“We have already been sending these cases to civilian courts since 2021. We have followed almost all of Justice Arbour's advice to fix the military culture. Blocking this change would undo that progress, and we will not do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member omits to tell the Canadian people watching the debate that as of the fall of 2021, all of these cases have been sent to civilian courts. He cannot have it both ways. There has been important progress and tangible changes since 2021. This is precisely because the interim directive that put Justice Arbour’s recommendation five into place in a temporary manner, until such time as legislation could be passed through the House, continues. Work on cultural evolution inside the CAF has continued. We have now implemented 47 of Justice Arbour’s 48 recommendations. To block Arbour’s recommendation five would be to undo the progress of the past five years. We do not have the intention of doing that. I think the member knows this is the right way to proceed. I put my trust in the work of Madam Justice Arbour, Mr. Justice Fish and, for that matter, the chief of the defence staff.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “We have implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“We should pass this bill now. Most of the proposed changes were already ruled out of order. This bill moves sexual offence cases involving military members to civilian courts, and it acts on independent advice to fix our military justice system.”

“Mr. Speaker, a large majority of these amendments were ruled out of order by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is not exactly helpful. In recent years, we have made considerable progress towards bringing about significant and lasting cultural change, notably by working to implement 47 of Justice Arbour’s 48 recommendations. This bill proposes transformative measures to transfer the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences allegedly committed in Canada by members of the CAF to the civilian system. This bill also implements Justice Fish’s key recommendations aimed at strengthening the military justice system. Now is the right time to move forward.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We have supported the military with more money and more recruits. This bill is important, and I am disappointed the Conservatives now want to delay it so it does not pass.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize how we have enhanced our military, whether it is increasing their budget to 2% of GDP or providing support for CAF members. Just recently the minister made an announcement of 7,000-plus new applications to join the forces. It is all about credibility. The minister sees the value of bringing forward this legislation. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party of Canada is now in opposition to it. It is interesting, because two weeks ago I did not hear the Conservatives crying about it or saying that they were going to oppose the legislation. It is coming back to the House and now they have taken the position of having the full intention of debating it endlessly so that it does not pass. My question is for the minister. In terms of continuity and reinforcing confidence in the forces, this is one of the reason why—”

“We are investing in the military and fixing its justice system. We need to make sure the legal system is independent and protects the people serving in our armed forces.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have made a decision. We are going to be rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces. Inherent in that rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting is the important question of bolstering trust in the military justice system by providing legal clarity, as recommended by Justice Arbour, and by enhancing the independence of key military justice actors, as recommended by former Justice Fish. We are moving forward. The member makes an important point. The Canadian Armed Forces and all the work that we are doing there begins with our people. We need to make sure they can work in a safe, transparent, robust workplace. If there are challenges, members of the armed forces need to know that the legal system that is there to protect them will in fact work.”

“We are quickly spending more money on defence. We are giving soldiers a raise, recruiting more people, and investing in military bases and the Arctic. The problem is that the opposition voted against all of this.”

“Mr. Speaker, no, that is not what he meant. What he meant was we would reach 2% of our GDP spending in 10 months. We would get members of our Canadian Armed Forces a significant pay raise in less than six months. We would increase recruitment by 61%, year over over. We would be making billions of dollars of investment in our 33 bases. We would extend our presence in Latvia for three more years, with 3,000 members in a forward operating location. We would announce $40 billion for investments in the Arctic, including for northern operational support hubs. We are moving at breakneck speed. The problem is that, in every one of those cases, the opposition has voted against.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It changes how the military handles sexual crimes. It takes the power to investigate and prosecute these crimes away from the military.”

“Mr. Speaker, bringing about a cultural shift is not only the right thing to do; it is also essential to meeting our operational needs in the area of national security. This is not at all a partisan issue, and the member knows it. We introduced Bill C-11 to enshrine the main recommendations of Justices Arbour and Fish in the legislation and to restore victims’ and survivors’ confidence in the armed forces. Justice Arbour’s fifth recommendation involves removing the Canadian Armed Forces’ jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences. That is exactly what we have proposed and that is exactly what we we are doing. We hope to have our colleagues’ support.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Victims should not have to choose between civilian courts and military courts. Making them choose is unfair, stressful, and military leaders could interfere with the case. We are following the advice of a former Supreme Court judge.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are taking our lead from Madam Justice Arbour, one of our most distinguished Supreme Court of Canada justices. Here is really what is at stake: Victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself called a victim’s choice between military and civilian courts “a false choice”. This is because we would be placing a burden on a victim in a time of high stress, trauma and in fact duress to choose between two unequal options. Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“Victims should not have to choose between military and civilian courts. Making them choose is unfair, especially when military leaders might interfere in a military court case.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will repeat myself in French for my colleague’s benefit. Victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself described a victim’s choice between military and civilian courts as a false choice. I want to emphasize the word “false”. Indeed, that would amount to placing a burden on the victim of having to choose between two unequal options, all at a time of stress and trauma. Ultimately, asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.”

• 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 →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the House to pass this bill to build trust in the military justice system. It is based on major reviews and talks with thousands of people.”

“Mr. Speaker, maybe in conclusion I could remind the member that the chief of the defence staff, in her previous position, spoke to 14,000 individuals. I am not sure where he is deriving his numbers from. As a result of that as well, Madam Justice Arbour actually conducted one of the deepest commissions of inquiry in this whole area. The member knows better than to hurl this kind of invective. It is not like him. As a result of that, I think what we should do is remind ourselves that this is about enhancing trust. That is what Bill C-11 will do and that is why we are moving forward.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 39 of 100

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

  See full analysis →