“I want the Conservatives to support this bill. It fixes the military justice system based on an independent report. Our government is working to improve conditions for the Canadian Armed Forces.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservative Party of Canada is determined to fight this legislation, and not recognize the phenomenal work that former Chief Justice Arbour did. It is only over the last couple of weeks that the Conservative Party has come out against the legislation as much as it has. At the end of the day, we have a government that is pushing forward a number of agenda items dealing with the Canadian Forces, whether it is the 2% GDP or the increase in the overall interest in joining the forces, which is at a 30-year high. We are improving the conditions of the military and Bill C-11 is a part of that. I wish the Conservatives would get onside.”

“Our government is acting quickly to support and improve the military justice system. We want to respect and grow our armed forces. The Conservatives should stop slowing down our bills and funding for the military.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite appeals to members of the Canadian Forces. I, too, would appeal to the members of the Canadian Forces who are following this debate. This has been a long time coming. Earlier this morning, one of the members commented on the bill, asking what was taking so long and why the government has taken so long to bring forward legislation on the issue. We were being criticized. Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government a year ago. We are already advancing a total package to reinforce how important it is that we have respect within our forces, that we grow the forces and that they are going to be there. The Canadian Armed Forces is a part of our national security, and we have a government committed to advancing it. Why does the Conservative Party want us to drag our feet, whether it is on the financing of our forces or any other measure that we have proposed to the House of Commons?”

“Former justice Arbour talked to over a thousand people to make her recommendations for the military. This bill puts her ideas into place. I want the Bloc to recognize the great work she did.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think in terms of the background of former chief justice Arbour and the work that she conducted. We are not talking hundreds but likely going to 1,000-plus consultations, both direct and indirect. She is an incredible woman who is recognized for human rights beyond Canadian borders and who ultimately came up with this recommendation. I suspect that in all the consultation with former and current CAF members, she came up with a recommendation that she truly believed was in the forces’ best interest. That is what the legislation would put into place. I am wondering if the Bloc would see that maybe we should be giving her more recognition for the work that she did.”

“I want the House to support this bill. We promised to support military members and improve the military justice system. Our plan is working, and more people are applying to join the armed forces now.”

“Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize that, with the collective opposition we are seeing today on Bill C-11, it was important that we advance and move forward with the legislation, given that the government, in particular this new Prime Minister, was elected last year by Canadians and we made a commitment to the Canadian Forces, the CAF members, whether it was hitting 2% of the GDP or reinforcing supports for the Canadian Forces. We now have legislation to build upon the respect that is necessary among CAF members. It is starting to see results. We actually had over 7,000 people last year who put in their application to become members of the Canadian Forces, which is a record high in 30 years. I believe we are going in the right direction. This legislation is part of a bigger package that this Prime Minister and this government are proposing. I would encourage members to maybe revisit their thinking on the legislation and recognize it for what it is.”

“More than 7,000 people applied to join the Canadian Forces recently, which is a 30-year high. We are working to build trust and make the military a respectful workplace. This bill follows the advice of an important report to help do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been significant gains over the last year, when I think of the Canadian Forces, as we try to build up that trust, faith and support for members of the forces. We have seen some very encouraging signs. One of the best ones was the fact that well over 7,000 people actually applied to join the Canadian Forces. That is a 30-year high. Part of that is making sure that we have a respectful workplace. This legislation that has been brought forward is based on a recommendation from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour, who directly and indirectly consulted with well over 1,000 people, I suspect. This is the core of her report. I am wondering—”

“We have shown that we can work with other parties. Everyone seemed to agree with the report on fixing military justice. Now the Conservatives are against this bill, and I want to know why.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the member was reflecting on the majority issue, I remembered very clearly the day we acquired the majority of membership on the floor of the House of Commons. One of the very first actions that took place that day was a collaboration where we saw an opposition Conservative bill actually pass, and that was with the majority. I think collaboration has been, and will continue to be, on the table. We need to recognize that the work and effort put in by former chief justice Arbour were significant. Everyone seemed to be onside with that, at least in the last couple of weeks possibly, but we now see Conservatives in opposition to the legislation. My question for the member opposite is in regard to the—”

“This bill follows an important recommendation to move military sexual misconduct cases to civilian courts. We have already followed most of the recommendations from that report. What does the member think about the former judge who wrote them?”

“Mr. Speaker, former justice Arbour was an incredible Canadian. Whether as a jurist, a prosecutor or a human rights advocate, she did a lot of fine work. She even went beyond Canadian borders, which is all somewhat related, directly or indirectly, to the issue. There are 48 recommendations that came out in that report. If we take a look at recommendation 40, it states, “transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities.” The essence of the legislation is to meet that recommendation. I think we have already done 35 or 36 of those 48 recommendations. It is an important recommendation. I suspect that in all of her consultations she knew what was being proposed. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the former justice—”

“Our government has greatly improved the military. We are spending more money, growing the defence industry, and signing up record numbers of recruits. We are also modernizing the military justice system with this bill. The opposition only recently started talking about this issue. Will the member recognize the hard work of former justice Louise Arbour?”

“Mr. Speaker, part of what I have been raising today is the holistic approach the Liberal government and our new Prime Minister have put into play. We have seen significant improvements in our Canadian Armed Forces, which include 2% of GDP, the military industry and the growth of that industry here in Canada, and the record number of people applying to become part of CAF. We also have Bill C-11 before us, something that has been called upon for a long time. Before this, we had Bill C-66. The opposition has been saying that it has been pushing. I cannot recall Bloc members or Conservatives raising this issue, even a month ago, yet it has been here for a long time. I wonder if the member would recognize the hard work of former justice Arbour.”

“I support this bill. It permanently moves the investigation and prosecution of military sexual assault cases to civilian courts. Victims need an independent justice system outside of the military chain of command.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a bill that means a great deal to me, a bill focused on issues that transcend partisan divides. Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a practical, structured and too long-awaited answer to realities that we can no longer ignore. I am rising to speak to an issue that affects the public trust, the dignity of the women and men who bravely serve their country and the very integrity of our institutions: a profound and lasting cultural transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces. For too long, members of the armed forces, especially but not exclusively women, have carried a silent burden. Courageous testimony has brought to light disturbing realities: sexual misconduct, abuse of power, a climate of fear and, at times, a sense of persistent impunity. This testimony is not an exception to the rule. It is the rule, and it points to a systemic problem. Ad hoc solutions are not enough to address a systemic problem. What it takes is a profound, thoughtful, courageous and coherent transformation enshrined in law. That is exactly what Bill C‑11 proposes, supported by recommendation 5 of the Hon. Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice. Bill C-11 proposes significant amendments to the National Defence Act. It aims to modernize a military justice system that, in some respects, has failed to keep pace with the changing values and expectations of Canadian society. Basically, it strengthens accountability, reinforces institutional independence and ensures compliance with the standards of fairness that Canadians expect. As introduced, Bill C-11 removes the Canadian Armed Forces’ jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual assault offences and gives that jurisdiction to civilian authorities. This is not a new approach. It is in keeping with the interim directive adopted in December 2021 based on Justice Arbour’s interim recommendation. Since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been shifted to the civilian justice system. The directive has proven its worth. Bill C-11 enshrines it in law and makes it permanent. Any attempt to undermine or undo the progress made over the past five years would constitute an unacceptable step backwards and a direct affront to the victims and survivors who have had the courage to speak out. The Liberal government has chosen to take action, not with symbolic gestures, but with a clear and measurable commitment to bring about lasting change. This has resulted in the strengthening of independent report mechanisms, improved support for victims, greater transparency in disciplinary processes and a renewed commitment to accountability. Let us be clear, however, that changing an institutional culture cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires time, consistency, and above all the political courage to challenge structures deeply rooted in an institution’s history—in this case, the military. It is in this context that Justice Arbour’s report marked a turning point. This report did not merely identify the flaws, it charted a course forward, a demanding but necessary one. Among its recommendations, recommendation five stands out for its scope and the clarity of the message it sends to all of Canadian society. Some might wonder why the transfer to civilian courts is so fundamental. The answer is simple, but it touches on the very essence of what we mean by justice. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done independently and impartially. However, in a system where the chain of command plays a central role in every aspect of a service member’s professional life, there exists a structural perception of a conflict of interest whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not. For a victim, this perception alone may be enough to discourage any reporting. Imagine what it is like for someone who has to report an assault in a context where their career, performance reviews and professional future depend directly or indirectly on the very organization that is handling their complaint. This is not just a procedural matter. It is a matter of fundamental trust, and without trust, there can be no justice. By transferring these cases to the civilian system, we are introducing a crucial institutional distance and ensuring genuine independence, which strengthens the credibility of the process and sends a clear message to victims that their voices matter, their safety is a priority and their cases will be handled with all the rigour and impartiality they deserve. To those who cite the unique nature of the military context as a reason to maintain internal jurisdiction, I would say that, when it comes to serious criminal offences, especially sexual offences, the highest standards of independence and expertise must prevail. The civilian system has these capabilities. It has the necessary resources and specialized training, and, above all, it has the experience required to handle these cases with the sensitivity and rigour they require. A strong chain of command is not about absolute control. It is about trust. Trust is built on justice, actual justice and perceived justice. Transparency is also important for building trust. Above all, responsibility and accountability are essential. Enshrining recommendation five in law does not weaken our military institutions; it strengthens them. It recognizes that certain functions need to be performed outside the chain of command to ensure their integrity. Integrity is the very foundation of any trustworthy institution. I will even repeat that statement by saying that integrity is the sine qua non of any trustworthy institution. A strong military is not only defined by its ability to defend our borders; it is also defined by the respect it affords to each and every one of its members. It is also defined by its ability and, above all, its willingness to evolve. In conclusion, refusing to change means accepting that the same injustices will persist. We have a collective responsibility here to reject that. Today, we have a real opportunity, an opportunity to transcend partisan lines, an opportunity to turn our commitments into action, an opportunity to send a clear message that dignity, security and justice are non-negotiable. Behind every reform are individuals, women and men who have chosen to serve this country with courage and dedication. They deserve more than our gratitude. They deserve a safe environment, a fair system and an institution that reflects the values they uphold. That is precisely what we have a responsibility to build here.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “All new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“People in the military must be able to report problems without worrying that their bosses will hurt their careers. This bill keeps the reporting system independent so victims feel safe coming forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not share my point of view, and our understanding of the matter differs, as he pointed out. I would like to thank him for that. In this matter, what we are saying is that someone in the same chain of command could harm a complainant’s career. We want to maintain that independence. We want to give that freedom to the person who wishes to file a complaint. We want the person to have that freedom, that comfort and that peace of mind once the complaint is filed. We are always open to suggestions, but as I said, we do not necessarily share the same understanding on both sides.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 40 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“We want to keep the option to use civilian courts. They have the right skills and experience to handle these cases, and we want to make it easier for victims to file a complaint.”

“Mr. Speaker, I fully understand my colleague’s point, but the fact remains that we do not want to remove that possibility. Once again, there is a difference in understanding on both sides of the House. I can simply say that the civilian courts have the skills, understanding and experience in this regard. Furthermore, once again, we want to work with all parties on all sides to ensure that complainants are given every opportunity to make a complaint.”

“We should pass this bill. It follows Justice Arbour's recommendations by moving military cases to civilian courts, which is what victims asked for. I want the member to explain why it is important to follow through on this report.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague in regard to the significance of the legislation. In Justice Arbour’s report, there were 48 recommendations. I believe we have implemented 36 of those recommendations, or possibly more. The essence of this legislation would be to implement the core of what Justice Arbour was asking us to do: transfer jurisdiction to the civilian process. She consulted, listened to and worked with, directly and indirectly, well over 1,000 people, I suspect. Many of them were direct victims. We need to be respectful of the legislation that is before us, and ultimately pass it. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why it was important not only to receive the report from Justice Arbour but also to follow through with it? That is exactly what the legislation would do.”

“This bill follows the recommendations we received. We want to make it easier for people to make complaints. We want everyone in the military to be treated fairly and equally under the law.”

“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. What we presented today is completely in line with Justice Arbour’s recommendations and the testimony we heard in committee. Once again, we are a responsible government. We are a government that wants to make room for anyone who wants to file a complaint. We are a government that believes every member of the military should receive equal justice for themselves and everyone who works with them and where every member should also feel that justice to be equal.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 20 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 are not passing our job to the provinces. We brought this bill forward to stop sexual violence and harassment in the military. An expert recommended moving these cases from military courts to civilian courts, and we are following that advice to protect survivors.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the federal government wanting to punt its responsibility off to the provinces. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the motivating factor behind us doing this in the first place was to deal with the harassment, in all forms, and sexual violence that was taking place in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is the reason why former Justice Arbour was brought in. That is the reason why 48 recommendations were made. One of them, the 40th recommendation, talked about transferring to the civil process as opposed to the military process. That is the essence of the legislation. Listening to survivors is important. I wonder if the member might want to revisit the history.”

“This bill moves certain military justice cases into civilian courts, which follows the advice of an independent report. I want to know if the member supports having civilian courts handle military sexual abuse cases.”

“Mr. Speaker, the first thing that happened last week when the majority of seats came to the Liberal Party was that, in collaboration, we passed a Conservative motion. Today we have before us a very important piece of legislation that would transfer files from the military justice system into the civilian justice system, which is a reflection of a report that was provided to the government a while ago. The report made it clear that this is what was being requested by an incredible individual. Based on the member’s comments, does he support at all having the civilian process deal with military sexual abuse files?”

“We have already put most of the 48 recommendations into place, and this bill puts in a critical one based on talks with victims and soldiers. Why did the Conservatives change their minds about sending these cases only to civilian courts?”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem saying that is the standard the government has been hoping to achieve. It was not just one recommendation from the former chief justice. There were 48 recommendations to deal with a very serious issue. I believe over three dozen have been implemented, and this is one that is absolutely critical. I reflect on the fact that an incredible Canadian presented a report based on a lot of consulting, working with victims and CAF members in many different capacities and coming up with this recommendation that Bill C-11 supports. Can the member tell us when it was that the Conservative Party changed its position on transferring cases to the civilian court only?”

“This bill supports people in the military and helps victims. I want the member to explain how provincial courts can successfully handle these military cases.”

“Mr. Speaker, I, too, was at the commemoration of the Battle of the Atlantic over the weekend, at HMCS Star, speaking to the commander about the generational investments our government is making in the military, increasing recruiting, and seeing the youth, the recruits, the men and women in the reserves and the veterans. This bill is all about supporting those in the military and ensuring that the victims are supported and trusted. Justice Arbour’s recommendations mentioned civilian courts. Could the member expand on what more needs to be done at the provincial level to make sure that prosecutions done at the provincial level are successful?”

“Our government is taking action to fix the military justice system. A major report gave us 48 recommendations, and we have already put 36 of them in place. This bill puts another one into action. We are supporting our military and heading in the right direction.”

“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—”

“I want us to agree to end debate early and move on to the late show.”

“Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 7:12 p.m. so we can get into the late show.”