TranslatePolitics.ca

Gérard Deltell

Conservative 5:45 p.m.

“Thanks for the history lesson. But let's be real, I'm just using this question to complain about floor-crossers. I want you to know I don't like it when politicians switch teams and then get put on important committees. That doesn't seem right to me.”

Official Hansard

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 He made a lot of historical references.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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Marc Dalton

Conservative 5:45 p.m.

“I don't like that the Liberals put the floor crossers next to the Prime Minister. It's like they're showing off a prize. Those floor crossers have no shame, just like the Liberals.”

Connie Cody

Conservative 5:45 p.m.

“I'm repeating nice-sounding words about the military and sexual assault legislation. I want the government to listen to victims and give them choices. I don't like that the government is rushing this bill.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:55 p.m.

“I'm acting like my bill must be good because a smart person wrote it. I think it's critical to take away choice from victims. I'm inventing a story about my opponents flip-flopping to make them look bad.”

Connie Cody

Conservative 5:55 p.m.

“I'm saying the bill is all about giving back choice to victims. I want a justice system where victims can decide where to take their case. They should be able to choose where they feel safest and most supported. But the government's proposal would take away that choice and force all victims into the civilian system. That's going to break trust with the people we're asking to come forward. We need to do this right, not just rush it through quickly.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sébastien Lemire

Bloc Québécois 6:00 p.m.

“I want my colleague to say whether she thinks this will hurt the government's reputation. They ignored the voices of the people we're supposed to be helping. The opposition tried to help, but the government rejected our ideas. What message does that send to the people who served our country?”

Connie Cody

Conservative 6:00 p.m.

“I'm upset the government isn't listening to veterans. Veterans should get to decide where their case is heard. The government shouldn't make that choice for them. Conservatives will stand up for veterans' right to choose.”

Harb Gill

Conservative 6:00 p.m.

“The government isn't taking this seriously. Veterans watching this debate won't think the government will take their complaints seriously. Future soldiers and their families will worry they won't be heard.”

Connie Cody

Conservative 6:00 p.m.

“That's a good question. Veterans have talked to us. They want us to listen. We need to show we care. Then they will keep talking to us.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jeff Kibble

Conservative 6:00 p.m.

“You keep asking the same thing. You talk about one report. There are a lot of reports. Why do you ignore the rest? Tell me about that.”

Connie Cody

Conservative 6:00 p.m.

“Nobody can tell what's going on. You have a manufactured majority. The Arbour report is old news. The military says it's moved on. We need current information to reform the system, not old talking points.”

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 6:00 p.m.

“I don't like that the government ignored the committee's advice on this bill. They're pushing military sexual assault cases onto civilian courts without the resources they need. They aren't listening to the experts or increasing the independence of the military justice system. If they don't support the committee's amendments, they'll lose my vote.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

John-Paul Danko

Liberal 6:10 p.m.

“This bill spends more money on the military. It will help victims in the military. The provinces should do more to make sure prosecutions work.”

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 6:15 p.m.

“I want to support the military too. The government took too long. Now we need to try something else to help military people.”

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Bloc Québécois 6:15 p.m.

“I want to cheer for the committee's work. I worked with other parties. But now I'm afraid the government will ignore that work since it's not a minority anymore. The government said it would collaborate but now it's limiting debate on this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague spoke about the work we managed to achieve in committee. This showed that, given that this is a minority government—since it was elected a year ago as a minority rather than a majority government—we were able to get things done. I am the Bloc Québécois MP who sits on this committee. I worked extensively with my Conservative colleagues on this issue, as well as with my colleague from the NDP, who is no longer with the NDP but who used to come and see us and nevertheless proposed motions similar to those we eventually adopted. What does my colleague think of the fact that this legacy is now under threat from a government that is no longer a minority government, but that claimed it would collaborate? I would point out that, as we speak, this bill is being considered under time allocation.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 6:15 p.m.

“I'm frustrated. The government could let us all work together to make the bill better. But instead it's using its majority to ignore the committee's work.”

James Bezan

Conservative 6:15 p.m.

“I think the Liberals should listen to what the military justice experts, veterans, and survivors of military sexual trauma told our committee. We heard from these people directly, and they don't want these changes. The current system isn't delivering justice and there's no accountability. The Liberals need to stop hiding behind one report and start paying attention to what we're learning in committee.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her very strong speech, and for taking the time to actually review the testimony that we heard in committee and using that in her debate today on Bill C-11 now that we have closure on it. The Liberals continually use the Arbour report as their shield and explanation for why they are plowing ahead with these changes, which military justice experts and veterans are saying they do not want. The interesting fact is that the committee heard from the very survivors of military sexual trauma, who also talked to Justice Arbour. It was discovered that over the last five years, since they brought choice into the system and things were moved to the civilian system, they were not receiving justice because of the Jordan framework and the higher thresholds to prosecute. At the end of the day, there was no accountability in the chain of command. Could my colleague please comment on that, as well?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 6:15 p.m.

“The defence minister should listen to people more. Maybe then we could have avoided the mistakes in this bill.”

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 6:15 p.m.

“I want the government to listen to the committee's work and protect victims of sexual violence. The government should not undo the collaborative efforts made in a minority parliament.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my speech today by sharing with members that before coming to the House a few minutes ago, I was at a screening on the Hill of the documentary film Traces, which is about the issue of conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine. It is a great honour to have with us, on the Hill, the director of that film, who shared directly with us about her own experience of being a victim of conflict-related sexual violence and the work she has done on this film. It is important for the House to know and to reflect on the fact that, as part of the ongoing illegal, genocidal invasion of Ukraine, we are seeing the systematic use of sexual violence as a tool by the invaders for terror. It should underline our knowledge of the horrific nature of this invasion and the need for ongoing Canadian support for the Ukrainian people. We have before us today Bill C-11, which would make changes to the military justice system in this country. Fundamentally, what we are seeing in debate at this stage of the bill is the tragic implications of the Liberals seizing an undemocratic majority, and what they are doing with that majority to undermine the important collaborative cross-party work that was done on legislation in this chamber prior to the seizure of that undemocratic majority. This is a bill about a sombre, serious subject: protecting victims, or trying to protect victims, of sexual violence. It is an issue on which parties should be able to work together. From what I understand, and I am not a member of that committee, work happened at committee on the bill, bringing together people from different party backgrounds to try to incorporate all the feedback that was received from survivors to make this legislation effective. It is not, and should not be, a partisan issue, which is why Conservatives, New Democrats and members of the Bloc listened to the testimony, came together and put forward amendments to the bill that reflected that testimony, strengthened that framework and established, through those amendments, a framework that would have really worked and gone as far as possible to protect these victims and survivors. From what I understand, even government members on the committee supported some of those amendments that the opposition worked on together. At the time, the member for Nunavut was with the NDP caucus and was her party's defence critic, working with other parties on this legislation. That was the cross-party work that happened, and really that has to happen in a minority Parliament. In a minority Parliament, one party cannot dictate the outcome of legislation, which requires negotiation, listening to witnesses and listening to each other. In the context of a minority Parliament, this legislation was an example of that collaboration at its best, of members of Parliament rising to the occasion, working through the difficult issues, listening and coming to conclusions. However, what do we have now? The government has systematically, regardless of world view, lured and then neutered members of the opposition to join and give the Liberals a majority government, which Canadians did not vote for. Now, they are using that undemocratic majority to undo the work that was done at committee. They have moved motions in the House to undo the work that was done painstakingly at committee: listening to survivors, strengthening the legislation. That work has all been ignored and undone through a motion proposed by the government. The Liberals now believe that they can rely on all the members of their newly formed, undemocratic majority to undermine the collaborative work that was done on this issue at committee. Ryan Turnbull: Majority prevails. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite from, I believe, Ajax is heckling me to say, “Majority prevails.” Ryan Turnbull: Whitby. Garnett Genuis: Whitby. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I do want to make sure that he is held accountable for heckling during a speech about protecting victims of sexual violence. The member for Whitby says the majority rules. Well, this is a majority that Canadians did not vote for and that, in the first instance, the Liberals are using to undo collaborative committee work on protecting victims of sexual violence. They want a majority, they say, to move at speeds unseen in generations. They are moving at speeds unseen in generations to dismantle collaborative committee work to protect victims of sexual violence. At the first opportunity they have, that is what they are using their majority to do. I have to wonder what the member for Nunavut is thinking in all this. Individual members, whatever caucus they sit in, are still personally accountable before their voters, and before whatever other institutions they see themselves as accountable in front of, for the decisions they make in the House and the votes they cast here. When a member sits as part of the NDP and works collaboratively on amendments to strengthen legislation to protect victims of sexual violence, and then that member joins a caucus that is systematically undoing and ignoring the work that was done, it is hard for me to understand the dissonance. Whether a person just changes all of their opinions at once, or whether some members of the government intend on standing up against the efforts of the minister and the front bench to dismantle this legislation, at the end of the day, every member controls how they vote when the time comes. They will have a chance to vote specifically on the decisions of the minister and the government to undo the work that was done. This is the real, concrete outworking of the Liberals' seizure of an undemocratic majority. It now gives them, in practice, the ability to ignore what witnesses say, to ignore collaboration and to ignore the work that can be done across parties to analyze an issue from different angles and get to a result, and the Prime Minister can act as a kind of executive and direct all of the affairs that happen in this place. That is not how it should happen. That is not what Canadians voted for in the last election, but it seems that it is what they want, and their first test case for this is undermining protections for victims of sexual violence. It is shameful, what is happening. It is undemocratic and wrong, and it will have serious negative implications for survivors who are seeking justice in the future. I want to commend the members of the committee who worked hard on this. I want to commend our shadow minister for defence as well as members of other parties who worked collaboratively on this process but who, sadly, saw all of that work undone when the government decided to move these motions, rejecting these amendments. In this context, with this undemocratic majority, we will continue to use all of the tools we have to hold the government accountable and fight for what is right. Government members and ministers need to hear demands from their constituents that the government reverse course and stand with victims of sexual violence. I think the member for Nunavut needs to hear from her constituents on this, asking her to stand with the work that she previously did on committee. I think we need to see a response from the public that holds the government accountable for what it is doing, right away, with this undemocratic majority.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 6:25 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. I want my party to get credit for the government's spending.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Madam Justice Arbour did an extensive consultation with victims, with members of CAF, with many other stakeholders, and came up with an incredible report with 48 recommendations in order to deal with the complexities of the issue. Thirty-six of those have already been implemented. The Government of Canada has been listening and has taken action. This very piece of legislation is an enactment of recommendation 40. Taking a look at the bigger picture and the support over the last year with this Prime Minister, whether it is 2% of the GDP, or whether it is a record number of people applying to join the forces last year, I believe we are on the right track. When was the last time the Conservative Party—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Report Stage

Gérard Deltell

Marc Dalton

Connie Cody

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Connie Cody

Sébastien Lemire

Connie Cody

Harb Gill

Connie Cody

Jeff Kibble

Connie Cody

Tamara Kronis

John-Paul Danko

Tamara Kronis

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Tamara Kronis

James Bezan

Tamara Kronis

Garnett Genuis

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux