MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kristina Tesser Derksen

Follow by RSS

Tesser Derksen defends defence spending, including the request for $50.7 billion for National Defence, and backs bills on victims of intimate partner violence, labour relations, military justice reform and cutting red tape. She builds her case with stories from her own life and work — “I was raised in a blue-collar, working-class home” — and often opens with thanks and tributes before getting to her point. As a former family law lawyer, she draws on that experience when arguing victims’ bills.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B
78 / 100 over 32 statements
Signal 73 / 100
Relevance 76 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 88 / 100
Loses points more than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.2.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.7 Greetings and pleasantries.2.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.1 Thanks and tributes.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8 Averaged over the 32 of 37 statements graded so far.

Statements 37

Oral Questions ·

Employment

“More people have jobs, and the government is sending families extra money for groceries. How is our economic plan helping Canadians now and in the future?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, families in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South woke up to good news. May’s labour force survey showed robust job gains, which is a promising sign that our economic plan is bearing fruit. Also, the CRA began issuing payments under our government’s enhanced Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which is equal to a 50% increase over the previous GST credit. Can the Secretary of State for the CRA and Financial Institutions update this House on how our economic plan is setting a long-term trajectory for growth and resilience, while also making life more affordable for Canadians here and now?

Government Orders ·

Build Canada Homes Act

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“How will the plan to train more skilled trade workers help with this bill to build affordable homes?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. Our Minister of Industry recently announced support to train and attract new talent in the field of skilled trades. I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on how see sees that program, to attract and train new skilled trade workers, dovetailing with the Build Canada Homes initiative.

Government Orders ·

Protecting Victims Act

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“I support this bill. It helps victims of abuse by making the court process faster and easier for them. It also gives victims extra help in court so they do not have to relive their trauma.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from my colleague. During my work in the legal field with women who were experiencing intimate partner violence, many of them experienced hesitation and trepidation in coming forward because they were not confident that the justice system could be easily navigated or address their needs. This bill speaks directly to that concern by ensuring that courts can have earlier responses, respond faster and deliver stronger results for victims. We are also including testimonial aids for victims, so that they do not have to relitigate and relive their traumas in court. We also want to ensure that they have a speedy result. At the same time, we have to make sure that more complex sexual assault and sexual abuse cases have the time they need in the courts without encountering unnecessarily long delays and being thrown out, as we saw in the Jordan decision.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“Research shows that mandatory minimum sentences do not always stop crime. But they help people trust the justice system. We are trying to find a balance that builds trust, prevents crime, and still follows the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question about mandatory minimum sentences. We had great discussions about that in this House. I do agree that the research on justice does tend to show that mandatory minimum sentences do not necessarily deter crime. However, they do provide more trust and more confidence in the justice system. What our government is trying to do here is find that middle ground where we can ensure that folks have confidence in justice, and I believe there is some element of deterrence there as well, but at the same time we are making sure that we are compliant with the charter. As we know, there have been a lot of charter challenges with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, and this is a balance that we have to negotiate here in this House.

In response to a question from Frank Caputo

“I support this bill. My legal work with victims of violence showed me that our laws have gaps, and we need to fix them.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his advocacy and work on that bill. As someone who has worked in the violence against women sector in the legal context, I know we saw gaps in laws and legislation that could be addressed through this House, and we are glad to see those types of bills moving through now. I am happy to continue to advocate, and certainly it is our job as elected officials in this chamber to advocate on behalf of those who do not have voices to bring their stories forward. I commend the member for his work on that bill, and I will certainly continue to work with him to elevate those voices in this chamber.

“I support this bill. It makes controlling or abusing a partner a crime. It punishes femicide and violence against women more harshly. It also creates stronger laws to protect children from online sexual abuse.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. This bill represents an important step in reinforcing Canada’s commitment to protecting victims and supporting survivors of crime. When I was a law student, I worked in a community legal clinic in Toronto. Interacting and advising women who were living with domestic coercion and violence was a sobering experience for me. I was privileged to work with lawyers in the violence against women and children sectors where I learned much more about the cycle of abuse, a malignant dynamic that was afflicting so many families. Later, when I worked as a family law lawyer, I encountered many women trying to navigate the legal system while simultaneously attempting to break free from the financial, emotional and social coercion that their intimate partners exercised over them. It had taken many years for some of them to even recognize they were victims of such control and manipulation. Isolation from their families, friends and social supports; restrictions to accessing their own money; and erosion of their self-worth and value through psychological manipulation were regular symptoms I encountered. Of course, there were limits to the help I could provide as a new lawyer, and I was grateful for the community groups and social supports that I was able to refer my clients to for that help. My early career as a family law litigator also taught me of the pervasive obstacles these women faced and continue to face in accessing justice through the legal system. My experiences with these women and their families inform the words I bring to this House today and ratify my support for our government’s action to protect them. Bill C-16 advances four core goals in protecting victims: strengthening the criminal law’s response to gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence and femicide; strengthening protections for children against sexual exploitation, particularly in online spaces; improving the treatment of victims; and addressing delays that undermine confidence in the justice system. I will focus today on how the bill would enhance the criminal justice system’s response to gender-based violence and improve protections for children from sexual exploitation. Every two days in Canada, a woman is killed by her intimate partner. This extreme form of violence is both devastating and disturbingly prevalent. These realities demand a strengthened and explicit response in our criminal law. We can strengthen the Criminal Code through Bill C-16 to ensure that murders occurring in certain aggravating circumstances are treated as first-degree murder, the most serious offence in the Criminal Code. These include murders of intimate partners that occur in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, murders that occur in the context of sexual violence or exploitation, and murders motivated by hate, including based on gender. The bill would also treat manslaughter occurring in these same circumstances more seriously by requiring sentencing judges to consider imposing the penalty applicable to second-degree murder: 25 years of imprisonment. Importantly, Bill C-16 would explicitly refer to these killings as femicide. Words matter, and naming these crimes matters. In doing so, we recognize and acknowledge that women and girls are disproportionately the victims of these forms of homicide, and it reflects victims’ lived realities. While femicide represents the most extreme form of gender-based violence, such violence often takes many other forms, including mental abuse. Abusers may exert control by isolating intimate partners from family and friends, monitoring communications, controlling finances or making threats involving children. This pattern of coercive or controlling conduct often precedes intimate partner femicide. Through the protecting victims act, a new offence would criminalize engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. The new offence is modelled on Scotland’s approach, which is widely regarded as the gold standard because it does not require proof that the victim feared for their safety. Clearly defining “coercive control” in the Criminal Code is intended to help law enforcement identify the true aggressor in intimate partner violence cases and reduce the risk of dual charging by requiring a contextual assessment of power imbalances and patterns of exploitation of vulnerabilities. This approach recognizes that coercive controllers often target vulnerabilities, while violence used by victims is often defensive. The new offence would be supported by training to support the offence being applied by law enforcement in a manner consistent with its core objective of protecting victims. To complement these reforms, the protecting victims act would modernize the criminal harassment offence by removing the need to prove the victim’s subjective fear, instead requiring proof that a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances would perceive a threat to their physical or psychological safety, reducing the need for survivors to relive their trauma in court. The protecting victims act would also respond to an emerging form of digital-based gender violence: sexual deepfakes. While child sexual abuse material is already criminalized regardless of whether images are real or fictional, the existing offence for non-consensual distribution of intimate images does not clearly capture AI-generated images that are indistinguishable from real ones. Bill C-16 would address this gap by ensuring that sexual deepfake depictions of identifiable persons that appear real and are distributed without consent are treated the same as real intimate images, affirming that consent is required regardless of how the image is created. The bill would also criminalize threatening to distribute intimate images, including deepfakes, to address sextortion and intimidation and would increase the maximum penalty for the offence from five to 10 years’ imprisonment. The proposed legislation contains a range of measures to better protect children from sexual exploitation, including online. For example, significant concerns have been expressed about child sexual offence mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs. While Parliament has been signalling that sexual crimes against children should be treated as far more grave by increasing MMPs, courts have struck many of these MMPs down as violations of section 12 of the charter, which characterizes them as cruel and unusual punishment. Our government is responding to this through the proposed protecting victims act. We propose to reinforce these MMPs for predators who create, possess or distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material by allowing judicial discretion, in rare cases, where applying an MMP would be grossly disproportionate in the facts of the case before the court. The protecting victims act would ensure those who prey on our kids face prison time for the most heinous crimes imaginable, by reviving 13 MMPs for child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts. This approach is designed to protect and preserve mandatory minimum penalties while ensuring they continue to apply to the serious crimes they are intended for, thereby addressing the court’s constitutional concerns under section 12 of the charter, cruel and unusual punishment. It is an approach that members of the opposition have supported very well. The protecting victims act also proposes reforms that would modernize offences that target sexual exploitation, sextortion and child luring and child sexual abuse and exploitation material. These reforms include creating a new offence that would prohibit threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material; expanding the child-luring offence so it would explicitly apply to those who communicate with children to sextort them; criminalizing the distribution of bestiality depictions, including deepfake ones, which is conduct that is known to be used to manipulate children for sexual purposes; expanding certain child sexual offences to protect children from those who may invite them to expose their own sexual organs for a sexual purpose, including where no physical touching occurs; and ensuring Canadians who sexually assault children abroad could be prosecuted at home. The proposed reforms also seek to strengthen requirements for Internet service providers under the mandatory reporting act, which imposes duties on Internet service providers, including one to notify police when their services are used to commit a child sexual abuse and exploitation material offence. Service providers would have to preserve data for a longer period of time and transmit critical information to law enforcement. The act would also more clearly cover a broader range of online platforms and would extend the limitation period for the prosecution of offence under that act. Finally, to address those who recruit and involve youth in the commission of criminal offences, Bill C-16 proposes to create a new offence that would prohibit recruiting, counselling, encouraging or inviting a young person to be party to a criminal offence. These reforms are necessary. They move Canada forward toward a justice system that recognizes modern forms of abuse, protects survivors before it is too late and refuses to allow predators to hide in technology, bureaucracy or legal loopholes. I mentioned earlier that every two days a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. That day came for Darian Hailey Henderson-Bellman, a 25-year-old woman who lived in my riding. She was killed by her intimate partner, a man who had numerous interactions with law enforcement and should never have been released into society after he was previously charged with domestic violence. The system failed Darian and her family, but her murder is not in vain. Through the valiant and dedicated work of her parents, Flo and Paul Henderson, Darian’s story has been shared and discussed, including in this very House. Darian’s story and those like hers play a key role in the fabric of this legislation. We owe it to women living under the shadow of coercive control, we owe it to the children who are confronted with threats on their phones and we owe it to victims who wait for years for justice only to be turned away. Laws shape culture, and culture shapes safety. When we call femicide by its name, we expose misogyny for what it is. When we prosecute sextortion, we protect dignity. When we protect children, we protect our country’s future. When we expand victims’ rights, we honour their courage. I implore everyone in the House to support these reforms because safety is not optional, dignity is not negotiable and justice should not be a privilege; it must be a guarantee.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“We must keep supporting Canadian talent. The government should continue giving producers incentives to make content here and keep things fair for our artists. I also encourage everyone to enjoy Canadian content this weekend.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s French is certainly better than mine, and I hope to speak as well as she does one day soon. Absolutely, it is important that we continue to encourage Canadian talent to be highlighted, and I have mentioned this in some of my other remarks. We have had some great programs lately that have really gotten us a lot of international attention, and we want to keep that up. I think the government’s role is to continue to level the playing field, to continue to incentivize producers to continue producing within Canada, but at the same time to make the message clear that we want Canadian content at the forefront and for it to be encouraged and lifted up. I think the way we do that is to continue doing what we are doing, to incentivize, but also to make sure that the fairness is there for our Canadian artists. I would encourage everyone to get out this weekend to take in some Canadian content to help with that.

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“We must keep supporting and promoting French-speaking artists in Canada. They are an important part of our national identity.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Certainly, a big feature of what the CRTC is trying to do is highlight, encourage and elevate the voices of Canadians, including indigenous, regional and certainly francophone artists as well. I will just mention that I am learning French, as is probably evident from my speech, and as I was raising my children at home, often I would be able to turn on Canadian television and they could watch French cartoons, such as Caillou. Does everyone remember Caillou? I actually started learning French that way as well. I think it is very important that we continue to elevate the voices of our francophone artists. They are a true, central part of our Canadian identity. It is important that they be protected and allowed to thrive.

In response to a question from Tony Baldinelli

“Film production is growing in my riding, and we want to keep it going. This rule is not a tax; it is required spending on Canadian content. We need to support our film industry and make sure Canadian artists can tell their stories on our screens.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South, there has actually been quite an active growth in film production, and we want to keep it going. First, I would comment that my colleague might want to review the legal definition of what a tax is. This is not in fact a tax. It is a Canadian programming expenditure. Second, as far as encouraging film and production goes, yes, it is definitely important that we incentivize, but it is also important that we level the playing field so Canadian artists have the ability to have their stories heard and have their stories reach us in our living rooms at home.

“I support our law that makes online streaming companies help pay for Canadian music and shows. It is fair to make foreign streaming sites support our artists just like traditional Canadian broadcasters have always done.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Milton East—Halton Hills South. Today I rise to speak in support of the Online Streaming Act and its implementation by the CRTC. On May 21, 2026, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission released two regulatory policies implementing Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. Those rulings focused on a modernized framework for Canadian programming expenditures, the discoverability of Canadian content, and support for television services of exceptional importance. The CRTC decision reduced the obligations on Canadian companies that are losing market share, while imposing for the first time Canadian expenditure requirements on streaming companies. The CRTC struck a balance between those producing Canadian television and those of us who watch it. The decision creates a fair, flexible and adaptable framework that supports Canadian artists and the growth of Canadian creative industries. I am not here to defend the CRTC’s decision. Rather, I am here to talk about the important work of future-proofing the Canadian broadcasting sector, which started almost a decade ago. This recent CRTC ruling is just one milestone, significant as it is, in a long journey to modernize the Canadian broadcasting system. It is the culmination of several years of work from legislators in this very House and the CRTC. Let us take a look back. As members know, the Online Streaming Act was the first major reform of the Broadcasting Act since 1991. Thirty-five years ago, Canada was still building its place in the global screen sector. We were still fighting for space and recognition. Today, Canada has one of the strongest and most respected audiovisual ecosystems in the world. It includes film and television, animation and documentaries and, increasingly, digital and interactive content. We are a global production hub, we develop world-class talent and we have built institutions that have supported generations of creators. This is a source of pride. Canada has one of the strongest audiovisual sectors in the world, and that did not happen by accident. Our culture is the result of deliberate decisions made by Canadians to support it, and the Broadcasting Act is no exception. It is an essential cultural legislative text. Thanks to this system, generations of Canadians have grown up listening to Canadian music on the radio and watching Canadian shows and films on television. A distinctly Canadian space allows us to share our stories in order to better understand each other and to better grasp what it means to be Canadian. Before the Broadcasting Act was modernized, we were clearly at an inflection point. The industry was evolving faster than our policy frameworks were designed for. Business models were upended. Audiences were fragmenting. Technology was transforming how content is created, financed, distributed and discovered. That pace of change was not slowing down. As the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters stagnated and declined, so did the level of support for Canadian music and stories, and for the creative professionals behind them. Changing viewing habits put the future of Canadian audiovisual content at risk, as audiences moved away from traditional broadcasters, who are subject to Canadian content requirements, toward foreign, largely United States-based online streaming services. These streaming platforms had no obligation to support Canadian content, until the Broadcasting Act was updated by the Online Streaming Act. Let us review the role of CRTC. Through the Online Streaming Act, the government sought to give the CRTC the powers and tools needed to regulate online broadcasters fairly, including by imposing regulatory requirements by way of conditions of service. The act established the foundations for all service providers, including streaming services, to contribute fairly to the broadcasting system. Canadian studios and creators should not be disadvantaged. Canadian culture deserves a supportive and conducive environment for its flourishing both online and off-line. This is what the Online Streaming Act has made possible. How were the online streaming services brought into the system in the first place? The Online Streaming Act modernized the Broadcasting Act by confirming that online broadcasters are subject to Canada’s regulatory framework. In November 2023, the government issued policy directions to guide the CRTC during its implementation of the Online Streaming Act. Those directions required the CRTC to ensure that streaming services would make meaningful contributions to the broadcasting system and that there would be robust consultation with industry stakeholders and civil society. Since that time, the CRTC launched several consultations and conducted public hearings to gather input on various aspects of the Online Streaming Act implementation, with a view to modernizing the broadcasting regulatory framework in the public interest. Canadian programming should be widely available on streaming platforms. The Online Streaming Act ensures that Canadian stories and music are supported and showcased on major streaming platforms operating in Canada, alongside the significant volume of U.S. and foreign content available on these services. The growth of online streaming services has opened the door to an unprecedented range of content choices for Canadians, yet in this vast digital landscape, Canadian stories and creators can be difficult to discover and recognize. The Online Streaming Act helps ensure that Canadian voices, music and shows remain visible and accessible to audiences across the country. Supporting the discoverability of Canadian content is not just about entertainment. It is about reflecting our experiences, our perspectives and our identities to Canadians. When people can see themselves in the stories being told, it helps strengthen a stronger sense of connection, pride and belonging. The implementation of the Online Streaming Act aims to support the long-term viability of the Canadian broadcasting system while strengthening our cultural sovereignty in a rapidly evolving digital environment. Canada is a hub of creativity, innovation and exceptional emerging talent. It is essential that our creators and cultural industries continue to have the opportunity to grow and succeed. Achieving this goal requires a modern and fair framework in which all broadcasting services operating in Canada contribute equitably to the Canadian broadcasting system and support the creation and promotion of Canadian stories and music. Traditional broadcasters already contribute to Canadian productions, from the development of Canadian programs through Canadian programming expenditure requirements and through contributions to production funds. However, until the recent CRTC decision, online broadcasters operated in the Canadian market without similar obligations to support Canadian music and stories. Canadian broadcasters have delivered incredible Canadian content for decades. They invested in the system and helped create the content that so many of us love. It is only fair that online streaming platforms should have to contribute in an equitable way. As the CRTC continues to implement the Online Streaming Act, the ultimate goal remains unchanged: to ensure that the approach is comprehensive, fair, evidence-based and compliant with international business obligations. The Online Streaming Act is a cornerstone of our approach to enabling Canadian creators to thrive in a modernized broadcasting system. This remains a priority for our country. The government remains committed to the Broadcasting Act and its objectives. We want to ensure that our children and future generations grow up as we did, with the opportunity to watch our stories and listen to our songs. Entertainment is how we share experiences, emotions and ideas. It is what allows us to build a shared culture and identity. Today we have a world-class audiovisual industry, one that creates extraordinary content, supports over a hundred thousand well-paying jobs across the country and contributes in a major way to our economy. Canada’s artists, creators and cultural entrepreneurs are at the heart of our identity. Their work drives innovation, creates jobs and ensures that Canadian stories are heard at home and around the world. We are telling Canadian stories that travel. We build intellectual property here at home. Those stories are increasingly one of our most valuable cultural and economic assets. That is important because this is not just cultural expression anymore. It is an export, and it is a key part of how Canada diversifies its economy in a rapidly changing global environment. The Online Streaming Act equips our broadcasting system to meet the known and immediate challenges of today and to help brace for the challenges of tomorrow.

Statements by Members ·

Milton East—Halton Hills South

“I have been the member of Parliament for Milton East—Halton Hills South for one year. In that time, I helped bring $2.9 million for affordable housing to Georgetown and added 100 summer jobs for young people. I will keep working to help the people in my community.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one year ago, the people of Milton East—Halton Hills South placed their trust in me to represent them in the House. It is an honour I carry proudly every day. In that time, we have delivered real results. We have secured $2.9 million for affordable housing in Georgetown, and we are just getting started. Through the Canada summer jobs program, we have increased opportunities for young people by adding 100 positions this year, which is an increase of nearly 85%. I have shown up, and I have listened. I have acted by helping residents in Milton and Georgetown navigate federal services and by cutting through red tape when it mattered most. I am so grateful for the support of my family, my community, my wonderful staff, my fabulous colleagues and for the leadership of the Prime Minister, who is focused on bringing Canadians together, uniting people across regions and across party lines. We are one year in, and there is still so much more to do. I will keep working every day to deliver for Georgetown and Milton.

Oral Questions ·

Public Safety

“Police have asked for these data access laws for decades. I want the parliamentary secretary to explain how this bill keeps Canadians safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As this critical piece of legislation continues its parliamentary journey, it is important to remind Canadians how overdue a lawful access regime is in our country. This has been requested by law enforcement agencies for decades. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety expand on how crucial this legislation is for the safety and security of all Canadians?

Private Members' Business ·

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

In response to a question from Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“Canada needs more young people in the skilled trades to build housing and other big projects. How will this bill encourage young people to join the trades?”
  • Speech on a bill

    Clarity 33 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, l thank my colleague for presenting the bill, and I am proud to be the seconder. My youngest son is completing his apprenticeship to become an electrician. Given our government’s very ambitious plans to engage in nation-building projects, whether in housing or other large projects, we know that we are going to have to encourage more young people to get involved in the skilled trades. Could my colleague please comment on how he sees the legislation’s encouraging young people to take up skilled trades?

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

In response to a question from Sherry Romanado

“Victims should not have to report crimes to their bosses or have their cases handled at work. We must protect victims from being pressured by military leaders into using military courts, which can unfairly favour the accused.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has asked really goes to the crux of what Justice Arbour found in her report. I would say that no, I do not know of any other situation where a victim would potentially have to come forward to superiors or have the case heard within a workplace. I think we have to be very cautious. I know my opposition colleagues have been talking about options, but we have to be cautious about weighing options and certainty, and we have to be very cautious that we do not underestimate the potential pressure or coercion a victim may be subjected to by superiors within the workplace to have their complaint heard, in this example, in a military court because there could be more favourable conditions to the accused in that situation. That is something we have to be very cognizant of.

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“I am a lawyer who has worked with victims of partner violence. MPs try to fix bills in good faith, but the opposition will not always get the changes they want.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee at which this was studied. However, I am a lawyer, and I have worked in the space of intimate partner violence and violence against women, so the perspective I bring is my own. As far as working through amendments and committees, this is something that I believe every elected member of Parliament wants to do in good faith at all times. That does not necessarily mean that colleagues across the aisle will get the result they want every time.

In response to a question from Scott Anderson

“I agree with Justice Arbour's advice. She talked to hundreds of people and found that military culture has serious problems that have not improved.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, certainly, we give great weight to the testimony of victims and of the good doctor my colleague referenced. I would note that Justice Arbour, who has a long and illustrious career in the judicial system and who has been recognized as an international champion of human rights, carried out a very extensive investigation for her report, for which she consulted hundreds of witnesses, or possibly close to 1,000. She stated through her review that she still found a deeply deficient culture within the military and she had seen no meaningful improvements. Therefore, I would defer to Justice Arbour’s recommendation.

“I want this bill passed without the opposition's changes. It makes civilian police and civilian courts handle all military sexual misconduct cases in Canada. The opposition wants to reverse this, which hurts victims and goes against expert advice.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a piece of legislation that is very important to the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces. I begin by thanking the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families for their service to Canada. As Canada’s new government rearms, rebuilds and reinvests in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is critical that we start with our people. Our work to attract, recruit and retain members of the Canadian Armed Forces requires a safe, healthy work environment where our forces can thrive, grow and contribute. The changes proposed in this legislation are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team, which continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians. Bill C-11 aims to modernize the military justice system and incorporate the recommendations from two external reports from former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish. The bill would implement nine recommendations in total, including recommendation five of former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s report and eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish’s report. At present, the amendments made by members of the opposition during the study of the bill at the Standing Committee on National Defence run counter to the Supreme Court justices’ recommendations. I believe all of my colleagues in this House will agree with me that bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our highest priorities, free from politicization and partisanship. Canadians expect us to take culture change in the military seriously. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces expect us to take culture change seriously too. I will take some time to go through the changes that Bill C-11 aims to implement from Justice Arbour’s work. In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, known as the report of the independent comprehensive external review, or the ICER, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional shortcomings and structural barriers that have allowed the problem of sexual misconduct in the CAF to persist. When the legislation was introduced last fall, before amendments were made at committee, Bill C-11 proposed to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada from the military police to the civilian police. This is Justice Arbour’s fifth recommendation in action. As Justice Arbour laid it out, the goal is to remove these offences from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces, putting the investigations into and the prosecution of offenders in the hands of civilian authorities. Moreover, this recommendation fulfills our promise to victims and survivors that they can have confidence that their cases will continue to be handled fairly and with transparency outside of the military chain of command. This change and others proposed through Bill C-11 complement programs, services and initiatives already in place to make sure that survivors receive the support and guidance they need to help them through the difficult process they often face alone. Before going into further amendments made at the committee stage, I will take a moment to discuss the existing supports that are available through the Canadian Armed Forces’ programs and illustrate how Bill C-11 is yet another piece of the puzzle in supporting victims and survivors. The Canadian Armed Forces sexual misconduct support and resource centre is a key tool for victims and survivors. Within this centre is the community support for sexual misconduct survivors grant program. This program extends the support offered through the centre into the communities it serves, increasing collaboration between National Defence and third party, community-based organizations. These organizations can in turn provide valuable support for survivors and have the capacity and expertise to provide support to those affected by military sexual trauma. These essential resources complement the centre’s other offerings, ensuring that survivors can access support anywhere in the country when, where and how it is needed most. Through peer support programs, survivors can share their experiences and support one another in groups that include mental health practitioners and trained peer supporters with their own experience of sexual misconduct or military sexual trauma. While these programs and tools can help survivors cope with the experience of sexual misconduct or trauma, it is equally important to support them through the complex and difficult process of pursuing justice. Many survivors have said the justice system makes them feel excluded or even victimized all over again. This is one of the driving forces behind the changes to the military justice system proposed in Bill C-11. I will speak briefly to Bill C-11’s journey through committee. Justice Arbour’s recommendation five, the recommendation to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct cases from the military police to the civilian police, is at the heart of Bill C-11. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties at the committee stage run directly counter to this recommendation. It would be even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill as amended by the opposition parties. Moreover, the lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system, victims and survivors. It is important to remember that an interim directive to implement recommendation five by transferring cases until legislation passed has been in place since December 2021. That means that since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought into the civilian justice system, and none of these offences have been tried by the military justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, just as Justice Arbour recommended. However, opposition amendments propose to reverse this directive, reject Justice Arbour’s recommendation and, in fact, go backward. Victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces deserve clarity and transparency, not steps backward. It is clear that the interim directive and the spirit of Justice Arbour’s recommendation five have been making a tangible, clear and meaningful difference over the past five years. Since December 2021, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case that has occurred in Canada has been successfully transferred to the civilian system. This means that every new case is being prosecuted in a manner that is fair, that is transparent and that inspires trust in the system for the victim. Bill C-11 would take the final necessary step to make this a lasting reality and ensure that all cases would, once and for all, go through the civilian court system. Any attempts or suggestions to overturn, stall or block this progress from continuing are a disservice to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. Bill C-11 would ensure that victims and survivors of Criminal Code sexual misconduct would have a fair, transparent process without any real or perceived influence from their chain of command. Over the past few years, I have watched the Canadian Armed Forces undergoing a period of cultural evolution and change. Like many Canadians and many of my colleagues, I am encouraged by the positive and forward-looking changes that have been made. I know that building trust and confidence in our military justice system is a critical element in ensuring that this change continues and endures. The proposed changes in Bill C-11 would modernize the military justice system, and particularly how that system handles cases of Criminal Code sexual misconduct.