TranslatePolitics.ca

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 3:40 p.m.

“I worked hard to improve this bill in committee. Now it looks like the government might ignore all our changes and just pass the original version instead. That would skip all the amendments we passed to help survivors and make the accountability system stronger. I want the government to change its mind and accept our improvements. This isn't about making life better for politicians, it's about making life better for the people who serve in the military.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue from where I left off. The bill in question now addresses the appointment process for the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, positions that the court justices specifically identified as needing independence from the chain of command. We also added consequences for unreasonable delays in transferring evidence. We strengthened the independence of legal actors so that prosecutions are fair and impartial. We improved supports for victims, including the ability to request a victim liaison officer when trust breaks down because, in these cases, that is very much the currency. We addressed the fairness for the accused ensuring access to defence counsel, regardless of which system hears the case. I think that is the most important change. We included the clause for future review because these changes must be monitored, they must be measured and they must be revisited when it is necessary or when they do not work. Taken together, these amendments represent a serious effort to fix what is broken and to build a system that is more responsive, more accountable and certainly more just. However, these amendments have to be approved by this House and it seems that they are not even going to be considered. We did all of that work in committee for them to not even be considered by the government. That is not really how it is supposed to work. Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that these changes are all necessary, but the Liberals have the power to strip these amendments, and that is really what is at the crux of this conversation today. In doing so, they would weaken the accountability of this bill, they would ignore the voices of survivors, and they would remove the very improvements that the victims themselves asked this Parliament to make. We certainly hope they will reconsider, because without these changes, it is not about making life better for those who serve. It would be about making life better for the politicians and the bureaucrats who oversee this, and it is a very different thing. The men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces do not work a nine to five. They serve without limit, and we owe them this in return. I urge every member of this House, including the members who now sit in the opposite benches who worked on this piece of legislation in committee, to reconsider, to stand with survivors and to support the brave men and women in uniform today and every day in this country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 3:45 p.m.

“I want people in the military to know that the other party is rejecting changes to the bill that military members and victims asked for. The Liberals are ignoring the amendments that their own members made in committee. The judge who wrote the report didn't even show up to the committee. The Liberals waited 11 years to make these changes. Now they're ignoring what the House and the military wants.”

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 3:45 p.m.

“The other party is acting too bossy and controlling with their fake majority. Canadians will notice this pattern.”

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 3:50 p.m.

“The other party is bad. I claim they don't really support our military. I'm angry and want more changes to the bill.”

Fraser Tolmie

Conservative 4:05 p.m.

“I'm sad the government isn't listening to our work. I want the minister to listen to victims and the committee.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was actually going to ask my colleague a question there. I did my officer training in her riding of Saint-Jean. It is a beloved area in my life. Some of that I wanted to forget, because of the gruelling training, but I do appreciate my colleague's speech, her passion for our military and her passion for Quebec. The motto of la belle province is Je me souviens or I remember. I apologize about my French, but I am practising and I have to overcome my own fear. I will do that by speaking with my French colleagues. I want to talk about what the Minister of National Defence tabled last week, and why it matters to people who trusted the House to get it right. The minister tabled report stage amendments that would undo months not just of Conservative work but of committee work. Bloc and Conservative members of the Standing Committee on National Defence sat together, listened to witnesses and built something worth passing. The minister swept it away. Not satisfied with tabling the amendments last week, the government has now moved time allocation to limit how long the House can even discuss them. Survivors came forward twice and made themselves vulnerable twice. I have been asked to speak to the bill because of the work I have done on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In the last Parliament, ACVA undertook the largest study in its history. It held 23 meetings, with nearly 100 witnesses, with respect to the experience of women veterans. In Parliament we are studying suicide prevention, and in many meetings, MST surfaces as a driver for suicide. The two files are not separate. As part of both studies, the committee undertook dedicated work on trauma-informed practices, what trauma does to memory, to reporting and to the way survivors present themselves in institutional settings. I do not raise this to claim expertise. I raise it because I find myself wondering whether the officials who drafted these report stage amendments, or the members now standing to defend them, have spent comparable time in those rooms. Many of the women who spent months testifying before the veterans affairs committee later came before the national defence committee to speak directly to the bill. They showed up twice. They made themselves vulnerable twice. The minister's amendments are his response. The cross-party amendments to clauses 7 and 8 would give survivors the right to choose which justice system handled their case, military or civilian. That reflected what witnesses asked for directly. Donna Van Leusden told the committee: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill...survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor‑centred. She is right, and she is not alone. The provost marshal general testified that over the last five years, 270 out of 735 files stayed with the military police because victims specifically asked for them to stay there. That is more than one-third of all cases. These are real people making an informed choice. The minister's amendments would eliminate choice entirely. Regarding civilian capacity, the picture is equally concerning. Sexual assault cases exceeding the Jordan framework deadline limits rose from just over 15% in 2016-17 to more than 30% in 2022-23. Nearly half of those cases were stayed or the files withdrawn. The civilian system is struggling with its existing caseload. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was direct in its written submission. It said that the proposed provisions would deny victims the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint is investigated. This departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing. CACP recommended maintaining concurrent jurisdiction. The people who would be executing this mandate said it would not work. The minister made his amendments anyway. It is worth noting what the minister acknowledged at committee: He has not spoken to Justice Arbour, Justice Fish or Justice Deschamps on this file. When asked how many victims his office consulted when drafting the bill, he said that he would have to get back to the committee. He had not spoken to any provincial justice ministers since taking the portfolio. Jordan framework delays were not in his briefings. He would be implementing a mandatory jurisdictional transfer into a system he has not even consulted, without the resources to support it and over the explicit objection of survivors, the director of military prosecutions and the chiefs of police. There are real consequences to getting this wrong, and they are playing out right now. A decade ago, the Canadian Armed Forces set a target of 25% women in uniform by 2026. Today, after 10 years of stated commitment, the number sits at 16.7%. The recruitment commander said last week that the target is now impossible to reach. In the past fiscal year alone, 1,070 women left the military, the highest rate in five years, despite pay increases. We cannot recruit and retain women in an institution where they know before they sign up that if something happens to them, the system will not put their choice at the centre. That is precisely what Bill C-11, as the minister has now amended it, would fail to do. The government set a target of 25% women. It could not reach a force of 67,000. What exactly is its plan for half a million? When I spoke to the bill at an earlier stage, I said that I hoped that by the time my daughters are adults, parliamentarians would not still be debating how to get this right for people assaulted in the forces in which they choose to serve. I am standing here at report stage, and nothing has changed. If anything, I am less optimistic than I was then. However, I have not stopped believing it is possible. The committee did the work. The result was something worth passing. What the minister tabled last week is not an improvement. It is the government's substituting its own preference for that of survivors. That is paternalistic. It is further disenfranchisement of the people who have already been rendered powerless once. Conservatives will continue to fight to restore the amendments. The provisions about choice must stand. Civilian capacity must be resourced before jurisdiction is transferred. Survivors who came forward twice, who trusted twice, deserve better than this. We can do better than this. As I said, I am the father of two daughters, and I hope and pray that the work we have put in to make their lives better would be heard by members on the other side of the aisle. We can do better. We owe it to the next generation. We owe it to those who want to join.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Fraser Tolmie

Conservative 4:05 p.m.

“The other member had no question. I'll give you an answer anyway. Liberals say how many apply, not how many are helped. They say nothing on the military's failure rate. They fail women who faced tragedy in the forces.”

Fraser Tolmie

Conservative 4:05 p.m.

“I agree completely. Victims feel ignored. Liberals ignore the committee's hard work and the victims' pleas. That is wrong. We must fix this bill carefully before it passes.”

Dalwinder Gill

Conservative 4:20 p.m.

“I want victims to have a choice between military or civilian courts. That matters a lot. Can you tell us why?”

Fraser Tolmie

Conservative 4:20 p.m.

“Traumatized victims need to feel safe. They want options. Liberals are ignoring them and shutting them out. We must let victims be heard.”

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Conservative 4:20 p.m.

“Bill C-11 should give military sexual assault victims more choices. But after months of work and testimony, the government used its new majority to undo all the bipartisan amendments we agreed on at committee. They completely gutted the bill we worked so hard on together. It's a slap in the face to all the brave survivors who came forward to share their painful stories. The government asked them to come testify, pretended to listen, and then threw all their work in the trash. It's shameful.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be able to rise today to speak to Bill C-11. In the previous Parliament, I was able to speak to this legislation's precursor, Bill C-66. In that speech, I spoke about the two committees I primarily sat on during the previous session, the status of women and national defence. I was able to provide a unique perspective as it related to what was, at the time, Bill C-66. At FEWO, we studied a number of issues related to violence against women. The committee studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development, intimate partner violence and coercive control. Prior to that, when I sat on the national defence committee, we studied transparency in the Canadian Armed Forces. During that study, we did hear testimony about how complicated and daunting the entire investigative process can be for armed forces members. I will now re-enter into the record the testimony of Patrick White: First of all, you need to put yourself in the perspective of the most vulnerable kind of person. Respectfully, that's actually not me. I'm an attorney. I have some legal knowledge. I'm not the most vulnerable kind of person. The most vulnerable kind of person may be the 16-year-old who gets parental consent to join. They may be the person who is so affected by aggravated sexual trauma that they can't even put their hand on the doorknob to get into work, or may vomit when putting on their uniform. That's just an example. If you design a system so that individuals like that can navigate it rather than requiring us to be Rory Fowler or Michel Drapeau, you will succeed in having a system that works for everyone. The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't. What particularly struck me was something Mr. White said after the meeting. He highlighted the labyrinth of regulations, the myriad of hidden file numbers, the thousands of initialisms, acronyms and faceless department nooks and crannies in the depths of DND that one has to know the name of in order to get the paperwork. Patrick was a lawyer, a former staffer, someone who was intimately familiar with the machinations of bureaucracy. He knew where he needed to go and what he wanted, and he found it nearly impossible. In any event, Bill C-66 never got beyond second reading in this place, before dying on the Order Paper due to the previous election. However, I am very happy to see an ever so slightly amended version tabled in this place, and even happier to be able to speak to it today. While reviewing the initial draft of this speech, I took the time to briefly go over the testimony of survivors and experts at the national defence committee when it studied Bill C-11. It was refreshing to see all parties working collaboratively, especially on such a serious and sensitive issue. This was echoed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on April 23, when he spoke in this place about Bill C-11. What he also spoke about was a series of unilateral changes brought forward on the day prior by the government. Those changes, only achievable because of a new-found majority, unilaterally changed the determinations of that committee, government members included. In response to his poignant speech, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, if he could save one portion of the original pan-partisan Bill C-11, what would that be? My Manitoban colleague responded: Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims. The testimony agrees. On November 18, Dr. Karen Breeck stated: the bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases. I've spoken to many people who fear being labelled disloyal or overreacting if they were to involve civilian police, particularly for the lower-risk sexual assault cases Colonel Bruce MacGregor, retired, similarly reminded us: The expectation that victims would be completely satisfied with the criminal justice system is aspirational and not realistic. Many allegations of sexual assault—if not most—within the military are what we would characterize not as rape but as what may be considered as a lower level of physical violence. Saying this is in no way an attempt to minimize the impact on victims. Christine Wood, a CAF veteran, was unequivocally clear in her testimony. She said: I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. I support it because the CAF must uphold their own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices. The director of the Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group, Donna Van Leusden, stated: This bill removes choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did. The consensus is strikingly clear. As anyone who has ever sat on a committee here knows, there is almost always a multitude of sides to any piece of legislation or study that a committee does. It is shockingly rare to have dozens of witnesses across all walks of life, spread over nearly a dozen meetings, a full day of testimony, be nearly unanimous in their calls for specific change. This is not some regulatory change. This was a call for help from brave survivors who have battled a rotted system designed to silence and diminish them, the very thing Bill C-66 and Bill C-11 were supposed to change. For a while, there was hope. The committee heard the witnesses. Members worked collaboratively. They introduced amendments to Bill C-11. For 62 days, these men and women brought change, and they thought change was coming, from the day the report was tabled before the House up until April 22, when the government tabled a battery of amendments that undid months of collaborative work, completely revoking these changes. One of the first things the government did with its newly secured majority, even before the three new members took their seats in this place, was table a sweeping set of changes that eliminated that hard work. Not only is this an insult to the witnesses who were strong enough to come out and give their testimony, but it is disrespectful to the members of the committee, including the government members sitting on that committee. What the government did was worse than simply not listening. What it did was tell these witnesses and the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of survivors, “We hear you. We quite literally brought you before a standing committee of the House of Commons to listen. We sympathize with you. We even amended the legislation, but we no longer need you.” This is not collaboration whatsoever. This is dismissal.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Conservative 4:30 p.m.

“I don't like that you're bringing up old reports to question this bill. The person you keep quoting didn't show up when we asked her to our committee. I want to talk about helping victims today, not that old stuff.”

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Conservative 4:30 p.m.

“We have to pass this bill. Military victims need the changes in this bill. The committee was working together but then they stopped. Why did they stop? The government needs to do better for victims.”

Jeff Kibble

Conservative 4:30 p.m.

“Most military sexual misconduct cases won't go to the civilian justice system. The civilian system can only handle a few cases anyway. That could make the military's culture worse. Predators might get a free pass.”

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Conservative 4:35 p.m.

“I want to debate this bill longer. I don't like how the government is rushing it. We should listen to survivors and concerns more. The government is ignoring testimony. That's not good.”

Alex Ruff

Conservative 4:35 p.m.

“This bill would take away choices from victims. The military police are doing a good job now. The government should not change that.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here again. The last time I rose at second reading on this bill, I talked a bit about my military background, but I focused on why it is so important that we get this bill right, especially for the victims and the accused. This bill would do a number of things, and in fact parts of Bill C-11 are actually very good, a step in the right direction and needed. I do not want to debate those, which are in reference to the independence around the director of military prosecutions, the provost marshal, etc. Nor do I want to focus on any amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. I want to focus around the transfer of jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civilian authorities when the offences take place in Canada and what this would mean for our Canadian Armed Forces, where I had the privilege to serve for 25 years. Today I am wearing my Royal Military College tie. The college's motto is “Truth, Duty, Valour”, something that I think is essential with this bill. I am also wearing the tie clip of my regiment, the motto of which is pro patria, or “for country”, but the slogan is what I want to focus on, which is “Never Pass a Fault”. I feel that we are in a position right now where the government is making a mistake. I am going to try to lay this out. There are a few things for all listeners here because I am going to use some abbreviations. Criminal Code sex offences is CCSO. When I say MPs, I mean military police, not members of Parliament. I will likely say “police of jurisdiction”, or POJ. Let us back up a little bit. In November 2021, the director of military prosecutions and the Canadian Armed Forces provost marshal decided to transfer all Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian jurisdiction. This was a result of Justice Fish and Justice Arbour's recommendations, and they were sort of an interim directive to go forward. Prior to that, there were concurrent investigations by both civilian authorities and the military police that resulted in some cases prior to 2021 ending up tried as civilian cases. However, when this interim direction came into place in 2021, it was the intent that ideally all CCSO would be transferred. That direction was clear; however, the military found out that local police of jurisdiction were not accepting the files. Military police then were able to do a victim-centred trauma analysis. They could conduct the investigations for a number of reasons. The civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the capacity or the resources to deal with it. Their threshold is much higher than the standard that the Canadian Armed Forces expects and there is a much larger gamut of tools available within the Canadian Armed Forces for both disciplinary and administrative action that allowed all of this to take place. Part of the reason that the civilian police of jurisdiction pushed back was that they believed that the military police were more than capable and competent to do this. We have seen this with public statements of affirmation from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police of the incredible professional competency of our military police. For some of the cases that were brought forward, the civilian police looked at them and said that there was no public interest in moving forward because some of them might have been historical or that public safety was not being dealt with. Further, in this interim time frame, the declaration of victims' rights had been implemented. This means that not on purpose, but because of an interim direction in 2021, we now have a choice for victims. Victims are getting the best of both worlds. There is the military police, which has fixed and addressed many of the shortfalls that had existed historically in our system, that is now able to do this in collaboration with the victim and the police of jurisdiction to make a case and go forward. I think that the way the system is functioning today when it comes to dealing with Criminal Code sex offences is right. Now let us talk about what happens if this bill passes with the amendments the Liberal government has made to change what was passed in committee. First off, for the first time ever in Canada, a police force, the military police, would lose jurisdiction to investigate criminal offences within its own jurisdiction. The military police are the police of jurisdiction for the Canadian Armed Forces. As soon as the military police, during an investigation, find any suspicion of a Criminal Code sex offence, they would have to contact, transfer or refer this to the local police of jurisdiction. A CAF victim would go to them and they would have to give them a phone number for the OPP or for the Ottawa Police Service, for example. It is not ideal. The police of jurisdiction would not be compelled to do anything about it. If the Canadian Armed Forces chooses to go ahead with administrative actions, the problem is that they would not be allowed to investigate. Section 70 of the National Defence Act lists all of the sexual offences that are tied to Criminal Code offences. Their hands would be tied and they would not be able to investigate. Right now, the way that local police of jurisdiction are dealing with this is very slowly; they are not keen on sharing that information with the military police. We would basically be taking this choice away from the victims. It would not be clean. It could be something as simple as a lower-level harassment issue that maybe should not be criminal in nature as it would not necessarily meet that threshold, but because it would fall under the changes being forecast to pass in Bill C-11, if the government got its way, they would not be able to do anything. The removal of this would fundamentally undermine the reputation of our military police. As I mentioned earlier, military police are experts. Since 2022, all the former cases that used to be done by summary trial and are now dealt with at courts martial must be investigated by the military police. The civilian police acknowledge their incredible capability. In fact, if I had enough time, I could share stories where victims were so happy to have their situations investigated by military police instead of local police. Let us talk about outside of Canada. I am not talking about a host nation perpetrator or victim, but specifically about where military police can investigate a CAF member, whether a victim or perpetrator, and a Canadian victim. Latvia is a good example. In this case, military police would investigate, weigh the charges and decide whether they should end up in the military or civilian justice system, as they can still do. They would maintain that skill set. I would argue that in the types of operations we are doing now in places like Latvia, where there are DND members and their families, we would see the potential for a higher level of these types of cases because, again, those in the CAF doing that are not perfect. My point is that someone could do something in Latvia and be charged for it, but if a person were to do the same thing in the CAF in Canada, they may not be charged for it. To wrap this up, this is what concerns me. A victim-centred, trauma-informed approach would not happen as the military police would lose this concurrent jurisdiction. More charges would be dropped. There would be less accountability within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current civilian system is already overloaded and, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, has a much higher threshold. We are seeing this in jurisdictions like Ireland right now, which went through this sort of step. It is now trying to figure out how to undo what it did. It is trying to fix the situation it is in. This would break trust with our military police and within the CAF and is basically an abdication of responsibility and leadership, from my viewpoint. This bill, no matter what, needs a sunset clause. What concerns me is that we will be back in Parliament in three years, five years or six years from now saying we messed up. We will be apologizing to the victims for not getting it right. We are not going to be able to fix that harm we caused. I say “we” meaning the Parliament of Canada, this chamber and the other place. It would not do the victims justice. It is important that we get this right. My plea to the government is that we need to do this right. If we cannot fix it in this place, I am praying the other place will be able to fix it, because I have legitimate concerns that we would be making a mistake if this bill passed as the government wants to amend it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Alex Ruff

Conservative 4:45 p.m.

“I don't want to do what Justice Arbour recommended. The military police fixed it. We don't need her. The bill of rights is gone but we have a resource centre now. Things have changed. Using Bill C-11 would help. This transfer is wrong.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary with respect to Justice Arbour, things have changed. In previous speeches we have outlined this. The victims' bill of rights is no longer there. We have a sexual misconduct resource centre available. The independence has gone forward. The military police have actually fixed and addressed the key things that allowed for the situations upon which Justice Arbour made her recommendations. It was brought up previously in the debate that unfortunately Justice Arbour chose not to show up at committee to testify. Things have changed. In the military, the last thing we do when we do a mission analysis is ask whether the situation has changed. Since 2021, the situation has changed, as I highlighted during my speech, based on the recommendations that came from Fish and Arbour. The system is pretty much there. Let us use the rest of Bill C-11. With this transfer, I think we are getting it wrong.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Alex Ruff

Conservative 4:45 p.m.

“The government should accept our committee's amendments. We heard from many witnesses. The government is making a mistake by ignoring our recommendations. This bill is about helping victims. It's not fair to victims if the government goes in a different direction from our committee's hard work.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I could use a really derogatory term, but I will not. My point is that it is the government that is making a mistake. Ultimately, I think we need to get this right. This is about the victims. The committee did so much hard work. The witnesses testified. I am not taking anything away from what Justice Arbour brought forward. This is a tough position for the CAF and the senior leadership of the CAF. However, I dare say that if we go back and review the testimony put forward at committee by the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the Canadian director of military prosecutions, they weighed their concerns on this. Again, this is ultimately about taking care of the victims. I do not think the government is going to get it right if it removes the hard work of the committee and what it put forward as recommendations.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Harb Gill

Conservative 4:45 p.m.

“I'm skeptical this will work. The civilian and military systems are too different. Civilian police need clear evidence. Sexual assaults are already underreported. Sending cases between civilian and military police could make things worse. If there's a mistake, who will be held responsible? The civilian side or the military side? The bill needs to answer these practical questions.”

Alex Ruff

Conservative 4:50 p.m.

“Harb asked a good question. This bill won't hold anyone accountable. It just passes the buck from the military to the civilian police. Civilians already have a high bar for evidence. Adding military cases will make it worse. Victims won't get justice. We'll end up fixing this mistake in a few years. This bill dodges responsibility.”

Dave Epp

Conservative 5:00 p.m.

“I want to cheer that my side and the Bloc made amendments together. But I'm upset the government is ignoring the victims and all our hard work. Why won't the government listen to us?”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Report Stage

Melissa Lantsman

Melissa Lantsman

Melissa Lantsman

Melissa Lantsman

Fraser Tolmie

Fraser Tolmie

Fraser Tolmie

Dalwinder Gill

Fraser Tolmie

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Jeff Kibble

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Alex Ruff

Alex Ruff

Alex Ruff

Harb Gill

Alex Ruff

Dave Epp