TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

Report Stage

2026-05-04 Sitting 116 Showing 1–19 of 19

A bill to modernize the military justice system, including changes to appointments, removing jurisdiction for sexual offences, and expanding the class of persons eligible to be military judges. During debate, the Conservatives argued the bill doesn't go far enough, the Liberals defended it as an important step, and both sides discussed the importance of believing and empowering victims. Some time was spent on tangents about the House majority and military funding.

Official Hansard ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:45 p.m.

“I don't like that the other party is criticizing our bill. We should all support it because a former Chief Justice worked on it. The other party only started criticizing the bill recently. Our government is doing a lot for the military, like spending more money and recruiting more people. This bill is part of that. The other party should support it too.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:50 p.m.

“I pretend the other party doesn't care about our military and just wants to delay. I'm dragging this debate out to make our party look supportive of the troops instead of giving a real answer.”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:00 p.m.

“We had lots of consultations. We got a recommendation. We're doing what it says. Why won't you recognize how hard we worked?”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:00 p.m.

“I'm filling time by talking about our party and leader. I want support for our military bill. People are joining the military. That means our bill is good. Everyone should agree with me.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:05 p.m.

“I'm filling time with praise. Many people applied to join the military. A judge made recommendations. I'm talking around the real question.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:30 p.m.

“The other party used to support this, but now they don't. I want to blame them for opposing the bill.”

Official Hansard

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—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:45 p.m.

“I want to cheer for a famous person instead of engaging with your point. Her report said to do this. The government is doing it. I don't want to debate the rest.”

Official Hansard

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—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:00 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. Our government is doing a lot of things. We're spending more money on the military. More people are joining the military. We have this bill. The opposition never talked about this before. They should thank us.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Abdelhaq Sari

Liberal 5:05 p.m.

“I am speaking to a bill about military justice. It is very important. We need big changes to the system. Abuse and misconduct are a big problem. The bill will give more power to civilian courts. This will help make the process more independent. We need to make sure victims feel safe. This bill will help with that. It is an important step forward.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Abdelhaq Sari

Liberal 5:15 p.m.

“You might not agree with me. That's okay. I think military shouldn't handle these cases. It could hurt the victim's career. I want victims to feel safe reporting. We're open to suggestions. We just don't see it the same way you do.”

Abdelhaq Sari

Liberal 5:15 p.m.

“You're wrong. We don't want to remove that possibility. Civilian courts can handle this. We want to work with everyone to let people complain.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:15 p.m.

“These are important changes. We've implemented 36 of the 48 recommendations. We need to pass this bill to respect the work that went into it. Why was it important to follow through on the report?”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Abdelhaq Sari

Liberal 5:15 p.m.

“I want to agree with my friend. We are responsible and fair. We followed Justice Arbour's recommendations to make sure everyone feels equal.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:25 p.m.

“I don't want to punt responsibility. The government brought in a report to look good. The opposition should read it.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:30 p.m.

“I want to pressure you to say whether you support this bill. We are debating an important change in how we handle serious crimes.”

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.”

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.”

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 ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 6:35 p.m.

“I want to skip ahead in time so we don't have to work as much.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates