legislation. That is what Arbour's recommendation number five was all about.

    Does the Conservative Party support it? Does the member have any specific amendments he would like to see advanced?

    Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is always up here defending the government, including its own failures, especially in dealing with sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. The member was up here defending Minister Sajjan back when he was still the minister. I do not believe the member.

    The Conservative government signed on to reach that NATO promise in 2015. We had 10 years to get there. I should remind everyone, before the Liberals started their creative accounting by adding things like veteran pensions and the Coast Guard to the calculation of what military spending is to meet the 2% matrix, that actual spending within the Department of National Defence was just over 1% last year. The Liberals have cut over $2.7 billion from operations over the last three years, and they also allowed over $12 billion to lapse.

    They can talk the talk, but they have to start walking that talk.

    Mr. Speaker, our colleague spoke at length about the Jonathan Vance case, but both the Conservatives and the Liberals looked the other way in that case and pretended there was nothing to see. There were already rumours about and allegations against Mr. Vance when the Conservatives appointed him as chief of staff and tasked him with taking on sexual misconduct in the military. The Canadian Armed Forces were the subject of allegations at the time and were being widely criticized for their handling of sexual misconduct cases.

    Why did the Conservatives not appoint someone unimpeachable to the position? Why did they appoint Mr. Vance despite the rumours of sexual misconduct?

    Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, Jon Vance was appointed in the end days of the Conservative government. I would also say that the Bloc helped the Liberals shut down the study, in 2021, into sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. It was particularly Minister Sajjan's mismanagement and refusal to deal with the sexual misconduct of Jon Vance. I do not think the Bloc can take much high ground on this.

     I would remind everyone that we started the Madame Deschamps report looking into addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The government had a chance to act upon it but did not.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent speech.

    Obviously, I agree with the Deschamps recommendations and the Arbour report about moving sexual misconduct allegations out of the military justice system and into the criminal justice system. However, the record of the Liberals and the criminal justice system, as we have seen, is this: Sexual assault is up 76%, and these repeat offenders are mostly let out on bail. My concern is that there will not be any justice in the criminal justice system.

    Does my colleague share that concern?

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 reduced the conditions on the principle of restraint, allowing those who commit sexual offences to be released on bail very easily. It allows them to be repeat offenders. That will now permeate the Canadian Armed Forces, as well, because of the soft-on-crime approach taken by the Liberals. With Bill C-5, they got rid of a lot of the mandatory minimums so that repeat sexual offenders can now serve their sentences at home. That includes sexual assault, sexual exploitation and sexual interference.

    What is the purpose if those who are committing these crimes are allowed to continue to serve in the Canadian Forces at their leisure?

    Mr. Speaker, during my colleague's remarks today, he mentioned talking the talk.

    Having worked with victims of crime for over 23 years before I became a parliamentarian, I have seen first-hand the impacts of sexual violence on many victims. Today, I was listening attentively and really hoping to hear comments about how important it is to have a trauma-informed response and rights for victims. Instead, we heard partisan garble. If there are any victims at home today listening to us, I think they would be extremely disappointed with the debate going on with respect to that.

    I have a simple question: Does the member not agree that Bill C-11 is an important step forward if we want to make sure that victims have access to justice?

    Mr. Speaker, I said during my speech that victims deserve justice, and that military sexual trauma is one thing we have to eliminate. The support is needed. We support the sexual misconduct support and resource centre and the great work it is doing in providing counselling. As well, it is going to be providing some legal advice to those victims. Victims' rights have to be paramount. That is why we supported Bill C-77. It was to make sure we codified victims' rights in the Criminal Code and moved them into the National Defence Act as part of military justice.

    We will continue to fight for victims because that is what this is all about. That is why I raised this flag. Can we trust the government, which has ignored victims' rights for too long by letting repeat offenders back onto our streets? This is now going to permeate the Canadian Armed Forces as well.

    Mr. Speaker, obviously, there was a culture of silence. There was the Fish report and the Arbour report. Time passes and the Liberals have not taken action.

    What does the member think of the recommendations in this report? What should be put in place? I empathize with the victims who are waiting for answers from this Parliament that never come. What are we to do? The bill is interesting, but we need to go further. What commitments is the member taking?

    Mr. Speaker, the first place to start is accepting all 10 recommendations from Madame Deschamps' report, which was completely ignored by the government. I think we would be a lot further ahead today in supporting victims and stomping out misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces had this been acted upon 10 years ago. The Liberals refused to do it. They still do not even mention the report in their speeches. All they talk about are Fish and Arbour.

    We need to make sure that we continue to address all the concerns that were raised. There are about 50 recommendations in the Arbour report. I think there are over 110 in the Fish report. We need to see which ones are doable and that we can act upon quickly.

    This is just the first step, but there is much more that needs to be done.

    Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has done a considerable amount of work on this.

    I sat through a lot of testimony when I served on the national defence committee and the veterans committee. All of the testimony was absolutely horrific and hard to hear. Many of the victims are still in the CAF as we speak. They were when they brought their cases and complaints forward.

    How do we ensure these victims are protected under the current CAF structure when they bring these accusations forward?

    Mr. Speaker, it has been a problem. We know that those who brought complaints against Admiral Art McDonald were reprimanded by their superior officers. We know they were coerced. They were scared to come forward and it took, in some cases, years before they did. We created a safe space at committee, allowing them to speak and share their stories where there was no opportunity for retribution by their superior officers.

     This is one of the reasons we are supporting parts of Bill C-11. It is to make sure we can take parts of this out of the chain of command and allow victims to stand on their own two feet without fear of repercussion.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House as the Bloc Québécois national defence critic to address the government's response to an extremely delicate issue, namely the unfortunate occurrence of sexual misconduct. As delicate as the subject may be, it remains our duty to take a serious look at the bill before us to put an end to this scourge and ensure greater accountability as well as a healthier environment.

     Let us not forget that the first allegations date back to 2015, under the Stephen Harper government. They were not yet public at the time, but what we now know goes back to 2015. Back then, former justice Marie Deschamps released a scathing report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, which she found had a sexist culture that turned a blind eye to numerous cases of misconduct, and in April of that year, allegations began to surface, first in the back rooms, about the inappropriate behaviour of Jonathan Vance, who had just been appointed the future chief of the defence staff. The investigations went nowhere at the time.

    On March 1, 2018, under Justin Trudeau's government, military ombudsman Gary Walbourne held a private meeting with the then minister of defence during which he tried to discuss a case of sexual misconduct implicating Mr. Vance. The victim's decision not to pursue the matter had somewhat tied the ombudsman's hands. The ombudsman wanted the minister to intervene to protect the victim because her employment relationship made her Mr. Vance's subordinate and he could easily have destroyed her career. The minister was reportedly closed and hostile. Allegedly, he flatly refused to look at Mr. Walbourne's evidence and abruptly left the meeting.

    Instead, the matter was sent to the Privy Council Office. Afterwards, Mr. Walbourne tried 12 times to speak with the minister, who continued to refuse to meet with him until Mr. Walbourne retired a few months later. The Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office exchanged emails to discuss the situation. On March 5, 2018, Janine Sherman from the Privy Council—the body that had taken the lead on the case by then—wrote Mr. Walbourne asking for more information. On March 5, the minister's chief of staff emailed Mr. Walbourne hoping to get more information. However, on March 9, when Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was accused of leaking documents to journalists showing that the Liberals were attempting to cancel a contract with the Davie shipyard in favour of Irving, the Liberals immediately called for an investigation against Mr. Norman. Justin Trudeau personally intervened, saying that Mr. Norman should face justice. There is a double standard here.

    On March 16, 2018, Janine Sherman of the Privy Council met in person with Mr. Walbourne, who told her that the complainant did not want to pursue the matter further and was withdrawing her complaint because she had not received assurances that the Minister of Defence would protect her. That is serious. Sworn testimony subsequently given to the Standing Committee on National Defence—at a time when I was not serving on it—stated that several members of Justin Trudeau's cabinet knew about the situation. As for Prime Minister Trudeau himself, he has always denied being told about sexual allegations against Mr. Vance, stating that Mr. Walbourne never forwarded the requested documents to his office and that he was unaware of any such allegations. However, he did not clearly deny knowing that there were unknown allegations against Mr. Vance. He specified that he did not know there were allegations of sexual misconduct specifically. He did not talk about allegations at all. Of course, that did not prevent Mr. Vance's salary increase in 2019, which the Prime Minister signed off on.

    The scandal became public in February 2021 when Global News reported cases of misconduct against Mr. Vance, including his relationship with a subordinate and obscene emails exchanged in 2012 with a much younger female soldier. The woman who was in a relationship with Mr. Vance was allegedly threatened by him on several occasions, according to her public statements. Mr. Vance considered himself untouchable and claimed that he owned the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, which is a serious matter.

    The individual named, before he was named, said that he could do as he pleased because he was the one who controlled the process. He thought he was a king.

    The Standing Committee on National Defence, of which I was not yet a member, decided to study the allegations against Mr. Vance. The first time he testified, the former minister of defence, Mr. Sajjan, said that he had learned about the allegations against Mr. Vance from the media. He systematically refused to answer questions on the grounds that the matter was before the courts.

    The testimony of Gary Walbourne, whom members will recall was the ombudsman, confirmed that he had informed Minister Sajjan and that the minister had refused to even look at the file. That cast the government in a bad light, and rightly so.

    Other witnesses who appeared before the committee confirmed that the minister should have taken action and that he had a number of avenues open to him to request an investigation into Mr. Vance. Minister Sajjan appeared before the committee again in March 2021 and, this time, he agreed to speak in an attempt to defend his handling of the file. He said that he had refused to look at Walbourne's file on the grounds that he did not want to insert himself into the investigation himself and that he had not been asked to do so in any case. His explanation fell flat.

     The Liberals did not hesitate to obstruct the investigation to prevent Liberal government employees from being summoned to appear before the committee. According to the testimony of Elder Marques, who worked in Justin Trudeau's office, it became clear that everyone around Justin Trudeau knew what was going on. However, Mr. Trudeau himself denied everything.

    When other employees were summoned by the House, the Liberals decided to send the defence minister instead and said they would not allow the employees to testify. Well, at least they were clear. The Liberals tried to shut down the Standing Committee on National Defence several times. The committee chair suspended that particular meeting, and the suspension lasted a month.

    At both the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Liberals filibustered to prevent the adoption of reports that made recommendations to protect women in the Canadian Armed Forces and to make the military justice system independent from the chain of command.

    Unable to escape the scandal, the Liberals decided to give former justice Louise Arbour, who is known for her expertise, the mandate to make the military justice system independent from the chain of command. That was six years after the release of the Deschamps report, which recommended exactly the same measure.

    The Liberals realized that they did not know how to handle this problem and that they were starting to get into trouble, so they asked Madam Arbour to rehash the same work and repeat the things that had already been said but not done. At least they were able to buy some time, until she came to the same conclusion as to what had to be done. Even Madam Arbour was surprised when the government contacted her, because, as she said, the work had already been done.

    Nevertheless, Madam Arbour's report was released in May 2022. Incidentally, Morris J. Fish had released the “Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence” in April 2021.

    That brings us to today, to Bill C-11. Let me be clear: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill so that it can be reviewed in committee. This bill responds to the recommendations of the two former justices I just mentioned, particularly the parts of their reports dealing with the issue of sexual misconduct. I will now speak to the bill itself.

    To address recommendation 5 of the Arbour report, the government wants to definitively remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada.

    The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for three key military justice authorities: the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. This turns the appointment process into a political process, because the government, not military leadership, would choose these appointees. That way, they would be sheltered from any form of blackmail.

    I would remind members that Mr. Vance, who had sexual relations with a subordinate, allegedly boasted about how the victim could not file a complaint because he had full control over military investigations. I quoted him earlier. This bill would scuttle that possibility. Vance's successor, Art McDonald, also left his position after only a few weeks as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct.

    This bill now enables non-commissioned members, whose rank ranges from private to chief warrant officer, to become military judges. This measure accurately reflects today's reality: Many lower-ranking non-commissioned members are more educated than officers. For example, a person can join the Canadian Armed Forces without a diploma at the age of 17 and remain a part-time non-commissioned member, while studying full time to earn university degrees. Generally speaking, non-commissioned members are able to earn more advanced degrees.

    Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial amendments, such enabling victims to get assistance from a “victim's liaison officer”. That is a good idea.

    Bill C-11 responds to recommendations that should have been implemented a long time ago from reports that should not have been shelved. As such, it requires legislative changes and, in some cases, agreements with the provinces.

     One of the most important measures in the bill is the removal of the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences that are committed or alleged to have been committed in Canada. In other words, these offences will now be dealt with in civilian courts.

    Recommendation 5 was the only recommendation in former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour's report that required legislation for its implementation. That is why it is the only one of Justice Arbour's recommendations to be addressed in this bill. However, military personnel can arrest the accused and gather evidence while waiting for civilian authorities to arrive. It is important to understand that.

    However, it remains to be seen whether restricting civilian jurisdiction to offences committed in Canada could be problematic. At first glance, the fact that the bill deals only with offences committed in Canada might seem problematic, but it is important to remember that Canadian jurisdiction normally applies during operational deployments abroad. Otherwise, local jurisdiction would apply, when a military member is on vacation abroad or taking part in training abroad, for example. In the end, it amounts to the same thing, although it will take longer to transfer the file to civilian authorities if an incident occurs during a deployment abroad.

    Justice Arbour stated the following in her report: “Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the [military police] may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity.”

    In other words, the bill goes as far as possible when it comes to granting jurisdiction to civilian law enforcement, but it remains reasonable thanks to several conditions that enable members of the military to gather evidence, for example, if a member is caught in the act and there is no room for doubt.

    The bill also responds to eight recommendations made by former justice Fish in his report, including the recommendation to remove the military hierarchy's power to appoint certain justice officials. Recommendation 2 of that report calls for the National Defence Act to be amended to allow the Governor in Council to appoint military judges, who can be either an officer or a non-commissioned member, as long as they are a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years' standing at the bar of a province and have been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for at least 10 years.

     According to recommendation 7, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services should be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence for a term not exceeding seven years.

    Recommendation 8 calls for the repeal of certain subsections of the act that indicated that the judge advocate general can issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular prosecution. Rather than repealing these subsections, Bill C-11 amends them to transfer that power to the Minister of National Defence.

    Recommendation 10 called for a certain section of the act, stating that the judge advocate general has the superintendence of the administration of military justice in the Canadian Armed Forces, to be amended to specify that the superintendence must respect the independence of military prosecutors, military defence counsel and other statutory actors within the military justice system. Bill C‑11 therefore amends this section by adding provisions to specify the independence of the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.

    There are also other interesting recommendations, such as the ones calling for the provost marshal of the Canadian Armed Forces to be appointed by the government and for the position to be renamed so that the provost marshal holds at least the rank of brigadier-general, which is the lowest rank for generals.

    The fact that the provost marshal would be appointed by politicians, meaning the military would not have the ability to revoke the appointment, gives that individual greater independence. It avoids a situation where a general could boast of having control over the judiciary.

    However, the minister may appoint a judge to conduct an inquiry and report on whether they consider it necessary to revoke, suspend or impose other disciplinary or administrative measures against the director of military prosecutions in the event of misconduct.

     Another recommendation is that the minister should not have the power to give directions regarding specific law enforcement decisions in individual cases. That is very relevant and important in light of what has happened in recent years. In other words, the minister does not have the power to take the place of the judiciary.

     Finally, one recommendation amends another aspect and subsection of the act to allow any member of the military to make an interference complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission if they believe on reasonable grounds that any military member or any senior official of the department has improperly interfered with a policing duty or function. This will, of course, expand the number of people who can file a complaint, including the victim.

    Bill C-11 also removes military judges from the summary hearing system. I would remind the House that summary hearings deal with service infractions, including common offences such as being absent without leave, negligently discharging a firearm, wearing a uniform improperly or maintaining equipment poorly.

    Currently, with offences being treated as disciplinary rather than criminal matters and trials being handled by the chain of command, these trials are anything but fair. The unit commander or officer delegated to preside over the trial can judge their own subordinates, and the accused is generally presumed guilty and dealt with summarily. Unfortunately, Bill C‑11 does not change any of that.

    Bill C‑11 also expands access to victim's liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of the victim. In other words, whereas this service was previously only for the alleged victim, a person representing the victim may now have access.

    Finally, the National Defence Act is amended to ensure that the sex offender information and publication ban provisions align with the Criminal Code. Those amendments were, of course, necessary to ensure that the military justice system is aligned with the Criminal Code.

    Those are the reasons we will support this bill at this stage. However, we reserve judgment on its final adoption until the Standing Committee on National Defence, on which I have the honour of serving, has conducted a thorough review.

     Having said that, we are finally here, after a very long process. There have been so many years of neglect, and unfortunately, there was a bipartisan consensus to turn a blind eye to this issue and to filibuster at committee. However, we are glad to finally have something. Is it going to address all of the issues? Probably not, but at this point, we are happy that we have something. We will look at this bill and try to improve it if necessary.

    Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my colleague on the Standing Committee on National Defence. It is truly a pleasure to work with him.

     I just want to know whether we can count on the Bloc Québécois's support to have the Standing Committee on National Defence study this bill as quickly as possible. We expect to have acted on all of the recommendations in the Arbour report by the end of the year. I want to know whether the member will support this bill so that it can go to committee.

    Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill at this stage so that it can be studied in committee.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. It was extremely well researched.

    When such situations arise, situations involving threats and sexual assault, whether verbal or physical, it is clear that there is a difference between rumours, proven facts and the aftermath. Unfortunately, I must say that the Liberal government buried the victims' stories. The member has clearly demonstrated that.

    My question for my colleague is this: Given everything he has said about the cover-up by the Liberal government, how can he trust the government to move forward appropriately, positively and with an eye to the future for similar situations?

    Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague well enough to know that he loves asking this type of rhetorical question. The answer is often in the question. He is gesturing at me, denying it. At least he is smiling. I think he knows that I am close to the mark and that the shoe fits.

    I would say that it is indeed a real scandal. That being said, I do appreciate the nuance he mentioned about the difference between an allegation and a charge and between an assertion and a demonstration. Obviously, due diligence is always required.

    In fact, Quebec has already taken steps in this direction. This idea was already advocated by Véronique Hivon, who proposed creating specialized courts. It was felt that the system itself was not adequate.

    I digress. Let us come back to the military cases. I am not overly confident in the Liberal government, but it is presenting us with a bill that, at this stage, I believe deserves our close attention. There are enough interesting elements in it that respond to a report that was not produced by the government itself.

     Of course, if we see that it needs to be improved, we will exert pressure to ensure that it is. If there are still cover-ups, as my colleague says, we will do our job as the opposition, of course, to exert the necessary pressure to ensure that this does not happen.

    However, at this stage, there are enough interesting elements for us to want to take a closer look at the bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his excellent speech and for raising the level of debate on such an important bill. Obviously, this culture of military silence has had very serious consequences for a great many victims.

    Speaking of silence, Minister Sajjan's silence spoke volumes. Going forward, this bill gives the minister greater responsibilities.

    What happens if we still have a minister who refuses to act? Can we trust a minister with that much power in the current context? Should we suggest amendments in this regard in committee?

    Mr. Speaker, that is a fairly fundamental issue. Honestly, we will be watching this closely. That is why an in-depth study is so important. As a number of people have already pointed out, the government's previous version of the bill, which died on the Order Paper, did not properly address the problem. We will do an in-depth study.

    That said, I agree with the government's reason for wanting to increase this power, which is simply because it should be removed from the oversight of simple military command. There is a good reason for that.

    Is that the answer? We will have the opportunity to take a closer look at this, to shed light on it and to examine it closely very soon.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his excellent speech. I greatly appreciated his overview of the bill.

    I think we all agree that we want to ensure that victims will have access to justice. We also want to ensure that victims will have access to the services and resources they need when they file a complaint because we acknowledge what a difficult and traumatizing process that can be. In addition, we want to ensure that we continue to maintain a trauma-informed approach.

    I also understand that the member and the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C‑11, but he said he would reserve judgment.

    Can my Bloc Québécois colleague tell us what changes he would like to make to Bill C‑11 to improve it?

    Mr. Speaker, I have only one reservation, which is that we are not going to blindly trust anyone or any bill that is voluminous by nature, that has legal implications and for which the devil is in the details, as with any document of this nature. That is why I am simply saying that we need to do our job properly. When the government presents us with a bill, we, as an opposition party, cannot simply support it outright and accept it at face value. This is what I am referring to when I say we are going to study it carefully.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is signalling that the Bloc Québécois is going to support the bill.

    An important part of the bill is that trials for sexual assault and sexual harassment would be taken out of the military courts and brought into the civilian courts, but given the delays in our civilian courts, is the member confident that victims of sexual assault and of sexual harassment will see justice in a speedier and more fair way in civilian courts?

    Mr. Speaker, the civilian court problem is very real, as our colleague mentioned. Obviously, the bill does not directly address that issue. The issue remains to be addressed. I think it would be better to ask the Minister of Justice about that matter.

    That said, it is definitely a consideration. I understand that sending these cases to the civilian court system could result in longer processing times for certain files, but for now, longer processing times are better than the risk of improper handling. It is probably the lesser of two evils. Then, the issue of processing times needs to be addressed immediately, and I completely agree that this is a critical issue.

    Mr. Speaker, I must say that my colleague clearly explained the events that took place. Earlier, I tried to explain what happened with both parties here, and I hope this bill will not die on the Order Paper. Why? Every week, I meet with people who say that they have been the victims of alleged sexual misconduct, harassment and so on.

    For veterans who are watching at home right now, does my colleague agree that we need to invest not only in legislation but also in services for victims?

    Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. Impunity must be replaced with accountability. The bill puts forward a plan to do just that. The bill broadens access to what I believe are called victim's liaison officers to include individuals acting on behalf of victims. In other words, it is not just alleged victims who will have access to this service; their representatives will too. Expanding access is a good idea. It is not the main thrust or the most substantial element of the bill, but it is still very important. These are good things that are worthy of mention, and so I completely agree with my colleague on that.

    Mr. Speaker, as we saw, the Conservatives turned a blind eye by appointing Mr. Vance chief of the defence staff even though rumours of sexual misconduct were already circulating. The Liberals did even worse. I will come back to my colleague's suggestion. Should we not find ways to ensure that the process is not completely controlled by those with political power?

    Mr. Speaker, the reason for transferring power to politicians is precisely to get it out of the military's hands. This should help avoid situations like the one where Mr. Vance said he controlled the judicial process. Now, we will have to look very closely at whether it is better to—

    Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Bay of Quinte.

    It is with great pride that I rise today at the second reading of Bill C‑11, which proposes a fundamental reform of the military justice system. This issue is particularly close to my heart. I have two sons and a daughter-in-law who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am extremely proud of them, as I am of all CAF members and the sacrifices they have made for our country.

    I am a proud military mom. One of the reasons I entered public service was to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families receive the care and support they deserve for the sacrifices they have made. That is exactly why Bill C-11 matters so much.

    Those who protect us deserve to be protected in return. Victims of harassment and sexual assault in the military must be able to report abuse without fear of reprisal.

    With this bill, we want to ensure that victims can pursue their perpetrators in civilian court, free from the pressure of the chain of command. We must strengthen the system to help survivors heal from their trauma, provide them with options that respect their dignity and allow them to make decisions without fearing for their future in uniform.

    Bill C-11 is grounded in two landmark independent reviews, one by former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish and the other by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.

    Justice Fish's independent external comprehensive review, published in 2021, examined how our military justice system functions, from investigation and courts martial to oversight and accountability. He found that while the military justice system is vital to maintaining discipline and operational effectiveness, it must also align with the core principles of Canadian justice: independence, fairness and respect for the rule of law.

    Justice Fish made 107 recommendations, several of which are aimed at strengthening civilian oversight, transferring the handling of sexual offences to civilian courts and increasing accountability within the chain of command. Bill C‑11 directly addresses these recommendations by modernizing the system and bringing the military process more in line with the civilian process.

    A year later, Justice Louise Arbour was asked to go even deeper, to look not just at policies but at the culture and power structures that shape behaviour inside the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. In the preface to her report, she wrote words that should stop us all:

    Those words are a call to action. Justice Arbour's report contains 48 recommendations for rebuilding trust and accountability. Recommendation 5 is key: the exclusive prosecution by civilian authorities of all Criminal Code sexual offences alleged by members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

    Bill C‑11 implements that recommendation. Serious offences, including sexual offences, will now be handled by the civilian justice system, offering the survivors the same protections as all Canadians.

    Our government has already acted on an interim basis to implement this recommendation. Since late 2021, all new allegations of Criminal Code sexual offences involving CAF members have been referred to civilian police and prosecutors. Bill C-11 now makes that practice permanent, providing clarity, consistency and confidence to survivors and to the system as a whole.

    General Jennie Carignan, when she was the chief professional conduct and culture, met with over 16,000 members of the defence team and the Canadian Armed Forces. Those 16,000 voices have told us again and again that change must be real, structural and lasting.

    Members of the armed forces must have confidence in their justice system. Survivors should not fear telling their story or forfeiting their military career.

    As our government emphasized in “Our North, Strong and Free”, harassment, discrimination and violence in any form have no place in the Canadian Armed Forces. Such behaviour causes lasting harm and undermines Canadians' trust in their military institutions.

    That is why it is imperative to act now. I applaud the fact that the other parties in the House expressed their support for Bill C‑66 in the last Parliament in a spirit of non-partisan collaboration.

    Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.

    Bill C-11 will strengthen the independence of military judges, enhance oversight of military police and ensure that serious offences, including sexual offences, will now be dealt with by the civilian justice system. It will improve transparency and accountability, which will help restore public trust and encourage more Canadians to serve in a fair and reliable system.

    Our government is also taking concrete action. We have established the sexual misconduct support and resource centre, fully independent from the chain of command. We have introduced a digital grievance form to lower barriers for reporting. We have repealed the duty to report, restoring choice and agency to survivors. We have also launched the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board to strengthen accountability in our institutions.

    These measures show that we are not merely talking about intention, but also about implementation. They will enable future generations to serve in a safer, more inclusive and more respectful environment.

    Bill C-11 is not just aspirational. It would enshrine these changes in law, embedding independence, fairness and protection for survivors into the very structure of the National Defence Act.

    It is the right thing to do for our military personnel, and it is the right thing to do for our country, but this is just a start.

    As a proud mother of serving members, I hope my own family and all members of the Canadian Armed Forces will never need to rely on these protections, but for those who have suffered in silence, who have lost faith in the system and who fear coming forward, we see them, we hear them and we are committed to getting this right. They have our backs, and we must have theirs.

    I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-11. Let us get it to committee for thorough study and demonstrate that supporting members of the Canadian Armed Forces is truly non-partisan. We need to do this. We need to get it right for them.

    Mr. Speaker, I volunteered at the Cambridge Legion for several years, and I am always proud to support our veterans and those serving in our armed forces. We all know that veterans put so much on the line for our country, and all they want is support from our government, but the Liberals have passed legislation like Bill C-5, allowing criminals convicted of sexual assault to serve their sentences at home. In a military context, that could mean that right around the corner from their attacker on a small base, some could still reside.

    Does the minister agree that we should repeal Bill C-5, stop soft-on-crime policies and protect not only CAF victims but all victims of sexual misconduct?

    Mr. Speaker, today is about victims of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We had the opportunity in the last Parliament to get Bill C-66 done, but unfortunately shenanigans in the House prevented us from doing that and it died on the Order Paper.

    We are in line to getting all the recommendations in the Arbour report completed before the end of the year. I urge my colleagues not to play partisan politics and make personal attacks, and urge them to support us in getting this bill to committee so we can do a proper study of it and move it along for victims.

    Mr. Speaker, it is quite a thing to deliver a speech about something one has experienced first hand.

    My question is very simple. Everyone knows that this bill was desperately needed. However, will my colleague also be able to devote all her energy to helping everyone who may have been or may become victims, both our veterans and employees of National Defence? Can she ensure that she will be there to help our people?

    Mr. Speaker, I was elected in 2015. I have always worked closely with veterans' communities and their families. I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs from 2017 to 2019, and I still have phone numbers and I still get text messages from veterans and their families to this day.

    I want to remain committed to those who served our country and their families.

    Mr. Speaker, I know that veterans and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces are my friend and colleague's top priority.

    During your speech today, you indicated that Justice Arbour consulted with over 16,000 individuals. I am just wondering if the department and the minister himself consulted with victims as well.

    How do we anticipate the reaction of survivors with respect to this legislation? We all know that making a complaint of this nature is very difficult. I am just wondering if we have received any feedback from survivors.

    Members will address questions through the Chair.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Mr. Speaker, it was Jennie Carignan, the current CDS, who met with over 16,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

    I know the Minister of National Defence is always speaking to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families. They asked us, based on Justice Arbour's recommendation, to move the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases to the civilian system. We are listening to them. We will continue to listen to them. We will always listen to them.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this member's commitment to our veterans and our military, and appreciate her the sacrifices her family has made to serve this country.

    The member brought up in her speech that the bill would make permanent something that was already brought into effect, I believe in 2021, with respect to the civilian prosecution of sexual misconduct cases. I do not know whether the member has the data on hand, but could she commit to providing, when this bill gets to committee, how many of these cases have been sent to civilian authorities and how many have been denied? Are there any results she could provide?

    Mr. Speaker, I will make sure the information is provided to committee members when this bill gets to committee.

     I want to thank the member opposite. We have worked together on many files, and it is always a pleasure to work with him.

    Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank the brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces for their service to Canada and Canadians.

    It is with great pride that I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. Now, more than ever, we need to invest in the tens of thousands of brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces, who work hard every day to protect Canada's sovereignty and security. Every day, Canadian Armed Forces members don the uniform and stand ready to protect and defend the people of Canada. That is why our people remain at the core of everything the Canadian Armed Forces does. When someone chooses to serve our country, it is our duty as the government to make sure they have every tool necessary to do so.

    It is also our duty to make sure they are treated right. Victims of harassment and sexual crimes in the Canadian Armed Forces should not have to worry about the consequences of reporting what has happened to them to their superiors or an internal legal system. With the legislation we are proposing, we would make sure this no longer happens. We want to ensure that these victims can pursue their cases in civil court, outside the military system and far from reprisals from their superiors.

    To bring about meaningful cultural change and change that will stand the test of time, we must reform the system to help victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We must give them options and recourse that do not ostracize or isolate them, but, rather, do the opposite. We must ensure that they feel free to make their own decisions without fear of impacting their future careers in the Canadian Armed Forces. They have our backs. We must have theirs. Make no mistake that supporting our Canadian Armed Forces is a top priority for our government. We will ensure fairness and justice for victims and survivors.

    The proposed changes in this legislation would have a direct impact on members of the Canadian Armed Forces in my very own riding, Bay of Quinte. My riding is home to CFB Trenton, also known as 8 Wing Trenton, which is Canada's largest and most strategically important air force base. CFB Trenton is also the largest employer in Quinte West, with more than 4,500 personnel, and it has a significant economic impact on the region. These are precisely the people we are supporting through this legislation. Bill C-11 would help us build a more inclusive, respectful and safe workplace for all of our Canadian Armed Forces members to survive and thrive, including members who serve at CFB Trenton.

    We have made considerable progress over the last several years to enact meaningful and durable culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces, including by working to implement all 48 of former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour's recommendations, as others have previously outlined. By implementing Justice Arbour's recommendations and making changes to the military justice system through Bill C-11, we are taking a major step to make sure we keep our brave soldiers safe from harassment and misconduct in their workplace.

    A career with the Canadian Armed Forces is a source of unique pride and confidence among those who have the privilege to serve. Our priority, then, as a government is to build a more inclusive and supportive fighting force. It is important to grow a Canadian Armed Forces that reflects the diversity of Canada and Canadians. We know that a more modern military with an inclusive culture will also have a positive impact on recruiting and retaining members.

    We are building a 21st-century workplace where Canadian Armed Forces members will feel safe to report incidents. Our forces expect this of us. They expect a workplace where CAF members are treated fairly. In other words, changing the culture of DND and the CAF is not simply the right thing to do; it is essential to the readiness and operational effectiveness of our institution, and it has tangible impacts.

    This year, recruitment has reached a 10-year high. We are on an upward trajectory, but there is more to be done, and Bill C-11 is part of our plan to create a safe workplace environment and change in the culture inside the Canadian Armed Forces. Our government has heard the voices of our people loudly and clearly. We have listened and we have acted. We now know there is much more work to be done, but we are making concrete and measurable progress. Bill C-11 demonstrates that anyone who wishes to join the CAF will have access to a fair and reliable legal system.

     I want to reiterate the importance of Bill C-11. It would lay the foundation for an improved military culture by modernizing the military justice system, improving support to victims and providing exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities to both investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. We believe Bill C-11 is an important step in a journey designed to achieve durable and lasting institutional reform.

    In conclusion, members of our armed forces serve our country with courage and dedication. That is why it is important for the government to take the need to change military culture seriously. Therefore, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this crucial bill to change the lives of our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces for the better. I hope we can all work together to make sure that Bill C-11 passes quickly. Our forces are counting on us.

     I want to thank our brave armed forces, especially those at CFB Trenton my riding, for their sacrifice and service to our country.

    Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the member's speech that we agree on. They have our backs and we must have theirs. That is extremely important. We also agree that everyone should be safe from harassment.

     The Borden base is in my riding. I am very honoured to represent the men and women of the military who serve and have served in that area.

     I used to sit on the veterans affairs committee, and what I have noticed since being elected in 2019 is that a lot of the same issues are being repeated over and over by the government, which has been in place for 10 years. We are studying some of the same issues again and again, such as individuals dealing with PTSD or getting another job after service.

    Why would the public believe now that any of this would help any of the people who are serving today and those who have served? For 10 years, it has been the same thing over and over, with lots of promises and absolutely no delivery.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his service to his riding and to the men and women of CFB Borden.

    I believe this government is committed to righting the wrongs of the past, as we have seen with some of our legislation, especially Bill C-11, which is a prime example of how we are doing that in a modern Canadian Armed Forces.

    General Jennie Carignan is a prime example of the kind of personnel we have shepherding in this kind of change. In my life prior to being elected, I was employed at CFB Trenton. I had the chance to sit in and listen to a town hall held by General Carignan. She said unequivocally exactly what the member opposite was saying: We are making change and we mean what we say.

    Mr. Speaker, earlier, I asked my colleague whether anything would be done to address the needs of people with post-traumatic stress or people who have been the victims of physical harm. Obviously, she told me that there definitely would be.

    How is my colleague going to manage things with an upcoming 5% increase in defence spending and only a few days left to check and see whether funds will also be available for prevention and treatment? What is he going to do to ensure that funding is made available for that purpose?

    Mr. Speaker, we are very committed in the new funding for our Canadian Armed Forces to providing services for veterans with PTSD. In fact, in my own riding office, I employ a veteran who looks specifically after the needs of members who serve and have served, current and past. We are addressing those needs directly and immediately. We take this very seriously.

    Mr. Speaker, Madam Arbour had 48 recommendations in total. Many of those recommendations have already been put in place. We are hoping to see the others passed this year. We hear criticism about why it is taking this long. It is important to recognize that in 2021, we received the interim report, and within the year, we were already seeing cases being shuffled over through the civil system. The legislation we are debating today would put the process into law.

    I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that. Would it not be nice to see the law in place before the end of the year so that we can say all 48 recommendations have been adhered to by—

    The hon. member for Bay of Quinte.

    Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion in my previous life as a journalist to cover sexual assault trials in the court martial system, and I can tell my colleague that while the system was efficient and got the job done, it was in no way, shape or form the proper system whereby the victim had all the protections of a civil case. The legislation before us is guaranteed to right that wrong. We have listened and we will get the job done.

    Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

    I rise in the House to address two crucial issues that go to the heart of our national security and our commitment to those who serve our country. The first issue is in regard to Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act, a piece of legislation that would fundamentally reform our military justice system. The second issue is in regard to the urgent need for a complete overhaul of the Canadian government's procurement process for military equipment, an area that has been totally neglected and plagued by chronic delays and inefficient bureaucracy. Together, these issues underscore the urgency of protecting our military and strengthening our defence.

    Let us start with Bill C‑11, which is basically a repeat of Bill C‑66 from the 44th Parliament, with minor adjustments. This bill amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction over sexual offences to civilian authorities when these offences occur within Canada. This measure is in response to key recommendations in the reports by Justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour, which the Conservatives have always supported.

    We firmly believe that all members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace, free from sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism or harassment. Those of us on this side of the House will continue to address these issues, putting victims' needs and rights first, in accordance with our criminal justice policy.

    However, this bill is not without its flaws. Offences committed abroad will still be under the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction, which is consistent with section 273 of the National Defence Act. This discrepancy poses problems. By removing the CAF's jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases of sexual misconduct in Canada, there is a risk of losing essential practical skills. How will the Canadian Armed Forces maintain their expertise if they no longer manage their internal affairs?

    One positive aspect is the increased independence of the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general. These positions will now be appointed by the Governor in Council, reporting directly to the Minister of National Defence, with limited terms of office. This strengthens their independence outside the chain of command.

    The provost marshal will be added to the list of senior officials, along with the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister, who must have any complaints against them reviewed by the minister. However, there are still some inconsistencies. There are arbitrary differences between these positions with regard to their term of office and whether it is renewable.

    What is more, this bill grants the Minister of National Defence more power to issue written instructions or directives on particular prosecutions. That opens the door to potential political interference, a risk that we, as Conservatives, cannot ignore, especially given the Liberal government's track record of interference.

    Financially speaking, this bill is alarming for accused persons. Right now, the Department of National Defence covers the prosecution and defence costs, but in the civilian system, accused persons would have to pay for their own lawyers, whose fees could reach six figures. That could discourage justice and expose members of the Canadian Armed Forces to false accusations without support.

    Despite the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, victims are still waiting for justice after 10 years under a Liberal government. We, the Conservatives, accepted all of the recommendations in the Deschamps report, and we cannot understand why the Liberals have been dragging their feet for so long. We want to hear from everyone involved. We are proud of our men and women in uniform and we support them unconditionally.

    Since we are talking about the Canadian Armed Forces, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the serious need for a complete overhaul of the government procurement process for military equipment and services. This inefficient and outdated system is filled with red tape and engenders costly delays that weaken our defence.

    According to open sources, like government reports and media analyses, Canada has had equipment procurement issues for decades. For example, projects like the Canadian Army vehicle procurement project, which is worth up to $1 billion, face significant barriers, chronic delays and skyrocketing costs.

    The Prime Minister, who, we must remember, is a former Goldman Sachs banker, is responsible for accelerating defence spending in order to meet our NATO commitments. We were supposed to reach a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product, but demands are currently reaching 5%.

     There are consequences to that. Right now, we all agree on the idea of investing more in defence. However, there is always a “but”. That “but” is the procurement system. The Liberals will tell us that, last week, they announced a new agency. Again, it is a new agency. All this government has done since it came to power is create new bureaucratic structures.

     However, there is a way to manage much more efficiently with the current structure by giving specific directives to the public servants and deputy ministers in place at National Defence, at the procurement service and in the industry. That way, the government would not need to create a bureaucratic structure that will take time to set up and might work eventually, but, for the time being, only adds more red tape.

    Things can move quickly if the will is there. Here is the proof. When the Conservative government was in power and we were at war in Afghanistan, we had urgent equipment needs on the ground. This included planes, helicopters, vehicles and personal protective equipment. Former prime minister Harper issued a directive indicating that he wanted to have equipment as quickly as possible, on time and on budget. It got done. Where there is a will, there is a way. The proof is that this happened under the Conservative government. On the Liberal side, they like to build a big bureaucracy, but decisive operational leadership can get things done too. This would go a long way to improving Canada's military procurement system, which has been a train wreck for the past few years.

    We do need to reform the military justice system because this system has become a problem, particularly in cases of sexual assault. However, we should keep in mind that a dichotomy will be created by the loss of capacity within the teams that are currently responsible for prosecuting cases that occur abroad versus those that will be responsible for civilian proceedings in Canada. It is important that we have a system that ensures that military judge advocates working on the front lines, as well as the commanding officers carrying out their duties abroad, retain their expertise. We must not lose this strength.

    On the military procurement front, we have moved beyond the stage of fine words. We have responded to a request from the U.S. and NATO, and we want to move forward. However, too many companies in the defence sector are still coming to me saying that they are unable to reach anyone within the Government of Canada. No one answers their calls, their emails or their requests. They have a much easier time selling equipment in other countries, while in Canada, their hands are tied. I am not talking about one company, but several companies at all levels, from major multinationals to small companies that make equipment as commonplace as chests for storing weapons, but also other equipment that could be used right now on the ground in Ukraine. A company in Montreal has to sell its equipment in Great Britain in order for that equipment to reach Ukraine because Canada is not answering its calls.

    These are observations. As far as Bill C-11 is concerned, we support the idea, but there are adjustments to be made. This has been dragging on for a very long time. I do not know why we are still talking about something in 2025 that should already have been resolved. Let us hope that things speed up and that adjustments will be made. As for military procurement, it is high time that we acted quickly for the Canadian Forces, for the security of the country.

    Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the interim report had 48 recommendations, many of which have already been completed. We are hoping to complete others before the end of the year. That is the goal, and that includes the passage of this particular piece of legislation. The member is trying to give the false impression that nothing is moving forward. Within a year of the interim report being brought forward, we have seen cases shifted over to the civilian justice system. That is a very strong positive.

    Does the member not agree that we can collectively send a very strong message to the members of our armed forces by sending this legislation to committee stage? The committee is best suited to listen to the feedback. It seems to me we should try to get this done before the end of the year. Would the member not agree?

    Mr. Speaker, I think some information got lost in translation.

    I mentioned that it was taking a long time, but I did not say that nothing had been done. I said that it was still taking way too much time. I also said that we supported the idea of Bill C-11, but that adjustments were needed. We will probably be able to make the necessary adjustments at the committee stage.

    I was generally criticizing the length of time it is taking, although some steps have been completed.

    Mr. Speaker, it is rare to see all the parties agree to move a bill forward through the legislative process. From what I understand, everything will get done in committee.

    I see that there is goodwill and that members want to make good recommendations and pass a good bill. Will my colleague's party lend a hand so that we can finally carry out this agenda that should have been implemented years ago?

    Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we supported the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, which were published in recent years. In fact, we were the ones who commissioned the first report.

    It is extremely important for us that this problem be resolved. We have always collaborated. We complain about the government moving at a snail's pace, but every time we have amendments to propose, they are based on reality and aim to make things better. We are not proposing amendments just to slow down the process. If we propose an amendment, it is because we think it is essential to do so. That is what we will do.

    Obviously, if the government agrees to the Conservatives' amendments, the process will move more quickly. That is our goal.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his service in uniform. I know that he, as a former commanding officer, was responsible for discipline and for maintaining the code of service discipline and the National Defence Act within his unit.

    One of the concerns he addressed in his speech is the fact that these cases have already started going over to civilian courts, but we are seeing such a backlog. Is he concerned about victims actually getting justice in the civilian courts, due to the challenges we are seeing across the country right now with the civilian justice system?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is also a veteran and a former commanding officer. He likely had to conduct summary trials like I did.

    One of the problems we are seeing right now is that cases are being added to the backlog of other cases in the civilian justice system. That can hurt victims. That is one of the concerns that we Conservatives have. We agree with the principle, but if this bill causes more problems for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to justice, then we have not improved anything.

    That is why we need to find a way forward.

    Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I want to thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for serving our country.

    I just have one question. Does the Conservative Party currently support passing Bill C-11?

    Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there are a number of things that need to be addressed. That is why we are asking the government to make amendments and propose changes before going any further. These are fundamental issues.

    At this point, we are dealing with problems that have not yet been resolved.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say this is a tough bill or a tough speech for me to give, but I do have my own unique military background, which includes having spent 25 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I spent a lot of that time as a presiding officer. Fortunately, as a presiding officer, I did not have to oversee sexual misconduct cases. Those would go to court martial and were never in my purview.

    Let us back up to how we got to where we are today. Reference has been made to Madam Arbour's report, and before that there was Madam Deschamps' report. I want to share with everyone how shocked and disappointed I was when the Deschamps report came out. I was literally flabbergasted.

    The Canadian Armed Forces is representative of a cross section of Canadian society. We are going to have bad apples and phenomenally good people. I was somebody who was an infantry officer, who served in a combat arms unit, which gets a bad rap a lot of the time, and I had never personally witnessed any of these cases. It was shocking when it came out because I had not had feedback shared with me by my former female colleagues in our Canadian Armed Forces. I reached out once that report came out and asked some of them about it. Some of them were senior officers. The horror stories that I heard just absolutely blew me away. Unfortunately, there have been challenges within the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to sexual misconduct and justice for the victims being delivered.

    I am sharing this because it is important that we get it right. We cannot just overreact. The military is no different than any other organization. Sometimes a solution creates two other problems. We have to make sure we are looking at this from all angles, both for the victims and the accused. The reason I bring up the accused is that we just have to go back over the last half-dozen years or so to see that some very senior officers had allegations brought up against them that in the end turned out to be unsubstantiated. In some cases, the officers were acquitted.

     One of my best friends, a still-serving brigadier general, has done a phenomenal job. This goes back to almost 10 years ago. I think it was around 2015 when he was unjustly accused. Fortunately, due to the system finally sorting it out, he has been able to successfully maintain his career in the Canadian Armed Forces. He has been promoted a couple of times since then and currently serves.

    I am just bringing that up because it is important that the system works in an impartial way to address the issues. We absolutely have to stamp out any sexual misconduct that occurs anywhere in society, while at the same time making sure that due process is followed.

    There are about five elements to this bill from a summary perspective. I want to touch on each one of them slightly, except for one. The first one is that it obviously amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of sexual misconduct offences to civilian courts when they take place here in Canada.

    The parliamentary secretary talked about this in her speech. I asked her how it is working so far, and she is committed to getting the data. This ties into another question that I had already asked. We now have about three-plus years of data. I want to know how many cases are being accepted by the civilian courts. What are the findings? Are any of them being delayed? I am concerned about the Jordan principle, because, again, if justice is delayed, these victims will not get the justice they need.

    Another aspect to this transfer is that, unfortunately, the cases that occur overseas while our military members are deployed would still be prosecuted by our military police within the Canadian Armed Forces and within our military justice system, with its prosecutors and judge advocates general. This was a question that was brought up during a technical brief. It was asked, and I do not want to say we have been reassured, but the government has been talking about the fact that there is going to be training. My concern is that training has to be really good because why are we saying that our military police, judge advocates general and the military justice system are not good enough to deal with cases here in Canada, but they are good enough when they happen overseas?

    Those are the first two points of the bill that would change certain things.

    Another aspect of the bill is that it would increase the independence of the director of military prosecution, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general by having them appointed by the Governor in Council and report directly to the minister of national defence with term limits. I am not going to get into depth on that. I do think there are questions that can be asked in the review process of the bill as to how it would actually change anything internally or externally with the independence.

    I think it is a little, I do not want to say mythical, but in my experience, and I can speak only from my experience, our military police were very much granted independence for everything they did. It was very much frowned upon and stamped out if somebody in the chain of command tried to interfere with the process going forward. I have had nothing but positive feedback in dealing with our military police, our national investigation service and our judge advocates general in the prosecutions that have taken place.

    I talked about the importance of the data. One of the issues, though, that needs to come up as well is that if somebody is alleged to have done something wrong in the military system, they are provided with military defence counsel, but as soon as a case goes into the civilian courts, and if it is one of our soldiers, sailors or air crew who has been alleged to have done something wrong, they are no longer entitled to military defence; they are on their own dime.

    I have already provided one example, and there are a couple of others I can think of, where the people who have been alleged to have done something wrong went through the process, and rightly so, but when it was determined that they in fact had done nothing wrong, it cost them literally tens of thousands of personal dollars, if not more. Their only way to get any coverage back was to sue the government or the Department of National Defence and the chain of command, to be reimbursed through civil litigation, which takes way more time.

    It is a question I have; I do not know what the right answer is. I am hoping that when the bill gets to committee or goes through the amendment processes, the government considers how it is going to handle that.

    What I want to talk about in the last bit of my speech is a bit more technical in nature. I have asked the question; I have not gotten a response back from the ministers or the department yet, but it is interesting that the bill would lay out a deadline for the provost marshal general, as it would now be called, to provide an annual report, a deadline of three months. I am wondering, so it is more of a question the government can take note of because I do not have a response yet, why was there not a similar timeline included for the judge advocate general when the government was updating the military justice system with the bill ? They are mandated to provide an annual report, but there is no timeline on it.

    The second question I have that is tied to the previous one is this: What is the “so what”? What would be the repercussions if the provost marshal general did not submit a report on time? What would happen to them?

    Ultimately the military justice system is a system that I believe is crucially needed within the military. It ensures service disciple. However, obviously we need to make sure the victims are taken care of. The decision has been made; this has gone forward, and we are moving to civilian courts to prosecute any sexual misconduct. Our military justice system, I fully agree, needs to be improved; however, my only concern is, let us not fix the one problem while creating one or two others.

    I am optimistic that all parties can work together to come up with a way to make sure that the bill is the best bill possible to ensure that everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces, men and women who serve this nation, are properly protected.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way the member finished his speech and the comments he shared. I also want to thank him for his service. It is important that we give regard and respect to our men and women in uniform.

    Hearing the comments provided to me, and I would say to the constituents in the riding of Waterloo, about some assurance that we can actually move the bill to committee rather quickly, I would like to hear from the member how quickly he believes it could progress so we could get to scrutinizing it and making sure we get it right at committee.

    Mr. Speaker, I really do not have a clue. Ultimately, I am sure the member's party follows a similar process that we do. The bill has just been tabled. We will discuss it as a caucus.

    I know that one of the key jobs of our shadow minister for defence is to determine who wants to speak to the bill. The unique challenge, after a federal election, is that almost 50% of the MPs are brand new in the House. I am a big believer, and I have stood up for this and stated it before, that everybody should be entitled to speak as much as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader speaks in the chamber.

    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, which was somewhat nuanced. However, considering that it was the Conservatives who appointed Mr. Vance in the first place when there were already allegations of sexual misconduct, and considering that the Liberals did everything they could to ignore those allegations, it is clear that the system needs to be overhauled. The idea behind the recommendations that were made and that are being implemented in the bill is to take the process out of the military's hands and put it in the hands of officials appointed by the Minister of National Defence. However, as we have seen in various cases, the minister does not seem to want to take action and prefers to avoid conflict.

    I wonder if my colleague could share his suggestions. Should this be removed from political control? What would be the best mechanism to ensure fair judgments and a fair process in cases of sexual misconduct complaints?

    Mr. Speaker, that is one of the good things in the bill: It makes reference to certain allegations and complaints having to be dealt with by the minister of national defence.

    As for the case the member brought up about the appointment, I cannot speak to that. I was serving in uniform in 2015, when the former chief of the defence staff was appointed, so I cannot speak to what was and what was not known or anything like that.

    I do know, and I spoke to this a couple of Parliaments ago, that when allegations of misconduct against the chief of the defence staff were brought forward to the Liberal minister, he chose not to do anything about it, and we ended up censuring him in Parliament. I have a lot of respect for him because of his time in uniform, his three tours in Afghanistan and his time as a police officer, but I have no time for, and this is partly why we are in this problem in the first place, the failure of leadership within the Canadian Armed Forces to stamp out sexual misconduct internally and, in some cases, a failure with respect to ministerial accountability.

    Mr. Speaker, that was one of the best speeches I have ever heard the member make. It had a lot of meaning, and it has meaning for the people who live on the base in my riding and work in the Canadian Armed Forces.

    In the member's speech, he alluded to a time when there were several high-ranking members all charged at the same time with allegations of sexual misconduct. This came at a particular point in time when it could have been very damaging to us had we been involved in a conflict, because it was in essence decapitating our military to a large extent. The member made an inference that there was a sense at the time with some of the conduct allegations that there was political motivation to get them out of the way.

    What is in the legislation that might set the member's mind at ease or might alert him to the fact that this could happen again?

    Mr. Speaker, that is a tough question for me to answer. Again, I do not profess to know every paragraph or clause of the legislation yet.

    Political interference is something we all have to watch out for at all times. I think that in this case, our leadership needs to be reviewed, but at the same time, we cannot make decisions hastily on false accusations either. Whether the bill would fully solve that or not, I am not sure, but ultimately it is something we should all be cautious of.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury.

    We are here today to debate an important bill: Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. This bill addresses the long-standing concerns raised by victims and survivors in the Canadian Armed Forces and veteran community. This bill is a crucial step in responding to sexual trauma in the military.

    As a government and as elected members, we have a duty to ensure that veterans and those currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces receive the support and justice they deserve. Bill C-11 marks a turning point in this journey.

    No one can fully understand the relevance of Bill C-11 without grasping the scope of military sexual trauma and its repercussions. Military sexual trauma, also known as MST, is a serious problem that affects a large number of veterans. It encompasses experiences of sexual harassment, assault and other forms of sexual violence that occur during military service. This type of trauma can have lasting and devastating effects on the lives of those who experience it, as it can impact their mental health, emotional well-being, personal relationships and overall quality of life. The effects of this type of trauma extend beyond the individual and are felt in families, personal relationships and communities.

    It is a systemic problem that affects many people who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. The Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre provides support services for current members of the CAF, as well as for veterans. However, it can be difficult for victims to seek help and request the services they need.

    Bill C-11 is an historic piece of legislation that recognizes and responds to the unique needs of survivors of military sexual trauma. For too long, MST survivors have faced insurmountable barriers to obtaining justice and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. Bill C‑11 introduces measures that enhance transparency and accountability within the military justice system. This bill implements recommendations made by former justices Fish and Arbour to strengthen the military justice system. It provides a mechanism that will allow survivors to file complaints in a way that respects their dignity and ensures that their voices are heard.

    This bill establishes a clear framework for investigating and responding to allegations of sexual misconduct while also promoting an environment of accountability and justice. In doing so, it not only supports survivors in their quest for justice, but also sends a strong message that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated in the Canadian Armed Forces. Through this legislation, we are proposing transformative measures to transfer the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences alleged to have been committed in Canada by members of the Canadian Armed Forces to the civilian system.

     Another pivotal element of Bill C‑11 is its emphasis on culture change within the military and veteran communities. Addressing MST effectively requires a shift in attitudes and behaviours at all levels of the military establishment. Ultimately, this legislation will help us create a safer, more inclusive and more respectful workplace where CAF members can thrive.

    As I mentioned earlier, this bill will also have a significant impact on veterans. The trauma resulting from these experiences can often lead to a range of challenges, such as PTSD, depression, anxiety and other mental health issues. These challenges often arise years after their service has ended.

    It is therefore the responsibility of Veterans Affairs Canada to support veterans. This department will continue to play a crucial role in supporting individuals who have experienced sexual violence in the military, by ensuring that they have access to the resources they need to recover from their trauma and by advocating for their needs. Veterans Affairs Canada places the highest priority on ensuring that veterans and their families have access to the services they need when and where they need them.

    That is why the department offers a whole host of programs and supports for individuals who become ill or injured in the line of duty, including victims of military sexual trauma. Veterans Affairs Canada ensures access to specialized services and to the supports needed to appropriately address impacts on their personal health and well-being. We are committed to meeting their needs.

     The collaboration between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada will help ensure the well-being of those who serve and have served our country in uniform.

     I would like to acknowledge the government's determination to implement this important bill, which will change the lives of many members of the armed forces, as well as veterans. There was an urgent need to undertake this reform of the military justice system and put in place the legislative changes needed to effectively address the issue of MST.

     This government's commitment to improving the military justice system, strengthening support for survivors and fostering a culture of respect and accountability remains unwavering. It is a collective responsibility that requires the co-operation, understanding and action of all stakeholders concerned.

    Our government recognizes the unique needs of the women and men who have experienced sexual trauma while serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why we are taking action by introducing this essential bill. I hope that all of my colleagues in the House will support this bill, which is important for our country's military community and veterans.

    In closing, I want to reaffirm our commitment to those who have served our nation. MST is a serious problem, but by passing Bill C‑11, we will take an essential step toward tackling it with the seriousness it deserves.

    I want to thank all the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the veterans who have served our country and sacrificed so much to protect Canada, our democracy and our values. It is our turn to support them, and Bill C‑11 is part of our crucial measures for improving the culture in the Canadian Armed Forces.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention. She had over two minutes left. She needs to talk to her staff or to the minister's staff, whoever wrote her speech for her. They could have filled it in a bit more.

    I wonder if the member wants to comment on the concerns we have on our side with the soft-on-crime policies the Liberals have brought forward, which are permeating our civilian courts. They are putting everybody out on bail with the lowest conditions possible. We also see that perpetrators of sexual assault, sexual interference and sexual exploitation get to serve their time under house arrest. Those who commit those crimes within the military would have access to the civilian largesse that is coming from the government. I would ask the member if she agrees that civilian penalties should be applied to military members.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his concern about the length of my speeches, but it is unnecessary.

    The civilian police already has the necessary jurisdiction in these matters. Once this legislation is passed, they will have exclusive jurisdiction over this information. We expect all police forces in Canada to act within their jurisdiction and enforce the law.

    Mr. Speaker, we saw that the Liberal defence minister turned a blind eye to all the allegations against Mr. Vance. He pretended he had not received them.

    My colleague spoke about the need to take action. I think it is good to ensure that the process is no longer exclusively in the hands of the military. However, the Minister of Defence will be the one appointing the judges.

    Should this not be expanded so that the process does not depend solely on politics? That is one way to ensure that it is truly objective and fair.

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to this suggestion, I invite my colleague to vote in favour of Bill C‑11 and then make the necessary changes in committee.

    Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my hon. colleague left us two minutes more to ask questions and that she did not repeat the same points that have been said in the House.

    I have a quick question for her. How many of Madam Arbour's 48 recommendations have been implemented, and when should we expect all of them to be implemented?

    Mr. Speaker, of Madam Arbour's 48 recommendations, 34 have been implemented. The aim is to have all of them implemented by the end of the year.

    I would like to mention that Bill C‑11 is the response to recommendation 5, which will truly enable all of these measures and recommendations to be implemented.

     Uqaqtittiji, I welcome the new member to the House of Commons.

    We have heard from survivors that the government does not consider the transfer of cases to the civilian justice system enough. Many have argued that if, for example, a victim is from Alberta, an accused lives in British Columbia and witnesses to an assault are from Quebec, local police units are not adequately resourced or equipped to handle the case.

    Do the Liberals agree that dedicated time at committee will be needed to investigate models for civilian police to ensure a national standard for all victims?

    Mr. Speaker, yes, I really hope that this bill will pass at second reading in the House so that a committee can study it and examine all our needs.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

    As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I know how important this bill is to the military community and to veterans.

    I would like to spend some time today talking specifically about the importance of creating lasting and meaningful cultural change in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as our efforts toward the modernization of the military justice system.

    All members of the House know the outstanding work that our Canadian Armed Forces carry out on behalf of Canadians both here and abroad. Our forces deploy all over the world, responding to regional crises, participating in international exercises and so much more. Our forces also deploy here at home to support Canadians, as we have seen in some specific incidents.

    As the Minister of National Defence and many of my colleagues have already mentioned, it is our job to support our brave men and women in uniform. They carry out crucial work to keep Canadians safe, and it is our responsibility to create a professional and safe work environment for them so they can strive to reach their fullest potential. This is what Bill C-11 is all about. Bill C-11 proposes to reform the military justice system to ensure it is more transparent so that it can respond effectively and efficiently to the needs of our members.

    Over the past few years, National Defence has received various external reports and reviews. These include the independent external comprehensive review and third independent review of the National Defence Act, which were overseen by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish, respectively. These reports speak to the need to reform and modernize the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure that misconduct in any and all forms is a thing of the past. This is about restoring trust in our institutions and proving to our members that when they come forward with any concerns regarding misconduct in the workplace, these concerns will be taken seriously.

    Before delving in to the broader cultural change efforts being undertaken at National Defence and in the Canadian Armed Forces, I would like to lay out the changes that are proposed in the bill in question. The proposed amendments to the National Defence Act seek to, first, modify the process for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services; second, expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge to include non-commissioned members; third, affirm the judge advocate general's respect for the independence of authorities in the military justice system while exercising its superintendence of the administration of military justice; fourth, expand the class of persons who may make an interference complaint and provide that a member of the military police or person performing policing duties or functions under the Canadian Forces provost marshal's supervision must make such a complaint in certain circumstances; and fifth, change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to the provost marshal general to align with the titles of other senior designations in the Canadian Armed Forces, such as the surgeon general, the chaplain general and the judge advocate general.

    The amendments proposed in this bill aim to reform the military justice system by making it more transparent and responsive to the needs of Canadians. However, these crucial institutional changes are only one aspect of our efforts.

    National Defence is grappling with the difficult realities and experiences of our military and civilian members, including some who have been the targets of wrongdoing, harassment and crimes of a sexual nature. The Minister of National Defence has therefore started taking important steps to prevent this problem and find possible solutions.

    One of the principal examples of our efforts is the creation of the sexual misconduct support and resource centre. This centre is a major step forward in providing supports to our members. The centre and its resources are available to current and former defence team members, cadets, junior Canadian Rangers aged 16 and older, and family members of the defence community. This means we are able to provide real support to all those who are affected.

    We also doubled down on our efforts with the creation of the chief professional conduct and culture in 2021.

     That individual is responsible for developing policies and programs to address systemic misconduct, improving tracking mechanisms for reports of professional misconduct, and leading efforts to develop a professional conduct and culture framework that tackles all types of discrimination, harmful behaviour, biases and systemic barriers.

     The steps we are taking to respond to Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations and those from the other reports will ensure that future generations of the Canadian Armed Forces have access to more resources and a healthy and respectful work environment. However, we know there is a lot more work to do. Bill C‑11 is just the first step.

     I would now like to discuss the measures that National Defence is taking.

    To provide context and set the scene, we should start with Justice Arbour's report, “The Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review”, also known as the Arbour report. In April 2021, Justice Arbour launched a comprehensive review with the aim of examining harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. This was a comprehensive review that spanned over 12 months. Justice Arbour carefully reviewed all policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture in National Defence and the military justice system. The final report included 48 recommendations, 17 of which could be immediately acted on. The previous minister of national defence accepted all 48 recommendations on May 30, 2022.

    I would like to highlight two key recommendations that Justice Arbour made and share the progress we have made on them thus far.

    Recommendation 11 relates to the repeal of the duty to report regulations. In the findings, Justice Arbour concluded that these regulations took away the agency and control of survivors in the reporting process, which would potentially lead to the revictimization of these individuals. The repeal of the duty to report came into effect on June 30, 2024, and we continue to work with the leadership to ensure we are prioritizing trust and safety in our reporting as well as the agency and choices of victims, survivors and affected persons.

    Recommendation 48 calls for the Minister of National Defence to appoint an external monitor to oversee the implementation efforts of the IECR's recommendations. We took swift action on this important measure. The minister at the time appointed Madame Jocelyne Therrien as external monitor. Madame Therrien provides monthly progress reports to the Minister of National Defence on the implementation of the report's recommendations.

    It is clear that our government has been working diligently to make real, tangible progress on the recommendations in front of us, but we know that there is more to do. At its core, this legislation is about protecting, supporting and empowering our people. We know that members of the forces and their families have our backs, and it is our responsibility to have theirs. As a supporter of our Canadian Armed Forces, I am proud to see the investments our government is making in the defence of our people, both through new financial commitments and our commitments to lasting cultural change.

    Let me be very clear. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces maintain an unwavering commitment to implementing the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish. Bill C-11 proposes to help us implement some of the recommendations from former justices Arbour and Fish to ensure that members of our forces have a safe and professional work environment to carry out the difficult tasks ahead of them.

    Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have heard from members of the CAF is that, currently, regarding cases going before military justice courts, their legal fees are covered. They are worried about frivolous litigation and that, if they are in criminal courts, they will have to pay for their own lawyers.

    Has the government given any thought to what it would do as a remedy for that?

    Mr. Speaker, in the work that has been done on this report, and with the multiple consultations that have been undertaken in the formulation of the report and all the recommendations, those concerns have been incorporated and are being looked at. They form part of the monthly progress reports that are provided to the Minister of National Defence. The discussions around those continue.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sudbury for her thoughtful speech. She is clearly a woman of action.

    The problem we have with her government in the current context is that it is doing the exact opposite. It has failed to take action on behalf of victims, who are mostly women. In this context, will she commit to putting pressure on her party to speed up the passage of this bill and, more importantly, to speed up assistance for victims?

    Victims are often left to fend for themselves, especially when they live in more remote regions, like ours. What resources can we offer to victims in the regions to ensure that they can heal and get justice with dignity?

    Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is very important to take action. The government is taking much-needed steps at this very moment with this legislation. This bill really has two objectives: to propose a series of targeted changes to modernize the justice system and to strengthen support for victims and survivors. Focusing on those two things is very important.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

    I also want to thank Madam Arbour for her report, of which approximately 20 recommendations have already been implemented. The face of the Canadian Armed Forces has changed over the decades. Obviously, more women are joining today and that is a good thing.

    Does my colleague believe that Bill C‑11 must also be accompanied by a cultural change within the armed forces, so that women are better supported, better heard, and their needs are properly addressed?

    Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very important that this bill help create a more inclusive, respectful and safe working environment in which members of the Canadian Armed Forces can thrive. Our focus is on that cultural change. We are passionately moving in that direction.

    Mr. Speaker, having served in an environment where chain of custody and evidence integrity are critical, I am concerned about jurisdictional overlap.

    I would like to have the member tell us how the military and civilian police would coordinate investigations without creating gaps where cases could fall through the cracks.

    Mr. Speaker, part of the consultations that I referred to earlier, regarding the development of this, looked at all of the jurisdictions that exist among the various parties involved in this. This certainly formed part of the report and the recommendations.

    Certainly, the military and civilian judicial processes are both equipped and ready to work together in bringing justice for these victims and their families.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

    I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

    Let me say right from the start that I support the intentions behind this bill. It aims to make our military justice system fairer, protect victims better and increase accountability. These are important goals. I think all of us in the House, especially on the Conservative side, agree that justice and fairness must be part of everything we do, including how we run our armed forces.

    That said, we also have a duty to ask tough questions to make sure that while we are fixing one problem we are not creating new ones somewhere else. I want to raise a few concerns. They are not political attacks but honest concerns about how this will work in the real world with real consequences for the men and women in uniform.

     One of the biggest changes in this bill is that sexual offences that occur in Canada would now be handled by civilian courts instead of the military. On paper, that makes sense. We want victims to feel safe coming forward, and civilian courts have experience handling these cases. This could lead to better outcomes for victims.

    However, here is a question: What happens when something like this happens overseas during a deployment or mission? Our military operates around the world in peacekeeping, training missions and sometimes in combat zones. In many of those places, civilian police and courts are unavailable.

    If the military does not have jurisdiction over certain offences, who would handle those cases when they happen abroad? The bill implies that jurisdiction overseas would revert to the National Defence Act and be handled under the code of service discipline. In other words, it would be handled by the military. If military justice is not suitable in Canada, how is it suitable overseas? Would victims feel that justice has been served by a system not deemed good enough at home? This needs to be addressed.

    The second thing is command authority. Military discipline is different from civilian life. The military justice system exists to maintain order, morale and operational effectiveness. It gives commanders the tools to act quickly and firmly. This bill would risk taking too much control away from commanders. If issues have to go through a long civilian process with no clear chain of responsibility, our ability to act fast in critical situations is compromised. Commanders should not have unchecked power, but they must be involved, especially during active missions. Let us not weaken their ability to lead and protect their troops.

    The third thing is independence versus bureaucracy. This bill would give more independence to roles like provost marshal and director of military prosecutions. In theory, that supports fairness and impartiality. However, we must be careful not to create a system so wrapped up in bureaucracy that it becomes slow or even politicized. Our soldiers deserve a justice system that is efficient, focused and responsive, not one bogged down in red tape.

    The fourth thing is communication between systems. Let me give members a real-life example I was told about recently. At a military camp last year, a serious incident of a sexual nature occurred. It was reported by the military to civilian authorities right away and the RCMP took over the case, which is exactly as this bill envisions. However, once the RCMP had the file, there was no communication back to the military. As a result of not knowing what restrictions were to be sent down the chain of command, the military sent both the victim and the accused home on the same bus. That should never happen. That is not a failure of values. It is a failure of process.

    Nowhere in this bill is there a formal mechanism for communication between the RCMP and the military. Without one, this kind of situation could happen again and again. If we are going to transfer cases to civilian courts, there must be clear communication every step of the way. The military still has to manage the members involved as long as they are active service members and protect both the rights of the accused and the safety of others.

    Finally, this cannot be “set it and forget it”. We need to keep watching this bill as it rolls out. That means oversight, regular reviews and honest discussions about what is working and what is not. Because we overcivilianize the military justice system, we forget that it serves a unique and high-pressure environment, and we risk weakening it. If we weaken military justice, we weaken our ability to maintain order, protect victims and defend this country.

    I will say in closing that I support the goals of Bill C-11. I support protecting victims. I support making justice fair and seen to be fair. However, we must think carefully about the real-world impacts of these changes. What happens when offences occur overseas? What happens when communication breaks down? What happens if the military loses the ability to act quickly when it matters most?

    These are not hypotheticals; these are real questions that affect the lives of our armed forces members and their families. Let us pass the bill, but let us do it with our eyes open. Let us strengthen military justice, not slow it down. Let us protect victims and protect discipline. We can do both, and we must.

    Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the point my colleague was making about what would happen when these incidents happen internationally. I was chair of the status of women committee when we studied sexual assault in the military, and it was clear that the existing military system is subject to the old boys' club. If someone is in a foreign location, they are forced to work with the perpetrators, and that system was not working. I think it needs a better answer.

    Can the member comment?

    Mr. Speaker, I can comment only on what exists in the bill. The bill does not have any provision whatsoever to revert to civilian justice overseas. Obviously, it is outside the jurisdiction. The flip side of that question is this: If the military is dealing with only those problems outside Canada, how is it going to maintain its expertise in doing so on the civilian side? That is the flip side of the same problem. There is no provision whatsoever in the bill for civilians, and I would like to see that provision.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member actually following the lead of my colleague from Terrebonne in not using the entire amount of allotted time that he had to speak. We know there are many members who want to speak to the bill, but we also recognize that there is some agreement that the bill needs to go to committee so that we can get it right, so that we would be serving the very people who take so much time to serve us.

    First, I appreciate that the member was very concise in providing some constructive feedback. I would like to hear from the member on whether he agrees that the work to advance the bill and to make any amendments to it should be done at committee and that we should do it in a timely manner so that we can actually get to all the recommendations by Madam Arbour.

    Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that a flawed bill should be fixed before it goes to committee if possible. This is a flaw in the bill, and it should be addressed. I am not entirely sure how. There is some low-hanging fruit here, like the interpolice communications, that I think can be done very easily. It simply needs a provision in the bill.

    Mr. Speaker, it is really important to recognize that in the report we are talking about, there are 48 recommendations, and the government is on track to get 47 of those 48 passed by the end of the year. The wild card is actually Bill C-11. All political entities in the House seem to support the essence of that legislation. Much of that legislation, such as the transfer over to the civil justice system, is already being incorporated in an informal way through the Canadian Armed Forces. We are all waiting to see the legislation get to the committee stage.

     Would the member not agree, out of respect for the Canadian Forces and the women and men who serve this country so well, that we should try to get this thing passed before the end of the year?

    Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to have seen the last 10 years be more productive, but, unfortunately, they were not. I do not think we should be passing flawed bills at all, especially when there are gaping holes that can easily be fixed.

     I served for 10 years; I do not need lessons on how to respect the Canadian Forces.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day, which falls on the last Sunday of September.

    Over 900 brave officers have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their communities, and we commemorate those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. We honour their sacrifice and their families by building a safer Canada.

    I am thankful to be able to advise the House that no police or peace officer was killed in the line of duty in 2024. Our profound hope is that we may say the same every year, yet every day, brave officers stand ready to face danger to keep us safe.

    Throughout the summer, I had the pleasure of meeting the fine officers of Toronto Police Service 33 Division in my riding of Don Valley North. I commend their professionalism, compassion and commitment.

    We owe police and peace officers an enduring debt of gratitude, and I thank them for their dedication to keeping our communities safe.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals broke our immigration system.

    We have legitimately vulnerable persons from Hong Kong, Ukraine and Sudan who have been left in limbo on their path to permanent residency, despite already being in Canada. I have personally met with over 500 people in the Hong Kong pathways program across Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. They are all positively contributing to Canada. They are paying taxes, and they are integrating into our society.

    Canada's asylum system was set up to protect truly vulnerable persons, but it is being abused through the chaotic Liberal immigration system.

    Conservatives call for the Liberal government to fix the broken immigration system to help the many people who are being left behind.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, or CAMIMH, and to highlight the importance of Mental Illness Awareness Week, which is taking place October 5 to October 11.

    CAMIMH has spent the last 25 years ensuring mental health and substance use health remain national priorities, advocating for awareness, reducing stigma and demanding life-changing care.

    Later this evening in Ottawa, CAMIMH will announce the 2025 Champions of Mental Health Awards, celebrating seven remarkable individuals and organizations making a lasting difference in communities across our country through their efforts.

    I want to extend my warmest congratulations to this year's honourees for their leadership and commitment to advancing mental health and substance use health. Each of these recipients is proof that change is possible when compassion is matched with concrete action.

    Together, let us continue striving for a Canada that understands and supports mental health and substance use health with the same urgency as physical health, a Canada that meets our awesome potential for everyone.

    Mr. Speaker, for the fourth year in a row, I had the privilege of leading the distribution of new school bags filled with school supplies to families in Alfred-Pellan who might be having a hard time in this back-to-school period.

    This year, we handed out over 130 bags thanks to the generosity of our constituents and the essential support of the Centre d’enrichissement sportif et académique de Montréal, the Saint-François-de-Sales parish and the Centre communautaire Petit Espoir. I thank them so much. Seeing the smiles on the children's faces as I hand them the bags reminds me of how much of an impact a simple gesture can have.

    Back to school is an important time for our young people. This gesture gives many families a fair and motivating start. I am proud to represent such a committed and supportive community.

    Mr. Speaker, across Canada tomorrow, rallies are being planned to celebrate the martyrs of Hamas. Let us be honest about who they are celebrating. They are not martyrs; they are monsters. They raped, tortured and murdered nearly 1,200 innocent Jews on October 7, 2023, and now their supporters plan to dance in our streets.

    This is not free speech; it is hate speech meant to intimidate. This is not protest; it is glorifying terror.

    Eighty years ago, the world said “never again”. The Nuremberg laws showed us that hate begins where it ends. When people cheer for those who slaughter Jews, history is repeating itself in real time.

    If Canada cannot call evil by its name, then we have lost more than our moral compass: We have lost our soul.

    I will not stay silent. I say shame on the Liberal government; shame.

    Mr. Speaker,

    [Member spoke in Mandarin]

[English]

     Today, millions celebrate Mid-Autumn Festival. Not only is it an important celebration in Chinese culture, but similar celebrations are also held in Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese and other Asian communities.

    Like many traditional harvest festivals, it coincides with the full moon, and the focus is on family, food and prosperity. It is also known as the Mooncake Festival, with cakes that feature an egg yolk in the middle to signify the moon, which represents unity, harmony and prosperity.

    The origin story of moon goddess Chang'e and her earth-bound husband Hou Yi is all about reunion. Moved by true love, the mother of the moon allows the couple to be reunited each year on the full moon of the eighth lunar month. This has now become a time of reunion around the world, particularly for families.

    Happy Mid-Autumn Festival.

    [Member spoke in Mandarin]

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, in April, the Prime Minister promised bail reform to keep repeat violent criminals off our streets, but half a year later, he has broken his promise and kept soft-on-crime Liberal catch-and-release laws in place. It is because of Liberal bail that gun crime across Canada is up 130%, hate crime is up 258%, homicide is up nearly 30% and extortion is up 357%.

    Today, Conservatives are proposing a fast-track solution to pass our jail not bail bill right away to keep Canadians safe.

    Will the Liberals scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way so that Conservatives can do it?

    Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers can feel even prouder today because Kim Clavel is once again the world boxing champion.

     She told us that she would be stepping into the ring as a proud Quebecker and promised that she would once again become world champion. That is exactly what she did with a brilliant performance on September 28, defeating her Argentinian opponent by unanimous decision in a hard-fought battle.

     By winning the International Boxing Federation's strawweight title, Kim Clavel became the first Quebec woman to be champion in two weight classes. She did this despite facing adversity and challenges. What a great example to set for all young Quebeckers, especially young Quebec women.

    Our champion from Saint-Calixte now has her sights set on the World Boxing Council belt, but let us hope her rival has the courage to face her.

    On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to congratulate Kim Clavel, our very own world champion.

    Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate women's history, I want to call attention to the outstanding achievement of a young woman from Sherbrooke who made history on September 27.

    At the tender age of 24, Magdeleine Vallières-Mill, made it the top of the podium, winning gold in the road world championships in Rwanda. After racing over 160 kilometres and making a decisive push at the end, she crossed the finish line with a solid lead.

    Never before has Canada won this title, that is, until Magdeleine came along. The young champion from Sherbrooke is living a dream right now and taking us along for the ride. Her victory has left her team, Sherbrooke and the entire country bursting with pride, with a story to tell and re-tell for years to come.

    Canada will be hosting the world road championships next September, and our celebrated Sherbrooke champion will be on hand to defend her title, with the whole country there to cheer her on. Congratulations Magdeleine, and happy Women's History Month to everyone.

    Mr. Speaker, the Blue Jays continue to annihilate the New York Yankees, but it is a swing and a miss every time the Prime Minister goes up against the Americans.

     U.S. tariffs on Canada have doubled since the Prime Minister took office, and Canada now faces the highest unemployment rate in the G7. While the Blue Jays are hitting home runs, the Prime Minister keeps coming home with nothing. He has already blown past his own deadlines to secure a deal with the U.S., and the tariffs have only gotten worse. Businesses across the country and those in my community, like MiTek, Oetiker, Borden Metal Products and Honda, are paying the price for the Liberals' elbows-down approach.

    With investment fleeing and unemployment rising, Canadians cannot afford another round of failed negotiations and a wasted trip abroad from the Prime Minister. It is time for him to stop striking out and finally deliver a win for Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, when former senator Ione Christensen departed this world on September 15, the Yukon lost one of its best-loved leaders. A fourth-generation Yukoner, Ione's accomplishments are legion: first woman mayor of Whitehorse, first female commissioner of the Yukon and the first Yukon woman appointed to the Senate.

    Beyond her political life, Ione loved the Yukon outdoors, rafting and hiking the waterways and trails of the territory, including the historic Chilkoot Trail, which she hiked over 20 times in the footsteps of her great-grandfather's first entry to the Yukon in 1897. That same great-grandfather carried over the Chilkoot Pass a small sack of sourdough passed on through generations and nurtured religiously by Ione through many a family Sunday pancake breakfast. The sourdough also thrives in the households of hundreds of grateful Yukoners. Just this weekend, I baked a couple of loaves in which I can truly say the spirit of Ione lives on.

    Before her passing, I asked Ione for advice for our leaders. “Hang in there”, she whispered. We owe Ione no less an honour than to hang in there and stand up for Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sara Tessier of The Northpine Foundation. Sara's journey is one of remarkable courage and resilience. As a survivor who has faced immense personal challenges, she has not only persevered but has also transformed her lived experience into leadership. Sara is now a tireless champion for formerly incarcerated people: those who too often face stigma, systemic barriers and a lack of opportunity upon release.

    Through her advocacy and her work at The Northpine Foundation, she is helping to break down those barriers, offering hope and opening doors to meaningful second chances. Her story reminds us that recovery and redemption are possible, and that with support and opportunity, people can rebuild their life and contribute greatly to our communities.

    Sara Tessier is a fighter, a leader and an inspiration to us all.

    Mr. Speaker, the tragic story of Bailey McCourt, who was murdered by her ex-partner in Kelowna, has been shared many times before in the House. Today I want to share a different perspective, from Christopher Anderson, the bystander who was just walking by and rushed to try to save her. He wrote to me, and with his permission, I share his words: “I ran towards them, but by the time I reached them, he was already hitting her in the head—over and over. I held her hand and told her she was safe and loved. I'm not writing to ask for anything specific. I just need you to know what happened. And I need others to know Bailey's name. She was a mother, a daughter, and a human being who deserved to live. People are dying in plain view. I don't believe we can afford to keep ignoring it.”

    Violent crime has countless victims: the people whose lives were taken, the bystanders, the first responders, communities and the families who must carry on.

    I urge all members to remember Bailey, hear Christopher's plea, put politics aside and vote to fast-track the jail not bail act today.

    Mr. Speaker, to mark Women's History Month, I would like to pay tribute to a great Quebecker, Janette Bertrand.

    As an author, journalist, playwright and communicator, for decades, she has brought women's words to the forefront on our screens and in our collective conversations. Her work has bravely discussed topics that had remained taboo for too long, such as equality in the workplace, domestic violence, stereotypes, consent, mental health, aging and dignity.

    By giving a face, a voice and a human dimension to lived experiences, she has helped break taboos and advance equality in Quebec and Canada. Her influence spans generations. She has inspired women creators, empowered families and raised awareness among public decision-makers. At 100 years of age, she continues to inspire, encourage reflection and pave the way for women to thrive.

    My thanks go out to Ms. Bertrand.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is off to Washington today. Once again he is wheels up but elbows down. Remember when he promised to negotiate a win with Donald Trump by July 21? Well, since he took office, U.S. tariffs on Canada have doubled, thousands of jobs have been lost and Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Businesses in St. Thomas, Elgin and London are still seeing no end in sight to the trade uncertainty. If this is a win, I would hate to see a loss.

    However, the Prime Minister is not the only one heading to the United States; so are investors. We have lost nearly $54 billion in investment since he took office. Stellantis is pausing production in Ontario while investing $10 billion in the United States. Enbridge is building pipelines in the U.S. while saying that Liberal anti-energy laws are making it impossible to do it here.

    Every time the Prime Minister faces Trump, he backs down: no deals, no progress, just more pain for Canadian workers.

    Mr. Speaker, October is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month. The month encourages open dialogue to help break the silence surrounding a difficult experience faced by over 1,600 grieving families in Canada each year.

    I am proud of my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour for introducing Evan's law, a long-overdue measure to support grieving parents while on parental leave. Evan's law was inspired by the experience of a constituent of mine, whose personal grief can inspire lasting change.

    When passed, Evan's law would amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, ensuring that families would no longer experience additional trauma caused by having to notify Service Canada and file a new claim to continue receiving their benefits. This small change would mean that families would be able to focus on healing from their loss rather than navigating bureaucratic processes.

    As we observe Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month, let us create space for the voices of families who have experienced the heartbreaking loss of an infant.

    Mr. Speaker, criminals have been released onto our streets and chaos has been unleashed under Liberal laws.

    In Saint-Jérôme, a woman was killed by her partner, a man who had been arrested 30 times before and had violated his release conditions 16 times. However, because of Liberal laws, he was released.

    Today, we are voting on a Conservative motion to repeal these Liberal laws, put criminals in prison and restore safety for all Canadians. Will the Prime Minister allow it to pass?

    Mr. Speaker, every Canadian deserves to be safe and to feel safe in their community.

    Over the course of the recent federal election campaign, we made several commitments to help reform Canada's bail system and to advance stronger penalties for those who commit serious offences against their fellow Canadians.

    We are willing to work across the aisle with other members to ensure that we put forward reforms that are informed by evidence, not ones that are seemingly copied and pasted from American-style bail laws. It is going to be only a matter of weeks before we advance new legislation to strengthen criminal justice reforms in this country. I hope all members from all parties support us.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with the head of the Peel Regional Police union, along with a group of crime victims. Among them was the Farooqi family. Aleem Farooqi rose at night to protect his kids from a home invader and was shot in the throat. He is dead. His brother came out and said the Liberal government should be ashamed of itself for keeping in place Liberal bail that has allowed for 1,600 crimes every single day.

    We have a motion before the House to get rid of Liberal bail and restore safety to our streets. Will the Prime Minister let it pass?

    Mr. Speaker, obviously when such violent circumstances arise in communities across the country, it is incumbent upon members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle to condemn them unreservedly.

    I would remind my hon. colleague that some of the laws he points to in his many promises, including ones pertaining to self-defence, were in fact put into Canada's laws when the Conservatives last held power, while Stephen Harper was prime minister and the Leader of the Opposition was in his cabinet.

    Moving forward, Conservatives, Liberals and others will see some of the strongest reforms being put in place when it comes to changing the bail system in this country and when it comes to adopting stiffer sentences for serious crimes.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a major victory with the Americans and have an agreement in place before July 21.

    Tomorrow, he will announce the agreement that has been reached with the U.S. President. The Prime Minister's Office has told the media that all tariffs on aluminum and steel will be dropped.

    Can the Prime Minister also confirm that the major victory he will announce tomorrow will include the elimination of tariffs on cars, lumber and all other Canadian products?

    Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is right. At the invitation of the U.S. President, the Prime Minister will be going to Washington tomorrow to continue the important discussion on the trade relationship, how to protect jobs and industries in Canada and how to build an economy in North America that is in the interests of both countries. Other international issues will also be discussed.

    I would have been surprised if the Leader of the Opposition had not been pleased with these efforts with our U.S. partner.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that he was going to negotiate a win with the president, that he would have a deal by July 21. Here we are in October, and tomorrow the Prime Minister is going to the White House to announce this deal. Surely he is not just going for a photo op and to make more excuses.

    The Prime Minister's Office is already telling the media that there will be the full elimination of tariffs on steel and aluminum. Will the Prime Minister also confirm that this deal that he is announcing tomorrow, this win, will include the elimination of tariffs on autos and softwood lumber, and the elimination of buy America and all other protectionism against Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, I remember the Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues criticizing the government for not having enough direct, face-to-face engagement with the President of the United States.

    Good news is that the president has invited the Prime Minister to a working meeting tomorrow in Washington, followed by a working lunch. Obviously the conversation will centre on trade issues and what we want to do to protect Canadian industries and Canadian workers, at the same time building an economy in North America that is in the interest of both countries. The discussion will also talk about a series of other international issues.

    Mr. Speaker, surely after promising to negotiate a win, to have a deal by July 21, the Prime Minister is not flying all the way to Washington, D.C., just to have lunch. By the sounds of it, that is all the Liberals are going to accomplish. Since he promised this win, American tariffs on Canada have doubled.

    The Prime Minister has caved on countertariffs, on the digital services tax and on everything else. As a result of his weakness, 86,000 Canadians have lost their jobs. Surely, the Prime Minister will finally keep his promise and come home with a win. What will it be?

    Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently in the best position of any major trading ally of the United States, but we have said consistently that we have work to do with our American partners on sectoral tariffs. We have work to do in building an economy in North America that is in the interests of Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. That is exactly the conversation the Prime Minister will have with the president.

    Was the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that, if the President of the United States invites us to go to Washington for a meeting and a working lunch, we should have just said no and hung up the phone?

    Mr. Speaker, no. We are suggesting that the Prime Minister actually keep his promise and negotiate a win.

    The Liberals' excuses are tripping over each other. Last week, the Prime Minister said that the American tariffs on Canada are so bad that they are why we have the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, the second-highest unemployment, $52 billion of net investment that has fled and 86,000 jobs that have been lost. Now the Liberals are saying that we have the best possible position. Which is it?

    Why is our economy so bad? Is it because of failed Liberal diplomacy on trade or bad economic management at home?

    Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we never talk down our workers, we never talk down our industries, and we never talk down our economy.

    Let me talk to the House about good news: 500 new jobs at Hitachi in Varennes, Quebec; 150 jobs at Alstom in Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Quebec; 400 new jobs in Kitimat at Cedar LNG; 500 new jobs at Ferrero in Brantford, Ontario, and who does not like Nutella; and 460 jobs at Stemcell Technologies in Burnaby.

    We will continue to build Canada strong.

    Mr. Speaker, we commend the Prime Minister on his visit to Washington. We asked for it. It was time. More importantly, however, it is time he kept his election promise to make some gains for Quebec's economy. So far, it has been nothing but one concession after another.

    He capitulated on the digital services tax. He dropped the global minimum tax on the American tech giants. Talks are even being held to allow more U.S. milk into the country. Despite all these concessions, not only did Quebec get nothing out of the bargain, but Donald Trump has increased tariffs on our lumber.

    When will we see some progress for Quebec?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said in an answer a few moments ago, the Prime Minister will be travelling to Washington later today for a working session in the Oval Office at the invitation of the U.S. President.

    Obviously, we intend to discuss the issues just raised by our Bloc Québécois colleague. We are deeply concerned about the tariffs on the softwood lumber industry. We discussed other sectors, like steel, aluminum and automobiles. These are exactly the kinds of discussions we are going to have with our American partners. We are going to keep doing whatever work it takes to get there.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced that he was going to focus on discussions about steel. Steel is important, but Quebec's aluminum and forestry sectors are important too.

    Not only is the Prime Minister not addressing these issues in his discussions, but the federal aid announced in August for the forestry industry is still not available. While he is in Washington, the Prime Minister needs to talk about aluminum and lumber. However, in the meantime, here in Ottawa, could he at least release the financial assistance he promised for Quebec's forestry industry?

    Mr. Speaker, we will always be there for our various industries in Canada and in Quebec in particular.

    We will be there for our workers, yes, in steel, but also in aluminum, softwood lumber and, of course, the auto sector. We will be there for all our workers. In fact, we have a number of funds available for industries in those sectors. We are also in talks with officials in those various sectors.

    I would be pleased to work with my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, to come up with solutions on the softwood lumber issue.

    Mr. Speaker, there is a public danger on our roads because of the Driver Inc. scam. It mainly involves immigrant truck drivers in Ontario who are being exploited by companies to save costs and who are driving heavy trucks without the proper qualifications. This is causing fatal accidents. Vulnerable people are being abused, and truck drivers who follow the rules are facing illegal competition.

    Ottawa must launch an investigation, tighten the screws on businesses, and prohibit temporary immigrants from incorporating. It is simple. There are 10 steps to take, but the federal government is looking the other way.

    When will the government crack down on dangerous drivers?

    Mr. Speaker, out government knows that truck drivers move our economy forward and deserve all the protections provided by the Canada Labour Code.

    That is why we have created a specialized inspection team that has already conducted more than 100,000 inspections and awareness-raising activities in the sector. We will rigorously enforce the law by working with the Canada Revenue Agency and the provinces to combat misclassification and ensure that drivers receive the rights and benefits to which they are entitled.

    Mr. Speaker, for those of us keeping score at home, the Prime Minister is oh for three. He promised to negotiate a win with Trump by July 21. There is still no deal and tariffs are actually higher. He promised it would be elbows up, but then he quietly dropped countertariffs, and what did he get in return? He got nothing. He promised Canada would have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, instead it is the fastest shrinking. The 86,000 Canadians who have lost their jobs since he took office cannot afford to wait for the Prime Minister to get through this slump.

    When the Prime Minister comes home from Washington this week, will he have a deal to eliminate all U.S. tariffs, or is that promise just stuff he said during the election?

    Mr. Speaker, I know it is Monday, but I already have good news for the week.

    Canadians understand that the world is changing. We need to adapt, and we have a generational opportunity to invest in Canada. This morning, we announced a new capital formation budgeting framework. In the new budget cycle, my colleagues will be happy because it is going to give them more clarity to see the budget expenditures. It is going to provide more predictability to provinces, territories and businesses and, best of all, it is going to allow more opportunities to align with the budget season. Let us build a—

    The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

    Mr. Speaker, changing the date Canadians are told how bad inflation and deficits are going to be is not going to give comfort to anybody.

    The Liberals have to get their stories straight. When they are asked about job losses here at home, they say they are all because of U.S. tariffs. When they are asked why the Prime Minister cannot get a win on those tariffs, they say that Canada already has the best deal and that those tariffs do not apply to most goods. Both of those excuses cannot be true at the same time.

    Here is what is true: The deficit here has doubled; Canada has the second-highest unemployment in the G7; and 86,000 people have lost their jobs.

    What is the reason? Is it the Prime Minister's failed trade diplomacy abroad or his failed economic policies at home?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we remember the Conservatives standing up in the House with manufactured indignation that the Prime Minister should be talking to the president every day and the Prime Minister should be in Washington, asking why has he not been in Washington.

    The good news is that the Prime Minister and the president speak frequently. They are in touch on a whole series of international issues, the most important of which is, obviously, the Canadian economy, Canadian workers and Canadian jobs. That is why we are looking forward to discussing those exact issues in the Oval Office tomorrow with the president.

    Mr. Speaker, today is the day. As the Prime Minister heads to Washington, Canadians are watching closely. After a string of failures, including the doubling of tariffs on Canadian goods and repeated missed deadlines on his promises to negotiate a win for Canada, expectations could not be higher.

    For months, the Prime Minister has talked a big game but has delivered nothing when it matters most. Will he finally keep his word, deliver a real win for Canada, and secure the removal of U.S. tariffs?

    Mr. Speaker, we will always stand up for our workers and our industries. That is why, when it comes to the different sectors that are being tariffed, we are there to support them.

    This morning, I was on the phone with the CEO of Dofasco, making sure that we are there for our steelworkers. We were also working with Algoma Steel over the weekend, and there is good news. Irving shipyard will now be buying steel from Algoma in Ontario.

    This is what it is to build Canada strong.

    Mr. Speaker, the government's message on the economy has been all over the place. On the one hand, it blames U.S. tariffs for Canadians' shrinking economy, while on the other, it boasts about the best trade deal with the U.S. The facts tell a different story. The deficit has doubled. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate and the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, with $54 billion in investment having fled. There are also 86,000 people out of work.

    Is this bleak reality the result of the Prime Minister's failed economic policies here at home, his failure to secure results abroad, or both?

    Mr. Speaker, we are focused on building a very strong bilateral relationship. I ask my colleague opposite if it is a failure when we support our auto industry, if it is a failure when we support steel, if it is a failure when we support aluminum.

    We beg to differ. We are diversifying our trade routes. We are building strong bilateral relationships across the world, including with the United States.

    On this side of the House, we will always fight for Canada.

    Long live Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, GM is eliminating thousands of jobs in Oshawa, and Stellantis has idled its Windsor plant while sending $10 billion to the United States. Families across Ontario are rightly concerned that the Prime Minister has no plan for Canadian auto and no plan for impacted workers.

    Will the Prime Minister bring home a deal for Canadian auto that eliminates U.S. tariffs?

    Mr. Speaker, we have been actively engaged with all the CEOs of the D3, that is Stellantis, GM and, of course, Ford, as well as with Honda and Toyota. We have put in place a remission system to make sure that they would be able to continue their operations and create jobs. We know that the auto sector is facing a challenge. That is why we are also engaging with Unifor and the different labour unions. At the same time, we now have a very important fund of $5 billion to help these plans.

    We will be there for our auto sector.

    Mr. Speaker, the wait is over. Tomorrow will be a big day for the Liberal Prime Minister.

    Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will finally keep his promise to “negotiate a win” for Canada. Tomorrow, tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles and softwood lumber will come down, because that is what the Prime Minister promised. The Prime Minister was encouraged to keep his promise to negotiate a win with the United States by July 21, but he broke that promise. His big strategy was to kowtow to the U.S. President, and the tariffs doubled.

    Tomorrow, will the Prime Minister finally keep his promise to negotiate a win and eliminate all U.S. tariffs in Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, today is a great day. Canadians understand that the world has changed and that we need to adapt. We need to focus on capital investments.

    That is why we introduced a new fiscal framework that focuses on capital investments and sets the record straight given the budget cycle. That is very good news. This will give my colleagues some clarity so they can review the measures in the budget. This will deliver more predictability for businesses, provinces and associations that depend on federal funding. This will create more opportunities for construction in this country.

    I am sure that the Conservatives will celebrate the fact that we are going to build Canada strong.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Liberal clarity on the economy.

    On the one hand, the Liberals claim that the collapse of Canada's economy, the worst performing in the G7, is due to tariffs. On the other hand, they say they have reached an excellent agreement on tariffs.

    What do the real numbers say? They say that the deficit has doubled, that Canada is the G7 economy with the sharpest contraction, that Canada ranks second to last in terms of unemployment, that the country has bled $54 billion in net investment and that 86,000 people have lost their jobs.

    Is the Prime Minister a bad diplomat, a bad economist for the country or just plain bad?

    Mr. Speaker, listening to the Conservatives is disheartening. What they are not telling Canadians is that Canada is in an enviable position among the G7 countries. Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio. It is also one of only two G7 countries, the other being Germany, to have an AAA credit rating.

    Instead of criticizing the Canadian economy, my colleague should be celebrating the fact that we are building together, that we are making generational investments and that we are building Canada strong. On this side of the House, we will fight for workers, fight for the economy and fight for Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, the postal crisis is getting worse, and it is entirely the federal government's fault. Canada Post presented its workers with a new collective agreement offer on Friday. That offer was worse than the previous one, which had been rejected.

    Canada Post is taking advantage of the balance of power it has thanks to the federal government to intimidate its employees and try to force them to back down. The minister keeps saying that both sides need to negotiate, but by meddling in the conflict, he has poisoned the discussions.

    Does he realize that it is his fault that no one is getting their mail today?

    Mr. Speaker, we see Canada Post as an essential and vital institution. It is part of the very fabric of our country. We must save it. It needs to be saved. Canada Post is losing $10 million a day. Canadians have to pay $10 million every day just to keep Canada Post in operation. Perhaps this is acceptable for the Bloc Québécois, but we do not think this is acceptable.

    We want the institution to modernize and transform itself. I am confident that the union and Canada Post management will be able to come to an agreement to save this institution, which needs help.

    Mr. Speaker, before the Liberals got involved, mail was being delivered. Since they got involved, the postal service has ground to a halt. The regions, small businesses and the most vulnerable are paying the price. Before the Liberals got involved, Canada Post was presenting serious offers. Now, we have never been further from an agreement and we wonder how the parties are ever going to agree. We have the Liberal Party of Canada to thank for this fiasco.

    Will the government acknowledge its full responsibility in the Canada Post crisis?

    Mr. Speaker, I find that question to be absolutely staggering. For years in committee, members of the Bloc Québécois have been calling for Canada Post to modernize. The labour dispute she is referring to has been going on for 20 months. Employees at Canada Post went on a general strike before Christmas, 2024. To claim that the government's action to transform Canada Post caused the labour dispute is to live in an alternate universe.

    That said, we are used to the Bloc Québécois living in an alternate universe where it is okay for Canada Post to lose $10 million a day. We are not okay with that. It is important that we modernize this institution. I trust the union and management to come to an agreement.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a win with President Trump and have a deal by July 21, but there has been no win and there is no deal. Major U.S. tariffs on Canada have doubled, and the Prime Minister has repeatedly conceded to Americans' demands. Now his office is telling media that all steel and aluminum tariffs may be lifted tomorrow, finally, but what about the auto sector? Thousands of jobs are at risk. GM is cutting. Stellantis has idled its Windsor plant and has made a $10-billion investment in the U.S.

    Will the Prime Minister's long-promised, long-overdue deal include an end to U.S. tariffs on Canadian autos, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected this government to protect, build and transform our economy. We are protecting and supporting our industries with a new $5-billion strategic response fund and the $1-billion tariff relief initiative, which will give thousands of Canadian businesses financial support to access new global markets. We are building Canada with new nation-building projects, which will lead to thousands of new careers in the skilled trades across Canada, and we are transforming our economy by unlocking new market opportunities so that Canadian businesses have preferential access to fast-growing regions around the world.

    We are laser-focused on building Canada strong.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been full of contradictions over this whole tariff ordeal. He blames U.S. tariffs for shrinking the economy and job losses, but he also says Canada is getting a great deal with the U.S. on tariffs.

    Since the Prime Minister took office, the deficit has doubled, Canada has the fastest-shrinking G7 economy with the second-highest unemployment rate, $54 billion of net investment has left Canada and 86,000 Canadians have lost their jobs. When is the Prime Minister going to start delivering on his rhetoric? When are we going to get results?

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave 22 million Canadians a tax cut so families could put more money in their pockets. The Prime Minister, right now, has a team negotiating with the United States to make sure we protect Canada's position as the best country in the world with the lowest tariff rates.

    We are building the economy of the future together. I know the hon. member will support that.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win with President Trump by July 21. There is still no win and still no deal. Because the Prime Minister failed to negotiate a deal, U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood jumped to 35% this summer, and next week, they will jump to 45%.

    Since 2015, in B.C., 29 mills have closed and we have lost over 68,000 jobs. For the sake of all British Columbians, will the Prime Minister finally get a deal done and end U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber?

    Mr. Speaker, we are working extremely hard to open new markets across the country and around the world. Ninety-six per cent of agriculture products are moving tariff-free across the border into the U.S. We are proud of that. We are going to stand alongside our farmers. We signed a new bilateral agreement with Indonesia and we are continuing to work hard.

    Next week, when a lot of people in this House will be putting their feet up, we will be in Mexico working on more deals.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win with President Trump. He promised a deal by July 21. Well, it is October, and still no deal and still no win. Instead, tariffs on Canada have doubled. Now we hear the PMO is reportedly telling media that tomorrow, all steel and aluminum tariffs will be lifted, but what about lumber? U.S. lumber tariffs on Canada have increased by more than 100%. Jobs have been lost and mills have been closed.

    Will the Prime Minister's long-overdue deal tomorrow include an end to tariffs on Canada's incredible forest industry, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are absolutely unjustified, and we are working at every level to resolve the softwood lumber dispute.

    To date, we have announced more than $50 million in income supports for more workers, $700 million in loan guarantees and $500 million in capital investments to make the industry more competitive and to retool it for the future, including by building more Canadian homes.

    We will buy Canadian, we are ready to build and we are changing federal procurement processes to require companies contracting with the federal government to procure Canadian lumber. This is how we build the strongest economy in the G7. That is how we win a trade war. It is one we did not ask for but one we will not back down from.

    Mr. Speaker, I guess that is a no.

    The Prime Minister promised elbows up during the last election. So far, on Vancouver Island, all we have are job losses, mill closures and higher prices for virtually every good in our society. Around $54 billion has fled the country, 86,000 people have lost their jobs and right now, the entire coastal forest industry is on the brink of total collapse.

    Will the Prime Minister demand the lifting of tariffs on Canadian lumber in any trade deal with the United States, or is he preparing to throw our forestry workers and incredible forestry communities under the bus?

    Mr. Speaker, we will always be there for forest workers. That is why we have invested so heavily in them and will continue to do so.

    This trade war came to our shores, but we are going to finish it by being strong supporters of industry, being strong supporters of Canadian workers and making sure we get the job done.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians in my riding of Carleton and across the country can see the generational investment that our government is making in the Canadian Armed Forces. As Canada diversifies its trade relations and expands its military presence around the world, we know that the impact on industries here, at home, is a positive one.

    Can the minister update the House on recent investments in our national defence?

    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and thank him for his question. In fact, we are moving fast to meet the needs of our armed forces. We just announced the creation of the new defence investment agency to speed up the procurement, and today we are debating Bill C‑11, which seeks to modernize the military justice system to better support our forces.

    On this side of the House, when the issue is as serious as national defence, we act quickly.

    Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail has allowed repeat violent offenders to terrorize our communities. Despite promising decisive action, the Prime Minister continues to keep his Liberal bail in place, causing more chaos on our streets.

    Our jail not bail act has the support of police chiefs, unions, victim advocacy groups, survivors and their loved ones. MPs will vote today to fast-track that bill in the chamber. Canadians are watching.

    What will it take? How many lives have to be lost before the Prime Minister puts aside his partisanship and scraps Liberal bail?

    Mr. Speaker, we completely agree that violent and repeat offenders should not be released back into our communities on bail.

    While we appreciate the opposition's attempt with its motion, it is a bit weak. It misses the mark on key changes that need to be implemented in order to keep a wide array of criminals behind bars.

    We will be introducing comprehensive bail and sentencing reforms that have been created in consultation with law enforcement, Crown lawyers and provincial and territorial governments. Our bill that is coming up is a tough-on-crime bill.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep telling Canadians to be patient. Say that to the families of the loved ones who have lost their children and their grandchildren on the streets of Canada.

    Every day the Liberals delay, 1,600 more violent crimes happen in our country. The Woodstock TD robbery suspect was out on bail. In the murder of Constable Pierzchala, the suspect was out on bail. In the murder of Tori Dunn, the offender was out on bail.

    Enough is enough. It is time to scrap Liberal bail. If the Prime Minister will not scrap Liberal bail, will he at least do the decent thing, show some compassion and get out of the way?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said, violent and repeat offenders should not be released on bail. We agree with this. That is why we are bringing forward comprehensive bail reform. We want to get it right. We do not want to pass something that is weak and that lets violent offenders back onto our streets.

    Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail laws have unleashed a bloodbath of violent crime across the country. Bill C-75, the catch-and-release Liberal bail law, is the problem. The Prime Minister has kept Liberal bail in place, causing more bloodshed over his last six months.

    Conservatives listened to police and victims and drafted a bill to end Liberal bail and restore city streets. The vote is today. Victims and frontline officers are watching the government.

    Will the Prime Minister stop protecting criminals, put politics aside and vote to scrap Liberal bail?

    Mr. Speaker, listening to the member's question, it is clear that there are several deficiencies with the approach that he has put forward.

    First, Bill C-75 actually made it harder for offenders who have been charged with intimate partner violence to be released on bail. He would make it easier for them to get out into our communities.

    Second, he claims to have engaged with law enforcement in the formation of the bill. When we look at the measures they are proposing to put forward, they barely scratch the surface of what law enforcement has told us in the first few minutes of conversations.

    We have a comprehensive set of reforms coming to the bail system that will be designed to make communities safer. I hope that in the next number of weeks, when the bill comes forward, Conservatives will finally do something—

    The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

    Mr. Speaker, let us look at some examples of government inaction.

    In Vancouver, police had to arrest the same 40 offenders 6,000 times in one year. In Peel, police arrested 18 suspects for home invasions and carjackings, and half are already released on bail. In Saskatchewan, Myles Sanderson was out on release after 59 convictions when he murdered 11 people.

    Premiers, police chiefs, mayors and victim groups are all begging the government for action. If the Prime Minister refuses to vote to scrap Liberal bail, will he get out of the way so that Conservatives can do it themselves?

    Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my hon. colleague, we have one point of agreement, which is that we need to take action and change Canada's laws to make it harder for violent offenders to be released into our communities.

    The good news is that the legislation we are putting forward will do exactly that. What I cannot accept is a half-baked idea from the Conservative Party, which seems to have taken something it copied and pasted off an American bumper sticker to adopt laws in this country.

    In the last federal election, sovereignty was at the core of the electoral choice that Canadians made. I can tell members that constituents in my riding, as I expect in those of the members opposite, want Canadian laws to be made in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about the things they will do. They can do something today and vote for our motion for jail not bail. The Liberals' criminal experiments have unleashed a wave of violence on our streets. Police and victims agree Bill C-75 is the problem. The Prime Minister talks tough on crime, but he has had six months and he has done nothing. Conservatives are listening, and that is why we put our jail not bail bill up for vote today. This country is watching this vote.

    When will the Liberals finally get on board and stop giving the criminals a free pass?

    Mr. Speaker, if the party opposite wants to be serious on crime, it needs to support legislation in front of the House that will advance criminal justice reform. We have Bill C-2 before the House, which the opposition is unwilling to support. This is a measure that was asked for by law enforcement. It will strengthen our border to make sure our country is safe. There is no doublespeak here because, on this side of the aisle, we will bring forward bail reform, and we will ensure it is safe and charter-compliant.

    Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears. The minister just said we need to support legislation before the House, but they have yet to put forward a bail reform bill. We have put forward a bill today. It is time for them to support it.

    Sadly, there are too many countless examples of the deadly failures of the Liberals' criminal experiments. In July, a young mother was killed in broad daylight by her ex-husband with a hammer. This brutal attack happened mere hours after he was convicted of assaulting her. He was on bail. He was released after he was convicted.

    It is time for the Liberals to end these soft-on-crime experiments. It is time for them to put their blind partisanship aside, stand with us and pass the jail not bail bill.

    Mr. Speaker, we have government legislation in front of the House, Bill C-2, which the party opposite could support and pass. These are very important items that law enforcement has asked for. Throughout the summer, I had the opportunity to meet with police chiefs, police associations and others in law enforcement who have asked for very important tools so they can do their job better and make sure criminals are off their streets.

    If the party opposite is serious about criminal justice reform, it will start by supporting Bill C-2.

     Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail has caused a bloodbath of crime in communities nationwide. The culprit is Bill C-75, the catch-and-release Liberal bail law. The Prime Minister has kept that awful law in place over his last six months in power, but Conservatives have been taking advice from police and victims to draft a new bill to scrap Liberal bail and bring peace to our streets. The House votes on it today. Victims and police are watching.

    Will the Prime Minister put partisanship aside and vote to scrap Liberal bail?

    Mr. Speaker, we spent this summer consulting with experts across this country to come up with a comprehensive plan to address criminality in our country.

    Quite frankly, their bill is weak. Our bill will address everything that is in their bill and much more. It will keep a wide array of criminals behind bars. We have Bill C-2 in front of the House right now. Bill C-2 addresses many cases, such as murder, extortion, child exploitation and sextortion. Many of our vulnerable children have committed suicide in this country. I asked the Conservatives—

    The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not know if members are familiar with the story of Gabie Renaud, the woman who was killed four weeks ago in Saint‑Jérôme, Quebec, by a man who had been arrested 30 times and had failed to comply with his release conditions 16 times. All of this was caused by Liberal catch-and-release laws, like Bill C‑75.

    There is actually some good news. My colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C‑242, which was drafted in consultation with police officers and victims' groups. This bill is ready to be passed right away.

    Will the Prime Minister ask his government and his MPs to vote today, following question period, to advance the member for Oxford's bill, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, we need to change Canada's laws to strengthen the bail system. At the same time, we know that the bill before the House today has many flaws.

    As we go forward, we are not going to take a bill that is completely deficient and does not scratch the surface of what law enforcement, provinces and territories and experts have informed us on over the last few months. Our job is not to pander with slogans but to advance solutions to help keep Canadians safe. That is what the government legislation is going to do.

    Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberals who caused those deficiencies over the past 10 years, with the bills and laws that were put in place, such as Bill C‑5, Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑83. All of those laws have led to a drastic increase in crime in Canada.

    We have a bill that has been tabled in the House. This bill was drafted in consultation with police officers and victims groups. This bill will make our streets and other women safer so that they do not suffer the same fate as Gabie Renaud.

    Will this government do the right thing and vote in favour of our motion this afternoon?

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's argument is self-defeating. He suggests that one of the laws to blame when it comes to bail should be repealed when in fact that would make it easier for someone charged with intimate partner violence to be released on bail. If someone is going to be critical of a piece of legislation on the floor of the House of Commons, it is a good idea to read it first.

    We have spent months engaging with law enforcement, with provincial and territorial counterparts, with constitutional experts and with those who advocate on behalf of victims to ensure we are moving forward with policies that are going to keep Canada safe. People want solutions, not slogans, and that is what we will deliver.

    Mr. Speaker, too many people face barriers when trying to access sexual and reproductive health services. Whether that is due to lack of knowledge, discrimination or geographic isolation, more effort is needed to develop additional resources, raise awareness and provide logistical support.

    Can the Minister of Health tell us what the government is doing to improve the availability and accessibility of sexual and reproductive health services and information?

    Mr. Speaker, every person deserves access to sexual and reproductive health services, regardless of when and where they live. That is why I was so pleased to announce last week that we are allocating funding to groups such as the Disabled Women's Network Canada, the Canadian Association of Community Health Centres and other organizations that are proposing community-based solutions to expand access to sexual and reproductive health services.

    This will help many more Canadians participate fully in the labour market.

     Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies like Liberal bail have caused a bloodbath of crime throughout Canada. So much of this comes back to the Liberal bail provisions of Bill C-75.

    Canadians should not have fear, because we have a jail not bail bill that we will be voting on today. In fact, Peel, Halton and, minutes ago, the Toronto police associations endorsed our jail not bail bill. When the justice minister says that our bill is deficient, will he tell those police associations they are wrong?

    Mr. Speaker, like I have said before, our comprehensive legislation just coming out—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please.

    We are going to take that one from the top. I suppose I could turn up the volume a bit more, but I would like to try to keep it at this level and see if we can respect that.

    The Secretary of State for Combatting Crime has the floor.

    Mr. Speaker, like I said, we spent the summer consulting with police chiefs across the country, and associations. The comprehensive legislation that will be coming out in a few weeks is recommended by police agencies across this country. It contains a lot more than the piece of legislation being offered by the Conservatives. Quite frankly, their piece of legislation is weak. It does not address all aspects of crime.

    Everything Canadians are looking for will be addressed in our upcoming bill.

    Mr. Speaker, if the legislation is so weak, why are the Peel, Halton and, minutes ago, Toronto police associations endorsing our legislation?

    The reality is that bail is out of control. In Kelowna, 15 people were responsible for 1,335 police calls, with one person responsible for 223 of those. He is alleged to have violated bail 31 times and has not showed up for court 32 times.

    The Liberals tell us what they are going to do. What have they done in the last 10 years? It is diddly-poo. Will they pass our bill, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, do members know what else has been endorsed by police across this country? It is Bill C-2, our stronger borders bill. Every police agency across this country has endorsed that piece of legislation. Canada is the only country among the G7 and the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access legislation. It is so important for protecting children who are being exploited online. Will the Conservatives stop being concerned about the privacy of criminals?

    Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail has caused a bloodbath of crime in communities across this country. Just last week, a man was stabbed on a bus in Brampton by a criminal out on bail.

     Over the last six months in power, the Prime Minister has kept Liberal Bill C-75 in place, causing more bloodshed. Conservatives have taken police and victims' advice to draft a bill that would scrap Liberal bail and bring peace to our streets.

    The House vote is today. Victims and police are watching us. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote to scrap Liberal bail today?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, our bill is comprehensive and is much stronger than the Conservative bill. I believe the Conservatives will be happy to see it in the coming days. It addresses all their issues and much more.

    We have been a tough-on-crime government since we took office. Our top priority has been to address these issues, with Bill C-2 and with listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization. We have been able to crack down on criminals across this country. I want to thank law enforcement for all the arrests they have been making and the many—

    The hon. member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston.

    Mr. Speaker, all members of the House agree on the need to keep our communities and streets safe. A key part of that commitment is freeing Canadians from the scourge of gun violence, an issue our government is committed to addressing.

    To that end, can the Minister of Public Safety explain how this critical work is being advanced through the assault-style firearms compensation program?

    Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston for his very important question.

    I am pleased to say that on October 1, the pilot program—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    There is a lot of noise coming from one of the corners. I will not name which corner.

    The hon. minister, from the top.

    Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston for this very important question.

    Let me advise him that on October 1, we launched the firearms compensation program in Cape Breton. We already have people signing up and registering to ensure they are eligible for compensation. We look forward to the expansion of this program across Canada. In addition, we are working to secure the border, including with Bill C-2 and a $1.2-billion investment in border security. We will have comprehensive bail, as well as other reforms coming forward.

    We will keep Canadians—

    The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

    Mr. Speaker, the aluminum sector in Saguenay has been suffering even more ever since the new Liberal Prime Minister took office. We know that there will be a meeting with President Trump tomorrow.

    To get elected, the Prime Minister clearly told Canadians that he was the right man for negotiating with the Americans. Today we see that the tariffs have doubled.

    Does the Prime Minister finally plan to keep his promise to negotiate a winning agreement that will put an end to the tariffs?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent question. He knows that we have always invested in the aluminum sector. The aluminum sector is a key sector, a strategic sector, like the steel, forestry and automobile sectors. We have even had meetings together.

    He knows that, on this side of the House, we will always be there to support our workers in the aluminum industry. We will always be there to support the aluminum industry. We will always be there to stand up for Canada's interests.

    Mr. Speaker, coastal first nations oppose crude oil projects going through their territories and strongly support the tanker moratorium protecting British Columbia's Great Bear Rainforest. They have built a sustainable economy that creates jobs, supports communities and safeguards globally significant ecosystems. Premier Smith's pipeline push ignores their indigenous rights.

     When introducing Bill C-5, the Prime Minister pledged no province or indigenous group would be forced into unwanted projects. Will the government uphold that promise?

    Mr. Speaker, the Building Canada Act has very strong provisions in it to make sure there is indigenous consultation. It also has strong provisions to make sure that what we are doing is building a strong Canada for the future.

    The Premier of British Columbia and the Premier of Alberta can have conversations as to the path forward, but we will be making sure that we are building a strong Canada for the future.

    It being 3:11 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Oxford relating to the business of supply.

    Call in the members.