“I'm filling time with tangents about a song and the Liberal majority because we actually agree on this bill. I think it's a shame that victims won't get more choice, but my party looks good if we drag this out.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, this debate is an important one. I was reflecting, as I was preparing my comments, on the new Liberal majority. I thank the members of Parliament who double-crossed the voters who elected them one year ago. We are in a situation now where the Liberals have their cherished majority government. I was thinking of this new age, and I had a flashback of when I was in grade 3 and living on a small military base in north Vancouver Island called Holberg. I was a proud member of Gary's Singing Worms. There was a song we sang. You are probably too young to remember it, Mr. Speaker. It was called The Age of Aquarius. It was a hit in the Broadway production Hair. Some of us have been losing our hair in the meantime. I will not sing the song. Some members might know the words, but I will refresh everyone's memory. It came out in 1969, the “flower power” era of love and peace. Some of the words are as follows: This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius Age of Aquarius Aquarius Aquarius Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or derision Golden living dreams of visions I have some words that could very well have been penned by the Liberal Prime Minister. They have the same tune: This is the dawning of the Age of Majority, Our Majority, Liberal Majority Harmony? We can stop pretending Questions asked will be met with no bending More secrecy and more derision One-Party rule with tunnel vision Committees bring recommendations We Liberals will ignore consultations No more listening or debate Just whipped votes, no need to wait Lovely Majority, Liberal Majority I am surprised that my Liberal colleagues are not clapping at that. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Marc Dalton: Mr. Speaker, we have moved into a new realm of secrecy and of control. The Liberal member is sighing, as if it were not true, but he knows it is true. What was the first thing the Liberals did when they got their majority last week? They moved several committees in camera, into secrecy, and shut down debate on things that are uncomfortable for them. Even the Liberal media organ, the CBC, now that the Liberals are established, is perplexed and critical of this move and says this is sending the wrong message. We are seeing the same attitude in the Liberals' imposing closure on debate on this important bill. They have shown their true colours toward victims of sexual harassment in the military with how they have pushed through and are pushing through Bill C-11 without the amendments that were passed at committee. That is very unfortunate. It really boils down to control and secrecy, and we will talk a bit more about that. This debate should not be about procedure. It must not be about politics. It must be about the survivors. It must be about veterans and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces who came before the Standing Committee on National Defence and did something extraordinarily brave. They relived some of the most painful moments of their lives, publicly and on record, because they believed that Parliament was finally prepared to listen. Let us imagine someone's testifying about one of the worst experiences of their life and then having the government refuse to listen to their voice. They testified about sexual assault. They testified about betrayal by institutions they trusted. They testified about being silenced. Above all, they testified about choice: the right to choose which justice, military or civilian, would be most effective and where they could see justice served. Therefore, I ask the House this: Why is the government now moving to shut down debate on Bill C-11 before those concerns are fully and honestly addressed? The government tells Canadians that the bill is about supporting victims and restoring trust. If that is true, why are the ministers afraid of scrutiny? Why impose time allocation on legislation that would directly affect survivors of military sexual trauma? If the government is confident that the bill reflects what survivors want and need, then let Parliament test that. Let the arguments be heard. Let victims know that their voices matter, not just at committee but also here in the House, where laws are made. This is about choice. People asked for a system that treats them with dignity, not suspicion. At committee, we listened. Conservatives worked constructively across party lines, with colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP, to improve Bill C-11. Together we brought forward amendments rooted directly in witness testimony, especially the nearly universal request that the victims of military sexual assault be able to choose which justice system they report to. That is what collaboration looks like. That is what respect for survivors looks like. However, that stands in stark contrast to the Liberal government's approach. For months, the bill has sat idle. The government did not act. It did not engage meaningfully with victims. Then, only after securing a political procedural advantage, the government moved to rush the bill through and undo the very amendments survivors had fought for. This is not leadership. This is political expediency. I can understand why the Liberals are this way, because they have gotten in a lot of trouble around the issue of sexual harassment in the military. I think of Harjit Sajjan. He was censured publicly at the House of Commons in 2021 around the issue of the cover-up of sexual harassment. This is a shame. What are the Liberals doing? There is an expression for that. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The more it changes, the more it is the same. It is the same old, same old. Actually, it is not the same old, same old. It is getting worse. The Liberals would now give the minister the power to intervene and have his way. This would be superseding justice. That is not good, because it is political expedience and political cover-up. This is not what Canadians need, and it is not what the members of the armed forces need. It is a shame. Instead of increasing the independence of military prosecutors, defence counsel and the provost marshal, the minister would ensure that these roles would remain under political and institutional control. This would do nothing to prevent sexual misconduct. It would deepen the mistrust. There is an expression by former British prime minister William Gladstone in which he said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Gladstone was a prime minister of the U.K. at the time of the Confederation of Canada, the 1860s. It basically says that if legal remedy comes too late, it means that people are getting no justice at all. That is what is happening. The Liberals would be putting the cases into the civilian courts, but the courts are already clogged up. I was at a home show in Maple Ridge over the weekend and talked to hundreds of people, including police officers and people in justice. They were telling me that people are being arrested and the prosecutors are not moving the cases forward because the courts are jammed full. It is taking so long that they are releasing people. This is what the Liberals' solution is: just to put the matter through into a jammed-up system where they can bury it and protect themselves. This is about self-protection and self-preservation. Shame on them. Let us get a bill that really reflects what has been brought forward by the witnesses, to protect and help our armed forces and those who have suffered sexual assault.
View on ourcommons.ca ↗
