“The other party used to support this, but now they don't. I want to blame them for opposing the bill.”
What they said. What they meant.
Plain-language translations from the House of Commons.
Recent debates
8 latest topics
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
57 statements
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
19 statements
Arab Heritage Month Act
5 statements
The Economy
15 statements
Government Priorities
2 statements
Government Priorities
2 statements
Housing
12 statements
The Environment
2 statements
Government Orders
Report Stage
A bill to modernize the military justice system, including changes to appointments, removing jurisdiction for sexual offences, and expanding the class of persons eligible to be military judges. During debate, the Conservatives argued the bill doesn't go far enough, the Liberals defended it as an important step, and both sides discussed the importance of believing and empowering victims. Some time was spent on tangents about the House majority and military funding.
“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.”
“Why won't the government let victims choose their court? I want to know why they ignored our amendments. All of us in opposition wanted this. What do you think?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“This bill would take away choices from victims. The military police are doing a good job now. The government should not change that.”
“I want to cheer for a famous person instead of engaging with your point. Her report said to do this. The government is doing it. I don't want to debate the rest.”
“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.”
“I want the government to pass our amendments. I worked hard in committee with witnesses. The government should respect the work of parliamentary committees. It is undemocratic for the government to ignore our amendments and go in a different direction.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. This bill doesn't do what it's supposed to. It's supposed to stop the military from protecting each other and ignoring complaints. But the government added a change to let the minister interfere in cases. That's not what this bill is for. I don't get it. The government has a majority, so they can do what they want. I wish they would listen to victims and change military culture instead.”
“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. Our government is doing a lot of things. We're spending more money on the military. More people are joining the military. We have this bill. The opposition never talked about this before. They should thank us.”
“You say you're investing and helping Canada. But you cut the budget to help veterans by 15%. I don't believe you when you say you care and want to help veterans.”
“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?”
“The Liberals pretend to listen but they don't really care. They're hiding something and avoiding discussion. I hope they will actually consider our proposals.”
“I want this bill to make civilian courts handle all cases. Our Bloc compromise lets civilian courts decide which cases to keep. The government threatens our compromise. What do you think?”
“You say it should go case by case. I agree with how you want it. The minister wants to ignore us and do whatever he wants. We need to change that together.”