“I want to limit debate on this military justice bill. We should spend only one more day on the report stage and one day on the final vote.”

“moved: That in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.”

“The Conservatives did nothing to fix the military justice system when they were in power. We introduced this bill to change military culture and protect national security. It follows advice from two former Supreme Court judges, experts, and victims. Most importantly, it takes sexual offence cases away from the military so civilian courts handle them instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleagues for being here to debate this important issue. I would remind the member across the floor that for 10 years Mr. Harper did nothing about this issue. The Conservatives did not bring a single proposed legislative amendment or change to the whole question of this regime. What we have decided is that delivering culture change is not only the right thing to do, but it is critical for our operational needs for national security. It is not a partisan issue, as hard as he would like to make it so. My colleague does not recall that we introduced Bill C-11 to codify in law key recommendations from two distinguished judges of the Supreme Court, justices Arbour and Fish, and to rebuild victims’ and survivors’ trust in the Canadian Armed Forces. Most importantly, Justice Arbour’s fifth recommendation calls for the removal of Canadian Armed Forces jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences. Through Bill C-11, we would be implementing this recommendation exactly as we promised. What we heard from former Supreme Court justices Fish and Arbour, as well as from the chief of the defence staff, military justice experts, victims and survivors, is that these changes are long overdue.”

“The opposition's changes to this bill were ruled out of order, so we are moving forward with it. This bill updates the military justice system and helps victims and survivors in the Canadian Armed Forces.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. We went through a process in committee, an important process. I appeared on this bill. Unfortunately, virtually every substantive amendment put forward by the opposition parties has been ruled out of order by the Speaker’s office. As a result of that, we are in the position now where we are, basically, moving forward. There is a lot at stake here for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. The discussion around political interference is just unfortunate talk. The important thing here is that we are going to be making changes to address long-standing concerns raised by victims and survivors of the Canadian Armed Forces community. It is a suite of targeted amendments to modernize the military justice system.”

“We introduced this bill to update the military justice system. A former judge said these big changes would take a few years, and that is where we are now. I hope we can make progress on it today.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a question of opportunity. We introduced the bill and reintroduced it in the House of Commons. It went through the normal process, and it was Justice Arbour herself who predicted that it would take a few years to bring about fundamental changes. That is exactly where we are now. The hon. member knows this; he is aware of the situation, and we hope to make progress today.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill makes several big changes. It gives civilian police and courts the power to investigate and prosecute sexual crimes in Canada, not the military. It creates an officer to support victims when cases are transferred. It also makes key military justice officials more independent.”

“Mr. Speaker, it gives me an opportunity to talk a little more about what is in the bill. We would be codifying in law that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer have jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. We would be codifying in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction for investigating and prosecuting these Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. We would be establishing a victim liaison officer to be provided to victims throughout the transfer of cases, regardless of jurisdiction. We would be elevating the role of key justice actors to increase their independence, among other fundamental changes, which I know my colleague, as a lawyer, understands would be important in strengthening not only that justice be seen to be done, but that it actually be done.”

“Experts and military leaders spoke to thousands of victims and soldiers. They found that people do not trust the military justice system because commanders interfere in sexual misconduct cases.”

“Mr. Speaker, Justices Arbour and Fish conducted extensive outreach and consultations with victims, survivors, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, their families, military justice experts and constitutional experts to get this right. In fact, the chief of the defence staff, General Jennie Carignan, in her previous role as chief of personnel and professional conduct, also undertook extensive consultations with over 14,000 individuals. What Justice Arbour, Justice Fish and the chief of the defence staff heard, and revealed in their reports, is that there is a lack of trust in the military justice system, in large part due to instances of real and perceived interference from the chain of command into sexual misconduct matters.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We need to pass this bill to move cases from military courts to civilian courts. Experts and the public have studied and debated this for a long time. Does the minister agree that the House must pass it?”

“Mr. Speaker, it is really important for us to recognize that former Supreme Court Justice Arbour put in a great deal of effort. She consulted and listened to hundreds, if not thousands, of direct or indirect opinions on the issue. The core of the issue is the transfer of cases from the military courts to the civilian courts. This has been in the works now for a while. There have been all sorts of debates and discussion, whether at second reading or in the standing committee. There are those in the chamber who would never see this legislation pass. Does the minister not agree that the principle of the legislation is being supported in such a way that the legislation needs to pass in the House of Commons?”

“I want this bill to pass. It ensures sexual crimes in the military are investigated and tried only in regular civilian courts, not military courts. This will help victims and rebuild trust.”

“Mr. Speaker, after a year-long review of DND and CAF, Justice Arbour said this: “the handling of sexual misconduct by military justice has eroded trust and morale” among the organization. She recommended in recommendation five that the civilian system be given exclusive jurisdiction. We agree. Bill C-11 would address her recommendation five, that Criminal Code sexual offences alleged against CAF members in Canada should be investigated and prosecuted exclusively in the civilian system. Military justice experts tell us this would provide greater legal clarity, greater legal certainty, to all actors in the justice system and would better serve victims and survivors. My colleague is right. We have to get this done on behalf of the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes the military justice system more independent from military commanders, based on reviews by experts. It will protect our troops from harassment and bad behavior.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have had the chance to visit Cold Lake. The member has voted against every military investment, including $4 billion for that base. She has had a chance. Bill C-11 would bolster trust in the military justice system by providing, as I said, legal clarity, as recommended by Justice Arbour. It would enhance the independence of key military justice actors, as recommended by former Justice Fish. For example, by elevating positions of key military justice actors to Governor in Council appointees, we would insulate them from real or perceived influence from the chain of command. The brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces are always there to keep Canada safe. It is our obligation, all of us in this House, to keep them safe from harassment and misconduct.”

“This bill builds trust in the military. Since 2021, all military sexual crimes have been handled by regular civilian police and courts. Making this the official law will give everyone more certainty.”

“As I mentioned a moment ago, which I will repeat for the member’s benefit, Mr. Speaker, this is entirely about trust. It is about trust for the women and men in our armed forces today, for them to know that when it comes to Criminal Code sexual offences, they will be prosecuted and investigated on the outside of the department and the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, that has been the case since the fall of 2021. The member may not be aware that every new case has been referred to the civilian courts since the fall of 2021. As a result, we are seeing progress, trust is enhanced, and were we to formalize this, it would give us more clarity and certainty.”

“Moving military sexual offence cases to civilian courts is hard work. We are making deals with the provinces to help them handle these extra cases. We already made a deal with Ontario and are working with the others.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member raises an important question. We recognize that the transfer of Criminal Code sexual offence cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system is a complex process. That is exactly why we are signing memoranda of understanding with the provinces. It is to make sure they have the means to deal with those additional cases. We have already signed a successful memorandum of understanding with the Province of Ontario, and work is ongoing with other provinces.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We have already been sending these cases to civilian courts since 2021. We have followed almost all of Justice Arbour's advice to fix the military culture. Blocking this change would undo that progress, and we will not do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member omits to tell the Canadian people watching the debate that as of the fall of 2021, all of these cases have been sent to civilian courts. He cannot have it both ways. There has been important progress and tangible changes since 2021. This is precisely because the interim directive that put Justice Arbour’s recommendation five into place in a temporary manner, until such time as legislation could be passed through the House, continues. Work on cultural evolution inside the CAF has continued. We have now implemented 47 of Justice Arbour’s 48 recommendations. To block Arbour’s recommendation five would be to undo the progress of the past five years. We do not have the intention of doing that. I think the member knows this is the right way to proceed. I put my trust in the work of Madam Justice Arbour, Mr. Justice Fish and, for that matter, the chief of the defence staff.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “We have implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“We should pass this bill now. Most of the proposed changes were already ruled out of order. This bill moves sexual offence cases involving military members to civilian courts, and it acts on independent advice to fix our military justice system.”

“Mr. Speaker, a large majority of these amendments were ruled out of order by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is not exactly helpful. In recent years, we have made considerable progress towards bringing about significant and lasting cultural change, notably by working to implement 47 of Justice Arbour’s 48 recommendations. This bill proposes transformative measures to transfer the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences allegedly committed in Canada by members of the CAF to the civilian system. This bill also implements Justice Fish’s key recommendations aimed at strengthening the military justice system. Now is the right time to move forward.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We have supported the military with more money and more recruits. This bill is important, and I am disappointed the Conservatives now want to delay it so it does not pass.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize how we have enhanced our military, whether it is increasing their budget to 2% of GDP or providing support for CAF members. Just recently the minister made an announcement of 7,000-plus new applications to join the forces. It is all about credibility. The minister sees the value of bringing forward this legislation. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party of Canada is now in opposition to it. It is interesting, because two weeks ago I did not hear the Conservatives crying about it or saying that they were going to oppose the legislation. It is coming back to the House and now they have taken the position of having the full intention of debating it endlessly so that it does not pass. My question is for the minister. In terms of continuity and reinforcing confidence in the forces, this is one of the reason why—”

“We are investing in the military and fixing its justice system. We need to make sure the legal system is independent and protects the people serving in our armed forces.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have made a decision. We are going to be rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces. Inherent in that rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting is the important question of bolstering trust in the military justice system by providing legal clarity, as recommended by Justice Arbour, and by enhancing the independence of key military justice actors, as recommended by former Justice Fish. We are moving forward. The member makes an important point. The Canadian Armed Forces and all the work that we are doing there begins with our people. We need to make sure they can work in a safe, transparent, robust workplace. If there are challenges, members of the armed forces need to know that the legal system that is there to protect them will in fact work.”

“We are quickly spending more money on defence. We are giving soldiers a raise, recruiting more people, and investing in military bases and the Arctic. The problem is that the opposition voted against all of this.”

“Mr. Speaker, no, that is not what he meant. What he meant was we would reach 2% of our GDP spending in 10 months. We would get members of our Canadian Armed Forces a significant pay raise in less than six months. We would increase recruitment by 61%, year over over. We would be making billions of dollars of investment in our 33 bases. We would extend our presence in Latvia for three more years, with 3,000 members in a forward operating location. We would announce $40 billion for investments in the Arctic, including for northern operational support hubs. We are moving at breakneck speed. The problem is that, in every one of those cases, the opposition has voted against.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It changes how the military handles sexual crimes. It takes the power to investigate and prosecute these crimes away from the military.”

“Mr. Speaker, bringing about a cultural shift is not only the right thing to do; it is also essential to meeting our operational needs in the area of national security. This is not at all a partisan issue, and the member knows it. We introduced Bill C-11 to enshrine the main recommendations of Justices Arbour and Fish in the legislation and to restore victims’ and survivors’ confidence in the armed forces. Justice Arbour’s fifth recommendation involves removing the Canadian Armed Forces’ jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences. That is exactly what we have proposed and that is exactly what we we are doing. We hope to have our colleagues’ support.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Victims should not have to choose between civilian courts and military courts. Making them choose is unfair, stressful, and military leaders could interfere with the case. We are following the advice of a former Supreme Court judge.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are taking our lead from Madam Justice Arbour, one of our most distinguished Supreme Court of Canada justices. Here is really what is at stake: Victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself called a victim’s choice between military and civilian courts “a false choice”. This is because we would be placing a burden on a victim in a time of high stress, trauma and in fact duress to choose between two unequal options. Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“Victims should not have to choose between military and civilian courts. Making them choose is unfair, especially when military leaders might interfere in a military court case.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will repeat myself in French for my colleague’s benefit. Victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself described a victim’s choice between military and civilian courts as a false choice. I want to emphasize the word “false”. Indeed, that would amount to placing a burden on the victim of having to choose between two unequal options, all at a time of stress and trauma. Ultimately, asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the House to pass this bill to build trust in the military justice system. It is based on major reviews and talks with thousands of people.”

“Mr. Speaker, maybe in conclusion I could remind the member that the chief of the defence staff, in her previous position, spoke to 14,000 individuals. I am not sure where he is deriving his numbers from. As a result of that as well, Madam Justice Arbour actually conducted one of the deepest commissions of inquiry in this whole area. The member knows better than to hurl this kind of invective. It is not like him. As a result of that, I think what we should do is remind ourselves that this is about enhancing trust. That is what Bill C-11 will do and that is why we are moving forward.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 39 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →