“Hundreds of military victims of sexual assault said they did not want their bosses investigating their cases. They wanted a separate system. I want to know what the member across the aisle says to them.”

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

“I want the House to pass this bill to update the military justice system. It sends military sexual offence cases to civilian courts. It also makes military judges and lawyers more independent and gives more support to victims.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be here today for the debate at report stage of Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have the privilege and responsibility of supporting the women and men who serve Canada in uniform. I believe that responsibility is shared by all members of the House. As the mother and mother-in-law of three serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I know first-hand that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are among the very best of our country: skilled, dedicated, professional and deeply committed to something greater than themselves. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them, and each time, I am reminded of a simple truth: We ask a great deal of them. We ask them to serve in uncertainty, to operate in high-risk environments and to put service before self every single day. In return, we have a responsibility, a collective responsibility, to ensure they have everything they need to succeed. That includes the right equipment, the right training and, critically, the right environment. It must be a safe, respectful and dignified environment. It must be a healthy work environment, where everyone feels protected and able to serve, because serving one’s country should never come at the expense of one’s dignity. Eliminating unacceptable behaviours, including sexual misconduct, is central to that responsibility. These behaviours cause real harm. They erode trust. They damage morale. They impact recruitment and retention. Ultimately, they weaken operational effectiveness. There is no place for this in our military. There is no place for this in Canada. That is why today’s debate is so important. Cultural change and growth within the Canadian Armed Forces is simply too important to be exploited for political or partisan gain. Our military members deserve better, their families deserve better and Canadians deserve better. Through Bill C-11, we are proposing important amendments to the National Defence Act to modernize the military justice system. The legislation is about ensuring that the system remains fair, effective and worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. At its core, it would strengthen accountability, reinforce independence and ensure alignment with the values Canadians expect. As introduced, Bill C-11 would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. These offences would instead fall under civilian authorities for investigation and prosecution. This reflects the practice already in place since 2021, following the interim recommendation of former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, and this legislation would formalize that approach. I would like to note that the interim directive has been an effective measure while we await the passage of Bill C-11. The interim directive to implement recommendation five has been in place since December 2021, and since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, as Justice Arbour recommended. Any attempt to undermine or undercut the progress made in the past five years under the interim directive is a disservice to victims and survivors. I note that Bill C-11 also advances key recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish to strengthen the system’s effectiveness and credibility. These include strengthening and modernizing appointment processes for senior military justice roles, broadening eligibility for military judges, reinforcing the independence of military justice authorities and expanding mechanisms for interference complaints. These are not technical adjustments. They are foundational reforms. They go directly to the integrity of the system. The bill also strengthens support for victims by expanding access to liaison officers, including those acting on behalf of victims. It also aligns military justice legislation with recent amendments to the Criminal Code regarding offenders and publication bans. The military justice system is about maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Modernizing it is essential for lasting institutional reform. Our objective is clear. It is to strengthen trust and confidence among defence team members and all Canadians. Trust must be at the heart of any justice system. Trust must be earned through action. The changes proposed in Bill C-11 are part of a much broader transformation. We are undertaking meaningful reforms across recruitment, training, leadership and oversight. In fact, this week the Canadian Armed Forces reached its highest recruitment in 30 years. This is excellent news for Canada, but we must not lose sight of the important work we are doing to ensure that the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces has a safe and supportive work environment. I can assure members that we are fully committed to implementing the recommendations of Justices Fish and Arbour. These recommendations provide a road map for concrete and measurable change. We have strengthened our recruitment and assessment processes. A probationary period now ensures that recruits comply with security requirements, meet medical standards and, above all, possess the values expected of those who serve their country: respect, dignity and integrity. We have clarified how sexual misconduct is defined and addressed, breaking it into clearer categories so that each form can be dealt with appropriately. We have aligned our approach to harassment and violence with the Canada Labour Code, creating a single, consistent framework across the defence team. We have enabled direct access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in certain cases because transparency and accountability are essential to cultural change. We continue to track progress publicly through our comprehensive implementation plan, a detailed road map that Canadians can see and follow. As noted by the external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, there has been significant effort and meaningful progress, but she also reminded us of something important. This work is never finished. Creating a respectful and inclusive workplace is an ongoing commitment. It is one that requires sustained leadership, accountability and commitment. The measures in Bill C-11 represent an important step forward. More than that, they represent progress: progress toward a military justice system that reflects our values, progress toward a workplace where every member can serve with dignity and progress toward rebuilding and reinforcing trust. It is a step to better protect those who serve and to build a safer, more respectful environment. It is also a step towards building confidence in our military justice system. We owe this to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. We owe this to all Canadians. Let us continue this work together. Let us get this done for them.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “All new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“Our committee agreed, including the Conservatives, that sexual crimes in the military should be reported, investigated, and tried by civilian authorities, not the military.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the veteran affairs committee. In fact, the veteran affairs committee submitted a report to the House in June 2024 entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. In that report was recommendation 40, which I will quote: That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities. That was passed unanimously with the support of the Conservatives.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“My priority is our military members. The head of the military spoke with over 14,000 members and victims, and they clearly want these cases moved to civilian courts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and also for the work we do together in committee. My priority is the women and men in uniform. The chief of the defence staff has had conversations with over 14,000 Canadian Armed Forces members and victims, and they have made it very clear that these cases need to be transferred to the civilian system.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I am concerned that the Conservatives want to ignore Justice Arbour's report on the military. She listened to service members and made an important recommendation. I want the member to comment on the Conservatives ignoring this report.”

“Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words the member has spoken. Through the debate already this morning, one of the greatest concerns I have is that the Conservative Party seems to be saying Justice Arbour’s recommendations are limited and have timed out, in essence, and that there is no obligation for us to respond to that report. Justice Arbour did an incredible job for members of the CAF, recognizing the importance of the issue, and came back with a specific recommendation. My understanding is that this is the primary recommendation, from a justice who canvassed many members of the CAF. If the member could comment in regard to the Conservative Party just throwing that report—”

“For a long time, the military excluded and mistreated women, LGBTQ people, Indigenous people, and Black people. Things are improving now, and we cannot go back. We are passing this bill for the victims who were afraid to speak up.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is actually very appropriate to read the preface to Justice Arbour’s report into the record, because it still rings true. It says: Thousands of Canadians have served, and continue to serve, with honour in one of the country’s most prestigious organizations: the Canadian Armed Forces.... Many, however, were denied that chance. Members of the LGBTQ2+ community were purged. Members of Indigenous and black communities, and other visible minorities and equity-seeking groups, have been largely absent, clearly not welcome. For years, women were simply shut out. When finally allowed to serve, women were made to feel they did not belong. They were denied opportunities to compete fairly and to thrive. They were harassed, humiliated, abused and assaulted, and, appallingly, many continue to be targeted today. Things have changed in the Canadian Armed Forces for the better. We cannot go back. For the victims who never came forward, out of fear of retribution, out of fear for their lives, today is for them. We heard them. We listened. We are there.”

“I want to know the member's view on Justice Arbour's recommendation to transfer these cases completely out of the military system. A lot of work went into that advice. Does the Bloc want to ignore it, like the Conservatives do?”

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

“Victims told an inquiry that they do not trust the military justice system. Civilian courts have handled these sexual abuse cases since 2022, and it is working. I want to know why we cannot keep using civilian courts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence with me. I think that today we are talking about victims. We are talking about the issue of victims’ trust in a justice system. I would like my colleague to talk about the 14,000 victims who testified before Justice Arbour that they did not trust the military system. Since 2022, all sexual abuse cases under the Criminal Code have been tried in civilian court, and that arrangement is working. Why could it not continue to work?”

“The Conservatives and the Bloc are wrong to say the government is not listening to our soldiers. We are the only party following the report by Justice Arbour, which was based on talks with thousands of service members, including many women. I will stand up for women in the military.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and express some thoughts on the amendments and the tactics we see the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives is taking on this issue. The degree to which they try to give the false impression that the government is not listening to members of the CAF and that the government is not sensitive to the issue before the House today is really unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the government party is the only political entity out of the three big parties in the House that is actually giving attention and credit to the amazing amount of work Justice Arbour performed on behalf of our CAF members. We are not talking about hundreds through this whole process, but literally thousands of members of the CAF who were engaged in one way or another, and that is not to mention the dozens, if not hundreds of women whom Justice Arbour would have been directly or indirectly in communication with. What do we hear today? Whether they are from the Bloc or the Conservative Party, members are taking the position that it does not matter what Justice Arbour had to say— An hon. member: Cry me a river. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member said, “Cry me a river.” Shame on the Conservative member who would say something of that nature when we are taking a look at how important the issue is. I will stand up for every woman in the Canadian Forces—”

“I want the House to pass this bill. An independent review said civilian courts, not the military, should handle military sexual crimes. The Conservatives and the Bloc are wrong to oppose that.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc should be ashamed of the position it is taking on this legislation. I am not going to apologize for standing up for what I believe to be true. We have a justice who has done a phenomenal job of reflecting the need for change. I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I had the opportunity to serve very proudly, and I have worked with members of the CAF over the years. I have a deep respect for the work that has been done to date, military, non-military and government, in order to deal with the cultural changes required in our forces. We have made significant progress. Listening to the debates during second reading, I thought there was a universal acceptance of the need to transfer to the civil process investigations or the court process, and, where we can, to provide that additional support. We have a government that has recognized that, and that is why we have Bill C-11. As opposed to trying to marginalize Justice Arbour, who did the work, why do we not read what she actually said? Allow me to quote the justice, who said: Recommendation #5: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP 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. Those are the points I amplified when I first spoke to this legislation. We then had the Conservative critic standing up in a response to marginalize what is an absolutely critical and important issue. It is an issue that I honestly thought the Conservative Party was on side with, until the other day, when the Conservatives made the decision to bring forward all of these amendments. That is not to discredit the committee process. Whether it has a majority or a minority, I believe we have seen a government that responds very positively to the work the standing committees do. It does not matter if it has a majority or a minority. Quite frankly, there is a responsibility for all of us to be thorough in those recommendations that have been presented. I have not heard an argument brought forward that counters what Justice Arbour would have taken into consideration. I have confidence in her holistic approach to deal with the issue in the report that she brought forward. It includes 48 recommendations, and dozens of them have already been implemented. I do not know the exact number, but I can assure members that we are well on the way to the full implementation of that report. That is what this legislation would do. From what I understand, it would take the essence of that report, the most significant aspect, and put it into law. Based on the debate we are hearing from the unholy alliance of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, they are now saying we should throw out that recommendation, but on what grounds? There was a committee. The standing committee met. Contrast the discussions that took place there to those Justice Arbour would have had with many members of the CAF. Meetings were done in confidence, no doubt, along with some that would have been done in a public forum. I always thought that, as politicians, we are supposed to look at ideas and thoughts and base decisions on the work of the people who have that comprehensive understanding and have done the homework. I would suggest that Justice Arbour did the homework on this issue. It is interesting. We put in place, shortly after the recommendation was made, an interim measure that would see the transfer of these files into the civil process. Given the opposition to it today, I would ask how many members of the Bloc Québécois or the Conservative Party have stood in their place in the past year and a half and more, or the last few years, and actually asked a question about it. I cannot recall any. I have been here for a lot of question periods. I do not recall any Conservatives standing up, saying they do not believe in Justice Arbour’s position and we need to keep this in the military justice system. Please, when the members opposite stand up and speak, correct me if I am wrong. At the end of the day, we are trying to reinforce the strength and confidence our CAF members and Canadians as a whole have in building a Canada strong Canadian Armed Forces. We have a Prime Minister who, in less than a year, has raised defence spending to 2% of the GDP, and we are going beyond that. We just had a record number of candidates recruited to join the Canadian Forces. We are talking about a record number in well over 30 years. The numbers are going up. We are recognizing that we need to increase the pay. We have recognized that we need to build on our military and industrial infrastructure to support the CAF. Today, we have legislation to protect the interests of CAF members. We should be talking about how CAF membership contributes in so many ways to who we are as a nation. We should get behind the members, support them and support the legislation, as it has been suggested by the government.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity?”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“The member should listen to what the committee said and look at what has happened since Justice Arbour made her recommendation. She spoke to many more military members than he did, and I trust her advice more than his.”

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

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 31 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“An expert at committee said victims should not have to choose between military or civilian court. Giving them that choice is unfair. It can harm them again if they blame themselves for a bad result.”

“Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about standing committees is that everything is recorded. We do not have to physically be there. There is a Hansard. Let me read a quote from a standing committee. This is a quote from Charlotte Duval-Lantoine: I want to underline what Madam Arbour said about recommendation five, which is that giving the choice to victims to choose the jurisdiction in which they find themselves puts them “in an untenable position.” If the case doesn’t go their way, then they find themselves retraumatized and with the possible question, “Did I make the wrong choice here?””

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I was interrupted while speaking. I want to finish what I was saying before you call on the next speaker.”

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

“I do not have time to finish my quote. You asked about sending this bill to a committee, but we do not need to sit on that committee to value the work being done.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not going to have enough time to finish the whole quotation. The member asked about going to committee. We do not have to be at the committee in order to appreciate—”

“Soldiers who were sexually assaulted did not report it because they feared payback. They did not want their own employer investigating them. Can the member talk more about that?”

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

“We should support this work. Justice Arbour and the Canadian Forces did a great job, and the House should respect what they did.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe Justice Arbour has done an excellent job in making a statement that is very simple and easy to understand. At the end of the day, I would ultimately argue that the effort and work that the Canadian Forces did, along with what Justice Arbour did, should be respected within the chamber, and we should be getting behind it.”

“The Conservatives want to give people a choice between the military and civilian justice systems. But Justice Arbour spoke with hundreds of victims and recommended using only the civilian system. I want the Conservatives to tell us if they think she was wrong.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Conservatives have really thought the amendments through. What they are doing is making the suggestion that we should have a dual system, one that provides a choice. Justice Arbour would no doubt have reviewed that particular option. She has done her homework in the consultations, in working with literally hundreds of victims and others, to come up with a recommendation that clearly states it should be a civilian system. My question for the Conservative Party, in particular this member, is this: Is Justice Arbour wrong in her recommendation?”

“I support this bill to update the military justice system. It moves sexual assault cases committed in Canada out of the military system and into civilian courts. It also makes military justice officials more independent and gives more support to victims.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the report stage of Bill C-11. I would first like to note that in rising for this, my first full speech on a bill in the people’s House, I do so with the pride of having been sent here with the overwhelming support of the people of the Bay of Quinte and the incredible men and women of 8 Wing CFB Trenton to represent them in addressing important issues like the environment and duty to them in their service to the Canadian Armed Forces, and that duty for me, which brings me here today. I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and acknowledge the witnesses, including the brave victims and survivors of sexual assault and misconduct, for their work on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-11 and cultural change at the heart of the Canadian Armed Forces come at a significant time for our military. The norms and rules that once ensured Canada’s peace and prosperity are being rewritten. The Canadian Armed Forces is operating in a volatile and unpredictable global security environment. As Canada’s new government makes a generational investment into our military, including meeting NATO’s 2% target, we cannot forget that the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces are the driving force behind our security and safety. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces must be ready for the threats of today and those of tomorrow. A critical component to that readiness is ensuring that members have a work environment where they feel safe, protected and empowered to serve. This is essential to operational effectiveness, productivity and morale, as well as recruitment and retention. Part of these efforts is ensuring that the military justice system evolves alongside the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces and that it is aligned with the aims of Canada’s civilian criminal justice system, continuing to ensure fairness and accountability for all involved. Bill C-11, first tabled as Bill C-66 in March 2024, as we heard earlier, was reintroduced as Bill C-11 last fall to amend the National Defence Act. This was to help build trust in the military for our currently serving members and for those who are looking to the CAF as a future career. Bill C-11 proposes a suite of changes to ensure the continued effectiveness, accountability and alignment of the military justice system with the operational needs of the CAF. The legislation is critical to ensuring the continued safety and well-being of our people in uniform. Bill C-11 was introduced to address key recommendations brought forward by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish. This included addressing recommendation 5 of Justice Arbour’s independent external comprehensive review report to the Minister of National Defence, delivered in May 2022. This recommendation aimed to remove the Canadian Armed Forces’ jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual assault offences committed in Canada in the majority of cases, from investigation to prosecution and trial of offences. Of all of Justice Arbour’s 48 recommendations, recommendation 5 is the only one that must be implemented through a legislative amendment to the National Defence Act, which brings us here today. The legislation also sought to address eight recommendations made by Justice Fish. The recommendations he proposed relate to the way in which we appoint key military justice actors like the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, by making them Governor in Council appointments. Justice Fish’s report recognized the important role of these military justice actors in ensuring a fair and transparent process for victims and survivors. The legislation would also expand eligibility criteria for military judge appointments to include non-commissioned officers, which would diversify the applicant pool further. In response to another of Justice Fish’s recommendations, the proposed legislation would change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to the provost marshal general. This way, the title aligns more closely with the titles of other senior designations in the CAF, such as surgeon general, chaplain general, judge advocate general, and so on. Bill C-11 would also expand the class of people who could make an interference complaint to be addressed by the Military Police Complaints Commission. Further, it would require military police or others carrying out policing duties or functions under the responsibility of the provost marshal general to make such a complaint in certain circumstances. Beyond addressing key recommendations from former justices Arbour and Fish, Bill C-11 would exclude military judges from being subjected to the summary hearing system. This is to reinforce judicial independence. Members of the national defence committee heard time and again about the need to reinforce judicial independence to build trust in the system for all involved. Speaking of trust, Bill C-11 would expand access to the victims’ liaison officers under the Declaration of Victims Rights. That way, an individual acting on behalf of a victim could request that a victim’s liaison officer be appointed to assist them. Through Bill C-11, we have brought forward these proposed amendments to ensure that the military justice system grows in tandem with the evolving culture of the Canadian Armed Forces. The military justice system must continue to function in alignment with our civilian criminal justice system and better respond to the needs of victims and survivors. Canadians expect Canada’s military justice system to reflect their values at all times. Bill C-11 is an important piece of legislation that does just that. It advances the culture of respect and accountability across all ranks of the defence team, regardless of role, position or rank. This legislation makes clear our commitment to modernize Canada’s military justice system. It makes clear our commitment to address the recommendations from independent external review reports, namely Justice Fish’s third independent review and Justice Arbour’s independent external comprehensive review. As well, it makes clear our commitment to the brave and skilled members of our Canadian Armed Forces and their civilian colleagues who serve this country every day. At its core, the Canadian Armed Forces is defined by the people who serve in uniform. They are central to our defence and to our national security. We will continue building a workplace free from harassment, discrimination and violence for all who serve and defend this country. Bill C-11 will pave the way for future statutory, regulatory and policy amendments that will further evolve military culture and continue to modernize the military justice system. The legislation before us today represents their commitments to modernizing the military justice system and evolving Canada’s military culture. We must also continue to strengthen the policies and programs that make a meaningful difference in the lives of those affected by harmful conduct. We are seeing encouraging signs of that today, but our work will not stop with this legislation. This week alone, we saw recruitment of the Canadian Armed Forces hit a 30-year high. This is remarkable progress, but we cannot stop here. We must ensure that we are doing our part to protect our military and civilian members of the defence team who work hard every day to keep us safe. We are sincerely grateful for everything they do.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “The director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.”

  Said 5 times by 4 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“Recruitment numbers for the military look good. We need this bill to make sure the Canadian Armed Forces are safe and welcoming for people of all genders who join.”

“Mr. Speaker, we were indeed encouraged this week by the news of the recruitment numbers. Although we heard reports that the numbers leaving are outstripping the numbers coming in, and I do not have the exact numbers at my fingertips, I have been assured that they, in fact, were a bit misleading. That is why it is important for this legislation to be at report stage. Bill C-11 would help us ensure that those people coming in are welcomed into a safe and responsible environment for all genders enrolling in the Canadian Armed Forces.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“We have already put 36 recommendations into action, and things have improved. Experts say the choice the opposition wants is not a real choice. Can the member explain this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution at the national defence committee. At committee, we heard that 36 recommendations by Justice Arbour have been implemented. That is a tremendous accomplishment and one of the reasons things have improved. However, there is something experts have said. I know the opposition has talked about having choice, but experts say that is a false choice. Could you elaborate, please?”