“The government used its new majority to reject our changes to this military justice bill, including one to make sure trials happen on time. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the government undoing the committee's work.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have been following the bill’s progress. There is something shocking about how Liberal arrogance is what is driving the decision to revisit committee discussions when there were amendments that responded to the justice’s report and acknowledged her work. In particular, there was a Bloc Québécois amendment that addressed timely trials. However, the new majority got this amendment rejected, along with many others. I want to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. How does she feel about the arrogance that is being shown in this new context, which the people did not vote for but which is the result of floor crossers being bought off by the Liberal government?”

“The government took years to bring this military justice bill forward, and now it is cutting off debate. It is also using its majority to undo changes our committee made to help victims. Victims asked for the right to choose whether their cases are heard in military or civilian court. The committee agreed to let them choose, and we also voted for an independent watchdog to look into military misconduct. The government is throwing out those changes. It needs to listen to victims and put those fixes back into the bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by going over the timeline of the bill we are debating today and by looking at the fact that the government is shutting down debate and completely undermining the hard work completed in committee by opposition and government members alike. If we look back at the relatively recent past, we can see that the whole issue of changes to the military justice system stems in particular from the report by Justice Deschamps, which was published on March 27, 2015, about 11 years ago. It was a scathing report dealing with misconduct in the armed forces. It was around the same time that Jonathan Vance was appointed chief of the defence staff by the Conservative government of the day. Not long after that, a huge scandal broke out involving Jonathan Vance. Members may recall that. Back in February 2021, we learned from media reports that, as early as 2018, the government had been receiving information alleging sexual offences committed by the new chief of the defence staff, but the government kept a lid on that at the time. The chief of the defence staff retired in 2021, shortly before the scandal exploded. Then, in April of that same year, 2021, Justice Fish submitted a report containing recommendations specifically aimed at cleaning up the armed forces. Following that, after the Liberals had engaged in a very, very long filibuster in committee in an attempt to keep the Vance file under wraps, we got a new defence minister, who seemed keen to take the bull by the horns. She asked Justice Arbour to revisit the work that had been done. Justice Arbour replied that this had already been done, but, in good faith, she nevertheless decided to do it again, in order to update Justice Deschamps’ work and also to include Justice Fish’s work. The aim was to present recommendations aimed at reforming the CAF’s legal environment. At that time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We hoped that all this would lead to a bill aimed at reforming the CAF’s legal system. It took some time, but it eventually arrived. In March 2024, the government finally introduced Bill C-66, which aimed to overhaul the judicial system. We thought this bill would be brought before the House because it was so important. We had been talking about it for so long. Everyone was waiting and waiting. I decided I was going to start reading the bill in detail, knowing that it would end up at the Standing Committee on National Defence once the government put it on the agenda for debate in the House, which it did not do until September. The bill was introduced in March, and the government did not bring it up for debate until September 2024. Each of the major parties at the time—the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—was given a single opportunity to speak. After that, the government never brought the bill back into the House before the prime minister resigned. The House sat from September through December, but the bill was never brought up again. Members will recall that the prime minister resigned, Parliament was prorogued and an election was called. Now we have the new version, Bill C-11. The Liberals wasted all that time, and now they suddenly want to get it done, so they are throwing a gag order in our face. This gag order has specific and shocking consequences. In many respects, the work has been done in committee. In particular, witnesses commented on the importance of the government’s decision to transfer sexual misconduct cases from courts martial to civilian courts in accordance with Justice Arbour’s recommendation and the amendments set out in Bill C‑11. The witnesses told us that the vast majority of victims would have preferred it if they could still choose which court would handle their case. Some of them told us that it was important for certain cases to be handled by the military system for reasons related to deadlines or evidence or to avoid revictimizing someone by forcing them to restart a process that was already well under way. In some cases, the reasons concerned complexity or trust in the system. These are all good reasons. Victims said that they would still rather choose for themselves. In collaboration with other parties, the Bloc Québécois submitted a recommendation aimed at striking the proper balance. I will now read the clause of the bill as amended by the Bloc Québécois: Choice of victim (2) Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, the victim of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(d) to (h), or an individual acting on their behalf, may choose whether the person charged with the offence is to be tried by a court martial or a civil court. We had raised the possibility of this option. We suggested, through a legislative amendment, that the civilian court take into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and other factors in deciding whether, at the victim’s request, the case should instead be heard by a court martial. We had nevertheless established guidelines to avoid situations where, for example, multiple victims might have made different choices if the decision had simply been left entirely up to them. The goal was to prevent one victim from opting for a court martial while another chose a civilian court. We would still respect their wishes. I had replaced my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton on the committee that day, and I recall that even the NDP was involved, through the member for Nunavut, who had also proposed an amendment so that victims could exercise their freedom of choice in the context of a decision regarding the court that would hear their case. Today, the government is taking advantage of its majority to set aside the work that was done in committee and to set aside the committee members’ vote to adopt the amendment that the Bloc Québécois had proposed as a compromise. I am interested in hearing how the member for Nunavut, who is now on the government side, will vote on this matter. Even though the NDP does not have a seat on this committee, she took the time to attend the meeting, make a recommendation and request permission to be heard and have her recommendation be debated. The goal of her recommendation was for people to have freedom of choice. Now that she is on the government side, I am looking forward to seeing how she will vote. The same thing was done with some Bloc Québécois’s proposals, including one to establish an office of the inspector general for misconduct. The chair of the committee ruled that it was out of scope, that it went too far, that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The entire committee, including the Liberals who had voted in favour of this Bloc Québécois recommendation, agreed to overturn the chair’s ruling. We now see that today in the House, the Liberals, who now have a majority, are going to try to overturn the committee’s decision to overturn the chair’s ruling and go back to the original version of the bill. The same thing happened with another proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois, which sought to ensure that military judges would automatically cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces at the time of their appointment in order to ensure their independence. That recommendation was also made by the Barreau du Québec. It came out of the Fish report. We did not just pull this recommendation out of thin air. The recommendation to create an office of the inspector general came from former Colonel Michel Drapeau, who spoke about this at length in committee. All of this work was done rigorously and conscientiously. We also listened to from the people for whom this bill was intended, who waited so long for this bill. I am completely dumbfounded by the government’s approach today. The government offered us an olive branch following the three by-elections on April 13 and said that it would take the viewpoints of the opposition parties into consideration, that it would work collaboratively. However, it quickly changed its mind when, for example, it decided to unilaterally change the composition of committees, when that is something on which there should be consensus in Parliament. In the past, that was decided by consensus. The Liberals betrayed the legacy of the House in that regard. It is hardly surprising to us anymore when they pull such a stunt, because we have seen them doing these kinds of things for almost a week now. However, I think it is unspeakably sad for the people the bill is primarily aimed at: the victims who took the time to come and testify before the committee, even though it must have been emotionally draining. These victims are being told by the government that muzzling the House was not enough; they are going to muzzle the victims as well. If I were a victim today, I would be outraged by the government’s behaviour, and I hope it realizes that. I still dare to hope that it will reconsider its decision regarding the amendments. We will see how all this leads us to vote on this bill, which is otherwise crucial and could have been handled in a very different way.”

“The Bloc Québécois proposed changes to this bill that followed Justice Arbour's advice and gave victims a choice. Our proposal was fair and balanced. The government is wrongly undoing all the work the committee did on it.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois’s proposal was in line with what Justice Arbour had recommended, while also taking into account the requests of several victims who appeared before the committee. However, the work done by Justice Arbour, who also appeared before the committee at the time regarding Bill C-66, dates back five years. The context may have changed since then. It would have been nice to hear from her again in committee, but she would not necessarily have had the opportunity to interview new members of the forces. In any case, as I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois’s proposal was in line with Justice Arbour’s recommendations, but it allowed for a choice in cases where it applied at the request of victims. It was a thoughtful, non-partisan and balanced proposal. What is so absurd today is seeing the government undermine all the committee’s work on this.”

“The Liberals took 11 years to deal with military misconduct, and now they are forcing an end to debate on this bill. They are doing this to undo changes that the committee agreed on, including one supported by their own members. They are ignoring the committee, the opposition, and the witnesses who asked for these changes.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear the government say that the time has come to move quickly, considering that the issue has been dragging on for 11 years and that the government tried to sweep the misconduct scandal under the carpet. The government has just told us that since our work in committee is not to its liking, it is going to impose closure. I repeat, the Liberals are imposing closure to overturn the committee’s decisions, one of which was supported by all the committee members, including the government members. It has finally become clear that substance does not matter to the Liberals. What matters to them is bulldozing over decisions and, most of all, throwing out not only the opinions of the opposition parties, but also the opinions of the many witnesses who came to the committee, in what were likely highly difficult, emotionally charged circumstances, to make reasonable, justified requests, which we transposed into reasonable, justified amendments. The Liberals say that they could not care less and that they know better than we do. Unfortunately, this gives us a strong sense of what to expect in the next three and a half years.”

“The government is rushing this military justice bill through without thinking about the victims. I want to know if my colleague agrees we should take more time to work together and review the committee's changes to this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saskatchewan on his speech, especially for the few words he spoke in French. I am sure that he will be able to make a speech or provide us with full responses in French in no time. I am optimistic. I congratulate him on his speech on this extremely important topic. The government is treating this issue as if it were a trivial matter, a legislative formality that can be rushed through, even though people have been waiting 11 years for something to happen on this issue. With their new majority, the Liberals are handling this issue without any consideration for the victims, who are likely the people who are most vulnerable and most directly affected by the legislation that is going to be implemented. I would like to know if my colleague agrees that it might be a good idea to take the time to collaborate again and take another look at the amendments that were adopted in committee, some of them unanimously, so that we can carry out our work in a responsible manner that shows respect for the victims.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 to know why the government refuses to let victims choose between military and regular courts. The opposition parties agreed on this change, but the government ignored it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the government is stubbornly refusing to give victims the freedom to choose between a court martial and a civilian court. Why did the government ignore the amendments that the opposition members seemed to support quite unanimously? What does my colleague think?”

“Our committee worked for weeks to make this bill better, and a majority of us voted to change it. Now the government is trying to undo our changes instead of respecting what the majority decided.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the committee that conducted the study for weeks and that succeeded, with our Conservative colleagues, in getting a majority to adopt amendments. These amendments were informed by witness testimony and greatly improved the bill. We worked patiently for weeks. We heard from witnesses who told us where we needed to go. I believe that we managed to move this bill in the right direction. What does my colleague call a government that does not respect the verdict of parliamentary democracy, when a majority of members have decided to move the bill in one direction, but this government is trying to overturn that by moving the bill in the other direction?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 44 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 →

“We need to protect victims of sexual violence in the military and move these cases into the civilian justice system. The government is rushing this bill and shutting down debate. Worse, the Liberals added an amendment that lets the minister give orders about specific prosecutions. That goes against the whole point of fixing the system.”

“Mr. Speaker, not long ago, on October 8, I spoke here in the House about Bill C‑11. My background in social psychology means that I have a specific perspective when it comes to victims, actions and their impact. In particular, I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton because he and his colleagues had an opportunity to meet with victims, which allowed them to see that the recommendations in the Arbour report needed and still need to be implemented. I thank him for that on behalf of all our military personnel, but also on behalf of veterans, many of whom are victims of wrongdoing and criminal acts. I would also like to share the story of a female veteran. I will not mention her name, but I want to commend her resilience. This veteran was the victim of multiple rapes while she was in the Canadian Armed Forces. Just the sight of a uniform or a medal triggers her. When I say it triggers her, I mean she exhibits disorganized behaviour. It was clear that it was the sight of male authority that triggered an indescribable feeling in her. We saw it. I was there. Five minutes later, she managed to put it into words and explain what happened. As she told us, she has been living with this ever since that day, even after undergoing therapy. She had to repeat her story because there were so many changes. She met with an administrative officer, a caseworker, and another caseworker. She kept having to repeat her story. She knows full well that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life. I commend her courage. I can speak to this from my perspective as a social psychologist in the House today. This veteran, this woman, has to bear her suffering day after day and has to rebuild her life, knowing that there is a system in place to protect her. That is what we are talking about. How many years has it been? It has been over 10 years. What just happened? I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We just completed our most recent report on the unacceptably high rate of suicide among veterans, which was tabled last week. Right now, we are looking into Lifemark, the rehabilitation program for our veterans, to see how it is working. This program is due to be re-evaluated shortly because the contract is renewed every six years. Some veterans have received good services, but there are a lot of problems with the program and that is what I am concerned about. The role of the justice system is to take what is happening in the Canadian Armed Forces and deal with it in the civilian system. That is what it needs to do in general. The committee looked into this and made some recommendations. I even heard two of my committee colleagues say that some of the votes had been unanimous. I feel as though we are in a bad movie. I was obviously not a member of Parliament from 2015 to 2019, but I get the impression that we are reliving a situation where the public is unaware that parliamentarians are being hit with one time allocation motion after another because the government is scared that we will bring up more scandals. We saw it earlier with Cúram. I have also seen it on the other committees I serve on. The government’s approach is to be secretive and forget about transparency. The government now has seven members on committees, giving it a complete majority, but it had assured us that this would not prevent it from working collaboratively. Seven days later, it is clear that that is not going to happen, which is appalling. Normally, I struggle to get all my tasks done in a day, but for the past week, committee meetings have lasted only 20 minutes or have been cancelled. When there is an event, we do not resume the meeting later. Some votes will be held tomorrow, and I am convinced that the majority will decide to cancel the meeting, since there will be only one hour left. Is that democracy? Victims are speaking out loud and clear, and it is not just individuals who are speaking out. Factual, concrete reports and situations also exist. What are the Liberals afraid of? I am really trying to contain myself right now. I want to talk about an amendment the Liberals brought forward. It might put some people to sleep, but it is important. It states: That Bill C-11, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following: 17 (1) Subsection 165.17(3) of the Act is replaced by the following: (3) The Minister may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular prosecution. ... The last point I read is the part that folks really need to pay attention to. Let me explain what that means. The Liberals are changing something that was not even amended by the committee and that was not even discussed. Seriously, that is what is happening. Worse still, they are even proposing to give the minister the power to issue instructions regarding a particular prosecution. I do not understand the logic. I really need an explanation, and people need to talk to one another. In our democracy, we must negotiate and vote, even if the government has a majority. I do not have much speaking time left, so I will conclude my speech. The bill has been drafted and introduced with the express aim of putting an end to a system where people protect one another, where complaints are swept under the carpet, where victims do not feel heard, believed or respected. Is that what the government has heard from the victims? Has the government really listened to the victims? Has it read the reports by Louise Arbour and Morris Fish? Once these questions have been answered, I can say that military culture will have to adapt to the 21st century. Military culture has to recognize that women are part of the forces. Yes, the military can accept them, but it has to adapt. It has to realize that women can be victimized. That means we have to avoid creating a justice system that tells them straight off, or at least, that gives them the impression, that the die is cast and the system is rigged. I am thinking of all the female veterans I have met in my role as critic for veterans affairs. I see them. I hear them. I believe them.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“The government talks about spending money to make Canada strong, but it cut the budget for veterans by 15 percent. The government does not want to help veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, everywhere we turn, we hear about investments or about “building Canada strong”, whether during elections or government announcements, while the veterans affairs budget has been cut by 15%. Do not try to tell me that the government sees them, hears them, believes them. The government definitely does not want to help veterans.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals pretend to listen, but they shut down debate and ignore what witnesses say. I want them to listen to our helpful ideas instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give the impression that they are listening, while silently thinking to themselves that they have a trick up their sleeve. They even said that we were traumatizing the people who came to give evidence all over again. I have heard that so many times. Then, when they realize that this sort of incident is not an isolated one, they have to keep it under wraps. What do they do? As they now have considerable powers, they cut short the proceedings, move on quickly, avoid discussion and turn a blind eye to what they have seen and heard. I have hope. I hope they reverse course, because it is true that the Bloc Québécois and the official opposition have constructive and compassionate proposals.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 35 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 →

“Victims told our committee they want a choice between military and civilian courts. This bill moves all cases to civilian courts. My party passed a compromise to let a civilian court keep a case in the military system if that works better, but the government is trying to undo it. What does my colleague think about this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is doing some excellent work on these issues at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and who is studying a number of topics related to the ones I am studying at the Standing Committee on National Defence. Naturally, we often have overlapping areas of focus, and this is one of them. In committee, many victims came to plead in favour of freedom of choice. It is important to note that one of the major proposals in this bill is that all cases, without exception, be transferred from military courts to civilian courts. We in the Bloc Québécois proposed a compromise that was adopted, but that amendment is now threatened by what the government is trying to do. We were not even asking for complete freedom of choice, but we were saying that in some cases, if the civilian court felt that it would be better to leave a case with the military court, it could stay there. That does not seem like the end of the world to me. What does my colleague think about that?”

“We should look at each case on its own instead of giving the minister the power to do whatever he wants. We need to work together to change this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate my colleague’s work. Why is this not done on a case-by-case basis? Proposals are heard, a preliminary study is done, there is an assessment, and then a decision is made based on need and on what is proposed. When we all agree and then they say that it is wrong, that we should forget about it, that is like telling the minister that he will have the right to do whatever he wants. Seriously, we are going to have to change that, and we are going to do it together.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I agree with sending cases to civilian courts. But civilian courts might sometimes decide that a case is better handled by the military. My party proposed a change to allow this, and the Liberals want to remove it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about intentions. We agreed on the intentions behind the bill. I would remind everyone that we voted to refer the bill to committee. That meant we were also listening to the victims. I agree with what my colleague said in support of the civilian courts. He praised their expertise, and I agree 100%. That said, it is possible that, in light of that very expertise, the civilian courts may consider that in certain specific cases it would be better for matters to remain within the military sphere. Our amendment allowed for this, but the Liberals’ Motion No. 5 will remove that possibility.”

“I think the government rejected changes to this bill just to avoid upsetting military leaders. These changes included creating an independent office to handle sexual misconduct and letting military judges leave the armed forces. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was listening to our colleague earlier, and I wonder if the government’s rejection of the amendments is not, in part, an attempt to avoid upsetting the military hierarchy too much. Among the amendments, there was one that sought to create an inspector general’s office dedicated to addressing sexual misconduct within the military. There was also an amendment calling for veterans to be eligible to be appointed as judges and for military judges to be able to leave the armed forces. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”

“The government is undoing changes that the committee voted for when the opposition had a majority. Now the Liberals have built a majority, and they are cutting off debate. I want to know if my colleague thinks it is wrong to force an end to debate on such an important topic.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who provided a very good outline of the situation, describing a government that was not supposed to have a majority, but that has managed to build one anyway, a government that is demonstrating its utter arrogance, particularly by reversing amendments that were adopted by a majority of committee members. The composition in place at the time was a majority of opposition party members in the House and in committee, as democracy had intended. That was before some members crossed the floor. Now, on top of all that, the Liberals lost their vote, but now that they have a majority, they are trying to reverse that vote with these amendments, in addition to imposing closure on us. They have been telling us all along that they are open to discussing things with others, but now they are imposing closure. Does my colleague not find it outrageous that, on top of everything else, the icing on the cake is a closure motion on a subject as sensitive as this one?”

“The committee listened to injured veterans, but the government ignored their voices and rejected our proposals. What message does that send to people who served our country? Will the government face consequences for this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cambridge for her concern because she began and ended her speech by talking about those who served, those who came away with trauma or physical effects, those who need help. We heard from some of these individuals in committee. I would like my colleague to tell me whether she thinks that there will be political repercussions for the government because the Liberals have ignored the voices of those who were represented in committee by members of the opposition. Some of the opposition members’ proposals were even adopted by the government only to be rejected in the end. What message does this send to the people who have served the country?”

“Our committee worked together well across parties to improve this bill. Now the government is shutting down debate instead of working with us. I want to know what my colleague thinks about that.”

“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.”

“The government claims it wants to work with us, but it rejects all our changes to this bill. It even rejected our idea to create an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the military. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the government doing that.”

“Mr. Speaker, it reeks of hypocrisy when government members say that they want to consult and work together with the opposition but then they turn around and throw out every amendment. I think that kind of thing fuels criticism toward all politicians. I am going to speak to only one of the opposition’s recommendations, which was to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That is going to be scrapped. I fail to understand how the government can defend that. What does my colleague think about that?”