“The Liberals took over ten years to act on sexual misconduct in the military. When this bill went to committee, members from different parties worked together on amendments to improve it, including letting victims choose between the military or civilian justice system. Now the Liberals want to undo those committee amendments and rush the bill through. I want the House to keep the committee's amendments.”

“Mr. Speaker, sexual misconduct in the armed forces is a known long-standing problem. It was known during the previous Conservative government. The previous Conservative government received the Deschamps report, which recommended changes, some of which required legislation, in March of 2015. The report was tabled and its recommendations were accepted just before the 2015 election. If Conservatives had been re-elected in 2015, the legislative changes necessary to address investigations and prosecutions into sexual misconduct would have been taken care of 10 years ago, but that is not how it turned out. The Liberals won the 2015 election. During the entire 42nd Parliament, the Liberals did absolutely nothing. They made literally zero effort to pass the necessary legislation between 2015 and 2019. We have to go through this to really figure out how we got here, when the Liberals are time allocating this bill today, in 2026. During the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals’ main contribution to the issue of sexual misconduct was to cover it up. That is what it did when it touched the highest levels of the chain of command. Some will remember that former defence minister Harjit Sajjan helped cover up known sexual misconduct by the then chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, along with some help from the Trudeau PMO. After the next election, in the 43rd Parliament, the Liberals still did absolutely nothing to implement the Deschamps report. They let new reports pile up, such as the Fish report and the Arbour report, while a succession of senior officers continued to be publicly accused of sexual harassment. Three elections in, the Liberals finally got around to tabling an earlier version of this bill in the spring of 2023. That was eight years after the Deschamps report, and then they made almost no effort to move the bill in the House. It sat there collecting dust on the Order Paper for a whole year before receiving, I believe, exactly one day of debate in the spring of 2024. Some will remember what the Liberals did in the fall of 2024. They sacrificed their entire legislative agenda in defiance of two orders of Parliament. They willingly did so rather than comply with rulings from the Speaker that found prima facie evidence of contempt of Parliament related to the corruption of the green slush fund and the lies told about the disgraced former minister Randy Boissonnault at committee and his conflicts of interest. That lost legislative session ended with the implosion of the Liberal cabinet, the resignation of the then prime minister and the prorogation of Parliament. It ended the Liberals’ attempt, their first attempt, to legislate the changes recommended by Justice Deschamps. Conservatives have always supported, and continue to support, the recommendations contained in the Deschamps report. We agreed with the recommendations when we were in government. Conservatives have continued to agree with them while in opposition during the 42nd Parliament, the 43rd Parliament, the 44th Parliament and, now, the 45th Parliament. When the Liberals finally called this bill, Bill C-11, last December, on a Friday, Conservatives allowed it to pass at second reading without even one full day of debate. Now we have the amendments. The amendments we are debating are the result of the defence committee’s work earlier this year. The defence committee heard brave, courageous testimony from victims of sexual assault, abuse and harassment within the armed forces. They heard about traumatic, harrowing experiences. The testimony that was heard at the defence committee was given serious consideration. The appropriate jurisdiction of investigations and prosecution is not a simple question. It is true that Justice Arbour recommended that all cases be referred to the civilian system, but it is also true that many victims expressed a variety of concerns about access to justice within the civilian system. That is why Conservatives and Bloc MPs, even the NDP, all recommended that the best way to give victims their best shot at receiving justice is to allow the victim to choose which system makes the most sense in their particular case. The simplicity of this recommendation speaks for itself. There have been other inquiries and studies done at the defence committee, and none of the inquiries, the studies or parliamentary reports disagreed that there are barriers to justice within a system where the victim and the accused are part of the same chain of command. Nobody is disputing this. However, as was pointed out by witnesses during the committee’s study, the civilian system is also riddled with barriers to justice for victims. Official languages is an issue if a member cannot get service in the official language of their choice in the provincial system of where they are stationed. Delay is another one. That is why the committee recommended choice. It would not be forcing anybody to have their case studied within the military system. It would be giving choice. During this committee study, no party had a majority. All the MPs worked together, regardless of their party affiliation. There were many amendments proposed, and there was very powerful and compelling testimony that drove these amendments. That is what Parliament is all about: hearing from the witnesses at committee and working together to recommend improvement to the legislation. That is good opposition politics. That is good government party politics. However, we know that now everything has changed. The Liberals have a majority, and they have already demonstrated the contempt they hold for opposition MPs and for ideas other than their own. In its arrogance and unbridled hubris, the Liberal government is ignoring the wisdom born of co-operation and collaboration. There were 14 amendments, which were all supported by multiple parties, and now the Liberals are intent on ramming the bill through, after spending almost 11 years failing to introduce and pass it. The member for Nunavut, in particular, contributed to the bill in a very meaningful, important way. This is what Canadians want. Her party did not even have a seat at the committee table, but she as an MP produced a good, sound, principled amendment that was debated and adopted at committee. Canadians say they want their elected representatives to be open-minded. They want them to work together and want them to respect and co-operate with each other. That is what the defence committee members did. They took seriously the amendments offered by an MP who did not even have a vote at the committee. However, between the clause-by-clause review at the committee and the present, today, when the Liberals now have a majority and have used time allocation to curtail debate on this, the member for Nunavut has crossed the floor and joined the Liberal caucus. She had a history of principled opposition to government. She was one of the few NDP members who remembered that her duty was to oppose the government and not to hold the opposition party to account. I hope the member for Nunavut will remember this and will not end up opposing her own contribution to the bill, because she proposed the amendment that would allow choice and flexibility in cases of sexual misconduct in the military. She was doing her job, so now that she sits on the Liberal benches, I hope she will actually follow through and support her own amendment. The member for Nunavut is not the only one. There are other members who have crossed the floor. We now see the Liberals and their true colours: power at all costs and control at all costs, with power concentrated entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s contempt for Parliament as an institution is becoming obvious to all. I am actually concerned about his limited civic literacy, when he speaks in English and calls other MPs his deputies, and when he sets up photo op signings, pretending to sign bills into law. It is almost as if he needed to be told that it is actually the Governor General who signs laws, not him; that she does so only after they have been agreed to by a majority of members of Parliament, of both Houses of Parliament; and that none of those members in either chamber are his deputies. I am disappointed that the government took 11 years to deal with a well-known and long-standing problem and that it is proposing to gut this bill after such clear and powerful committee testimony. I supported the bill in principle and sending it to the defence committee. I support the conclusions of the defence committee, which made important amendments to fix the bill. I oppose the Liberals’ attempts to undo the committee’s work by gutting the amendments today.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “his limited civic literacy”.

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister calls his members of Parliament his deputies, as if they only work for him. MPs are elected by Canadians. None of us work for the Prime Minister.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the member completely missed the point. I was not speaking of the Prime Minister’s use of French or English. I was talking about his use of the English word “deputy” when clearly characterizing his MPs as his deputies. The Prime Minister thinks that the MPs of his party are his deputies, just there to do his work. However, they are elected by the people of Canada. All MPs are elected by the people of Canada. Nobody is the Prime Minister’s deputy around here.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 29 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 disagree with what the government is doing. Members of Parliament from different parties worked together on a committee to make good changes to this bill. Now the government is undoing that work just because it can.”

“Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with what the government is doing, and I thank the member for the way he put it. That is exactly what we have seen and what is happening today. The government is undoing the work of a parliamentary committee that did good work on behalf of Canadians. MPs from different parties co-operated with each other and produced sound, principled amendments to deal with a real problem, and now the Liberals are undoing that work because they can.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals ignored past reports on military sexual misconduct and covered up bad behaviour. Experts and veterans told our committee that victims should have choices in the justice system. The Liberals are relying on only one report by a judge who refused to speak to our committee. They should listen to veterans and military experts instead of pushing their own agenda.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to do a bit of a recap on the history, including pointing out the fact that in 2014 when sexual misconduct was becoming a major issue, the previous Conservative government commissioned Justice Deschamps to write a report. That report then sat on the desk of the former Liberal minister Harjit Sajjan, who was in the process of trying to cover up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance. The Liberals would rather cover things up than deal with the issues, and they ignored the nine great recommendations from Justice Deschamps. As a point of interest, I note that Justice Deschamps showed up at the committee’s study on Bill C-11. The Liberals always talk about Justice Fish’s appearing. He appeared as well and also submitted a written submission. All of them said that choice is an option. The only justice who did not show up and whom the Liberals continue to use as their shield is Justice Arbour. She did not show up at the committee to defend her report, and that report has now been discredited by the testimony we heard from veterans, including in the military justice system. Why will the Liberals not listen to veterans and military experts rather than try to push through on their own political agenda?”

“I do not know why the Liberals are ignoring reports and witnesses about military sexual assault. Nobody recommends keeping sexual misconduct cases in the military justice system. The government has spent 11 years failing to pass laws to solve this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why. The member is asking why the Liberals are choosing to ignore all the testimony and the substance of all three reports. Nobody is saying that sexual assault and misconduct cases must stay within the military justice system. Nobody is recommending that. I have no idea why they are ignoring all the witness testimony they heard and why they spent 11 years not dealing with and solving the problem with legislation to deal with sexual misconduct in the armed forces.”

“Our soldiers deserve a military justice system that protects them. Victims of sexual misconduct in the military told our committee that they want to choose whether their cases go to a civilian court or a military court. The opposition parties worked together to change this bill so survivors get that choice. The government is ignoring those changes and forcing all cases into the civilian system instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are bills that come before the House that are routine, and there are bills that remind us why we are here. Bill C-11 is one of the latter. When Canadians put on a uniform, they place their safety and their very life in our hands, and we owe it to them to create a justice system that is deserving of that trust. Today we have an actual chance to deliver one, but it seems throughout this entire debate that the government is choosing not to. The legislation before us tries to address one of the most serious and sensitive issues facing our country: delivering justice for victims of misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Let me begin by clearly stating that Conservatives are proud of the brave men and women who serve in uniform. They put their life on the line for Canada, and they deserve a workplace that is safe, respectful and worthy of that dedication, even after 11 years of the Liberals’ not doing anything about it. Just as clearly, every victim of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces deserves timely justice, real accountability and, above all, respect. After successive failures of Liberal governments that have been outlined by my colleagues in the House, the victims are still waiting. This bill is virtually identical to Bill C-66, which died in Parliament when Parliament was prorogued in January 2025. Its recommendations trace back to two independent reports by former Supreme Court justices delivered in 2021. Four years later, survivors are still waiting for a system they can trust. These are the failures we are confronting today. In the last year alone, just to put it in context, the sexual misconduct support and resource centre received over 1,400 calls, of which 588 were related to military sexual trauma. That is not an abstraction. That is real Canadian soldiers, sailors and aviators who have been consistently failed by the system. Conservatives approached this bill seriously and constructively. We studied it carefully at committee. We listened to survivors and experts. We worked across party lines with colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP to improve the bill in a very meaningful way. One thing we heard over and over again from the people who have lived through this system was the importance of choice. It was actually brought up by a member who has since decided to sit on the Liberal benches. Choice matters, because at the heart of the matter, it is about a compassionate, effective system with a simple principle: Survivors must have agency over their own path in justice. We heard it over and over again at committee and over and over again from survivors. It is like with any other Canadian, any other patient, who is choosing their own doctor. Nobody should tell them, and nobody should tell a survivor, which system and which doctor they should use. However, the government’s original approach to the legislation would have done exactly that, the opposite of what we are talking about here. It seems that it is going to dig in its heels and go with that, despite all the work that was done in committee, despite the legislative process working as it should, and despite all the survivors sitting in front of the committee and telling us exactly what they needed in order to have trust in this system. The bill, before the amendments, would have transferred all sexual assault offences to the civilian justice system, without exception and without survivor inputs. A survivor and veteran told the committee that Bill C-11, as originally drafted, would remove choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. That survivor, that veteran, was not the only one who said that. I want to say something in the House, because I think people will listen. This is the exact definition of paternalism, real, actual paternalism as we see it in our system today. It is not the kind of empowerment that is needed to hold trust in a system. Advocates and survivors have also raised concerns about moving cases into an already strained civilian justice system. We know that both systems have strengths and both have weaknesses. We heard that at committee. However, survivors told us clearly that some prefer others, while others prefer a system that works for them, so the committee made that change. Despite putting that bill forward, with agreement from all three other parties and the witness testimony, the government is choosing to turn its back on it and present the original form of the bill that does not incorporate those changes. For a government that has talked a big game about listening to survivors particularly, in this case, women in the military, after ignoring them for so many years, it is dumbfounding why it would not listen in this case and would go ahead with the very system that they said does not work for survivors. Through these amendments, the committee secured the right for survivors to choose which justice system their case would proceed in. Again, this would be a fundamental shift toward respecting that autonomy, an autonomy the government said it holds dear. It is not just a procedural tweak. Witness after witness confirmed this to the committee. Witness after witness stood in front of members who now sit on the Liberal benches and agreed with these committee members who went out of their way to make that change. We also worked to strengthen accountability in the system. We introduce timelines for key appointments, because under the current government critical roles in the military and justice systems have been left vacant for months.”