TranslatePolitics.ca

Tim Watchorn

Liberal 11:55 a.m.

“I need to look like I support the troops. This bill is a good chance to do that. We should pass it because a judge said so. The other parties want to change it. That's bad. I don't like that. I think its very bad.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 12:05 p.m.

“I want to show I agree with some witnesses, but I mostly just want to criticize the government and the military.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, having listened to and read a lot of the testimony, that what the member just mentioned about the concerns of one of those witnesses is absolutely true. At the same time, Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” She goes on to indicate that it should not be an either-or but a both-and. We know that victims come with different perspectives. What the government has done is chosen what is best, most applicable and appreciated by itself and the Canadian Armed Forces. It removes it from the very place where the issues are being done. They—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tim Watchorn

Liberal 12:05 p.m.

“I want military courts to change because some people don't trust them. I think the government needs to keep reforming it until enough people trust the system.”

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Bloc Québécois 12:05 p.m.

“You're not even on the committee. You're not important. I am important.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It is important to take an interest in what we are debating here in the House. While my colleague may take an interest in the debates here in the House, he is not, to my knowledge, a member of the committee that studied this bill. He can correct me if I am wrong. The committee members worked very hard on this. Bloc Québécois and Conservative members proposed amendments that came back to the House. It was not the first time that happened. I think we have seen that with other bills in the past. The government says it wants to collaborate, but it just dismisses the committee's constructive work once the bill comes back to the House. This does not bode well for the future when the governing party has a majority in committees. Is this how it is going to be from now on, or will there be genuine collaboration? I have my doubts.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tim Watchorn

Liberal 12:05 p.m.

“I want to cheer for my preferred system. The people who agree with me matter, and people who don't agree with me don't matter. The change I like is good, and should stay. I don't want to go backwards.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sherry Romanado

Liberal 12:10 p.m.

“I want to look like I care about sexual assault victims. I hope repeating that we are listening will make me look good.”

Tim Watchorn

Liberal 12:10 p.m.

“I want to cheer for the politician before me. Listen to the victims! I want lawmakers to listen to the 14,000 military members who already told us what they want. That's all I have to say.”

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 12:10 p.m.

“I've been on the veterans affairs committee since 2015. I know these issues. The government isn't listening to survivors of military sexual trauma. They don't want everything moved to civilian court. The government just wants this issue to go away. Let survivors choose civilian or military justice. Don't take away their options. The government isn't respecting women veterans' expertise. Bill C-11 doesn't do what survivors need.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have no experience in the military, and I do not serve on the national defence committee, so why am I here? I serve on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have been there since 2015. As a matter of fact, I am the matron of the committee. I am the only one who has been there this entire time, outlasting a decade's worth of 10 ministers and different members every time the government has had an election. I have experienced everything on that committee, in my heart and in my mind, with all of those who have come to share their stories and their concerns. I am standing here today simply on behalf of the survivors of military sexual trauma in whatever form. We did a study of women in the military, and out of that study came the report “Invisible No More”. Survivors spoke of their experiences, and I have to say there is no other way to hear what the government should be doing than to sit down and not just read the report but watch and listen to every one of those individuals who took the risk, and were brave and courageous, to come and share exactly what has happened to them in the military. I am hearing the concerns that it was so devastating, and it was not treated properly, so we are going to move it all over to civilian court. These women know what is happening here. They are not being heard and are not being respected. They do not want to have everything shifted over to the civilian court. There are reasons for that, which are rational and were shared at the committee, and they are being completely ignored. Why? It is because the government wants it to go away. It wants our national defence to be able to function without this in the rear-view mirror. That is not what the survivors want. They want the option to take their perpetrator to civilian court or to do it within the military. As a matter of fact, if members read all of Bill C-11, they will see there were good reasons, and means, to also give them the choice to move between the two. This is not complicated. It could be done, and every member of the military who has been attacked in some way should have the opportunity to have that choice. Out of that same report, “Invisible No More”, a recommendation came forward to have a VAC women veterans council. It was announced on December 2, 2024. I was at the installation ceremony for the members who were chosen and celebrated the creation of the council that spring. It joined a plethora of advisory councils that have had minimum input and minimum impact on the decision-making of the government. Believing that their contribution would be different, the members were excited, and then time went by. I attended a major conference where members of the council were represented, and they were praised for their participation and input in making this conference take place. I later learned from a number of them that no, it was just word salad. They were not consulted. On January 14 came a letter of resignation from six out of the 12, including five of the eight Canadian Armed Forces members, who put in their letter of resignation because they saw none of what they had expected to have happen in that group. This is what the letter said: Today, more than ever, we believe in the importance of coming together, speaking collectively, and demanding accountability. Meaningful change will not come from symbolic structures or performative consultations, but from clear institutional commitment, dedicated and transparent funding, and mechanisms that genuinely recognize lived experience as expertise. This is something I have come to realize over my decade plus on that committee. These women are always considered, but they are never recognized as experts in what they present at that committee. We are seeing that again today in the way they are being responded to. In response to Bill C-11 in its original form, concerns actually came to light at an appreciation event for women who served in the Canadian Armed Forces, including those who had contributed to the study, that was sponsored and put on by the Liberal women MPs on the veterans affairs standing committee. I was not formally invited, but I showed up. It was there that these contributors expressed openly that they were not happy with Bill C-11 and that it would not do what they need it to do. I had the opportunity to represent them and talk to my colleagues in national defence. They listened. The government is not listening. As a matter of fact, it is being punitive to the very people it should be supporting. I am just going to quote a couple of the individuals I have come to know and be good friends with. I love their tenacity, their grit, their truthfulness and the fact that they do not see themselves as victims. They are survivors, and they love the armed forces. Their biggest desire is to see this gone, but they do not believe that can happen if suddenly there is no accountability. We know that the chain of command is culpable here. It is part of the problem. I get the rationale, but it is not right, and it is punitive to the very people the government should be supporting. I am going to quote Donna Van Leusden. She said: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed— That creates trauma. That is sanctuary trauma. —and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did. She was involved in actually putting together a program that they could have function within the Canadian Armed Forces. They were even doing tests, and it was working. There are a lot of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have seen what has gone on and did not want to be part of that, do not want to be part of that, and looked forward to having this as an option. It was shut down. I am going to quote Christine Wood, who is the one who bravely said at that meeting of the committee and veterans that they were not happy with Bill C-11, and she explained why. She said: I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. We have different views, do we not? However, it is not an either-or. It is a both-and. She went on to say: I support it because the CAF must uphold [its] own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices. To be clear, I'm not defending the status quo. The military justice system...failed me [too, but] replacing one system that's broken with another system that completely and consistently fails victims of sexual offences does not create justice. It simply relocates the problem, and...removes the responsibility of the CAF for fixing it. Transferring all Criminal Code sexual offences will, in my view, increase the number of high-harm incidents. This is important. Low-level sexual misconduct must be both reported and pursued, because these are the early warning[s]...of a toxic, sexualized culture. Requiring a young, newly enrolled CAF member to walk into an RCMP detachment to report a low-level incident is unrealistic, and it will suppress reporting. Heather Vanderveer said, “Survivor autonomy is one of the strongest predictors of recovery after institutional betrayal and sexual trauma. Bill C-11 risks creating a system where survivors feel processed through the justice system rather than empowered within it.” This is wrong, and it is going to cause more problems than it fixes.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 12:20 p.m.

“Do you think Arbour is wrong? You must be wrong. Everyone else agrees with me.”

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 12:20 p.m.

“I voted for the report to show I am on their side. The report says things I already wanted. I haven't changed my mind.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 12:20 p.m.

“Why didn't past governments fix this military problem earlier? And why didn't you pass my amendment to give victims more choices? I want you to look bad.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is 2026. The first allegations against General Vance date back to 2015. At the time, rather than taking action, the Harper government gave him a promotion. Since then, we have had the Arbour, Deschamps and Fish reports, and yet here we are, still talking about this crisis in Canada's military justice system. I have two questions. First, I would like to know why all the governments, and by that I mean the Harper government, the Trudeau government and today's government, have shown so little concern for this issue. Second, in my colleague's opinion, why did the government refuse to consider the Bloc Québécois's amendment that sought to give victims a choice between the military and civilian justice systems in circumstances where these victims' trust in the current military justice system may be undermined?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 12:25 p.m.

“I wish I were in charge. But no, I don't want to be prime minister. Politics gets in the way a lot. The real reason we don't help veterans more is the government wants this issue to disappear.”

Jeff Kibble

Conservative 12:25 p.m.

“I think my party is better! I want to attack the Liberals instead of addressing your point.”

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 12:25 p.m.

“I want the government to accept every recommendation veterans gave about sexual trauma in the military. Instead, the government picks the ones it wants.”

Kristina Tesser Derksen

Liberal 12:25 p.m.

“I want this military justice bill to pass so the government can claim it's helping victims. I'm filling time by listing programs and saying 'sexual misconduct' a lot.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Scott Anderson

Conservative 12:35 p.m.

“I don't think you know what 'chain of command' means. Things have changed since then. I want an expert to talk about why the old way was better.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first, I would suggest that my colleagues not use “chain of command” until they understand what it means. People are removed from the chain of command today and put into the JAG system, or at least they were prior to this. I want to quote Dr. Karen Breeck, who is a former officer in the Canadian Armed Forces and is also a medical doctor. She testified that the military of 2025 has changed. She said: Today the chain of command has extensive awareness and training. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre is fully operational. Victims' rights legislation is in force. Independent legal and victim supports exist.... What evidence still shows that [the civilian system] remains the best way forward? I wonder if my colleague could comment on one of the victims who said much the same thing as—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Kristina Tesser Derksen

Liberal 12:35 p.m.

“I don't want to directly address those witnesses you mentioned. I want to emphasize how important our own report is instead. Here is why the person who made our report is important: she is very famous and accomplished. Because she is so revered, we should do what she recommends. Her report found very bad things. Many, many people were consulted! Trust me: there are no reasons to doubt this report.”

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Bloc Québécois 12:35 p.m.

“You didn't answer before. We work hard on bills. We change them in committee. But then Liberals erase our changes when it comes back here. Will you always ignore us like that?”

Kristina Tesser Derksen

Liberal 12:35 p.m.

“I'm not on that committee. I'm a lawyer. I've worked in that field. We all want to do good work. Sometimes you lose.”

Sherry Romanado

Liberal 12:35 p.m.

“I want to cheer for a program that spends money in my riding. I want my colleague to agree with me.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Government Orders

Tim Watchorn

Cathay Wagantall

Tim Watchorn

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Tim Watchorn

Sherry Romanado

Tim Watchorn

Cathay Wagantall

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Cathay Wagantall

Jean-Denis Garon

Cathay Wagantall

Jeff Kibble

Cathay Wagantall

Kristina Tesser Derksen

Scott Anderson

Kristina Tesser Derksen

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Kristina Tesser Derksen

Sherry Romanado