Bill C-11, Military Justice System Modernization Act · Report stage · now law Where it stands
The law removes the military's authority to investigate or try sexual offences under the Criminal Code that are alleged to have taken place in Canada. It alters appointment processes for military prosecutors, defence counsel, and the provost marshal, who is renamed the Provost Marshal General. The law also expands who can become a military judge, removes those judges from the summary hearing system, and lets people acting for victims request a liaison officer.
122 statements
“I want to change this military justice bill. I want to remove its short title and delete section 7.”
“moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting the short title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 7.”
moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting the short title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
“I am proposing a change to this bill about who qualifies for a role in the military justice system.”
“moved That Bill C-11, in Clause 18, be amended (a) by replacing line 24 on page 10 with the following: “officer or non-commissioned member or former officer or non-commissioned member who is a barrister” (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 10 with the following: “province and who has been or was a member of the Canadian””
moved That Bill C-11, in Clause 18, be amended (a) by replacing line 24 on page 10 with the following: “officer or non-commissioned member or former officer or non-commissioned member who is a barrister” (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 10 with the following: “province and who has been or was a member of the Canadian”
“Opposition parties worked together to change this military justice bill so victims of sexual assault could choose between the military or civilian court system. The defence minister is trying to undo our changes. He is ignoring what victims, soldiers, and legal experts told the committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today. Bill C-11, when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward. There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one. They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form. Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country. When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs. I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11, previously Bill C-66. It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side. Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence’s not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level. The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill. What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away. When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11, he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66, never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up. We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French. Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec. When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country. We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims’ being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account. Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF’s authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.” I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut, who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence. I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them.”
A repeated line
“The director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.”
Said 5 times by 4 members since April 23.
Every time it was saidMr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today. Bill C-11, when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward. There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one. They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form. Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country. When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs. I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11, previously Bill C-66. It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side. Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence’s not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level. The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill. What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away. When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11, he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66, never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up. We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French. Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec. When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country. We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims’ being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account. Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF’s authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.” I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut, who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence. I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them.
“Hundreds of military victims of sexual assault said they did not want their bosses investigating their cases. They wanted a separate system. I want to know what the member across the aisle says to them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I, too, sit on the defence committee. I would like to know what the member across the aisle thinks about all the victims who were heard by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, the hundreds of victims who were interviewed and said they did not want their sexual assault to be investigated by their boss. They wanted a separate system. What does the member say to them?”
Mr. Speaker, I, too, sit on the defence committee. I would like to know what the member across the aisle thinks about all the victims who were heard by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, the hundreds of victims who were interviewed and said they did not want their sexual assault to be investigated by their boss. They wanted a separate system. What does the member say to them?
“Justice Arbour did not come to our committee to defend her report. Her report is old, and things have changed. The military has made adjustments and is ready to handle these cases today. Her old advice no longer matters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to know exactly what Madam Justice Arbour thought. We invited her to committee, but she did not even bother showing up to defend her report. Let us put this in perspective. Madam Justice Arbour’s study and report were done years ago. Things have changed. The director of military prosecutions had said that, on a short-term basis, they needed to adjust and pivot, and to move all cases under the ministerial directive from one of the former ministers of national defence. Because of that, the military is prepared to deal with the cases today. What Madam Justice Arbour said before is now irrelevant.”
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 analysisMr. Speaker, I would love to know exactly what Madam Justice Arbour thought. We invited her to committee, but she did not even bother showing up to defend her report. Let us put this in perspective. Madam Justice Arbour’s study and report were done years ago. Things have changed. The director of military prosecutions had said that, on a short-term basis, they needed to adjust and pivot, and to move all cases under the ministerial directive from one of the former ministers of national defence. Because of that, the military is prepared to deal with the cases today. What Madam Justice Arbour said before is now irrelevant.
“If my colleague could make just one change to this bill right away, what would it be?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague’s speech. My question is quite simple. If it were possible to make just one amendment to this bill, is there a particularly important one that my colleague would want to immediately make to the bill? If so, what is it?”
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague’s speech. My question is quite simple. If it were possible to make just one amendment to this bill, is there a particularly important one that my colleague would want to immediately make to the bill? If so, what is it?
“I want to keep the parts of this bill that give victims of military sexual misconduct a choice. The minister wants to send all these cases to civilian courts. I disagree with this change because it takes away the victim's right to choose between the civilian and military justice systems.”
“Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 88 of 100
Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims.
Linked statement
“Civilian police told our committee they do not have the resources to handle every major sexual assault case in their areas. Can my colleague talk about what will happen to the cases police cannot handle?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the incredible work he has done in committee respecting victims of military sexual trauma, and the work he is doing to rectify the problems there. We heard testimony from civilian police forces that they had significantly limited capacity, sometimes enough to deal with two to three cases of major sexual assault, whereas in their areas, they have data saying that there have been 15, 17 or 20 cases per year. Could the hon. member speak to the capacity of civilian police forces to deal with these cases, and to what would happen with those cases they have no capability to deal with?”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the incredible work he has done in committee respecting victims of military sexual trauma, and the work he is doing to rectify the problems there. We heard testimony from civilian police forces that they had significantly limited capacity, sometimes enough to deal with two to three cases of major sexual assault, whereas in their areas, they have data saying that there have been 15, 17 or 20 cases per year. Could the hon. member speak to the capacity of civilian police forces to deal with these cases, and to what would happen with those cases they have no capability to deal with?
“This bill forces civilian police to take over military investigations on bases without giving them the resources to do the work. Police chiefs say this hurts teamwork between civilian and military police, and departments like Victoria Police do not have enough staff or money to handle it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file as well. As a veteran, he has always been there to champion people who have experienced military sexual misconduct. We heard from the Victoria Police Department that it does not have the resources or the number of investigators needed, that it is already dealing with a backlog and that it has been offered no support and no resources from the federal government. We also received a written brief from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction” and says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”. Instead of having the ability to collaborate with our military police and national investigative service, they now have to go on base and take over all those investigations, without resources provided by the government.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file as well. As a veteran, he has always been there to champion people who have experienced military sexual misconduct. We heard from the Victoria Police Department that it does not have the resources or the number of investigators needed, that it is already dealing with a backlog and that it has been offered no support and no resources from the federal government. We also received a written brief from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction” and says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”. Instead of having the ability to collaborate with our military police and national investigative service, they now have to go on base and take over all those investigations, without resources provided by the government.
“I want the House to pass this bill to update the military justice system. It sends military sexual offence cases to civilian courts. It also makes military judges and lawyers more independent and gives more support to victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be here today for the debate at report stage of Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have the privilege and responsibility of supporting the women and men who serve Canada in uniform. I believe that responsibility is shared by all members of the House. As the mother and mother-in-law of three serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I know first-hand that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are among the very best of our country: skilled, dedicated, professional and deeply committed to something greater than themselves. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them, and each time, I am reminded of a simple truth: We ask a great deal of them. We ask them to serve in uncertainty, to operate in high-risk environments and to put service before self every single day. In return, we have a responsibility, a collective responsibility, to ensure they have everything they need to succeed. That includes the right equipment, the right training and, critically, the right environment. It must be a safe, respectful and dignified environment. It must be a healthy work environment, where everyone feels protected and able to serve, because serving one’s country should never come at the expense of one’s dignity. Eliminating unacceptable behaviours, including sexual misconduct, is central to that responsibility. These behaviours cause real harm. They erode trust. They damage morale. They impact recruitment and retention. Ultimately, they weaken operational effectiveness. There is no place for this in our military. There is no place for this in Canada. That is why today’s debate is so important. Cultural change and growth within the Canadian Armed Forces is simply too important to be exploited for political or partisan gain. Our military members deserve better, their families deserve better and Canadians deserve better. Through Bill C-11, we are proposing important amendments to the National Defence Act to modernize the military justice system. The legislation is about ensuring that the system remains fair, effective and worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. At its core, it would strengthen accountability, reinforce independence and ensure alignment with the values Canadians expect. As introduced, Bill C-11 would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. These offences would instead fall under civilian authorities for investigation and prosecution. This reflects the practice already in place since 2021, following the interim recommendation of former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, and this legislation would formalize that approach. I would like to note that the interim directive has been an effective measure while we await the passage of Bill C-11. The interim directive to implement recommendation five has been in place since December 2021, and since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, as Justice Arbour recommended. Any attempt to undermine or undercut the progress made in the past five years under the interim directive is a disservice to victims and survivors. I note that Bill C-11 also advances key recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish to strengthen the system’s effectiveness and credibility. These include strengthening and modernizing appointment processes for senior military justice roles, broadening eligibility for military judges, reinforcing the independence of military justice authorities and expanding mechanisms for interference complaints. These are not technical adjustments. They are foundational reforms. They go directly to the integrity of the system. The bill also strengthens support for victims by expanding access to liaison officers, including those acting on behalf of victims. It also aligns military justice legislation with recent amendments to the Criminal Code regarding offenders and publication bans. The military justice system is about maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Modernizing it is essential for lasting institutional reform. Our objective is clear. It is to strengthen trust and confidence among defence team members and all Canadians. Trust must be at the heart of any justice system. Trust must be earned through action. The changes proposed in Bill C-11 are part of a much broader transformation. We are undertaking meaningful reforms across recruitment, training, leadership and oversight. In fact, this week the Canadian Armed Forces reached its highest recruitment in 30 years. This is excellent news for Canada, but we must not lose sight of the important work we are doing to ensure that the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces has a safe and supportive work environment. I can assure members that we are fully committed to implementing the recommendations of Justices Fish and Arbour. These recommendations provide a road map for concrete and measurable change. We have strengthened our recruitment and assessment processes. A probationary period now ensures that recruits comply with security requirements, meet medical standards and, above all, possess the values expected of those who serve their country: respect, dignity and integrity. We have clarified how sexual misconduct is defined and addressed, breaking it into clearer categories so that each form can be dealt with appropriately. We have aligned our approach to harassment and violence with the Canada Labour Code, creating a single, consistent framework across the defence team. We have enabled direct access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in certain cases because transparency and accountability are essential to cultural change. We continue to track progress publicly through our comprehensive implementation plan, a detailed road map that Canadians can see and follow. As noted by the external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, there has been significant effort and meaningful progress, but she also reminded us of something important. This work is never finished. Creating a respectful and inclusive workplace is an ongoing commitment. It is one that requires sustained leadership, accountability and commitment. The measures in Bill C-11 represent an important step forward. More than that, they represent progress: progress toward a military justice system that reflects our values, progress toward a workplace where every member can serve with dignity and progress toward rebuilding and reinforcing trust. It is a step to better protect those who serve and to build a safer, more respectful environment. It is also a step towards building confidence in our military justice system. We owe this to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. We owe this to all Canadians. Let us continue this work together. Let us get this done for them.”
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 saidMr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be here today for the debate at report stage of Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have the privilege and responsibility of supporting the women and men who serve Canada in uniform. I believe that responsibility is shared by all members of the House. As the mother and mother-in-law of three serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I know first-hand that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are among the very best of our country: skilled, dedicated, professional and deeply committed to something greater than themselves. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them, and each time, I am reminded of a simple truth: We ask a great deal of them. We ask them to serve in uncertainty, to operate in high-risk environments and to put service before self every single day. In return, we have a responsibility, a collective responsibility, to ensure they have everything they need to succeed. That includes the right equipment, the right training and, critically, the right environment. It must be a safe, respectful and dignified environment. It must be a healthy work environment, where everyone feels protected and able to serve, because serving one’s country should never come at the expense of one’s dignity. Eliminating unacceptable behaviours, including sexual misconduct, is central to that responsibility. These behaviours cause real harm. They erode trust. They damage morale. They impact recruitment and retention. Ultimately, they weaken operational effectiveness. There is no place for this in our military. There is no place for this in Canada. That is why today’s debate is so important. Cultural change and growth within the Canadian Armed Forces is simply too important to be exploited for political or partisan gain. Our military members deserve better, their families deserve better and Canadians deserve better. Through Bill C-11, we are proposing important amendments to the National Defence Act to modernize the military justice system. The legislation is about ensuring that the system remains fair, effective and worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. At its core, it would strengthen accountability, reinforce independence and ensure alignment with the values Canadians expect. As introduced, Bill C-11 would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. These offences would instead fall under civilian authorities for investigation and prosecution. This reflects the practice already in place since 2021, following the interim recommendation of former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, and this legislation would formalize that approach. I would like to note that the interim directive has been an effective measure while we await the passage of Bill C-11. The interim directive to implement recommendation five has been in place since December 2021, and since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, as Justice Arbour recommended. Any attempt to undermine or undercut the progress made in the past five years under the interim directive is a disservice to victims and survivors. I note that Bill C-11 also advances key recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish to strengthen the system’s effectiveness and credibility. These include strengthening and modernizing appointment processes for senior military justice roles, broadening eligibility for military judges, reinforcing the independence of military justice authorities and expanding mechanisms for interference complaints. These are not technical adjustments. They are foundational reforms. They go directly to the integrity of the system. The bill also strengthens support for victims by expanding access to liaison officers, including those acting on behalf of victims. It also aligns military justice legislation with recent amendments to the Criminal Code regarding offenders and publication bans. The military justice system is about maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Modernizing it is essential for lasting institutional reform. Our objective is clear. It is to strengthen trust and confidence among defence team members and all Canadians. Trust must be at the heart of any justice system. Trust must be earned through action. The changes proposed in Bill C-11 are part of a much broader transformation. We are undertaking meaningful reforms across recruitment, training, leadership and oversight. In fact, this week the Canadian Armed Forces reached its highest recruitment in 30 years. This is excellent news for Canada, but we must not lose sight of the important work we are doing to ensure that the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces has a safe and supportive work environment. I can assure members that we are fully committed to implementing the recommendations of Justices Fish and Arbour. These recommendations provide a road map for concrete and measurable change. We have strengthened our recruitment and assessment processes. A probationary period now ensures that recruits comply with security requirements, meet medical standards and, above all, possess the values expected of those who serve their country: respect, dignity and integrity. We have clarified how sexual misconduct is defined and addressed, breaking it into clearer categories so that each form can be dealt with appropriately. We have aligned our approach to harassment and violence with the Canada Labour Code, creating a single, consistent framework across the defence team. We have enabled direct access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in certain cases because transparency and accountability are essential to cultural change. We continue to track progress publicly through our comprehensive implementation plan, a detailed road map that Canadians can see and follow. As noted by the external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, there has been significant effort and meaningful progress, but she also reminded us of something important. This work is never finished. Creating a respectful and inclusive workplace is an ongoing commitment. It is one that requires sustained leadership, accountability and commitment. The measures in Bill C-11 represent an important step forward. More than that, they represent progress: progress toward a military justice system that reflects our values, progress toward a workplace where every member can serve with dignity and progress toward rebuilding and reinforcing trust. It is a step to better protect those who serve and to build a safer, more respectful environment. It is also a step towards building confidence in our military justice system. We owe this to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. We owe this to all Canadians. Let us continue this work together. Let us get this done for them.
“I do not support the government's plan for military justice. It just pushes victims into courts that are already too busy. I want a plan that actually helps victims and soldiers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women’s study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice. When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts. I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military?”
Question or comment in debate
Signal 28 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 analysisMr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women’s study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice. When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts. I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military?
“Our committee agreed, including the Conservatives, that sexual crimes in the military should be reported, investigated, and tried by civilian authorities, not the military.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the veteran affairs committee. In fact, the veteran affairs committee submitted a report to the House in June 2024 entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. In that report was recommendation 40, which I will quote: That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities. That was passed unanimously with the support of the Conservatives.”
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 analysisMr. Speaker, the member mentioned the veteran affairs committee. In fact, the veteran affairs committee submitted a report to the House in June 2024 entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. In that report was recommendation 40, which I will quote: That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities. That was passed unanimously with the support of the Conservatives.
“The committee worked for weeks and voted for changes to this bill. Now the government is trying to undo our changes. I want to know what the member thinks about the government ignoring the committee's work.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. By the way, I hold her in high regard, but my question has nothing to do with that. How does she feel about the fact that, for weeks, we have been doing our committee work and now, when the majority of committee members have worked to get amendments adopted, the government is doing everything it can to undo what has been done? Is this not a slap in the face to democracy? Has the majority gone to the Liberals’ heads?”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. By the way, I hold her in high regard, but my question has nothing to do with that. How does she feel about the fact that, for weeks, we have been doing our committee work and now, when the majority of committee members have worked to get amendments adopted, the government is doing everything it can to undo what has been done? Is this not a slap in the face to democracy? Has the majority gone to the Liberals’ heads?
“My priority is our military members. The head of the military spoke with over 14,000 members and victims, and they clearly want these cases moved to civilian courts.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and also for the work we do together in committee. My priority is the women and men in uniform. The chief of the defence staff has had conversations with over 14,000 Canadian Armed Forces members and victims, and they have made it very clear that these cases need to be transferred to the civilian system.”
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 analysisMr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and also for the work we do together in committee. My priority is the women and men in uniform. The chief of the defence staff has had conversations with over 14,000 Canadian Armed Forces members and victims, and they have made it very clear that these cases need to be transferred to the civilian system.
“I am concerned that the Conservatives want to ignore Justice Arbour's report on the military. She listened to service members and made an important recommendation. I want the member to comment on the Conservatives ignoring this report.”
“Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words the member has spoken. Through the debate already this morning, one of the greatest concerns I have is that the Conservative Party seems to be saying Justice Arbour’s recommendations are limited and have timed out, in essence, and that there is no obligation for us to respond to that report. Justice Arbour did an incredible job for members of the CAF, recognizing the importance of the issue, and came back with a specific recommendation. My understanding is that this is the primary recommendation, from a justice who canvassed many members of the CAF. If the member could comment in regard to the Conservative Party just throwing that report—”
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words the member has spoken. Through the debate already this morning, one of the greatest concerns I have is that the Conservative Party seems to be saying Justice Arbour’s recommendations are limited and have timed out, in essence, and that there is no obligation for us to respond to that report. Justice Arbour did an incredible job for members of the CAF, recognizing the importance of the issue, and came back with a specific recommendation. My understanding is that this is the primary recommendation, from a justice who canvassed many members of the CAF. If the member could comment in regard to the Conservative Party just throwing that report—
“For a long time, the military excluded and mistreated women, LGBTQ people, Indigenous people, and Black people. Things are improving now, and we cannot go back. We are passing this bill for the victims who were afraid to speak up.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is actually very appropriate to read the preface to Justice Arbour’s report into the record, because it still rings true. It says: Thousands of Canadians have served, and continue to serve, with honour in one of the country’s most prestigious organizations: the Canadian Armed Forces.... Many, however, were denied that chance. Members of the LGBTQ2+ community were purged. Members of Indigenous and black communities, and other visible minorities and equity-seeking groups, have been largely absent, clearly not welcome. For years, women were simply shut out. When finally allowed to serve, women were made to feel they did not belong. They were denied opportunities to compete fairly and to thrive. They were harassed, humiliated, abused and assaulted, and, appallingly, many continue to be targeted today. Things have changed in the Canadian Armed Forces for the better. We cannot go back. For the victims who never came forward, out of fear of retribution, out of fear for their lives, today is for them. We heard them. We listened. We are there.”
Mr. Speaker, it is actually very appropriate to read the preface to Justice Arbour’s report into the record, because it still rings true. It says: Thousands of Canadians have served, and continue to serve, with honour in one of the country’s most prestigious organizations: the Canadian Armed Forces.... Many, however, were denied that chance. Members of the LGBTQ2+ community were purged. Members of Indigenous and black communities, and other visible minorities and equity-seeking groups, have been largely absent, clearly not welcome. For years, women were simply shut out. When finally allowed to serve, women were made to feel they did not belong. They were denied opportunities to compete fairly and to thrive. They were harassed, humiliated, abused and assaulted, and, appallingly, many continue to be targeted today. Things have changed in the Canadian Armed Forces for the better. We cannot go back. For the victims who never came forward, out of fear of retribution, out of fear for their lives, today is for them. We heard them. We listened. We are there.
“Victims of misconduct in the military have waited years for justice. The committee listened to victims and experts and changed this bill to make it better. Now the government is trying to erase all that work. That ignores the victims and weakens democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are many stories in this whole sad affair. Some of them involve tragic misconduct and victims left with the aftereffects. There is the story, which spanned many years, of continued impunity, as people were protected by successive governments. Then came the bungling and the never-ending delays. Finally, our very democracy plays a part in all this, as well. First and foremost, it is the story of victims of misconduct. Members will recall the whole story, which has been told many times in the House, of General Vance, who was protected by successive ministers of governments of all political stripes. This general was able to live with impunity, bragging that he would be forever protected and untouchable at all times because he had control over the military justice system. Members will recall that it took a long time for this story to come to light, and when it did, many said that silence was the best response—that eternal guilty silence that keeps victims voiceless. It is also the story of several commissions of inquiry. I am thinking of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Several commissions of inquiry came to a number of conclusions after thousands of people were interviewed. There were thousands of testimonies; thousands of voices were heard in the context of this tragic case. This is an issue that has since dragged on for more than 15 years. It took more than 15 years to come up with the first version of a bill in the last Parliament and, in the current Parliament, the bill now before us. This is a matter of democracy. I believe that, as members of Parliament, we are being shortchanged, and democracy is being shortchanged, by what is happening right now. Allow me to digress for a moment because this is important. Let us not forget that this is also the story of a government that called an election last year. What was the outcome of that election? It resulted in a minority government. That means that we go before the voters, present them with options and ideas, and show them where we are headed and what we are proposing. That is where democracy decides. It decides by determining which idea has majority support. In other words, there were more votes and more seats for the current government’s proposal, but there are still enough voters who said they did not agree. The result is that the government in power has a majority that is not absolute. It is a simple majority, but one that is not absolute in terms of the number of seats. That was the verdict in April 2025. The message to the government is to work with the other parties, because more people chose the other options combined. If my math is correct, that is what it comes down to. I am no fan of the Canadian parliamentary system, but it seems to me that, in the history of these highly imperfect institutions, that is just how it works. That is the result. That is what it amounts to. Let us come back to the story of this government that introduced Bill C-11 and the opposition parties who voted in favour of the principle of the bill because everyone agreed with it and action needed to be taken. People have suffered and others will continue to suffer if nothing changes. After the opposition parties acted in good faith and the House adopted the bill in principle, it was the committee’s turn to patiently do its work. For several weeks, it heard from witnesses and reviewed reports and briefs, including one from the Barreau du Québec, which said that it liked the idea of the bill but that some small changes needed to be made. We also heard from a number of victims and victims’ associations, who made recommendations and told us that, when cases are being transferred, the military justice option needs to remain open. Even though transferring cases to the civilian system is generally a good thing, we still need to have some sort of military system for certain cases, so we should not close the door on that completely. That was the subject of an amendment that was deemed admissible, and I am happy about that because we are the ones who proposed that amendment. The Conservative amendment regarding complete freedom of choice was deemed inadmissible recently, even though it was also adopted in committee. Our amendment does not propose complete freedom of choice, but it says that if experts in the civilian system recommend keeping the case in the military system, then that might be a good thing for some victims. It worked, and I am very pleased about that. This is an example of a recommendation made by the Barreau du Québec, which ultimately concluded that Bill C-11, as it stood, was unsatisfactory, even though it was well-intentioned. A whole host of other recommendations like that were also adopted by way of amendments, often with the majority support of the two opposition parties. Some amendments were adopted unanimously with the support of the Liberal Party, but, for the most part, it was the opposition parties that joined forces and managed to gain the upper hand. I am pleased that we managed to achieve this. It was democracy at work. In our committee, the majority consisted of opposition MPs. I would remind members that we patiently listened to victims, experts, the Barreau du Québec and other stakeholders who came to tell us what they believed should be done. Some of the recommendations in the Fish report were even subsequently deemed inadmissible. That report, which remains something of an authoritative reference on the subject, was deemed inadmissible—that says it all. It is also the story of a government that secured a majority by getting opposition members to switch sides, swearing up and down that its approach would be collaborative. In the days that followed, however, one of the first things they told us was that they plan to unilaterally change committee composition without even talking to the opposition parties. That is what collaboration, co-operation and working together in the House mean to them. It is also the story of a government that then attempts to throw out all the work that committees have been doing for weeks, along with the democratic decisions of parliamentarians who voted on committee business. This is the story of a committee chair who decided amendments were out of order. We overruled his decision with a majority vote in committee, but he got his way in the end. It is also the story of a Speaker of the House who heard my appeal and that of my colleague, the Conservative Party’s defence critic, who rose in the House to say that we heard the victims, that we could not ignore them and that certain recommendations could not be ruled out of order. From a procedural standpoint, for example, our proposal to consider establishing an office did not entail the allocation of additional resources, yet it was deemed inadmissible on the grounds that it required additional resources. Our proposal does not run counter to the intent of this bill, which aims to reform military justice to make life more bearable for victims and to better address cases of misconduct. I am sorry, but when we have good ideas to improve a bill and flesh it out, that aligns with the bill’s intent. In our case, given that we are stuck with this highly imperfect Canadian parliamentary system, we have decided, procedurally speaking, to include in the bill the need to consider establishing an office. This does not mean creating the office itself or adding new resources. It costs nothing to mandate the government to look into the issue. It does not cost a penny to include it in the bill. However, the Speaker decided to reject all of those amendments. Even though a few admissible amendments remained, we found out only yesterday evening after checking the Notice Paper that the government had rejected them in a last-ditch effort—like I said, their majority is going to their heads—to erase, destroy, undo and dismantle everything that members had accomplished in committee. What a slap in the face for the experts, the victims and democracy.”
Mr. Speaker, there are many stories in this whole sad affair. Some of them involve tragic misconduct and victims left with the aftereffects. There is the story, which spanned many years, of continued impunity, as people were protected by successive governments. Then came the bungling and the never-ending delays. Finally, our very democracy plays a part in all this, as well. First and foremost, it is the story of victims of misconduct. Members will recall the whole story, which has been told many times in the House, of General Vance, who was protected by successive ministers of governments of all political stripes. This general was able to live with impunity, bragging that he would be forever protected and untouchable at all times because he had control over the military justice system. Members will recall that it took a long time for this story to come to light, and when it did, many said that silence was the best response—that eternal guilty silence that keeps victims voiceless. It is also the story of several commissions of inquiry. I am thinking of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Several commissions of inquiry came to a number of conclusions after thousands of people were interviewed. There were thousands of testimonies; thousands of voices were heard in the context of this tragic case. This is an issue that has since dragged on for more than 15 years. It took more than 15 years to come up with the first version of a bill in the last Parliament and, in the current Parliament, the bill now before us. This is a matter of democracy. I believe that, as members of Parliament, we are being shortchanged, and democracy is being shortchanged, by what is happening right now. Allow me to digress for a moment because this is important. Let us not forget that this is also the story of a government that called an election last year. What was the outcome of that election? It resulted in a minority government. That means that we go before the voters, present them with options and ideas, and show them where we are headed and what we are proposing. That is where democracy decides. It decides by determining which idea has majority support. In other words, there were more votes and more seats for the current government’s proposal, but there are still enough voters who said they did not agree. The result is that the government in power has a majority that is not absolute. It is a simple majority, but one that is not absolute in terms of the number of seats. That was the verdict in April 2025. The message to the government is to work with the other parties, because more people chose the other options combined. If my math is correct, that is what it comes down to. I am no fan of the Canadian parliamentary system, but it seems to me that, in the history of these highly imperfect institutions, that is just how it works. That is the result. That is what it amounts to. Let us come back to the story of this government that introduced Bill C-11 and the opposition parties who voted in favour of the principle of the bill because everyone agreed with it and action needed to be taken. People have suffered and others will continue to suffer if nothing changes. After the opposition parties acted in good faith and the House adopted the bill in principle, it was the committee’s turn to patiently do its work. For several weeks, it heard from witnesses and reviewed reports and briefs, including one from the Barreau du Québec, which said that it liked the idea of the bill but that some small changes needed to be made. We also heard from a number of victims and victims’ associations, who made recommendations and told us that, when cases are being transferred, the military justice option needs to remain open. Even though transferring cases to the civilian system is generally a good thing, we still need to have some sort of military system for certain cases, so we should not close the door on that completely. That was the subject of an amendment that was deemed admissible, and I am happy about that because we are the ones who proposed that amendment. The Conservative amendment regarding complete freedom of choice was deemed inadmissible recently, even though it was also adopted in committee. Our amendment does not propose complete freedom of choice, but it says that if experts in the civilian system recommend keeping the case in the military system, then that might be a good thing for some victims. It worked, and I am very pleased about that. This is an example of a recommendation made by the Barreau du Québec, which ultimately concluded that Bill C-11, as it stood, was unsatisfactory, even though it was well-intentioned. A whole host of other recommendations like that were also adopted by way of amendments, often with the majority support of the two opposition parties. Some amendments were adopted unanimously with the support of the Liberal Party, but, for the most part, it was the opposition parties that joined forces and managed to gain the upper hand. I am pleased that we managed to achieve this. It was democracy at work. In our committee, the majority consisted of opposition MPs. I would remind members that we patiently listened to victims, experts, the Barreau du Québec and other stakeholders who came to tell us what they believed should be done. Some of the recommendations in the Fish report were even subsequently deemed inadmissible. That report, which remains something of an authoritative reference on the subject, was deemed inadmissible—that says it all. It is also the story of a government that secured a majority by getting opposition members to switch sides, swearing up and down that its approach would be collaborative. In the days that followed, however, one of the first things they told us was that they plan to unilaterally change committee composition without even talking to the opposition parties. That is what collaboration, co-operation and working together in the House mean to them. It is also the story of a government that then attempts to throw out all the work that committees have been doing for weeks, along with the democratic decisions of parliamentarians who voted on committee business. This is the story of a committee chair who decided amendments were out of order. We overruled his decision with a majority vote in committee, but he got his way in the end. It is also the story of a Speaker of the House who heard my appeal and that of my colleague, the Conservative Party’s defence critic, who rose in the House to say that we heard the victims, that we could not ignore them and that certain recommendations could not be ruled out of order. From a procedural standpoint, for example, our proposal to consider establishing an office did not entail the allocation of additional resources, yet it was deemed inadmissible on the grounds that it required additional resources. Our proposal does not run counter to the intent of this bill, which aims to reform military justice to make life more bearable for victims and to better address cases of misconduct. I am sorry, but when we have good ideas to improve a bill and flesh it out, that aligns with the bill’s intent. In our case, given that we are stuck with this highly imperfect Canadian parliamentary system, we have decided, procedurally speaking, to include in the bill the need to consider establishing an office. This does not mean creating the office itself or adding new resources. It costs nothing to mandate the government to look into the issue. It does not cost a penny to include it in the bill. However, the Speaker decided to reject all of those amendments. Even though a few admissible amendments remained, we found out only yesterday evening after checking the Notice Paper that the government had rejected them in a last-ditch effort—like I said, their majority is going to their heads—to erase, destroy, undo and dismantle everything that members had accomplished in committee. What a slap in the face for the experts, the victims and democracy.
“I want to know the member's view on Justice Arbour's recommendation to transfer these cases completely out of the military system. A lot of work went into that advice. Does the Bloc want to ignore it, like the Conservatives do?”
“Mr. Speaker, can I get the member’s perspective on the recommendation brought forward by Justice Arbour to do that complete transfer, and can the member acknowledge that there would have been a great deal of effort in coming up with that recommendation? Is it the Bloc party’s position, as it for the Conservatives, that they should just disregard that recommendation?”
Mr. Speaker, can I get the member’s perspective on the recommendation brought forward by Justice Arbour to do that complete transfer, and can the member acknowledge that there would have been a great deal of effort in coming up with that recommendation? Is it the Bloc party’s position, as it for the Conservatives, that they should just disregard that recommendation?
“My amendment does not give people total freedom of choice. It means not every case must be moved automatically. We would usually move them to civilian courts, but experts could choose to keep a case in the military system if that is best.”
“Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens. He gets up, walks around, talks and then asks a question that I already answered in my speech. We have come to expect it. As I said, this is not about complete freedom of choice. The amendment known as BQ‑2 did not involve complete freedom of choice. What the amendment said is that not every case needs to be automatically transferred. Our initial response would be to transfer these cases, but if experts and the civilian system consider it advisable to keep them in the military system, that would be allowed. That is all. I will close by saying that Justice Arbour could have come and testified, as she was also invited to do.”
Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens. He gets up, walks around, talks and then asks a question that I already answered in my speech. We have come to expect it. As I said, this is not about complete freedom of choice. The amendment known as BQ‑2 did not involve complete freedom of choice. What the amendment said is that not every case needs to be automatically transferred. Our initial response would be to transfer these cases, but if experts and the civilian system consider it advisable to keep them in the military system, that would be allowed. That is all. I will close by saying that Justice Arbour could have come and testified, as she was also invited to do.
“A House committee spent public money and many hours studying an important report. They listened to experts and victims. Now the government is completely ignoring that work. I want to ask my colleague what he thinks this says about the government's respect for democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that he wants to manage public finances in a wiser, more rigorous way. A House of Commons committee spent hours studying an extremely important report. The committee heard from experts and victims. Members of Parliament and their staff, as well as the committee staff, examined the matter during several meetings. Public funds were used for the benefit of parliamentary democracy. Now we are learning that the government is completely ignoring all the work that was done. This government is not looking at it at all. I would like my colleague to comment on the frustration this caused him. What does he think this all means? What does all this show about the government’s understanding of parliamentary democracy?”
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that he wants to manage public finances in a wiser, more rigorous way. A House of Commons committee spent hours studying an extremely important report. The committee heard from experts and victims. Members of Parliament and their staff, as well as the committee staff, examined the matter during several meetings. Public funds were used for the benefit of parliamentary democracy. Now we are learning that the government is completely ignoring all the work that was done. This government is not looking at it at all. I would like my colleague to comment on the frustration this caused him. What does he think this all means? What does all this show about the government’s understanding of parliamentary democracy?
