“The government ignored experts and victims by changing this military justice bill without committee approval. Civilian courts cannot handle most military sexual misconduct cases. I want to know the government's plan to prosecute these crimes.”

“Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite understands neither the bill nor military chain of command. Removing the committee’s amendments, ignoring overwhelming evidence of the experts and MST survivors and, even worse, adding amendments without going to committee is not democracy, transparency or collaboration. The significant majority of military sexual misconduct cases will not meet the threshold of civilian jurisdiction, and of the cases that do meet the threshold, the civilian justice system has testified that it has the capacity to deal with only a fraction of them. Knowing that, what is the Liberals’ plan to prosecute these cases and bring justice in the majority of them? Are they just going to give a free pass to predators?”

“Military members who survive sexual assault should get to choose whether to report it to the military system or the civilian system. The government is forcing all cases into the civilian system without giving it more resources. We must support victims by letting them make this choice.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues. It is always a pleasure to be here in the House to speak on behalf of the good people of Calgary Midnapore. The people of Calgary Midnapore, of course, reside in the wonderful province of Alberta, and I am going to start my speech today with great words that came out of a campaign in Alberta in the year 2015. Those words are “I believe you”. This was a campaign created in 2015 by the Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services to support victims of sexual assault. When someone comes forward and claims that they are a victim of sexual assault, there should be no other response than “I believe you”, yet 97% of sexual assaults go unreported. That means 97% of persons who have been the victims of sexual assault do not have the courage to come forward to tell someone their story, what happened to them, because they are unsure that they will hear the words “I believe you”. This is the one line that a survivor of sexual assault needs to hear. What we are hearing today from the government, what it is saying to victims of sexual assault, is that it does not believe them. The Liberals need to say to these victims that they believe them. This was the crux of this incredible campaign that came out of Alberta: “I believe you”. Of course, Conservatives are proud of and support all of our men and women in uniform, who serve Canada. We believe that we must continue to address sexual misconduct, as well as discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment, because all military members deserve to have a safe and respectful workplace. The greatest way we can do that today is by saying that, regarding Bill C-11, “I believe you”, that we believe them, that the House believes them. The previous Conservative government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment in the CAF, but after 11 long years of Liberal government and two more reports from Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly. The Liberals’ only idea on military sexual misconduct is to force those cases into the overburdened and even slower civilian justice system without providing resources to local police forces or provincial courts to deal with military cases. When victims of sexual assault hear that these processes are being delayed, that they are being pushed off by the federal government, what they are hearing is that the government does not believe them. What these victims need to hear is “I believe you”. The Liberals are trying to do what is politically expedient. They want to punt this off to the provinces and municipalities by pushing sexual assault cases off their table and into an already overburdened civilian police and court system. We have seen this time and time again. I think of a great example in my incredible riding of Calgary Midnapore, which is cell phone towers. Constituents are very concerned every time another cell phone tower goes up. They create a petition that they bring it to my attention, and I forward it to the Minister of Industry. I say that my constituents are very concerned about these cell phone towers, about the impacts that they will have on their safety and well-being. What the minister does is punt it off to the municipal level of government. She puts off making a decision and taking responsibility for the actions of the government, particularly on an issue that is so relevant to the health and well-being of Canadians, certainly as much as the issue being discussed here today is. However, this is what Liberals do. They deflect responsibility. They try to muddy the waters by not taking jurisdiction of the decision. Instead, they try to defuse the decision-making process to avoid the responsibility. That is what we are seeing here today. Instead of listening to the legal experts and increasing independence in the military justice system, the Liberals want to ensure that they can politically interfere with ministerial directives and ensure that the director of defence counsel services, the director of military prosecutions and the provost marshal general stay under the thumb of the chain of command of the chief. That is what we are seeing. It is essentially the Minister of Defence saying, “I don’t believe you”. Conservatives carefully studied Bill C-11 to ensure concerns from all stakeholders were taken into consideration. We are proud of the progress we made at the Standing Committee on National Defence to improve Bill C-11 and to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors were heard and considered in the studying and amending of this legislation, but most of the witnesses at the committee are asking that victims of military sexual assault be given the choice of what justice system they make their report to. Is that not the very least that we can do for these victims, these individuals who have received the greatest offence a person can possibly go through, to have their person violated? The very least we can do is give them power in the decision to decide how this abuse of trust would be handled, but the government is not willing to do that. The Liberals are essentially saying, “I don’t believe you”. The brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have put in the work for decades to ensure that no one else has to experience what they went through. It is time for all of us to stand up, be allies to them and say, “I believe you”. We need to do what we know is the right thing for the next generation, for both our sons and our daughters, not only for those serving in the CAF, but across Canada. As the mother of a son, I will tell members that my husband and I have had this conversation with him. We hope he will carry it forward with him in all the decisions he makes. Removing victim choice on how to report sexual offences does nothing to solve the problem. It only deepens it. After 11 long years, the Liberals are, once again, letting down the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces by saying, “We don’t believe you”. If Parliament is serious about doing all it can to support those who serve, then all members of Parliament must retain the ability for military victims to choose which reporting path is the safest, most credible and most operationally workable for them, regardless of where they are in Canada. We need to speak with one voice as a House and say this to them: “We believe you. We recognize what you have been through, and we honour you by giving you the choice with how you are going to deal with this violation that has occurred to you. We believe you.” In closing, I want to share another incredible story about Alberta, and it is the #NotInMyCity campaign, which was created to deal with the horrific problem of human trafficking. We have seen the incredible ambassador Paul Brandt and heard his message in his song Alberta Bound. Extending beyond musical capabilities, as he and his wife are true songbirds, they advocate for those who are the victims of human trafficking. We should say each and every day, not only in my great province of Alberta, but also across Canada and in this chamber, “We believe you” and “I believe you”. Members of CAF should be given the opportunity to make their decisions as such.”

“The member should not lecture me about harassment when ministers in his party have been found guilty of it. He should also be careful about praising Louise Arbour, because respected legal experts have questioned her judgment.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to listen to this member talk about harassment when he sits with ministers who have been not only accused but also found guilty of harassment. That is disgraceful. I do not like to be lectured by a member of a party whose ministers have been found guilty of harassment. I will mention a quote: “Arbour’s knowledge of international law is as questionable as her understanding of morality”. That is a direct quote from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a well-regarded international jurist. He said this in 2006. The member should think about who he is referring to as an example.”

“The Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives worked hard to improve this bill. My party supports moving the bill forward with the changes we agreed on, but the NDP has chosen to side with the Liberals instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP worked hard with Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to move this bill forward. I am pleased to see that the members of the Bloc Québécois are still keen to try to achieve the goal of Bill C-11. Unfortunately, I understand that we have lost the NDP member, who decided to join the Liberals. The Conservative MPs and I agree on most of the ideas for moving Bill C-11 forward, and that includes the amendments.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 28 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 38 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 want my colleague to say more about how this bill can support victims, show we believe them, and give them choices.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to give my hon. colleague an opportunity to put a fine point on this powerful message that she has communicated with respect to communicating “I believe you” to victims, and how choice is so important to empower them in these situations, as it relates to this legislation. I want to give her that opportunity because it is such a powerful point.”

“Victims of sexual assault need to know they are believed. The government is not doing that, and it needs to start by passing this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, before doing the “I believe you” campaign, the researchers talked to numerous victims of the most heinous crime a person can receive, to be violated as a person. What the researchers were told, time and time again, was that the victims just wanted to hear someone say, “I believe you”. Right now, the Liberal government is not saying “I believe you” to the victims of sexual assault, and that needs to change. It starts with Bill C-11.”

• 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 are cutting off debate on this military justice bill and removing the changes made in committee. Victims asked for the choice between military and civilian courts, but this bill ignores them and sends cases to backlogged civilian courts. I want the government to listen to victims of sexual assault and fix this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, this debate is an important one. I was reflecting, as I was preparing my comments, on the new Liberal majority. I thank the members of Parliament who double-crossed the voters who elected them one year ago. We are in a situation now where the Liberals have their cherished majority government. I was thinking of this new age, and I had a flashback of when I was in grade 3 and living on a small military base in north Vancouver Island called Holberg. I was a proud member of Gary’s Singing Worms. There was a song we sang. You are probably too young to remember it, Mr. Speaker. It was called The Age of Aquarius. It was a hit in the Broadway production Hair. Some of us have been losing our hair in the meantime. I will not sing the song. Some members might know the words, but I will refresh everyone’s memory. It came out in 1969, the “flower power” era of love and peace. Some of the words are as follows: This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius Age of Aquarius Aquarius Aquarius Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or derision Golden living dreams of visions I have some words that could very well have been penned by the Liberal Prime Minister. They have the same tune: This is the dawning of the Age of Majority, Our Majority, Liberal Majority Harmony? We can stop pretending Questions asked will be met with no bending More secrecy and more derision One-Party rule with tunnel vision Committees bring recommendations We Liberals will ignore consultations No more listening or debate Just whipped votes, no need to wait Lovely Majority, Liberal Majority I am surprised that my Liberal colleagues are not clapping at that. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Marc Dalton: Mr. Speaker, we have moved into a new realm of secrecy and of control. The Liberal member is sighing, as if it were not true, but he knows it is true. What was the first thing the Liberals did when they got their majority last week? They moved several committees in camera, into secrecy, and shut down debate on things that are uncomfortable for them. Even the Liberal media organ, the CBC, now that the Liberals are established, is perplexed and critical of this move and says this is sending the wrong message. We are seeing the same attitude in the Liberals’ imposing closure on debate on this important bill. They have shown their true colours toward victims of sexual harassment in the military with how they have pushed through and are pushing through Bill C-11 without the amendments that were passed at committee. That is very unfortunate. It really boils down to control and secrecy, and we will talk a bit more about that. This debate should not be about procedure. It must not be about politics. It must be about the survivors. It must be about veterans and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces who came before the Standing Committee on National Defence and did something extraordinarily brave. They relived some of the most painful moments of their lives, publicly and on record, because they believed that Parliament was finally prepared to listen. Let us imagine someone’s testifying about one of the worst experiences of their life and then having the government refuse to listen to their voice. They testified about sexual assault. They testified about betrayal by institutions they trusted. They testified about being silenced. Above all, they testified about choice: the right to choose which justice, military or civilian, would be most effective and where they could see justice served. Therefore, I ask the House this: Why is the government now moving to shut down debate on Bill C-11 before those concerns are fully and honestly addressed? The government tells Canadians that the bill is about supporting victims and restoring trust. If that is true, why are the ministers afraid of scrutiny? Why impose time allocation on legislation that would directly affect survivors of military sexual trauma? If the government is confident that the bill reflects what survivors want and need, then let Parliament test that. Let the arguments be heard. Let victims know that their voices matter, not just at committee but also here in the House, where laws are made. This is about choice. People asked for a system that treats them with dignity, not suspicion. At committee, we listened. Conservatives worked constructively across party lines, with colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP, to improve Bill C-11. Together we brought forward amendments rooted directly in witness testimony, especially the nearly universal request that the victims of military sexual assault be able to choose which justice system they report to. That is what collaboration looks like. That is what respect for survivors looks like. However, that stands in stark contrast to the Liberal government’s approach. For months, the bill has sat idle. The government did not act. It did not engage meaningfully with victims. Then, only after securing a political procedural advantage, the government moved to rush the bill through and undo the very amendments survivors had fought for. This is not leadership. This is political expediency. I can understand why the Liberals are this way, because they have gotten in a lot of trouble around the issue of sexual harassment in the military. I think of Harjit Sajjan. He was censured publicly at the House of Commons in 2021 around the issue of the cover-up of sexual harassment. This is a shame. What are the Liberals doing? There is an expression for that. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The more it changes, the more it is the same. It is the same old, same old. Actually, it is not the same old, same old. It is getting worse. The Liberals would now give the minister the power to intervene and have his way. This would be superseding justice. That is not good, because it is political expedience and political cover-up. This is not what Canadians need, and it is not what the members of the armed forces need. It is a shame. Instead of increasing the independence of military prosecutors, defence counsel and the provost marshal, the minister would ensure that these roles would remain under political and institutional control. This would do nothing to prevent sexual misconduct. It would deepen the mistrust. There is an expression by former British prime minister William Gladstone in which he said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Gladstone was a prime minister of the U.K. at the time of the Confederation of Canada, the 1860s. It basically says that if legal remedy comes too late, it means that people are getting no justice at all. That is what is happening. The Liberals would be putting the cases into the civilian courts, but the courts are already clogged up. I was at a home show in Maple Ridge over the weekend and talked to hundreds of people, including police officers and people in justice. They were telling me that people are being arrested and the prosecutors are not moving the cases forward because the courts are jammed full. It is taking so long that they are releasing people. This is what the Liberals’ solution is: just to put the matter through into a jammed-up system where they can bury it and protect themselves. This is about self-protection and self-preservation. Shame on them. Let us get a bill that really reflects what has been brought forward by the witnesses, to protect and help our armed forces and those who have suffered sexual assault.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 99 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “he knows it is true”.

  See full analysis →

“I want victims to have a choice between civilian and military courts so they can get justice faster. Civilian courts are too backed up right now.”

“Mr. Speaker, we support choice for the victims in where they can see the quickest route to justice. Right now the civilian system is really clogged up. What we believe in is choice, not just for victims in Canada but also internationally in the military. You made reference to the report. You mentioned a few times Madam Arbour—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We asked Madam Arbour to speak to the committee about her report and other reports. She refused to come.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a rookie error, but I am not a rookie. Madam Arbour was asked to come to committee to testify. She did not come to committee. We wanted her to respond to the reports, to witnesses and to other reports that have also been done, the Deschamps report and the Fish report. She would not respond.”

“I agree with the member. The Liberals are putting their own political interests ahead of victims and justice.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. What the Liberals are doing in such a serious matter is appalling. To protect their own interests, they are putting their politics ahead of the pain of victims and respect for justice. What they are doing is really terrible.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The member talked about ethics. I want to know his thoughts on the Liberals putting a member who crossed the floor onto the ethics committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interesting speech. He made a lot of historical references. When he talked about the Aquarius song from the 1970s, however, I must confess that I tend to associate Aquarius with the name of the Apollo 13 lunar module from April 1971, which saved the lives of the three astronauts on that mission. Let me be more serious about this and talk about ethics. The member raised a lot of issues about ethics. This is very difficult, because we are talking about the new government, which is now a majority because of the people who crossed the floor. Is the member surprised to see that, when the Liberal Party first appointed new committee members, it appointed a floor crosser to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? What was the member’s reaction when he noticed that, with the ethics committee, we were talking about someone who crossed the floor?”

“The Liberals placed the MPs who switched to their party right next to the Prime Minister on purpose. They are showing them off like trophies. Both the Liberals and these MPs should be ashamed.”

“Mr. Speaker, it was meant as provocation. They put the floor crossers right next to the Prime Minister. We see the people who have crossed the floor. It seems as though the Liberals are showing off their trophies. The floor crossers have no shame, just like the Liberals.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 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 →

“Victims of sexual assault in the military should be allowed to choose between the civilian justice system and the military justice system. The government wants to force all cases into civilian courts, but those courts are already too slow and overloaded. We must keep the changes made in committee that give survivors a choice.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of the people of Cambridge, with a deep sense of responsibility to those who have served and those who continue to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. These are men and women who have committed their lives to protecting our freedom and preserving peace, often at great personal cost. When they raise their right hand to serve our country, they deserve to know that Canada will protect them in return, not only on the battlefield but within the very institutions they trust for support, justice and dignity. We are here to debate Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. This is legislation that speaks to a serious responsibility: how we address sexual misconduct in the military and support those who come forward. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP worked constructively across party lines, guided by the testimony they heard and by a shared understanding that we needed to get this right for survivors. At the core of this issue is a principle that should unite us all. Every victim of sexual violence deserves justice, safety and dignity. They deserve a system that works for them, not against them. I also want to speak directly to the survivors who came forward and shared their experiences with this Parliament. They did not have to do that. They did not owe us their stories, their pain or their trust. They came because they believed that if Parliament truly listened, change was still possible, and that trust matters, and it carries an obligation in all of us. That is why Conservatives have remained focused on standing with survivors of military sexual trauma and why we believe meaningful reform must begin by listening to those with lived experience. Unfortunately, the government has not demonstrated that same willingness to listen. The Minister of National Defence acknowledged at committee that he did not personally consult victims in developing this legislation. Instead, the government has relied on external reports, without ensuring that those perspectives were fully tested through the legislative process. The Liberals delayed this bill and are now moving to advance it in a way that risks undoing the very improvements that were made at committee. That approach raises serious concerns about whether the final legislation will truly reflect the needs of those it is intended to support. At the same time, key witnesses made it clear that removing choice would have real consequences. What survivors asked for was not privilege or special treatment. They asked for one thing: choice. They asked for the ability to decide which system they felt safest engaging with, which process they understood and which path would allow them to be heard with dignity and respect. Survivors spoke about access: access to language, to support systems and to processes they understand. They spoke about trust and how critical it is in determining whether they feel safe coming forward at all. The government’s approach in Bill C-11 is to move cases of sexual assault into the civilian justice system. While that may be appropriate in some circumstances, it cannot be the only path forward, particularly given the current pressures facing that system. Across Canada, civilian courts are dealing with significant backlogs. Delays have significant impacts. They are a reality that affects victims. When cases are delayed beyond acceptable timelines, they risk being dismissed. We have seen this happen. Cases are not always resolved on their merits. Instead, they can be halted because the system cannot meet the timelines required. For victims, that is not just frustrating but devastating. However, the government’s proposal would add further pressure to that already strained system without providing a clear plan for additional resources or capacity. That raises a fundamental question: How does this improve access to justice? Witnesses also warned us that that this is not an imaginary concern. We heard evidence about capacity on the ground. In one study examining cases at CFB Esquimalt, hundreds of incidents were reviewed, yet only a small number met the threshold for referral into the civilian system. Even then, prosecutors indicated they had the capacity to proceed with only a handful of cases each year. That reality matters, because when capacity does not match policy, the result is not more justice. It is fewer cases moving forward and fewer perpetrators held to account. When policy ignores those realities, the impact is not abstract. It risks retraumatizing those who have already been harmed and reinforces the very institutional barriers survivors have told us keeps them silent. Several witnesses cautioned against exactly this approach. They warned that removing the military’s role entirely could reduce accountability, weaken discipline and, ultimately, fail to deliver justice to survivors. Others pointed to the importance of maintaining concurrent jurisdiction, allowing both systems to operate and victims to choose the path that best supports them. That is the balance that was reflected in the amendments brought forward at committee. It is also important to recognize that the Canadian Armed Forces has taken steps in recent years to improve how these cases are handled within the military system. Those efforts are not perfect, but they should not be dismissed outright. Reform should build on progress, not disregard it. Meaningful reform must also be about culture change. Survivors have told us clearly that systems that remove choice or create dead ends can reinforce institutional trauma rather than reduce it. The Arbour review played an important role in advancing this conversation, but it was written before key changes were fully implemented, including the removal of the duty to report and the strengthening of survivor-centric support mechanisms. It should not be used as a static justification for reversing progress that is still taking hold. If reform undermines trust or reduces the likelihood that cases proceed at all, then we are not fixing the system. We are weakening it. This is not about choosing one system over another. It is about recognizing that both systems have a role to play and that victims deserve the autonomy to decide which is right for them. Removing that choice does not simplify the process. It limits it. Addressing sexual misconduct in the military is not a simple task and no single reform will solve it entirely, but we do know that progress requires more than good intentions. It requires listening, collaboration and a willingness to incorporate the perspectives of those most affected. That is why the work done at committee is so very important. Conservatives are proud of the progress that was made alongside colleagues from other parties to improve this bill. The amendments that were brought forward were not partisan. They were grounded in the testimony of witnesses and the practical realities of the systems involved. Our position is clear. Support for this legislation must be tied to maintaining those improvements, particularly the principle that victims should have the autonomy to choose the system that best meets their needs. More broadly, Canadians expect us to ensure that both military and civilian justice systems are equipped to handle these cases effectively. That means not only determining where cases are heard, but also ensuring that whichever system is used has the capacity, resources and structure to deliver timely and fair outcomes. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces serve this country with professionalism and dedication. They deserve to work in an environment that is safe, respectful and accountable. Survivors of sexual misconduct within the military have spent years advocating for change. Many have done so at great personal cost, with the hope that future generations will not face these same challenges. Survivors did not come to Parliament as partisans. They came as human beings asking to be heard. Respecting that courage requires more than sympathy; it requires that we act in a way that honours what they told us. If this Parliament is serious about supporting those who serve, then we must ensure that Bill C-11 reflects what we have heard: Victims deserve to be listened to, they deserve timely access to justice and they deserve the autonomy to make decisions about how their cases proceed. That is the standard we should be striving for as members of Parliament.”

“Victims should be allowed to choose between the military justice system and the civilian justice system. The government's plan takes that choice away by forcing everything into the civilian system.”

“Mr. Speaker, choice is putting the empowerment back in the hands of the victims. At the heart of the bill is a very simple issue, choice for victims. Survivors who appeared before the committee were clear: They want the ability to decide whether their case proceeds to the military justice system or to the civilian justice system, based on where they feel safest, best supported and most likely to be heard. The approach that came forward respected that by allowing both systems to continue to play a role, rather than forcing survivors down a single path. What the government is now proposing would remove that choice by shifting everything to the civilian system. That just undermines the trust from the very people we are asking to come forward. We need to get it right, not just get it done quickly.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We should listen to survivors. Victims should be the ones to choose where their case is heard, not the government.”

“Mr. Speaker, the amendments that were proposed at committee reflected what the survivors were saying. We need to respect their voices and ensure that those who serve are protected, the same way we expect them to protect us during wars. Conservatives will always stand up in support of this choice. It is the victims who can decide where they would like their case to be heard, not the government.”

• 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 →

“The government is failing military members. This debate makes victims and future soldiers feel that their complaints will not be taken seriously.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is clear for anyone to see that the government has engaged in the neglect of duty on this file and others. What message is this debate sending to the victims who have already come forward and are watching this show? What message does it send to future soldiers, sailors and airmen and their families, who are probably wondering whether, if they are ever victims, they will be taken seriously and their complaint will be heard properly?”

“We must act on what veterans and survivors told us. If we just listen and then ignore them, people will not feel safe speaking up in the future.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s question is an important one. What I keep coming back to, and what should matter to all of us, is what veterans and survivors have been telling us. Some had the courage to appear before committee, which is hard enough to do on its own. Others have shared their experiences in different ways. In every case, they did so because they believed their voices would matter here. We cannot acknowledge those voices and then move forward in a way that leaves people feeling their input was heard politely and then set aside. That sends the wrong message, especially to the veterans and survivors who already struggle with whether it is safe to come forward at all. Respect means more than listening once. It means taking seriously what they said, especially about trust, choice and feeling safe in the process. If we want people to keep coming forward, we must show that what they shared actually matters in the decisions we make here.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The other party keeps relying on only one old report. I want the member to explain why they are ignoring all the other evidence.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the party opposite has the same person ask the same question. They are dogmatically hanging on the Arbour report, whether it be in the House or in committee or in debate, while overwhelmingly ignoring the plethora of evidence and reports. Maybe the member could speak briefly about why they are ignoring this so much and hanging on one dated report.”

“We should not base this bill only on the Arbour report. The committee did not get to question Justice Arbour. Military prosecutors say the military has changed and can handle these cases now. The law should reflect how the military works today, not in the past.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to determine what is going on here, since the government now has its manufactured majority. The Arbour report has been an important part of this discussion, but it should not be treated as the final word. Madam Justice Arbour was invited to appear before committee so members could ask questions and examine her recommendations in light of today’s reality, but that did not happen. Since then, the director of military prosecutions has told the committee that the military has adjusted and is prepared to handle these cases. Reform has to reflect where the system is today and not where it was many years ago.”

“I cannot support this bill unless the government keeps our committee's changes. Military victims of sexual assault asked for the right to choose between civilian and military courts. The government took that choice out of the bill and forced all cases into civilian courts, which are already too busy.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 was supposed to improve how justice works inside the Canadian Armed Forces. There have been serious and persistent concerns that misconduct, especially sexual misconduct, has not been handled fairly or independently in our military. The government dragged its feet for years. There were three reports done on this matter over a period of seven years. Finally, with the tabling of this bill, the government appeared to be addressing these issues. The initial draft of the bill proposed to move serious cases, including sexual assault, into the civilian courts. Many expected this move to be welcomed and to be seen as a serious step toward better accountability and stronger protection for victims. The committee system in the House of Commons is designed to allow members of Parliament to examine legislation in depth. Committees act as the engine room of this place, and every so often we find out in our committees that we were wrong. That is what happened with this bill, because it turns out that our military did not wait for government to act. In the years between the release of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, our military implemented mandatory duties to report. It trained the chain of command, military police and health care providers. It implemented a victims rights charter and provided access to independent legal supports and access to victims liaison services. The military has not solved all of the problems, but it took some pretty big steps forward that make military tribunals the forum of choice for some victims. An incredible, and very credible, group of witnesses came to the defence committee hearings on this bill and told us so. In response, Conservative members of the defence committee worked with members from all opposition parties to improve the bill to respond to the reasonable proposals by survivors and experts that military sexual assault victims be allowed to play a role in determining whether their cases would be investigated and heard in civilian or military courts. They asked for choice, and the committee worked to embed that choice into the bill. Then, a few days ago, the Minister of National Defence tabled amendments to the bill at the report stage that ignored that advice, dismissed the testimony heard over weeks at committee and effectively restored much of the original drafting. When I last rose to speak to this bill, I tried to drive home the point that this debate is about more than just legislation. It is about trust. It is about whether those who don a Canadian military uniform and serve this country can trust that the system will protect them, can trust it to be fair and can trust it to deliver just outcomes. Yesterday I spoke at a ceremony in my community commemorating the 81st anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. We had more than 50 air and sea cadets participate, more than 50 young souls who are the future of our military, souls whom Canada may yet send off to war. The cadets were excellent. They participated in the colour guard, they stood sentry at the cenotaph, and they helped dignitaries lay wreaths. One played the Last Post and Lament on her bugle, another read the prayer for the air force, and another read the roll call of ships lost, while yet another rang the bell. It was beautiful and inspiring, and our community is so very proud of them. Today, as we debate this bill at report stage, the question of whether those cadets and the many others who serve our country can trust the system still hangs over this chamber. Have we earned that trust? If the answer depends on this version of Bill C-11, it is unfortunately a resounding no. Members of the House worked in good faith across party lines to improve the bill, and we stand by the wisdom of the committee with respect to choice for survivors of sexual assault in the military. My support for the bill is contingent on the Liberal government upholding not only the amendments made by Conservatives at the defence committee but also those made by the other parties, including the member of that committee who has since crossed the floor to join the Liberals. Will she now vote against her own amendments and those she supported? The Liberals have chosen to use their new majority in this House to undo the work of this committee. They have chosen to double down on what we now understand to be a poor choice to push sexual assault cases onto an already overburdened civilian police and court system without providing the resources that local police forces and provincial courts need to deal with military cases. Instead of listening to the experts and increasing the independence of the military justice system, the defence minister wants to preserve his ability to interfere with ministerial directives to ensure that the director of military defence counsel services, the director of military prosecutions and the provost marshal general stay under the thumb of the chain of command. These decisions are all ill-advised and would do nothing to improve conditions in our military at a time when our military needs our support. If there is even a perception that decisions can be influenced by the chain of command or by political considerations, confidence in the military justice system will remain fragile. My hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who served our country faithfully as a navy commander, spoke to that human cost in a way that should stay with all of us. He reminded us that behind every policy gap and every delay there is a person, someone who stepped forward to serve, who put on a uniform and who deserves better from their country. Every time the government fails to protect victims, it means another member of the Canadian Armed Forces is left wondering whether it is worth coming forward. It means another survivor is weighing the risk of speaking out against the likelihood of being ignored. It means another erosion of confidence in an institution that Canadians should be able to believe in without hesitation. The Minister of National Defence admitted at committee that he did not consult victims himself. He admitted that he did not consult with Justices Arbour, Fish or Deschamps on this file. He admitted that he did not consult provincial justice ministers or provincial or municipal police officers in the more than a year since this chamber considered Bill C-66, the predecessor to this bill. This reflects a disturbing trend that we see through the Liberal approach to our justice system, where government legislation seems to consistently prefer the accused over victims. It also reflects the approach that the government took to Bill C-3 at report stage, when it again used its relationships in this House to undo the work of committee. In the context of the way that our military has progressed these issues, the request by witnesses for choice in deciding whether to engage the civilian justice system or the military tribunal system makes sense, because in some cases the military system will have conflicts of interest or other issues created by proximity or relationships. In other circumstances, the civilian justice system just would not have enough people with the lived experiences to be able to deal with the facts of a particular case when situated within military culture. In one case, a witness at committee testified that, as a francophone, she would like to be able to choose the military pathway to ensure that she would be able to have access to services and proceedings in French rather than having to follow proceedings in English, as she would have to do through the serendipities of locations should she find herself serving in an anglophone province. If cases are going to move to civilian courts, there is work to be done up front with the provinces to make sure they can absorb these cases. If the federal government simply moves these cases by fiat, without ensuring that the system is ready, we risk serious failure, the kind of delay that increases the risk that cases collapse before they are heard and further frustrates those seeking justice. Canadians have heard promises from the government before. They have seen announcements and commitments, but too often they have not seen results. My hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has been persistent in pressing this point. This is not an abstract policy debate. It is about real people and their real pain. The government has a choice to make, and my vote hinges on the balance with that choice.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 94 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the defence minister wants to preserve his ability to interfere with ministerial directives”.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “This is not an abstract policy debate.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 1.

  Every time it was said →