“The opposition says women in the military should choose between civilian and military courts for sexual assault cases. Committee evidence showed that having this choice actually makes it harder for women to report crimes. Since 2021, all these cases have gone to civilian courts.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, we did hear quite a bit of discussion on choice at committee. One thing I would like to acknowledge at this point is that it warms my heart to see members opposite embracing a woman’s right to choose in all manners. It is heartening. It was a little misleading in the fact that a woman’s right to choose was somehow seen as an ideal situation. Since 2021, all cases have gone to the civilian system. The right to choose, as we have heard, is, in fact, an obstacle to a woman reporting in some of the testimony that we heard. While it may have been an option that some had seen as a very responsible position, we heard much evidence of the opposite.”

“I apologize if I said the wrong thing. People have reported abuse, and I did not mean to question their claims.”

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

“I want the member to say more about how soldiers were afraid to report problems because they feared punishment or harm to their careers. That fear is why we made this change.”

“Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleague for his great work on the national defence committee. I would like the member to elaborate a bit about what we heard in terms of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who would not come forward to file complaints out of fear of retribution and that their careers would be limited, and that is why we brought forward Justice Arbour’s recommendation.”

“We are changing the military justice system because people are afraid to report sexual assault when their attacker outranks them.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We heard testimony on a different report at the national defence committee yesterday on francophones in the armed forces, and one of the members who testified had testified earlier. This was an officer who, in Afghanistan, was sexually assaulted, but failed to report because the assailant in this case was a superior officer. That goes to the crux of why we are making these changes. It is due to a reluctance or fear of reporting because of the chain of command.”

“Our committee agreed that civilian police and courts should handle sexual crimes in the military. This bill does exactly that, which is what veterans asked for. I do not understand why the opposition member changed his mind.”

“Mr. Speaker, I did listen intently to the intervention of my colleague across the way. He referenced a report that was tabled by the ACVA committee in June 2024. I actually participated in that study as well. That report made a unanimous recommendation, recommendation 40, which states: 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. This is exactly what Justice Arbour recommended in her recommendation 5, which is exactly what is in Bill C-11. I am not sure why there is a change of heart. We listened to veterans, and this is what they asked for.”

“I want to know if the member thinks it makes sense for coworkers to investigate, prosecute, and judge sexual crimes in their own workplace. Does that happen anywhere else in the world?”

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

“I want this bill passed without the opposition's changes. The bill sends all sexual assault cases in the military to civilian police and courts, as an independent expert recommended. The opposition's changes make the system confusing and hurt victims.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Pays‑d’en‑Haut. Today, in the House, we are debating a bill that is very important for the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to begin by thanking Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans and their families for their service to our country. This bill seeks to modernize the military justice system and originally included recommendations from the reports of former Supreme Court of Canada justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish. These changes are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team as they continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians. The bill responds to recommendation 5 from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s report and the eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish’s report. However, the amendments made by the committee and proposed by opposition MPs run counter to these recommendations. I believe that all my colleagues in the House will agree with me on the following point: Bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our top priorities. That is why I believe it is crucial to hold this debate here, so that we can discuss the importance of upholding the recommendations of former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour. Today I will address the importance of recommendation 5. In 2022, Ms. Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, entitled “Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”, contains 48 recommendations that focused on reforming the “institutional shortcomings” and “structural impediments” that have allowed the problem to persist. Justice Arbour’s recommendation 5 is that civilian authorities should have exclusive jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences alleged against members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I quote: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the [Canadian Armed Forces]. 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 [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. She also states the following in her report: ...I do not envisage a type of permanent transfer process by which a victim would report a crime to the [military police], who would then transfer the case to a civilian police service. The experience of the interim recommendation has shown that to be unworkable. I expect victims to be told to contact civilian authorities directly, and such contact to be facilitated by the [military police] and the [Canadian Armed Forces] so far as possible. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties run directly counter to this recommendation. This will make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill as amended by the opposition parties. The lack of clarity and transparency will have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors. Since December 2021, all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges have been laid in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried in the military justice system, and this arrangement is working. Justice Arbour also relied on the results of the Declaration of Victims Rights consultation in issuing recommendation 5. In her report, she notes: Common themes in the response to the consultation included “fear of reprisal and retaliation, lack of support, shame and embarrassment, issues with the system, the accused being protected, and the individual responsible for handling complaints being the perpetrator.” There was also a widely held perception, both among those who identified as victims of a service offence and those who did not, that the military justice system fails to treat victims with dignity and respect.... This lack of trust and fear of reprisals were also raised by the vast majority of witnesses during the committee’s consideration of Bill C-11. Here is an example of testimony received by the committee. On November 20, 2025, Paula MacDonald made the following statement during her testimony before the Standing Committee on National Defence: When I went to the civilian police, I was told more than once to go back to the military system that failed me. At the same time, my leaders reframed my complaints. Instead of naming sexual harassment and abuse of power that led to sexual assault, they called me emotional, hypersensitive and a mental health problem. She continued: In my case, the Canadian Armed Forces didn’t simply mishandle a file; it used the machinery of the military justice and grievance system to protect its membership, who violated the National Defence Act and silenced me. The misuse of state power that the charter is meant to guard against is what they did. It is exactly why the reforms like Bill C‑11 and a real shift to independent civilian jurisdiction over sexual offences is so urgently needed to maintain the rule of law within the Canadian Armed Forces. She also said the following: If a Canadian solution is to move it to the civilian system— and it seems that this is our Canadian solution—where our three Supreme Court justices, who are experts in the delivery of justice, say it should be, then this is what we need to do. I think it is pretty clear that there is a lack of trust in the military justice system when it comes to sexual offences. That is why the defence team implemented most of Justice Arbour’s recommendations, and we need to do the same for recommendation 5. This bill should establish a clear framework for investigating and acting on allegations of sexual misconduct in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. That would not happen if we adopted the amendments put forward by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour’s recommendation 5 from Bill C‑11. We are encouraged by the positive changes in the culture of the defence team in recent years. Bill C‑11 and the changes it will make to the National Defence Act are a crucial step in strengthening that trust and ensuring that this change is permanent. Canadians who serve our country risk everything for us. In return, we owe them our full and unconditional support.”

• 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 →

“Most of the 14,000 people interviewed did not want the military to handle these cases. People do not trust the system yet. Victims still fear they will be punished or treated unfairly if they come forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, Justice Arbour interviewed 14,000 people and most of them did not want these cases to remain in the military system. The trust is not there. A change in culture is happening slowly. We hear that things are improving at the Department of National Defence, but they have not yet improved enough. Victims still fear retaliation. They fear being reprimanded, and they fear that their case will not be dealt with appropriately.”

“Most witnesses who spoke to our committee said they do not trust the military justice system. They want civilian courts to handle these cases. That is how we have done it since 2022, and it works well. We should not go backwards.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to correct my colleague. I have sat on the Standing Committee on National Defence since I was elected, and I am happy to do so. I sat in on all the testimony that was given in connection with the study of Bill C‑11. Some witnesses did say that they would rather have a choice, but the vast majority of witnesses said that they did not trust the military justice system, that they were not convinced that investigations would be carried out properly within the military system and that they chose the civilian system. This has been in place since 2022. All the criminal cases of sexual abuse are already before the civilian courts. It works very well, and we do not see the point of going backwards.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the member to talk about the sexual assault victims who could not testify before the committee.”

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

“We listened to the witnesses. Most of them do not want their assault cases made public. We need to respect what they want, along with the 14,000 people who gave evidence to the independent review.”

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

“Justice Arbour talked to hundreds of victims and recommended moving military cases to regular civilian courts. A House committee also agreed with this, and the member voted for it. I want to know if the member thinks Justice Arbour is wrong.”

“Mr. Speaker, Justice Arbour came up with a recommendation to transfer cases to the civilian process. A previous standing committee of the House put forward a report, which the member indicated that she voted for, that said to do exactly what this legislation purports to do Justice Arbour would have met with literally hundreds of victims. Combined, we are probably talking about well over 1,000 people, directly and indirectly. I believe she did her homework. Based on the expertise she brought to the table and the people she consulted with, she came up with that recommendation. Does the member believe Justice Arbour is wrong in her recommendation?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want this bill passed without the opposition's changes. It makes civilian police and civilian courts handle all military sexual misconduct cases in Canada. The opposition wants to reverse this, which hurts victims and goes against expert advice.”

“Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a piece of legislation that is very important to the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces. I begin by thanking the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families for their service to Canada. As Canada’s new government rearms, rebuilds and reinvests in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is critical that we start with our people. Our work to attract, recruit and retain members of the Canadian Armed Forces requires a safe, healthy work environment where our forces can thrive, grow and contribute. The changes proposed in this legislation are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team, which continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians. Bill C-11 aims to modernize the military justice system and incorporate the recommendations from two external reports from former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish. The bill would implement nine recommendations in total, including recommendation five of former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s report and eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish’s report. At present, the amendments made by members of the opposition during the study of the bill at the Standing Committee on National Defence run counter to the Supreme Court justices’ recommendations. I believe all of my colleagues in this House will agree with me that bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our highest priorities, free from politicization and partisanship. Canadians expect us to take culture change in the military seriously. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces expect us to take culture change seriously too. I will take some time to go through the changes that Bill C-11 aims to implement from Justice Arbour’s work. In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, known as the report of the independent comprehensive external review, or the ICER, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional shortcomings and structural barriers that have allowed the problem of sexual misconduct in the CAF to persist. When the legislation was introduced last fall, before amendments were made at committee, Bill C-11 proposed to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada from the military police to the civilian police. This is Justice Arbour’s fifth recommendation in action. As Justice Arbour laid it out, the goal is to remove these offences from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces, putting the investigations into and the prosecution of offenders in the hands of civilian authorities. Moreover, this recommendation fulfills our promise to victims and survivors that they can have confidence that their cases will continue to be handled fairly and with transparency outside of the military chain of command. This change and others proposed through Bill C-11 complement programs, services and initiatives already in place to make sure that survivors receive the support and guidance they need to help them through the difficult process they often face alone. Before going into further amendments made at the committee stage, I will take a moment to discuss the existing supports that are available through the Canadian Armed Forces’ programs and illustrate how Bill C-11 is yet another piece of the puzzle in supporting victims and survivors. The Canadian Armed Forces sexual misconduct support and resource centre is a key tool for victims and survivors. Within this centre is the community support for sexual misconduct survivors grant program. This program extends the support offered through the centre into the communities it serves, increasing collaboration between National Defence and third party, community-based organizations. These organizations can in turn provide valuable support for survivors and have the capacity and expertise to provide support to those affected by military sexual trauma. These essential resources complement the centre’s other offerings, ensuring that survivors can access support anywhere in the country when, where and how it is needed most. Through peer support programs, survivors can share their experiences and support one another in groups that include mental health practitioners and trained peer supporters with their own experience of sexual misconduct or military sexual trauma. While these programs and tools can help survivors cope with the experience of sexual misconduct or trauma, it is equally important to support them through the complex and difficult process of pursuing justice. Many survivors have said the justice system makes them feel excluded or even victimized all over again. This is one of the driving forces behind the changes to the military justice system proposed in Bill C-11. I will speak briefly to Bill C-11’s journey through committee. Justice Arbour’s recommendation five, the recommendation to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct cases from the military police to the civilian police, is at the heart of Bill C-11. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties at the committee stage run directly counter to this recommendation. It would be even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill as amended by the opposition parties. Moreover, the lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system, victims and survivors. It is important to remember that an interim directive to implement recommendation five by transferring cases until legislation passed has been in place since December 2021. That means that since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought into the civilian justice system, and none of these offences have been tried by the military justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, just as Justice Arbour recommended. However, opposition amendments propose to reverse this directive, reject Justice Arbour’s recommendation and, in fact, go backward. Victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces deserve clarity and transparency, not steps backward. It is clear that the interim directive and the spirit of Justice Arbour’s recommendation five have been making a tangible, clear and meaningful difference over the past five years. Since December 2021, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case that has occurred in Canada has been successfully transferred to the civilian system. This means that every new case is being prosecuted in a manner that is fair, that is transparent and that inspires trust in the system for the victim. Bill C-11 would take the final necessary step to make this a lasting reality and ensure that all cases would, once and for all, go through the civilian court system. Any attempts or suggestions to overturn, stall or block this progress from continuing are a disservice to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. Bill C-11 would ensure that victims and survivors of Criminal Code sexual misconduct would have a fair, transparent process without any real or perceived influence from their chain of command. Over the past few years, I have watched the Canadian Armed Forces undergoing a period of cultural evolution and change. Like many Canadians and many of my colleagues, I am encouraged by the positive and forward-looking changes that have been made. I know that building trust and confidence in our military justice system is a critical element in ensuring that this change continues and endures. The proposed changes in Bill C-11 would modernize the military justice system, and particularly how that system handles cases of Criminal Code sexual misconduct.”

• 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 →

“I agree with Justice Arbour's advice. She talked to hundreds of people and found that military culture has serious problems that have not improved.”

“Mr. Speaker, certainly, we give great weight to the testimony of victims and of the good doctor my colleague referenced. I would note that Justice Arbour, who has a long and illustrious career in the judicial system and who has been recognized as an international champion of human rights, carried out a very extensive investigation for her report, for which she consulted hundreds of witnesses, or possibly close to 1,000. She stated through her review that she still found a deeply deficient culture within the military and she had seen no meaningful improvements. Therefore, I would defer to Justice Arbour’s recommendation.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I am a lawyer who has worked with victims of partner violence. MPs try to fix bills in good faith, but the opposition will not always get the changes they want.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee at which this was studied. However, I am a lawyer, and I have worked in the space of intimate partner violence and violence against women, so the perspective I bring is my own. As far as working through amendments and committees, this is something that I believe every elected member of Parliament wants to do in good faith at all times. That does not necessarily mean that colleagues across the aisle will get the result they want every time.”

• 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 want to ask the member if she knows of any other job where a victim of sexual assault has to report the crime to their boss and have their boss investigate it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her incredible support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. She mentioned that she is a lawyer and has worked in this kind of field. I would like to ask her if she knows of any other workplace where an employee who is a victim of sexual assault would have to report that sexual assault to their employer and have it investigated by their own employer.”

“Victims should not have to report crimes to their bosses or have their cases handled at work. We must protect victims from being pressured by military leaders into using military courts, which can unfairly favour the accused.”

“Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has asked really goes to the crux of what Justice Arbour found in her report. I would say that no, I do not know of any other situation where a victim would potentially have to come forward to superiors or have the case heard within a workplace. I think we have to be very cautious. I know my opposition colleagues have been talking about options, but we have to be cautious about weighing options and certainty, and we have to be very cautious that we do not underestimate the potential pressure or coercion a victim may be subjected to by superiors within the workplace to have their complaint heard, in this example, in a military court because there could be more favourable conditions to the accused in that situation. That is something we have to be very cognizant of.”

“I disagree with the member. Justice Arbour talked to hundreds of victims directly and thousands through the military before making her recommendation. The Conservatives are ignoring those victims, and they have never questioned that recommendation in the four years it has existed.”

“Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the member’s assessment. I think that he undervalues the many discussions that Justice Arbour would have had with victims. We are not talking about a few dozen; we are talking about hundreds, directly, and indirectly through the Canadian Forces, we are talking about thousands. I believe that the Conservative Party has marginalized those victims. There is a reason Justice Arbour came forward with that recommendation. I cannot recall the Conservatives ever asking a question that contradicted the recommendation that Justice Arbour brought forward, and it has been there for four years. Has this member, or any Conservative, asked a question about that?”

• 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 want the House to pass this bill. It moves sexual offence cases involving military members into the civilian justice system. It also gives victims more support and makes the military justice system more independent.”

“Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by recognizing the critical role that the Canadian Armed Forces plays. Every single member of the Canadian Armed Forces makes a commitment to serve this country. They step forward with a willingness to protect others, often at great personal cost and sacrifice. Because of that, we, as members of Parliament, have a responsibility to make sure that the systems around them, especially the justice system, work the way they are supposed to work and there is equality, fairness and justice. When these systems do not work, the consequences are very serious. They affect individuals, and they affect people’s confidence in the institution. Ultimately, they affect the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole. At a time when the world is changing and we cannot always rely on the same assumptions that we used to, it is more important than ever that Canada strengthen its own defence capacity. That includes making sure that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces can rely on the systems around them to create a safe workspace for them. The strength of our Canadian Armed Forces is not just about capability; it is also about whether the people serving in it have confidence in the institution itself. That is where Bill C-11 comes in. Over the past several years, we have heard directly from survivors of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, and what we have heard has always been consistent: The system was not always clear; accountability was difficult to navigate; and in too many cases, people lost trust in the process. The issue has been examined closely, including through the independent review led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. Her findings pointed to a clear problem with how sexual misconduct cases were being handled within the military justice system. In particular, she spoke to the impact this has had on trust and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces and the need for a more consistent and reliable approach. One of her key recommendations was that Criminal Code sexual offences should be handled in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 follows through with that recommendation. What Bill C-11 does, in practical terms, is provide clarity. It sets out that Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada involving members of the Canadian Armed Forces are to be investigated and prosecuted within the civilian system. That clarity is important. It means that individuals are not left navigating uncertainty. It means that cases are not delayed by questions of jurisdiction. It means that there is a consistent approach to how these serious matters are handled. It is also important to recognize that this direction is already being followed in practice. Since 2021, these cases have been proceeding through the civilian system. Bill C-11 would ensure that this approach is clearly established and consistently applied moving forward. Bill C-11 also introduces stronger, practical measures to ensure that victims are not left navigating the system by themselves. For example, it would establish victim liaison officers, who will support victims throughout the process, including during the transfer of cases between military and civilian authorities. The bill would also expand access to these supports to individuals acting on the victim’s behalf, ensuring continuity and guidance at every stage. It would improve access to information by strengthening obligations to inform victims and witnesses of their rights, including in relation to publication bans, and ensuring that their wishes are considered in the entire process. Importantly, it clarifies that victims can speak about their own experiences, while still protecting the identity of others when required. Another important aspect of Bill C-11 is the focus on independence. It takes steps to strengthen how key roles within the military justice system are structured and appointed, so that decisions are made free from real or perceived influence from chain of command. That really matters, because confidence in the system depends not only on outcomes, but on whether people believe the process itself is fair and independent. The opposition has put forward amendments that would reintroduce a degree of flexibility between the military and civilian systems, including allowing cases to move between jurisdictions. However, that approach, to me, raises real concerns. It would add unnecessary complexity to an already difficult process, create the potential for delays and place a greater burden on individuals at a time when clarity is most needed. It is also not a trauma-informed approach, unfortunately. It asks individuals, often in the immediate aftermath of harm and trauma, to make complex decisions about how their cases should proceed. What we have heard is clear. People are not asking for more complexity. They are asking for a system that works. Bill C-11 is one part of a broader effort to address long-standing concerns within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about making sure that every member of our armed forces can serve with dignity in an environment that reflects the values that we expect as Canadians. I am just now coming from the Indonesian embassy, where we were celebrating Ms. Kartini’s influence on equality of opportunity for women, not just in Indonesia but across the world. That is exactly it. What Bill C-11 would do for our community and the Canadian Armed Forces is make sure that women and men who have faced sexual violence and sexual misconduct have the ability to take various approaches toward justice, make sure that their harms are acknowledged and rectified, and make sure that the workplace they operate in, which is already a very high-stress one, is one they can function in, where their services are valued and contribute to the growth and progress of Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces provides a very important role within our country and across the world. We need to make sure, through all the measures and tools available to us, that the serving men and women have the ability to serve effectively. With that, I do support this legislation. I hope that all members in this House will do the same and that this bill with respect to sexual misconduct, Bill C-11, along with all the other bills we have brought forward in the past few months, such as Bill C-16 to combat coercive controlling behaviour, or bail reforms and Criminal Code reforms across our country, gets quick passage so that Canadian Armed Forces members impacted by this have the swift justice they require. I look forward to questions from members.”

“We need to pass this bill quickly to improve our justice system. Justice Arbour worked hard on her recommendations, and we must support our military members without delay.”

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

• 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 35 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →