Government Orders

Bill C-11, Military Justice System Modernization Act · Report stage · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law removes the military's authority to investigate or try sexual offences under the Criminal Code that are alleged to have taken place in Canada. It alters appointment processes for military prosecutors, defence counsel, and the provost marshal, who is renamed the Provost Marshal General. The law also expands who can become a military judge, removes those judges from the summary hearing system, and lets people acting for victims request a liaison officer.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

122 statements

Cheryl Gallant, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke

Conservative
“We should listen to victims who disagree with these recommendations. Moving cases out of the military system harms the accused and means civilian court delays might stop victims from ever getting justice.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who does yeoman’s duty with different cases serving the armed forces. We heard from many people, but we need to listen to what the victims said that did not align with what is in the recommendations. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to accuse people who are named in a snitch line and then have to face a court. When a case is taken out of the military system, there is no support for the accused, and there is no guarantee that there is going to be any sense of justice for the victim, because their case may never be heard. The Jordan framework may require that the case be put aside altogether.

Sherry Romanado, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Liberal
“A House committee studied women in the military and heard from over 100 witnesses. All parties agreed that sexual crimes in the military should be investigated and prosecuted by civilian police and courts, not the military. This bill does that.”
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.

Cheryl Gallant, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke

Conservative

Linked statement

“Civilian courts are already too full to handle sexual assault cases. Trials take too long, so offenders walk free.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the civilian courts are full. Already, cases of sexual assault in the civilian domain are not being heard, because too much time expires between a case’s starting and its coming to trial, so the perpetrator gets off scot-free.

Doug Eyolfson, Winnipeg West

Liberal
“I support this bill. It permanently moves the investigation and trial of sexual offences in the military to civilian police and courts, as an independent report recommended. I oppose the opposition amendments because they try to undo this change.”
  • 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
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.

Cheryl Gallant, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke

Conservative
“The member said military sexual assault cases are now sent to civilian courts. I want to know how many were sent, how many have been heard, and how many are still waiting. I also want to know what happens to cases like groping that civilian courts might not take.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member said that all the sexual assault cases since a certain date have been transferred to the civilian courts. I wonder if he knows how many have been transferred, and of those, how many have been heard, how many are still waiting to be heard, and what happens to the so-called low-level sexual assaults of groping that will not meet the threshold to be heard in civilian court.

Doug Eyolfson, Winnipeg West

Liberal
“Sexual assault is always serious. I do not have the exact numbers, but all these cases are now being handled by civilian courts, just as Justice Arbour recommended.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am appalled by the member’s use of the term “low-level sexual assaults”. Sexual assault is sexual assault. With respect to numbers, no, I am not privy to the actual numbers of cases, but we do know that all these cases are being tried, as per Justice Arbour’s recommendation, by the civilian courts.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“This bill follows an expert report that says military sexual assault cases should move to regular civilian courts. I am asking the member to support this change, just like the Conservatives did two years ago.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member’s comment that a sexual assault is a sexual assault. I think that does need to be reinforced. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to seek the best advice possible. The Arbour report contained 48 recommendations, I believe, the vast majority of which have been implemented. The essence of its primary recommendation is in the bill, which is to convert from the military system to the civilian system. Given Justice Arbour’s efforts, would the member not agree that we should be abiding by that recommendation, as the Conservatives did just two years ago?

Doug Eyolfson, Winnipeg West

Liberal
“I agree that cases like this should only be handled in regular civilian courts. An expert former Supreme Court judge recommended this after talking to hundreds of victims and witnesses. Other members should stop dismissing her work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the hon. member that this was Justice Arbour’s core recommendation. I am rather disheartened to hear a pattern of members’ trying to diminish the results of Justice Arbour by saying, “by this one justice”. It is part of a greater and very disturbing trend of demeaning and diminishing the results of experts and of using “expert” as a pejorative. Justice Arbour was a former Supreme Court justice who talked to hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of victims, and determined that the best course of action would be for these cases to be tried solely by civilian courts.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“Civilian police cannot handle lower-level sexual assaults because they do not have the time or the legal power. This bill does not fix that. What is your plan to deal with these assaults so attackers are held accountable?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, while the member opposite may feel that those definitions are distasteful, there are legal definitions and requirements for levels of sexual assault, and frankly put, the civilian police authorities will not deal with mid and lower levels. They do not have the capacity. It is outside the jurisdiction. Does the member opposite feel that predators will have a free pass because they know mid- and lower-level sexual assaults will never be dealt with? They are not within the plan of Bill C-11. This has never been addressed. What is your solution to have mid- and lower-level sexual assaults addressed?

Doug Eyolfson, Winnipeg West

Liberal
“All sexual assault cases in the military should be handled by regular civilian courts. This keeps the trials fair and free from military influence.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, again, I say sexual assault is sexual assault. We have a justice system that is outside the chain of command. It is outside any coercion and outside any influence on the career of the Canadian Armed Forces member. There is no place for grading these levels of sexual assault. Again, all cases of sexual assault need to be tried in the civilian system.

Sherry Romanado, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Liberal
“A House committee made this same recommendation less than two years ago. I want to know what the member thinks about that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I actually travelled together to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. I know his commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces is one that is incredibly supportive. I just want to ask him what his thoughts are on the fact that the ACVA committee made the same recommendation, for us to do this, not even two years ago.

Doug Eyolfson, Winnipeg West

Liberal
“I do not understand why the other members supported this idea two years ago but oppose it now. They say military culture has changed, but they have no proof.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I do not get the disconnect, why this was accepted by the committee two years ago and what the change of heart has been. I hear statements that it is different because military culture has changed, but what evidence do they have of this?

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“I want this bill amended. Victims of military sexual trauma should be allowed to choose between the civilian justice system and the military justice system. Forcing all cases into civilian courts will overwhelm regular police and leave many victims without justice.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 26 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
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.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Our government is listening to survivors and following independent reports. An all-party committee made the same recommendation as Justice Arbour. I want the Conservatives to listen to the victims too.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
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—

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. It will leave most sexual assault cases in the military unreported and unsolved, and it fails victims who want a choice.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, again, the Arbour report did not look at what is in Bill C-11, which simply would leave the majority of sexual assault cases undealt with, unreported and unactioned. It is not even in Bill C-11. Therefore, regardless of what the Arbour report says or all of the other reports, the majority of victims and reports support choice. Bill C-11 and the Liberal Party would fail our military in the future. As I directly pointed out, the majority of cases would go unresolved, unreported and unactioned, and that is an embarrassing failure.

James Bezan, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman

Conservative
“Many victims of sexual trauma in the military spoke to our committee. The Liberals are ignoring their testimony today. Will that hurt these victims 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?

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“This bill will harm victims of sexual assault and leave most cases unsolved. We should pass our changes to the bill instead, so victims have a choice.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 30 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 31 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the amazing work he has done over the many years. Simply put, yes, it will retraumatize them. I started receiving numerous phone calls last night. They came flooding in. It will retraumatize victims now and in the future. Simply put, the amendments that we have put forward would make this work. The victims want the choice, and we are supporting them based on fact, emotion and support. Clearly, a bill that would not address the majority of sexual assault cases and let them go unresolved would be a partisan decision that no sane human would vote for.

Cheryl Gallant, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke

Conservative
“The Liberals let people get away with assault. Even the Prime Minister dismissed claims that he groped someone.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to low- and mid-level assaults and the Liberals getting away with it. We had a prime minister who was a known groper and he just wrote it off, saying he felt it differently or she felt it differently. I am wondering if this is what—

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The member called a prime minister a groper. That is inappropriate language for the House. I want the member to take the comment back or apologize.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the member said we had a known prime minister who was a groper. It is highly inappropriate and definitely unparliamentary to make assertions of that nature, and I would ask that you have the member either apologize or retract the comment, at the very least.

Cheryl Gallant, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke

Conservative
“I want the member to give examples of smaller assaults and explain why the military must deal with them instead of ignoring them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberals are having a hard time understanding why it is so important that even the low- and mid-level assaults be addressed. Could the member give examples of what this entails and why they should not just be let go?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 109

  1. Government Orders Government Orders 122 statements
  2. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  3. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 3 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 7 statements
  6. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Small Business 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions International Trade 10 statements
  14. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Mental Health and Addictions 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Pharmacare 3 statements
  21. Oral Questions Business of the House 3 statements
  22. Government Orders Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders 64 statements
  23. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  24. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  25. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  26. Oral Questions Finance 3 statements
  27. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  28. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  29. Private Members' Business National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act 12 statements
  30. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  31. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  32. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements