TranslatePolitics.ca

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative 1:20 p.m.

“I think the military should handle these cases. Some recommendations don't match what victims said. It's not fair to accuse people from a snitch line. Going to court might not work out for anyone.”

Sherry Romanado

Liberal 1:20 p.m.

“I want to pass a bill that implements one committee recommendation.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her work on the national defence committee. In 2024, the ACVA committee undertook an extensive study regarding women in the military. More than 100 witnesses came forward over 23 meetings, testifying before the ACVA committee. From that committee came a report that was tabled in Parliament and included recommendation 40, and this was unanimous. All parties agreed: That 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 is exactly what Bill C‑11 would do.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative 1:20 p.m.

“I'm saying the civilian courts are too busy. Sexual assault cases are not being heard. Too much time passes. The criminal goes free.”

Doug Eyolfson

Liberal 1:20 p.m.

“I want to pass this bill to move military sexual misconduct cases to civilian courts. The opposition's amendments would make the system more complex and less clear. We can't go backwards.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11 at report stage. I know the impact that our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have on operations at home and abroad, and I am pleased to speak to efforts that our government is making to keep them safe. We know that to fulfill our role as a NATO ally, we must have forces that are ready, able and agile. Just this week, we heard that the Canadian Armed Forces has reached a 30-year record high for recruitment. This is fantastic news for Canada and for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we cannot take anything for granted. We must keep up the momentum and work hard to create a safe workplace where our forces and the next generation of forces can thrive and make meaningful contributions to Canada. This starts with making sure we provide our forces with a safe and professional work environment in which to train and to build up their skills for the difficult job we ask of them. This is why I am pleased to rise today to speak about the important work that is being done to modernize our military justice system and to restore trust in the Canadian Armed Forces. Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a critical step toward lasting institutional reform, as well as toward strengthening trust and confidence in our military justice system. Over the past four years, Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces members, watched as former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish put forward detailed recommendations on how to create meaningful and lasting cultural change in the armed forces. Their recommendations have been compiled into a comprehensive implementation plan, which Canadians can easily access online to track the progress the CAF is making. These reviews and recommendations have helped define how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are undertaking changes to the military justice system and cultural change. Today I would like to provide an overview of those recommendations and to speak specifically about the implementation of Justice Arbour's recommendation 5, which is at the heart of Bill C-11. In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the minister of national defence at the time. This report, also known as the report of the independent external comprehensive review, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional gaps and structural barriers that have allowed the problem to persist. In her report, her fifth recommendation proposed a transformative measure to move the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences in Canada alleged against Canadian Armed Forces members to the civilian system. I want to take the time to read out the specific wording of Justice Arbour's recommendation for all members: 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 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. In short, this recommendation would codify in law that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada. This recommendation would also codify in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction for investigating and prosecuting these cases. I want to note that Justice Arbour acknowledged in her report that removing concurrent jurisdiction by amending the National Defence Act would take several years to implement, given the size, scale and scope of the changes needed. In fact, she knew how critical this recommendation was, and she proposed that we adopt an interim directive in the meantime to ensure that the change would take place as quickly as possible. She stated: As previous experience with changes to the military justice system have shown, this will take several years to implement. In the meantime, I expect the [Canadian Armed Forces] and civilian authorities to continue to abide by my interim recommendation. The [Canadian Armed Forces] should cease to investigate and prosecute sexual offences over which it presently has concurrent jurisdiction. Civilian authorities should investigate and prosecute those cases in accordance with their existing concurrent jurisdiction. The interim directive has been in place since December 2021 and has been working well. Since then, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case has been prosecuted in the civilian courts rather than in the military justice system. While the interim directive was in place, the legislation was first introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-66 and was one of the first bills to be introduced in the current Parliament in the fall of 2025, as Bill C-11. That is precisely because our government recognizes the importance of building a more inclusive, respectful and safe workplace for our Canadian Armed Forces members. The bill would implement Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 and protect our forces. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties in the Standing Committee on National Defence run directly counter to recommendation 5. The opposition parties put forward amendments to strike down recommendation 5 and to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation from the bill. The opposition's amendments would make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system, due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill. The lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors. We cannot go backwards and reverse any of the important changes made on military culture change over the last five years. In fact, since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences covered by the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried by the military justice system. To accept the opposition's amendments would be to reverse this progress and to move backwards. In conclusion, the bill would establish a clear framework for investigating and addressing allegations of sexual misconduct, in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. Bill C-11, and the amendment it seeks to codify in the National Defence Act, represents a crucial step towards strengthening the forces' trust in the military justice system. This is not the case with the amendments proposed by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 from Bill C-11. We are encouraged by the positive changes and cultural evolution in the Canadian Armed Forces in recent years, but we cannot stop here, and we cannot move backwards. The people who serve our country risk everything for us. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces must always answer the call to keep Canada safe, and it is our obligation to keep them safe from harassment and misconduct.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative 1:30 p.m.

“You said cases are being transferred to civilian courts. How many? How many are actually being heard? How many are just waiting? What happens to the ones that don’t make the cut for civilian court?”

Doug Eyolfson

Liberal 1:30 p.m.

“I want people to know I'm against sexual assault. The member's words upset me. I don't actually have the numbers.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:30 p.m.

“I want to look like I care about sexual assault. I want the bill to pass because it follows the report's main advice and the Conservatives did it before.”

Doug Eyolfson

Liberal 1:30 p.m.

“This justice says to do it my way. I call you names if you question that.”

Jeff Kibble

Conservative 1:30 p.m.

“Is you saying predators get a free pass? Because you won't punish all sexual assaults the same.”

Doug Eyolfson

Liberal 1:30 p.m.

“It's very simple: no military commander should judge any case of sexual assault. All should go to civilian courts. No exceptions.”

Sherry Romanado

Liberal 1:35 p.m.

“You're a good friend. We went to Passchendaele together and you support the military. Do you agree with the ACVA committee recommendation?”

Doug Eyolfson

Liberal 1:35 p.m.

“I don't understand why they changed their minds. They say military culture changed. I don't see the evidence for that.”

Jeff Kibble

Conservative 1:35 p.m.

“I am speaking for military sexual trauma survivors who want choice in their justice system. The other party's bill takes away that choice. We should pass my amendments to keep that choice. If not, many abuse cases will go unreported and unactioned. This is not reform. This is burying the problem.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart, but I also rise with a profound sense of duty, a duty shaped by nearly three decades in uniform, by the survivors who trusted me with their stories and by the communities I represent. I rise not for partisanship, not for theatre, but for the people who have carried burdens far heavier than any of us in this chamber will ever know. I dedicate my words today to the many active members and veterans I have met across Vancouver Island and across Canada. I have spoken with them in legion halls, on bases, in community centres and sometimes in the quiet corners where people finally feel safe enough to share what they have carried for too long. Most importantly, I dedicate my words to the survivors of military sexual trauma who came to committee. Before I go any further, I would like to speak to them directly. They were not obligated to share what they shared. They did not owe us their stories, their pain and their truth, yet they came anyway, carrying memories no one should ever have to carry, because they believed that if Parliament finally listened, something might change for the better. They trusted us with the hardest part of their lives, and that trust is something I will not take lightly. It is not something any of us should take lightly. They asked for one thing: choice. They asked not for privilege, not for special treatment, just the basic human right to choose the justice system where they feel safest, can be heard and can be understood. They asked overwhelmingly, consistently and with courage, and I will not stand by while that courage is dismissed. I also rise today on behalf of all Canadians who expect their institutions to protect the vulnerable, not retraumatize them. I also rise on behalf of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, where I live and which I have the privilege of representing in the House. It is a region with a proud and deep connection to our Canadian Armed Forces. Our communities include many veterans, many serving members and many families whose lives are directly shaped by the culture and conduct of the military. My riding is home to countless individuals who serve or have served at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, one of the largest military installations in the country. It is a base where my wife and I both proudly served, a base that shaped our lives, our understanding of service and our understanding of the sacrifices that military families make every single day. When I speak about this bill, I do not speak in the abstract. I speak for the people I represent and the communities I know. I speak for those who have worn the uniform and those who still do. I speak for survivors across Vancouver Island and across Canada, survivors who trusted us in Parliament to listen. I served nearly three decades in uniform. I was trained as a presiding officer, and I believed I understood the culture of the Canadian Forces, but nothing prepared me for what I learned after meeting my wife, who is also a survivor of military sexual trauma. Through her, I saw parts of our institution that too many never see, or refuse to see. I saw the cost of silence. I saw the cost of inaction. Since I first joined the navy in the 1980s, the culture around sexual misconduct has changed. Yes, there have been positive improvements, but there is still much more to do. If Bill C-11 proceeds without the amendments survivors asked for, without the choices they pleaded for, then not only will we undo decades of progress, but we will reverse them. We will make things worse than we can imagine. At the very heart of the debate is something very simple: choice, the choice for survivors to access either the civilian or the military justice system. It is a choice that already exists, though too few know about it. What we have before us now is a tale of two approaches. On our side of the committee, we have the testimony of survivors, victims, military police, police and legal experts, those who have lived this reality. Their message was overwhelmingly consistent and deeply human. It was, “Do not take away our choice." On the Liberal side is a plan that ignores the evidence, cherry-picks a few quotes and uses one report while ignoring many others and the voices of so many. It dismisses the voices of survivors and disrespects those who came forward at great personal cost. If the government removes these amendments, the consequences will be immediate and unavoidable. There will be institutional trauma and revictimization. There will be anger, despair and a profound sense of betrayal among the survivors who trusted all of us to listen and do right by them. Minor cases will go unaddressed. Major cases will go untried. Civilian police forces, already stretched thin, already under-resourced, will be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb. They will take on only the most serious of sexual assault cases. As for the mid-level and lesser cases, they are outside civilian jurisdiction or capability. There is no plan in Bill C-11 to address those cases. There is nothing. This is a complete failure for future victims but will be seen as a free pass to predators. Members can let that sink in. The government will point to low numbers in the military system and claim success. They are already doing it in the House today. However, only a few major cases will go forward, and the rest will be unreported and unactioned. This is not accountability, and it is not reform. Simply put, this is not justice. This is burying the problem, handing it off and burying the people who trusted us to fix it. I must also address the role of the press. The mainstream media, funded by 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars, has primarily focused on attacking the opposition party and has not covered the survivors' testimony, the amendments we achieved together and the consequences of removing those amendments. Today I challenge the press, directly, to tell this story, interview the survivors, report what they said and explain what is at stake. That is its job. Canadians deserve to know the truth, not the Liberal talking points. Removing choices removes protections. The Liberals have been relying solely on the Arbour report, by someone who refused to testify in committee, and yet have failed to mention the Fish and Deschamps reports, which both speak to the benefits of choice for victims. I want to speak quickly on something I witnessed in committee, something that has stayed with me. As survivors shared their stories, as they spoke about trauma they endured and offered solutions rooted in courage, I looked across the table to members of the party opposite, and I saw a colleague begin to tear up. I saw his humanity. I saw someone who understood deeply the weight of what survivors are telling us. I say this to every member in the House, especially those with family who serve in the military, maybe their sons or daughters: They must hold on to that humanity. They must not let partisanship smother what was felt in that moment. They must not let party discipline override what they know in their hearts to be right. Survivors did not come to us as partisans. They came to us as human beings. They asked all of us to do right by them. Emotions must now be matched with action. Compassion must now be matched with courage. We must listen to the overwhelming evidence of survivors and experts, consider all reports and give survivors the freedom of choice.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:45 p.m.

“I want the other parties to agree with our plan. The government claims it is doing the right thing because of a report. Conservatives are bad for not agreeing with the report.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member is trying to appeal to all members in the strongest way he can. However, the reality is that the government is listening to survivors. The government's actions reinforce reports that have been brought forward. We can talk about the Justice Arbour report. He seemed to be offended that it is the report we reference. In June 2024, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which has representation from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals, recommended the same thing. I would appeal to the Conservatives to listen to all of the victims, like Justice Arbour did, both in confidence and out of confidence. She came up with the recommendation for a reason. Maybe the member could tell us why it is that Conservatives voted—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jeff Kibble

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“The majority of sexual assault cases will go unreported and nothing will be done. That's embarrassing. The government needs to do something about this!”

James Bezan

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“That man's wife is very upset about military sexual trauma. She wants it fixed. Our committee agreed. If you ignore us, you're brushing them off. You'll make them sad all over again.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his service to Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy and his great work in standing up for victims. I first met the member's wife, Angel, who has also been a strong advocate of fighting for the survivors of military sexual trauma, when I was doing town halls across this country on military injuries, including military sexual trauma. Ever since then, she has been fighting for justice. After all of the committee hearings, the member and I and many others here have talked to veterans and current serving members across the country, and, particularly, the brave witnesses who stepped up at the national defence committee to look at Bill C-11 and lay out all their experiences. By the Liberals rejecting their testimony today in this debate, will that revictimize them knowing that the Liberals are brushing everything off?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jeff Kibble

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“Same as handout”

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“I want to bring up a past scandal about the other party's leader to make them look bad.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:50 p.m.

“That makes my party look bad. I want you to take it back.”

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative 1:50 p.m.

“I don't like how the Liberals ignore some crimes. Tell them details about crimes they excuse. I want the government to punish all crimes.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Government Orders

Cheryl Gallant

Sherry Romanado

Cheryl Gallant

Doug Eyolfson

Cheryl Gallant

Doug Eyolfson

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Doug Eyolfson

Jeff Kibble

Doug Eyolfson

Sherry Romanado

Doug Eyolfson

Jeff Kibble

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Jeff Kibble

James Bezan

Jeff Kibble

Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Cheryl Gallant