“The Liberals do not respect democracy or the opposition parties. We worked together to suggest good changes to this bill, but the government rejected them without a good reason.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, like me, my colleague sees the Liberals as having a disregard for democracy. They have no respect for opposition parties, even though we make constructive proposals to improve legislation in the interest of all Canadians. That is what the opposition parties did together. The members opposite are rejecting our proposals out of hand, and we cannot get a rational explanation for it, other than that it seems to be based on an ideology or goodness knows what.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Victims should be able to choose where their cases are heard. Experts told our committee that taking away their choice hurts them and helps the attackers. I am asking my colleague if the Liberals are ignoring victims by rejecting our changes to this military justice bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his service to Canada as a veteran, as a former commanding officer, whose family, his own son, is in the Royal Canadian Navy. My colleague talks about what we heard in testimony from those witnesses. There are more experts on military justice than just the one or two or three justices who have filed reports to the Department of National Defence and to ministers of national defence over the last 12 years. Some of them we heard from in testimony, such as the former director of military prosecutions, retired Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.” Does my colleague believe that what the Liberals are doing, by not listening to the victims and not keeping in place the amendments that multiple parties made together to improve Bill C-11, is again going to empower the perpetrators and undermine the freedom of the victim?”

“Yes. The Liberals ignore victims who speak out. They always ignore victims in our justice system, especially women, instead of helping them get justice.”

“Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty clear: yes. As I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals always turn a deaf ear when victims speak out. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it across the board with respect to the Criminal Code, the justice system, and crimes against women. They have always turned a deaf ear and a blind eye. For our part, we can never understand why this government turns a deaf ear to victims’ problems and does not seek real solutions to help them get justice.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 7 of 100

  Only 7% of this reply directly addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 7 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 →

“The government says military recruitment is up by 30%. I want the member to clarify if that increase is still not enough to replace all the people leaving the military.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of times that the government is very proud of the increase in new recruits signing up to our Canadian Armed Forces. Recruitment has risen by 30%. It obviously was very low up until this point, over the last decade. Can the member clarify what I heard, that those numbers do not even begin to replace the number who have chosen to leave?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The member said the right to choose only matters to women. Men in the armed forces have told me it matters to them too. I want the member to take back what he said.”

“Mr. Speaker, on the right to choose, the member indicated, which I think was somewhat demeaning, that this only applied to women. Obviously, in the armed forces, there are a lot of issues. On this issue, I can attest, from male members of the armed forces having spoken with me, that this is as much an issue to them as it is to women. Would the member like to retract that statement?”

“The Liberals claim to support women, but they ignore women veterans when it hurts them politically. They have a history of firing women who disagree with the Prime Minister, and they are doing the same kind of thing with this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-11 follows what I would call a really troubling pattern of behaviour toward veterans in Canada, especially when it comes to women veterans. This is the same party that proudly claims to be feminist, but it will happily disregard what women are advocating for the second it no longer suits its political agenda. I will remind everyone in this House that it was the Liberals who propped up Justin Trudeau, the self-proclaimed feminist, who would immediately fire any woman from his caucus who dared to stand up to him. It would appear now that Liberals continue to follow in those footsteps. Much has been said already today about we are seeing happen here. [Disturbance in gallery]”

“Women veterans told committees about the abuse they suffered in the military. They suggested changes to this military justice bill, and other parties agreed to them. Now the government is ignoring those ideas and removing the amendments. I want the government to listen to veterans and keep those changes in the bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about it already, but clearly, in the defence committee, a lot of witnesses came forward, like veterans, and in particular, women veterans. They talked a lot about having the ability to choose and how the justice they needed to receive would be done. The Conservatives listened to that. We worked across party lines to see improvements to the bill. The Liberals did not seem to listen so much, which seems to be a pattern. They like to pretend that they care. They are about to have a majority government that they achieved through backroom deals. They think that means that now they do not have to work with others, work across party lines or listen to the victims. Instead, they can just ram through the changes they want to see. Here, they are trying to do what is politically expedient for them, but they are not listening. They are not hearing the concerns that are being raised. I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and fighting for our veterans there. Just a little over a year ago, we tabled what I would consider a landmark study on the experiences of women veterans. That is a study we did over several months. There were about 25 meetings to hear witness testimony. We heard some testimony from women veterans that was absolutely heartbreaking. I know many of the same veterans would have come to speak to the defence committee about the experiences they had, like with military sexual trauma. There are a lot of things that women veterans have experienced during their time in the Canadian Forces, like ill-fitting equipment and other things that are not designed for our women in our military. The Liberals publicly claimed how important this study was for them and how much they cared about this cause. In the end, out of the recommendations that were made, as far as I can tell, the only thing that was acted upon was the idea of creating a women veterans council to advise the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Of course, what we have seen since that time is that the women who were appointed to this committee were telling us that they were not being listened to. They were expressing their frustration. They were expressing concern about the fact that they had no access to the Minister of Veterans Affairs or to the Government of Canada. They simply felt like they were being used for photo ops or as a showpiece. In the end, despite raising these concerns with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and despite many of us raising them at committee, there were still no efforts being made to listen to or address any of the concerns the members of this council were trying to raise. In January of this year, there was a massive resignation of the majority of the members of the women veterans council, because they claimed they were being ignored. We are now seeing that very same thing play out here with the Minister of National Defence. Therefore, after being forced to finally address the issues that were plaguing the Canadian Armed Forces and driving members from its ranks, and after public embarrassment from an Auditor General’s report, only then did the Liberals decide there was a need to address these issues. As I said, many of these same women veterans we heard from at the veterans affairs committee bravely came forward to recount their experiences, to talk once again to a parliamentary committee and face the trauma they experienced. They offered their advice on ways to amend Bill C-11 to ensure that victims of the broken justice system had their voices heard. Of course, the goal was to ensure that the military justice system would learn from its mistakes, so future members of the CAF would not be subjected to the same cruel experiences that they were subjected to. The amendments made in the national defence committee came straight from veterans. Those veterans had been on the receiving end of the failures of the military justice system. They were the same veterans that the Auditor General reported about and who suffered undue hardship under this system. Once again, the Liberals will pretend that this entire initiative is their own doing to support women. Then, as soon as they got their majority, they dropped the charade and completely wiped out some of the amendments that came from the very work of these women who came forward. Not only is this disrespectful to all of those who came forward and all of those who made themselves vulnerable to try to help future CAF members, but it is also a blatant display of disregard by the Liberal government. It is clear that, once again, this is just another “check the box” for them. Rather than trying to fix the issue, it is some kind of a show of pretending they are doing something. First, the Liberals sat on this issue for almost 10 years, while the media exposed case after case. I do not think Canadians are going to forget how long the Liberals buried their heads in the sand to avoid this issue. What is clear now is that the Liberals are going to attempt to ram through this legislation, rather than actually accept the things that were heard and the work that was done across party lines so that we could actually address the issues in the way the veterans were calling for. The disrespect for veterans does not end there. There have been numerous scandals in just the last few years alone where the Liberal government deliberately continues to ignore what veterans are asking for. I think about the Presence in Absence monument. For those who do not know, this is a monument the Liberals funded, which was supposed to honour those who gave their lives in Afghanistan. The Liberals did not do their due diligence and did not ensure that the project was inspected in the right way. It was constructed listing the names of many surviving veterans as killed in action, and other names, of those who actually did lay down their lives, making the ultimate sacrifice, were left off that monument. As we can imagine, survivors and family members of those who were killed in action were furious. The Province of Ontario put forward a motion to Veterans Affairs, just looking for a simple apology, and there was nothing. It is a clear pattern. With the time I have remaining, I will speak briefly about what the Liberals are doing in terms of the $4-billion cuts they are making to Veterans Affairs and what impact that is going to have on veterans. Veterans are screaming out, because they are going to see five-year wait times to get some of their basic benefits as a result of some of these cuts, including to the bureau of pensions advocates and other cuts. It is shocking, disappointing and sad. It just continues on. This is just another example where veterans are being ignored and not listened to, and where they seem to be the last thing the government thinks about or considers. It is not right. Veterans certainly deserve better. What I would say to the government is to think about the veterans who came forward and how much courage it must have taken for them to recount their stories. What needs to be done is to ensure that the recounting of their stories and the bravery they showed to come forward and try to make things better for their fellow future veterans are honoured in a way that involves listening to what was said and acting upon it, rather than just trying to ram through a piece of legislation and trying to pretend that the Liberals have done something by checking a box. The Liberals need to ensure that these veterans, particularly women veterans, have their voices reflected in this. I do not think that is what we are seeing now, when they are refusing to accept some of the amendments. I really hope that, perhaps, after listening to some of this today, the government will take a step back and say that it needs to make sure these voices are heard and work with the things that have been done across party lines to make sure those experiences are reflected in this. I do not see that now.”

“Women veterans told us they need to have a choice. Our changes to this bill give them that choice, but the government is ignoring them. If the government truly cared about veterans, it would listen to them and accept these changes.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I need to remind the member of is that we are hearing, and the committee heard, from veterans, from women veterans, who have come forward, and they are saying that they need to have the choice. That is what the amendments, which the government is ignoring, are seeking to do. The government can stand up and pretend it is listening. It can claim that it cares. If it really cared, it would listen to what we have heard and act upon it. That is what the amendments give the opportunity to do. The second the government thinks it has a majority government and can do whatever it wants, the idea that it would work together to try to work with everyone and do what is in the best interest of veterans is just completely thrown out the window. That is done the very second it thinks it does not have to listen anymore.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 36 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 →

“I want the member to tell us what regular military members have told him about this issue outside of committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the committee and that sort of thing. The hon. member has the role of shadow minister. Could he explain some of the interventions he has had with people outside of the committee, such as the regular forces who have come to him and the everyday experiences he has had, back and forth, with them?”

“Veterans feel the government keeps telling them they ask for too much. Veterans deserve respect and the support they earned by serving our country, but they are not getting it.”

“Mr. Speaker, if I were to really summarize what I hear from veterans all the time, and I hear it frequently, it is probably summarized best in the words of former prime minister Justin Trudeau when he told veterans they were “asking for more than we [can] give”. That is what veterans feel like they are being told by the government, consistently and constantly, that they are asking for more than we can give. Frankly, we can never give enough. Our veterans, who serve the country, who are willing to lay down their lives for the country, deserve to be treated with respect. They deserve to have what they are entitled to for the service they gave to the country. Right now, they are not seeing it and they are expressing their alarm.”

“Veterans risk their lives for Canada when the government asks them to. In return, they expect the government to care for them and listen to them. That is not happening right now. The government needs to give veterans what they deserve.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that anyone here is suggesting that. If we are to talk about workplace safety, let me talk about the workplace our veterans serve in. Our veterans are willing to lay down their lives for this country. They put themselves in the most difficult positions, ones that any of us could never even imagine. They do that because the government asks them to do that. The only thing that they expect in return is that the government takes care of them and listens to what they need. That is not happening under the government. It is about time the government starts listening to veterans and providing what veterans deserve.”