Bill C-11

Military Justice System Modernization Act

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act that relate to the military justice system in response to the Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence and the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
In response to those reports, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the process for appointing the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services with a view to enhancing their independence;
(b) affirm the Judge Advocate General’s respect for the independence of authorities in the military justice system in the exercise of the Judge Advocate General’s superintendence of the administration of military justice;
(c) remove the court martial’s jurisdiction to try a person in relation to an offence under the Criminal Code that is alleged to have been committed in Canada and that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose;
(d) remove the Canadian Armed Forces’ authority to investigate an offence under the Criminal Code that is alleged to have been committed in Canada and that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose;
(e) expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge;
(f) expand the class of persons who may make an interference complaint and provide that a member of the military police or person performing policing duties or functions under the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s supervision must make such a complaint in certain circumstances; and
(g) change the title of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to the Provost Marshal General.
In addition, the enactment amends the National Defence Act to remove military judges from the summary hearing system and to provide that, in the context of a service offence, an individual acting on behalf of a victim may request that a victim’s liaison officer be appointed to assist them.
It further amends that Act to harmonize the sex offender information and publication ban provisions with the amendments made to the Criminal Code in An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act .
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, provide superior courts of criminal jurisdiction with the jurisdiction to hear applications for an exemption in respect of orders to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act made under the National Defence Act and applications to vary the duration of such orders.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say good morning to colleagues and to the Canadians who are watching today's debate. I am pleased to rise to open second reading debate on Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

As Canada's new government makes a generational investment in the Canadian Armed Forces, we know that any work to support our forces starts with our people. Simply put, this legislation is about the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is about ensuring their safety.

The people of the Canadian Armed Forces are central to our activities, whether they defend our sovereignty at home, support our allies abroad or serve in wings and bases across Canada. Since taking on this role earlier this year, I have had the great privilege of meeting with hundreds of Canadian Armed Forces members across the country and abroad.

They are among the finest individuals one could meet, and as I am sure all parliamentarians are, I am deeply grateful for their steadfast dedication to Canada and Canadians. It is our responsibility to foster an environment where they feel protected, respected and empowered to serve, free from all behaviours that harm our people, threaten morale and undermine team cohesion, including the reprehensible act of sexual misconduct. Eradicating these behaviours is essential to our operational effectiveness, to recruitment and to retention, and above all, it is the right thing to do.

Through Bill C-11, we are proposing a range of important changes to the National Defence Act, which are designed to support this essential work. Canada's military justice system must not only reflect the values of fairness, accountability and respect, but also uphold the trust Canadians place in the institutions that serve them. Through Bill C-11, we would fulfill the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish, and we are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces.

First, this bill would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. With this bill, civilian authorities would have the exclusive responsibility to investigate and prosecute these offences.

Second, Bill C-11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review. This includes establishing stronger, more transparent appointment processes for senior CAF members who play crucial roles in the military justice system. We are modifying the appointment process and the tenure for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services by, first, making them Governor in Council appointees and by, second, changing the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services' terms to a fixed non-renewable term of up to seven years. We are also modifying the process and authority for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, appointed by the Governor in Council, and, finally, changing the title from Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general to align with the title of other senior designations in the CAF, such as the surgeon general, the chaplain general and the judge advocate general.

Third, Bill C-11 builds on supports provided under the Declaration of Victims Rights by expanding access to victim liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of a victim.

Fourth, the bill harmonizes the military justice system's offender information and publication ban provisions with the amendments already made to the Criminal Code in 2023. These comprehensive recommendations that aim to reform our military justice system are only one part of a broader transformation of this institution.

Among other things, we are making critical changes to how we screen new recruits, how we manage Canada's two military colleges and how we collect, retain and use data on workplace harassment.

For example, we have instituted a probationary period for new recruits, which allows applicants to enrol and begin their training while the administrative work related to their application file is completed. During this probationary period, applicants must pass the required security clearance check, meet medical standards and show that they live by the CAF's ethics and values. We need to ensure that our military better reflects the country it serves, drawing from the very best people Canada has to offer.

We are starting to see our recruitment efforts pay off. Last fiscal year, we surpassed our recruitment goals, bringing in over 6,700 new regular force members. That is a 55% increase from the year before, but we still have work to do to build a culture that is truly rooted in dignity, inclusion and respect for everyone who serves.

We know we need to keep our foot on the gas and remain laser-focused on creating lasting change. As I previously mentioned, Bill C-11 would fulfill several recommendations put forward in the reviews conducted by former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish. We are also making important progress on many of their other recommendations to aid in our broader culture change efforts.

In the independent external comprehensive review, Justice Arbour detailed 48 recommendations on everything from recruitment to training to oversight.

As of July, DND had successfully implemented 36 of these recommendations, and we expect that the remaining 12 will be implemented by the end of the year, although some will take much longer than others to fully implement.

We are making progress on Madame Arbour's first and second recommendations, strengthening our approach to addressing sexual misconduct by clarifying the full spectrum of terms and definitions into three categories: conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature, sexual harassment and sexual assault. This will ensure that we are better able to address each form of inappropriate conduct through the proper legal, administrative and disciplinary means.

The CAF has also adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of “harassment” and “violence”. This change has made it so that the defence team has one single approach for dealing with harassment and violence in the workplace, applicable to both DND public service employees and CAF members. All incidents of harassment and violence on the defence team will be managed by the workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This addressed Madame Arbour's third recommendation.

We have also acted on recommendations 7 and 9 of Justice Arbour's report by allowing members of the CAF who experience sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, sexual offences or any other form of discrimination based on sex or gender in the performance of their duties to apply directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As many members know, the external monitor, Madame Jocelyne Therrien, provides regular public evaluations of our progress in implementing these recommendations, including by releasing biannual status reports.

She published her fifth progress report in early July. In that report, she highlights the sincere desire to improve working conditions for DND team members across our organization, as well as the concrete progress we have made, particularly with regard to integrating new recruits and promoting current staff to management positions.

Her final and sixth report is expected in the coming weeks. Madame Therrien's thorough and objective assessment of our progress has been critical in informing how we are implementing these recommendations, and we thank her for her commitment, her good guidance and her dedication.

In April 2021, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces launched a comprehensive initiative to align defence culture and the professional conduct of its staff with the fundamental values and ethical principles that we, as a national institution, aspire to uphold.

Since then, we have taken significant steps to shift our culture and bring about meaningful change, including taking action to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination. This work encompasses a wide range of responsibilities, such as developing programs and policies to address systemic misconduct, improving mechanisms for tracking and reporting misconduct and overseeing the creation of a framework for professional conduct and culture that combats discrimination, harmful behaviour, prejudice and systemic barriers.

To support these efforts, as we reaffirmed in budget 2024, we are investing nearly $1 billion over 20 years to support the changes to the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are introducing amendments to the National Defence Act to deliver key recommendations to advance culture change. Last year, we also launched a comprehensive implementation plan to guide efforts to address the various recommendations we have received.

We know culture change is incremental, we know it is a step-by-step process that takes time, and we know it requires a sustained and continuous effort, but we also know it is absolutely essential to the well-being and operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

We will continue to listen to members of the defence team, external stakeholders, communities and partners. We will continue to learn from them as we strive to create a safer and more inclusive work environment. We are making real and tangible progress, but we know that there is still a lot more work to be done.

While we work to modernize our military justice system and change our culture, we also need to ensure that people affected by sexual misconduct get the support, the care and the resources they need. Much of that work comes from the sexual misconduct support and resource centre.

This centre, which operates independently of the chain of command, recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. It delivers expert advice, guidance and recommendations to armed forces and national defence personnel on all matters related to sexual misconduct.

Among other things, it operates a 24-7 helpline offering confidential support to personnel, information about the options available, advice on helping others and referrals to care and services.

It also runs the response and support coordination program to provide individuals who have experienced sexual misconduct in a DND or CAF environment with a dedicated civilian counsellor who can help access health services, prepare for police interviews and more. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre also runs a grant program to fund community-based programs to broaden the range of support services available to the wider defence community, and it offers peer support programs in partnership with Veterans Affairs Canada.

I would also like to mention that the independent legal assistance program is another valuable support mechanism for victims. It provides free and confidential legal assistance, including legal information and advice on incidents of sexual misconduct in contexts involving the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces. It also provides legal representation for certain proceedings involving criminal offences of a sexual nature, service offences, victim safety and victim participation in the judicial process.

By offering this timely, independent and trauma-informed support, the program plays a critical role in expanding access to justice and choice for affected persons. This is all in line with Madam Justice Arbour's recommendation 14 of the independent external comprehensive review.

The work I have outlined today is comprehensive and meaningful. We believe, and I think all sides of the House would agree, that it is important. We are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces and confidence in our military justice system.

As the House begins debate at second reading of the important piece of legislation before us, I will close by saying this: The time has come for Bill C-11 to be moved swiftly through the House to committee, where it can undergo thorough study and perhaps, with the good will and good faith of all members on all sides of the House, be passed forthwith.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for bringing the bill forward. It was Bill C-66 in the last Parliament, and we never got it completed at second reading.

The minister talked about trust, and I want to ask him why Canadians and the people in the Canadian Armed Forces should trust him and trust the Liberals. We have to remember that one of his predecessors, Harjit Sajjan, was complicit in a cover-up of sexual misconduct of one of the very highest-ranking officers in Canada, the former chief of the defence staff, Jon Vance. When the minister at the time was presented with evidence of sexual misconduct by Jon Vance, former minister Sajjan refused to accept it.

Why should Canadians trust the minister, when his predecessor covered up that sexual misconduct for three long years and refused to accept evidence? The prime minister of the day, Justin Trudeau, was complicit in the cover-up for those three years. Finally, they also sat on the Justice Deschamps report that was commissioned under our previous government, and they never acted on any of those recommendations at that time.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for members of the House to trust a few things. The first thing they should trust is the incredibly important, probative and complete work done by Mr. Justice Fish and Madam Justice Arbour, and their recommendations for improvement.

The second thing they should trust is the judgment that has been exercised through the commissions of inquiry, which basically indicate that we need to take the question of Criminal Code sexual offences out of the situation where they are located now, which is inside the Canadian Armed Forces and subject to CAF investigation and CAF prosecution, and put them into the police of local jurisdiction. This is something that has received widespread support, including from all sides of the House, with the previous bill that my colleague mentioned.

I think we should really rely on the trust and the judgment of those two independent thinkers and, for that matter, of the victims groups that have spoken very clearly about this.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us just say right off the bat that this issue should have been resolved decades ago. When I hear people say that the government has not been proactive enough since the recommendation was made in 2021, I feel like answering that both parties need to look in the mirror. The Bloc Québécois obviously agrees that it is about time.

I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and I would say that we are dealing with something really important here, especially if the government plans to increase its national defence spending to 5%. I urge the minister to listen to the testimony of people who have attempted suicide because they feel abandoned by the system.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Now we must listen. I look forward to seeing what will happen in committee, and I would like to hear the personal stories of these witnesses. We are more than willing to see if we can improve the bill. There is work to be done.

Today, we are focused on the future and implementing change. I agree that it has taken too long. This bill was introduced in March 2024, and then there was an election. This is the third time the bill has been introduced in the House, and we hope to pass it as quickly as possible.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation for the minister's and the government's approach to the legislation and for taking very seriously what they have been hearing from citizens. The approach of taking it outside the CAF, as the minister explained, is a very reasonable one to ensure that there is transparency and consequences for unfortunate circumstances.

I recognize that the bill deals with CAF members on CAF members. Constituents within the riding of Waterloo have shared concerns regarding CAF members on civilians. I would like to hear the minister's comments as to whether the bill would address this or what the approach is on that situation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would catch both Canadian Armed Forces members and civilian employees at the Department of National Defence. It is important also for us to recall that recommendation 5 under Madam Justice Arbour's incredibly comprehensive work is the only recommendation that actually requires legislative change, which is why it finds itself in Bill C-11. That is why we have moved so quickly in implementing so many of the other recommendations. Recommendation 5 is the important recommendation that requires statutory change, as are a series of Mr. Justice Fish's recommendations when it comes to military justice actors.

We are looking forward to formally making those changes, but it is also important to remember that we are well down the path of implementing all 48 recommendations. We have more to do. Our plan is to have those done by the end of the current calendar year. We are moving forthwith. We could certainly use the support of all members of the House to have the bill move through the House with speedy passage.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging, after over 10 years since the Deschamps report, to see the adoption of the move to remove sexual assault cases to the civilian court. However, in theatre, the military police would still be responsible for this.

What training and dollars associated with this training would go into preserving the chain of evidence, investigation and rape kits? Are there going to be rape kits available, is there a protocol, what is the protocol and, most importantly, for military police here at home and deployed abroad, when is their pay increase coming?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the reminder. I should have reminded members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are watching that the pay increase is coming, of course, and it is predicated on years of service, as well as annual bonuses and retention bonuses for instructors and beyond. We are very pleased to be able to offer the most significant pay and pay package increase in a generation. We hope it will help with retention and recruitment. I think we are seeing it in the early numbers, as I mentioned in my speech.

The member raises some very important questions around the capacity of our military police overseas in particular, in theatre or on ships, for example. That is a very good question that I will take back. I will look into the question of rape kits and endeavour to get back to her with more detail.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is essentially about justice for victims of the military and its lack of transparency.

About 10 days ago, I attended the premiere of the film Out Standing, which is based on the life of Sandra Perron, Canada's first female infantry officer. It is an incredibly powerful film. She started an initiative called The Pepper Pod, which I would like to commend.

Considering the bill before us today, I would like the minister to tell us whether measures are being put in place to support victims in the short, medium and long terms, particularly by investing in initiatives like The Pepper Pod that are created by and for women.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting Sandra a few days ago at the National Arts Centre. What a film, what a story, what a woman, and what an inspiring person. She really helped iron out the details of this bill.

We hope that Sandra's voice, along with many others, will be heard and listened to in committee. If there is progress to be made and improvements to be made, we are here to listen.

For my colleague who asked a question a moment ago, I just checked my notes, and, yes, rape kits will be available both here and abroad.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the minister's presentation.

We know the legislation is sorely needed, and we have noted that the victim liaison officer's position would be appointed through the chain of command. I wonder if the minister would be amenable to making sure this appointment is outside the chain of command so that victims can truly be heard.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting suggestion, and I have taken due note of it.

I thank the member for her contribution.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the shadow minister for national defence, I am always honoured to stand in this place to talk about the great work of the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and how we can do more to support them, which is what Bill C-11 is trying to do.

The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect Canada, protect our citizens, as well as to protect those who serve us. There has been a rapid escalation of threats, and what we are facing in Canada is continuing to evolve. There is Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. There is the ongoing conflict we are seeing with Hamas first attacking Israel and now Israel's clearing operation to neutralize the terrorists in the Gaza Strip. There is the ongoing escalation we are experiencing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait as the People's Liberation Army Navy of China continues to escalate in that region, using air power, as well as resources and its coast guard to exercise its power in the region but ignoring international rules such as UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Those hostile powers want our resources, whether in the Arctic or our maritime domain, and they want to be within striking distance of our continent. We have to do more to protect ourselves here and invest in our military. This means supporting those who serve us. As Conservatives, we take our national security very seriously and want to make sure we always put that first and foremost. This is why we have to invest in the people, in their kit and in the training they need to undertake to deal with the hybrid warfare, the asymmetrical warfare, we are experiencing around the world.

First and foremost, Conservatives have always said and believed that those who serve, who proudly put on the uniform, are the best of the best Canada has to offer. They deserve to have a respectful workplace that is free of discrimination, racism, sexual misconduct, and abuse of authority and position. All members deserve to be respected. We also believe that the victims, those who are dealing with military sexual trauma, deserve justice. We hope this is going to culminate in the move from the military justice system to the civilian system, if the capacity is there and it would actually result in prosecutions and true justice for the victims of sexual trauma in the military.

It has been years: The Liberal government has been in power for 10 years. There have actually been three reports done. The first report came out in 2015, and it is interesting to note that the only time the current Minister of National Defence and I have had an interchange in the House on military sexual misconduct was when he was a member of the third party and the Liberals were sitting way down in that far corner. I was the parliamentary secretary for defence, and he asked a question about what steps we were taking. At that time, we had initiated the Madam Justice Deschamps report, and Justice Deschamps had made 10 recommendations.

Then of course there was an election, and that report sat on the corner of the desk of both former chief of the defence staff Jon Vance and former minister of defence Harjit Sajjan and collected dust. They did nothing during that time. There was then the Jon Vance scandal and all of that, and I will talk about that a bit later.

We know that through the process, the Liberals finally took action. There was the Arbour report and now the Fish report, which brought about some of the things that would happen with Bill C-11. However, it has taken 10 years to get to where we are today. For 10 long years, the Liberals sat on their hands and did nothing to actually change the National Defence Act and the military justice system under it.

When we look at Bill C-11, we are concerned that it would potentially open the door for more political interference. There would be an opportunity for partisan-style appointments, such as the Liberals' giving more power to the minister of national defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions. That would not happen in the normal system in Canada because it would be considered political interference. The Liberals would also be changing the appointment process in that the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal are all now going to be appointed by the Governor in Council rather than the minister. We know that when things go into the PMO and into cabinet, things become quite political and partisan.

Conservatives will continue to support those in the armed forces, and we are going to make sure that we are carefully studying Bill C-11 to ensure that concerns from all stakeholders, including those in the military justice system, those in the defence industry and, especially, those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as victims' rights groups, and that their voices are heard when we study this at committee.

As I said earlier, Bill C-11 is the former Bill C-66, with minor tweaks in language, translations and interpretation of certain clauses: 6, 67 and 68. It would amend the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of most offences of a sexual nature from the military justice system to civilian authorities, including the courts, municipal police, provincial police and the RCMP. This would depend on the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, with the exception of a sexual offence that takes place outside Canada when troops are deployed. In that case, those who are deployed would have access to the current regulations under the military justice system and the National Defence Act, and military police and the JAG, the judge advocate general's office, would still undertake those investigations with the national investigative service.

We know that section 273 of the National Defence Act provides for that. It has provided for the way that this has been dealt with historically, but there is concern about whether the civilian courts would have the capacity to take on extra cases in those jurisdictions, from the standpoint of both the court level and the police level. What are they going to do with historic cases? We already know of historic cases that have been transferred into the civilian court system that have not resulted in convictions. Instead, we have seen high-level flag officers and general officers who were found innocent or had their proceedings stayed; we have seen cases that the Crown rejected because of the way the evidence was collected by the military police and the national investigative service of the Canadian Armed Forces. We question whether that provides the justice that the victims were looking for. We definitely want to make sure that all are given a fair trial and that we support those who were erroneously charged in the first place.

What are we doing about the issue of capacity, as was previously asked by my colleague, within the military police and national investigative service when they have to do investigations outside Canada? How do they coordinate with provincial, municipal and RCMP police agencies when we are talking about things that happened on base and will require investigations done by local authorities?

Bill C-11 seeks to increase the independence within the military, one of the recommendations coming from Madam Arbour and Justice Fish, so we would avoid a situation like what happened with Jon Vance. Because he was chief of the defence staff and everybody reported to him, nobody was prepared to take on that investigation and prosecute, including the then minister of national defence, who actually had authority over the chief of the defence staff. Harjit Sajjan refused to accept evidence and walked away.

We know there are questions about how this would all work. The provost marshal, who has traditionally been a colonel, would be made a general, so we are seeing a creep of the number of flag officers again.

Conservatives question the term limits. There is an inconsistency here on how people are being appointed, now being done through order in council in the Prime Minister's Office, and we know there is going to be the ongoing issue of the length of terms: Some are for four years; some are going to be eligible for reappointment whereas some are not. Some are for seven years, and some are for 10 years. It just gets a little confusing in terms of how this is all going to work.

When we talk about the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, we just want to make sure there is a criterion as to what we want to see for qualifications for service in positions that normally would have reported to the vice-chief of the defence staff and/or the judge advocate general. Those things are going to give these guys their independence, so they report straight to the minister and to the government. There are questions about chain of command and how that is going to work. However, these are things we can look at in committee. The same is true for the director of defence counsel services.

Consistency is important here. Qualifications are important in these appointments. We want to make sure the partisanship that happens within the Prime Minister's Office does not percolate into the Canadian Armed Forces through those who serve the forces.

The minister talked about trust. As I suggested in my question for him, Liberals cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to talking about bad political appointments. If we look at 2022, the Liberals appointed Laith Marouf to do a project. It turned out he was an anti-Semite, but they were supposed to be working on diversity. The Liberals appointed Martine Richard as the Ethics Commissioner. She had to drop out because she was related to one of the cabinet ministers, who currently sits today. It was a complete conflict of interest. They appointed Birju Dattani as the human rights commissioner; he turned out to be anti-Semitic. Of course, it was another terrible appointment by the Liberals.

Justin Trudeau completely ignored the Ethics Commissioner's warning about appointing Annette Verschuren as the head of the green slush fund. This resulted in a huge scandal of over $2.1 billion that she and her cohorts were able to take from that Liberal slush fund and stuff into their own pockets. We should not forget the current Prime Minister recently appointed Doug Guzman as CEO to the defence investment agency. It turns out Doug Guzman is a former banking buddy of the Prime Minister's from Goldman Sachs.

I do not know if we need to have these close personal friends and partisan Liberal bagmen actually getting these types of appointments. I would hate to see this being the case when we look at appointments within the national defence apparatus, when we look at those who are going to be in charge of our military justice system. That would not be fair.

The Liberals also cannot be trusted when it comes to criminal justice. They have been soft on crime right from the beginning. Bill C-75 brought in the whole principle of restraint, which puts the least onerous conditions on those who are seeking bail. This is where we get bail, not jail and repeat violent offenders going back on the street. Now, potentially, those who are committing sexual assaults within the Canadian Armed Forces will have access to that same lax and soft-on-crime approach the Liberals have implemented.

Bill C-5 is another reason we should not trust the Liberals when it comes to reforming the military justice system. The bill reformed the criminal justice system by repealing mandatory jail time and allowing very serious violent offenders to serve their sentences at home. This includes getting house arrest, not jail time, if they commit sexual assault, sexual interference or sexual exploitation. Those conditions are now going to be transferred from the military justice system, or the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, to the civilian system, which the Liberals have almost completely destroyed.

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to dealing with sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces; our members know that. Again, it has been 10 years since Madam Justice Deschamps brought forward her recommendations in her report, and they did nothing, which could have stymied this whole problem.

Take Jon Vance, who was CDS at the time. He started up, after the Liberals formed government, Operation Honour, which turned into a complete fiasco and did nothing to support victims, did nothing to stop sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and did not live up to the code of service discipline and the ethics that those who serve should be living up to.

As I said, we know that Minister Sajjan, at that time in 2018, refused the evidence of the sexual misconduct charge against Jon Vance. We know there are memos that went back and forth between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office on how they could cover this up to protect Jonathan Vance and, later, also protect Minister Sajjan for not acting upon evidence that was given to somebody who reported directly to him.

Gary Walbourne, who was the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman at the time, tried to provide that evidence and was pushed away. He was completely in the right because the only person who could deal with it in the chain of command was the Minister of National Defence. We know this went back and forth. We did an in-depth study of this in the Standing Committee on National Defence. I was vice-chair at the time, as I am vice-chair right now.

That was covered up by the Prime Minister's Office through Justin Trudeau, Katie Telford and Zita Astravas. They continued to cover up that sexual misconduct and protect the minister and Jon Vance, which is beyond me. At the end of the day, when it came to charging him and prosecuting within the civilian court, the government accepted the lesser charge of obstruction of justice. It never prosecuted on sexual misconduct and sexual assault. That, again, does not live up to victims' rights in any way, shape or form. The victims of Jon Vance still feel that they were never properly served or got the justice they deserved.

This went on. The defence committee was suspended for months on end. The chair of the committee, Karen McCrimmon, refused to hear testimony and motions. She kept suspending meetings. We were in the same meeting for three months and could not do our work as the defence committee, and we could not do our work as parliamentarians. I firmly believe that our privileges as parliamentarians were violated through that process.

We did find out, through that study, that the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's Office, former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Katie Telford were all aware of this over the entire three-year investigation.

To make things even worse, at the end of the day, even though Harjit Sajjan, the minister of defence at the time, knew about the sexual misconduct and the gravity of the problem that was happening within the Canadian Armed Forces, the government still gave Jon Vance a raise as the chief of the defence staff. That, I think, was just adding insult to injury.

We know that when it comes to political interference, the Liberals cannot be trusted. We can look at the ongoing F-35 debacle and how they continue to politicize the procurement. Our Royal Canadian Air Force and our Canadian Armed Forces right up to the chief of the defence staff today have all said that this is the jet they need and that we should buy more of them. Of course, the Liberals continue to play political football and kick the can and delay that procurement, which is only undermining the ability of the Royal Canadian Air Force to protect us here at home and work alongside our allies.

We know about things like cash for access and the wealthy Chinese billionaires that Justin Trudeau was involved with. We know they tried to cover up the expensive holiday that the former prime minister took on his private island. The ethics commissioners found multiple breaches. We know about the witch hunt that went after former vice-admiral Mark Norman back in 2018, which was politically motivated.

We cannot trust the Liberals. They have failed our Canadian Armed Forces. They have failed our brave women and men. Our warships continue to rust out. Our jets are worn out. The army has been hollowed out and our troops no longer feel like they are respected and honoured by the government.

When we really dig in and look at Liberal policies, it is a book of empty promises, like the 2017 defence policy and the defence policy update, which are all irrelevant. The government has allowed money to lapse. Because of this lack of respect for our forces, we have a recruitment problem. We are short over 13,000 troops today. Over 10,000 are undertrained and undeployable. Our forces are short 6,700 houses.

Conservatives will rectify all the mismanagement and wrongs of the Liberal government and serve our Canadian Armed Forces.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues the member has raised that I take exception to, especially when he talks about support for the Canadian Forces. In fact, when he was a parliamentary secretary and his current leader was part of the Harper cabinet, Canada was most in danger of not financially supporting our Canadian Forces, to the degree where it came to 1% of Canada's GDP. In contrast, the Prime Minister's commitment is to achieve 2%. The Conservatives failed in comparison.

Having said that, I think it is important, when we look at the legislation, that the jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions and investigations for sexual offences be the essence and principle of this legislation. That is what Arbour's recommendation number five was all about.

Does the Conservative Party support it? Does the member have any specific amendments he would like to see advanced?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is always up here defending the government, including its own failures, especially in dealing with sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. The member was up here defending Minister Sajjan back when he was still the minister. I do not believe the member.

The Conservative government signed on to reach that NATO promise in 2015. We had 10 years to get there. I should remind everyone, before the Liberals started their creative accounting by adding things like veteran pensions and the Coast Guard to the calculation of what military spending is to meet the 2% matrix, that actual spending within the Department of National Defence was just over 1% last year. The Liberals have cut over $2.7 billion from operations over the last three years, and they also allowed over $12 billion to lapse.

They can talk the talk, but they have to start walking that talk.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague spoke at length about the Jonathan Vance case, but both the Conservatives and the Liberals looked the other way in that case and pretended there was nothing to see. There were already rumours about and allegations against Mr. Vance when the Conservatives appointed him as chief of staff and tasked him with taking on sexual misconduct in the military. The Canadian Armed Forces were the subject of allegations at the time and were being widely criticized for their handling of sexual misconduct cases.

Why did the Conservatives not appoint someone unimpeachable to the position? Why did they appoint Mr. Vance despite the rumours of sexual misconduct?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, Jon Vance was appointed in the end days of the Conservative government. I would also say that the Bloc helped the Liberals shut down the study, in 2021, into sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. It was particularly Minister Sajjan's mismanagement and refusal to deal with the sexual misconduct of Jon Vance. I do not think the Bloc can take much high ground on this.

I would remind everyone that we started the Madame Deschamps report looking into addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The government had a chance to act upon it but did not.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent speech.

Obviously, I agree with the Deschamps recommendations and the Arbour report about moving sexual misconduct allegations out of the military justice system and into the criminal justice system. However, the record of the Liberals and the criminal justice system, as we have seen, is this: Sexual assault is up 76%, and these repeat offenders are mostly let out on bail. My concern is that there will not be any justice in the criminal justice system.

Does my colleague share that concern?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 reduced the conditions on the principle of restraint, allowing those who commit sexual offences to be released on bail very easily. It allows them to be repeat offenders. That will now permeate the Canadian Armed Forces, as well, because of the soft-on-crime approach taken by the Liberals. With Bill C-5, they got rid of a lot of the mandatory minimums so that repeat sexual offenders can now serve their sentences at home. That includes sexual assault, sexual exploitation and sexual interference.

What is the purpose if those who are committing these crimes are allowed to continue to serve in the Canadian Forces at their leisure?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during my colleague's remarks today, he mentioned talking the talk.

Having worked with victims of crime for over 23 years before I became a parliamentarian, I have seen first-hand the impacts of sexual violence on many victims. Today, I was listening attentively and really hoping to hear comments about how important it is to have a trauma-informed response and rights for victims. Instead, we heard partisan garble. If there are any victims at home today listening to us, I think they would be extremely disappointed with the debate going on with respect to that.

I have a simple question: Does the member not agree that Bill C-11 is an important step forward if we want to make sure that victims have access to justice?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I said during my speech that victims deserve justice, and that military sexual trauma is one thing we have to eliminate. The support is needed. We support the sexual misconduct support and resource centre and the great work it is doing in providing counselling. As well, it is going to be providing some legal advice to those victims. Victims' rights have to be paramount. That is why we supported Bill C-77. It was to make sure we codified victims' rights in the Criminal Code and moved them into the National Defence Act as part of military justice.

We will continue to fight for victims because that is what this is all about. That is why I raised this flag. Can we trust the government, which has ignored victims' rights for too long by letting repeat offenders back onto our streets? This is now going to permeate the Canadian Armed Forces as well.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there was a culture of silence. There was the Fish report and the Arbour report. Time passes and the Liberals have not taken action.

What does the member think of the recommendations in this report? What should be put in place? I empathize with the victims who are waiting for answers from this Parliament that never come. What are we to do? The bill is interesting, but we need to go further. What commitments is the member taking?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the first place to start is accepting all 10 recommendations from Madame Deschamps' report, which was completely ignored by the government. I think we would be a lot further ahead today in supporting victims and stomping out misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces had this been acted upon 10 years ago. The Liberals refused to do it. They still do not even mention the report in their speeches. All they talk about are Fish and Arbour.

We need to make sure that we continue to address all the concerns that were raised. There are about 50 recommendations in the Arbour report. I think there are over 110 in the Fish report. We need to see which ones are doable and that we can act upon quickly.

This is just the first step, but there is much more that needs to be done.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has done a considerable amount of work on this.

I sat through a lot of testimony when I served on the national defence committee and the veterans committee. All of the testimony was absolutely horrific and hard to hear. Many of the victims are still in the CAF as we speak. They were when they brought their cases and complaints forward.

How do we ensure these victims are protected under the current CAF structure when they bring these accusations forward?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a problem. We know that those who brought complaints against Admiral Art McDonald were reprimanded by their superior officers. We know they were coerced. They were scared to come forward and it took, in some cases, years before they did. We created a safe space at committee, allowing them to speak and share their stories where there was no opportunity for retribution by their superior officers.

This is one of the reasons we are supporting parts of Bill C-11. It is to make sure we can take parts of this out of the chain of command and allow victims to stand on their own two feet without fear of repercussion.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House as the Bloc Québécois national defence critic to address the government's response to an extremely delicate issue, namely the unfortunate occurrence of sexual misconduct. As delicate as the subject may be, it remains our duty to take a serious look at the bill before us to put an end to this scourge and ensure greater accountability as well as a healthier environment.

Let us not forget that the first allegations date back to 2015, under the Stephen Harper government. They were not yet public at the time, but what we now know goes back to 2015. Back then, former justice Marie Deschamps released a scathing report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, which she found had a sexist culture that turned a blind eye to numerous cases of misconduct, and in April of that year, allegations began to surface, first in the back rooms, about the inappropriate behaviour of Jonathan Vance, who had just been appointed the future chief of the defence staff. The investigations went nowhere at the time.

On March 1, 2018, under Justin Trudeau's government, military ombudsman Gary Walbourne held a private meeting with the then minister of defence during which he tried to discuss a case of sexual misconduct implicating Mr. Vance. The victim's decision not to pursue the matter had somewhat tied the ombudsman's hands. The ombudsman wanted the minister to intervene to protect the victim because her employment relationship made her Mr. Vance's subordinate and he could easily have destroyed her career. The minister was reportedly closed and hostile. Allegedly, he flatly refused to look at Mr. Walbourne's evidence and abruptly left the meeting.

Instead, the matter was sent to the Privy Council Office. Afterwards, Mr. Walbourne tried 12 times to speak with the minister, who continued to refuse to meet with him until Mr. Walbourne retired a few months later. The Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office exchanged emails to discuss the situation. On March 5, 2018, Janine Sherman from the Privy Council—the body that had taken the lead on the case by then—wrote Mr. Walbourne asking for more information. On March 5, the minister's chief of staff emailed Mr. Walbourne hoping to get more information. However, on March 9, when Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was accused of leaking documents to journalists showing that the Liberals were attempting to cancel a contract with the Davie shipyard in favour of Irving, the Liberals immediately called for an investigation against Mr. Norman. Justin Trudeau personally intervened, saying that Mr. Norman should face justice. There is a double standard here.

On March 16, 2018, Janine Sherman of the Privy Council met in person with Mr. Walbourne, who told her that the complainant did not want to pursue the matter further and was withdrawing her complaint because she had not received assurances that the Minister of Defence would protect her. That is serious. Sworn testimony subsequently given to the Standing Committee on National Defence—at a time when I was not serving on it—stated that several members of Justin Trudeau's cabinet knew about the situation. As for Prime Minister Trudeau himself, he has always denied being told about sexual allegations against Mr. Vance, stating that Mr. Walbourne never forwarded the requested documents to his office and that he was unaware of any such allegations. However, he did not clearly deny knowing that there were unknown allegations against Mr. Vance. He specified that he did not know there were allegations of sexual misconduct specifically. He did not talk about allegations at all. Of course, that did not prevent Mr. Vance's salary increase in 2019, which the Prime Minister signed off on.

The scandal became public in February 2021 when Global News reported cases of misconduct against Mr. Vance, including his relationship with a subordinate and obscene emails exchanged in 2012 with a much younger female soldier. The woman who was in a relationship with Mr. Vance was allegedly threatened by him on several occasions, according to her public statements. Mr. Vance considered himself untouchable and claimed that he owned the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, which is a serious matter.

The individual named, before he was named, said that he could do as he pleased because he was the one who controlled the process. He thought he was a king.

The Standing Committee on National Defence, of which I was not yet a member, decided to study the allegations against Mr. Vance. The first time he testified, the former minister of defence, Mr. Sajjan, said that he had learned about the allegations against Mr. Vance from the media. He systematically refused to answer questions on the grounds that the matter was before the courts.

The testimony of Gary Walbourne, whom members will recall was the ombudsman, confirmed that he had informed Minister Sajjan and that the minister had refused to even look at the file. That cast the government in a bad light, and rightly so.

Other witnesses who appeared before the committee confirmed that the minister should have taken action and that he had a number of avenues open to him to request an investigation into Mr. Vance. Minister Sajjan appeared before the committee again in March 2021 and, this time, he agreed to speak in an attempt to defend his handling of the file. He said that he had refused to look at Walbourne's file on the grounds that he did not want to insert himself into the investigation himself and that he had not been asked to do so in any case. His explanation fell flat.

The Liberals did not hesitate to obstruct the investigation to prevent Liberal government employees from being summoned to appear before the committee. According to the testimony of Elder Marques, who worked in Justin Trudeau's office, it became clear that everyone around Justin Trudeau knew what was going on. However, Mr. Trudeau himself denied everything.

When other employees were summoned by the House, the Liberals decided to send the defence minister instead and said they would not allow the employees to testify. Well, at least they were clear. The Liberals tried to shut down the Standing Committee on National Defence several times. The committee chair suspended that particular meeting, and the suspension lasted a month.

At both the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Liberals filibustered to prevent the adoption of reports that made recommendations to protect women in the Canadian Armed Forces and to make the military justice system independent from the chain of command.

Unable to escape the scandal, the Liberals decided to give former justice Louise Arbour, who is known for her expertise, the mandate to make the military justice system independent from the chain of command. That was six years after the release of the Deschamps report, which recommended exactly the same measure.

The Liberals realized that they did not know how to handle this problem and that they were starting to get into trouble, so they asked Madam Arbour to rehash the same work and repeat the things that had already been said but not done. At least they were able to buy some time, until she came to the same conclusion as to what had to be done. Even Madam Arbour was surprised when the government contacted her, because, as she said, the work had already been done.

Nevertheless, Madam Arbour's report was released in May 2022. Incidentally, Morris J. Fish had released the “Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence” in April 2021.

That brings us to today, to Bill C-11. Let me be clear: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill so that it can be reviewed in committee. This bill responds to the recommendations of the two former justices I just mentioned, particularly the parts of their reports dealing with the issue of sexual misconduct. I will now speak to the bill itself.

To address recommendation 5 of the Arbour report, the government wants to definitively remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada.

The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for three key military justice authorities: the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. This turns the appointment process into a political process, because the government, not military leadership, would choose these appointees. That way, they would be sheltered from any form of blackmail.

I would remind members that Mr. Vance, who had sexual relations with a subordinate, allegedly boasted about how the victim could not file a complaint because he had full control over military investigations. I quoted him earlier. This bill would scuttle that possibility. Vance's successor, Art McDonald, also left his position after only a few weeks as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct.

This bill now enables non-commissioned members, whose rank ranges from private to chief warrant officer, to become military judges. This measure accurately reflects today's reality: Many lower-ranking non-commissioned members are more educated than officers. For example, a person can join the Canadian Armed Forces without a diploma at the age of 17 and remain a part-time non-commissioned member, while studying full time to earn university degrees. Generally speaking, non-commissioned members are able to earn more advanced degrees.

Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial amendments, such enabling victims to get assistance from a “victim's liaison officer”. That is a good idea.

Bill C-11 responds to recommendations that should have been implemented a long time ago from reports that should not have been shelved. As such, it requires legislative changes and, in some cases, agreements with the provinces.

One of the most important measures in the bill is the removal of the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences that are committed or alleged to have been committed in Canada. In other words, these offences will now be dealt with in civilian courts.

Recommendation 5 was the only recommendation in former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour's report that required legislation for its implementation. That is why it is the only one of Justice Arbour's recommendations to be addressed in this bill. However, military personnel can arrest the accused and gather evidence while waiting for civilian authorities to arrive. It is important to understand that.

However, it remains to be seen whether restricting civilian jurisdiction to offences committed in Canada could be problematic. At first glance, the fact that the bill deals only with offences committed in Canada might seem problematic, but it is important to remember that Canadian jurisdiction normally applies during operational deployments abroad. Otherwise, local jurisdiction would apply, when a military member is on vacation abroad or taking part in training abroad, for example. In the end, it amounts to the same thing, although it will take longer to transfer the file to civilian authorities if an incident occurs during a deployment abroad.

Justice Arbour stated the following in her report: “Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the [military police] may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity.”

In other words, the bill goes as far as possible when it comes to granting jurisdiction to civilian law enforcement, but it remains reasonable thanks to several conditions that enable members of the military to gather evidence, for example, if a member is caught in the act and there is no room for doubt.

The bill also responds to eight recommendations made by former justice Fish in his report, including the recommendation to remove the military hierarchy's power to appoint certain justice officials. Recommendation 2 of that report calls for the National Defence Act to be amended to allow the Governor in Council to appoint military judges, who can be either an officer or a non-commissioned member, as long as they are a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years' standing at the bar of a province and have been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for at least 10 years.

According to recommendation 7, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services should be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence for a term not exceeding seven years.

Recommendation 8 calls for the repeal of certain subsections of the act that indicated that the judge advocate general can issue instructions or guidelines in respect of a particular prosecution. Rather than repealing these subsections, Bill C-11 amends them to transfer that power to the Minister of National Defence.

Recommendation 10 called for a certain section of the act, stating that the judge advocate general has the superintendence of the administration of military justice in the Canadian Armed Forces, to be amended to specify that the superintendence must respect the independence of military prosecutors, military defence counsel and other statutory actors within the military justice system. Bill C‑11 therefore amends this section by adding provisions to specify the independence of the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.

There are also other interesting recommendations, such as the ones calling for the provost marshal of the Canadian Armed Forces to be appointed by the government and for the position to be renamed so that the provost marshal holds at least the rank of brigadier-general, which is the lowest rank for generals.

The fact that the provost marshal would be appointed by politicians, meaning the military would not have the ability to revoke the appointment, gives that individual greater independence. It avoids a situation where a general could boast of having control over the judiciary.

However, the minister may appoint a judge to conduct an inquiry and report on whether they consider it necessary to revoke, suspend or impose other disciplinary or administrative measures against the director of military prosecutions in the event of misconduct.

Another recommendation is that the minister should not have the power to give directions regarding specific law enforcement decisions in individual cases. That is very relevant and important in light of what has happened in recent years. In other words, the minister does not have the power to take the place of the judiciary.

Finally, one recommendation amends another aspect and subsection of the act to allow any member of the military to make an interference complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission if they believe on reasonable grounds that any military member or any senior official of the department has improperly interfered with a policing duty or function. This will, of course, expand the number of people who can file a complaint, including the victim.

Bill C-11 also removes military judges from the summary hearing system. I would remind the House that summary hearings deal with service infractions, including common offences such as being absent without leave, negligently discharging a firearm, wearing a uniform improperly or maintaining equipment poorly.

Currently, with offences being treated as disciplinary rather than criminal matters and trials being handled by the chain of command, these trials are anything but fair. The unit commander or officer delegated to preside over the trial can judge their own subordinates, and the accused is generally presumed guilty and dealt with summarily. Unfortunately, Bill C‑11 does not change any of that.

Bill C‑11 also expands access to victim's liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of the victim. In other words, whereas this service was previously only for the alleged victim, a person representing the victim may now have access.

Finally, the National Defence Act is amended to ensure that the sex offender information and publication ban provisions align with the Criminal Code. Those amendments were, of course, necessary to ensure that the military justice system is aligned with the Criminal Code.

Those are the reasons we will support this bill at this stage. However, we reserve judgment on its final adoption until the Standing Committee on National Defence, on which I have the honour of serving, has conducted a thorough review.

Having said that, we are finally here, after a very long process. There have been so many years of neglect, and unfortunately, there was a bipartisan consensus to turn a blind eye to this issue and to filibuster at committee. However, we are glad to finally have something. Is it going to address all of the issues? Probably not, but at this point, we are happy that we have something. We will look at this bill and try to improve it if necessary.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my colleague on the Standing Committee on National Defence. It is truly a pleasure to work with him.

I just want to know whether we can count on the Bloc Québécois's support to have the Standing Committee on National Defence study this bill as quickly as possible. We expect to have acted on all of the recommendations in the Arbour report by the end of the year. I want to know whether the member will support this bill so that it can go to committee.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill at this stage so that it can be studied in committee.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. It was extremely well researched.

When such situations arise, situations involving threats and sexual assault, whether verbal or physical, it is clear that there is a difference between rumours, proven facts and the aftermath. Unfortunately, I must say that the Liberal government buried the victims' stories. The member has clearly demonstrated that.

My question for my colleague is this: Given everything he has said about the cover-up by the Liberal government, how can he trust the government to move forward appropriately, positively and with an eye to the future for similar situations?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague well enough to know that he loves asking this type of rhetorical question. The answer is often in the question. He is gesturing at me, denying it. At least he is smiling. I think he knows that I am close to the mark and that the shoe fits.

I would say that it is indeed a real scandal. That being said, I do appreciate the nuance he mentioned about the difference between an allegation and a charge and between an assertion and a demonstration. Obviously, due diligence is always required.

In fact, Quebec has already taken steps in this direction. This idea was already advocated by Véronique Hivon, who proposed creating specialized courts. It was felt that the system itself was not adequate.

I digress. Let us come back to the military cases. I am not overly confident in the Liberal government, but it is presenting us with a bill that, at this stage, I believe deserves our close attention. There are enough interesting elements in it that respond to a report that was not produced by the government itself.

Of course, if we see that it needs to be improved, we will exert pressure to ensure that it is. If there are still cover-ups, as my colleague says, we will do our job as the opposition, of course, to exert the necessary pressure to ensure that this does not happen.

However, at this stage, there are enough interesting elements for us to want to take a closer look at the bill.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his excellent speech and for raising the level of debate on such an important bill. Obviously, this culture of military silence has had very serious consequences for a great many victims.

Speaking of silence, Minister Sajjan's silence spoke volumes. Going forward, this bill gives the minister greater responsibilities.

What happens if we still have a minister who refuses to act? Can we trust a minister with that much power in the current context? Should we suggest amendments in this regard in committee?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fairly fundamental issue. Honestly, we will be watching this closely. That is why an in-depth study is so important. As a number of people have already pointed out, the government's previous version of the bill, which died on the Order Paper, did not properly address the problem. We will do an in-depth study.

That said, I agree with the government's reason for wanting to increase this power, which is simply because it should be removed from the oversight of simple military command. There is a good reason for that.

Is that the answer? We will have the opportunity to take a closer look at this, to shed light on it and to examine it closely very soon.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his excellent speech. I greatly appreciated his overview of the bill.

I think we all agree that we want to ensure that victims will have access to justice. We also want to ensure that victims will have access to the services and resources they need when they file a complaint because we acknowledge what a difficult and traumatizing process that can be. In addition, we want to ensure that we continue to maintain a trauma-informed approach.

I also understand that the member and the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C‑11, but he said he would reserve judgment.

Can my Bloc Québécois colleague tell us what changes he would like to make to Bill C‑11 to improve it?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have only one reservation, which is that we are not going to blindly trust anyone or any bill that is voluminous by nature, that has legal implications and for which the devil is in the details, as with any document of this nature. That is why I am simply saying that we need to do our job properly. When the government presents us with a bill, we, as an opposition party, cannot simply support it outright and accept it at face value. This is what I am referring to when I say we are going to study it carefully.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is signalling that the Bloc Québécois is going to support the bill.

An important part of the bill is that trials for sexual assault and sexual harassment would be taken out of the military courts and brought into the civilian courts, but given the delays in our civilian courts, is the member confident that victims of sexual assault and of sexual harassment will see justice in a speedier and more fair way in civilian courts?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the civilian court problem is very real, as our colleague mentioned. Obviously, the bill does not directly address that issue. The issue remains to be addressed. I think it would be better to ask the Minister of Justice about that matter.

That said, it is definitely a consideration. I understand that sending these cases to the civilian court system could result in longer processing times for certain files, but for now, longer processing times are better than the risk of improper handling. It is probably the lesser of two evils. Then, the issue of processing times needs to be addressed immediately, and I completely agree that this is a critical issue.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that my colleague clearly explained the events that took place. Earlier, I tried to explain what happened with both parties here, and I hope this bill will not die on the Order Paper. Why? Every week, I meet with people who say that they have been the victims of alleged sexual misconduct, harassment and so on.

For veterans who are watching at home right now, does my colleague agree that we need to invest not only in legislation but also in services for victims?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. Impunity must be replaced with accountability. The bill puts forward a plan to do just that. The bill broadens access to what I believe are called victim's liaison officers to include individuals acting on behalf of victims. In other words, it is not just alleged victims who will have access to this service; their representatives will too. Expanding access is a good idea. It is not the main thrust or the most substantial element of the bill, but it is still very important. These are good things that are worthy of mention, and so I completely agree with my colleague on that.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we saw, the Conservatives turned a blind eye by appointing Mr. Vance chief of the defence staff even though rumours of sexual misconduct were already circulating. The Liberals did even worse. I will come back to my colleague's suggestion. Should we not find ways to ensure that the process is not completely controlled by those with political power?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason for transferring power to politicians is precisely to get it out of the military's hands. This should help avoid situations like the one where Mr. Vance said he controlled the judicial process. Now, we will have to look very closely at whether it is better to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Bay of Quinte.

It is with great pride that I rise today at the second reading of Bill C‑11, which proposes a fundamental reform of the military justice system. This issue is particularly close to my heart. I have two sons and a daughter-in-law who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am extremely proud of them, as I am of all CAF members and the sacrifices they have made for our country.

I am a proud military mom. One of the reasons I entered public service was to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families receive the care and support they deserve for the sacrifices they have made. That is exactly why Bill C-11 matters so much.

Those who protect us deserve to be protected in return. Victims of harassment and sexual assault in the military must be able to report abuse without fear of reprisal.

With this bill, we want to ensure that victims can pursue their perpetrators in civilian court, free from the pressure of the chain of command. We must strengthen the system to help survivors heal from their trauma, provide them with options that respect their dignity and allow them to make decisions without fearing for their future in uniform.

Bill C-11 is grounded in two landmark independent reviews, one by former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish and the other by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.

Justice Fish's independent external comprehensive review, published in 2021, examined how our military justice system functions, from investigation and courts martial to oversight and accountability. He found that while the military justice system is vital to maintaining discipline and operational effectiveness, it must also align with the core principles of Canadian justice: independence, fairness and respect for the rule of law.

Justice Fish made 107 recommendations, several of which are aimed at strengthening civilian oversight, transferring the handling of sexual offences to civilian courts and increasing accountability within the chain of command. Bill C‑11 directly addresses these recommendations by modernizing the system and bringing the military process more in line with the civilian process.

A year later, Justice Louise Arbour was asked to go even deeper, to look not just at policies but at the culture and power structures that shape behaviour inside the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. In the preface to her report, she wrote words that should stop us all:

For years, women were simply shut out.

When finally allowed to serve, women were made to feel they did not belong.... They were harassed, humiliated, abused and assaulted, and, appallingly, many continue to be targeted today....

Indeed, the exposure of sexual misconduct in the CAF has caused as much damage as defeat in combat would have to demoralize the troops and shock Canadians.

Those words are a call to action. Justice Arbour's report contains 48 recommendations for rebuilding trust and accountability. Recommendation 5 is key: the exclusive prosecution by civilian authorities of all Criminal Code sexual offences alleged by members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Bill C‑11 implements that recommendation. Serious offences, including sexual offences, will now be handled by the civilian justice system, offering the survivors the same protections as all Canadians.

Our government has already acted on an interim basis to implement this recommendation. Since late 2021, all new allegations of Criminal Code sexual offences involving CAF members have been referred to civilian police and prosecutors. Bill C-11 now makes that practice permanent, providing clarity, consistency and confidence to survivors and to the system as a whole.

General Jennie Carignan, when she was the chief professional conduct and culture, met with over 16,000 members of the defence team and the Canadian Armed Forces. Those 16,000 voices have told us again and again that change must be real, structural and lasting.

Members of the armed forces must have confidence in their justice system. Survivors should not fear telling their story or forfeiting their military career.

As our government emphasized in “Our North, Strong and Free”, harassment, discrimination and violence in any form have no place in the Canadian Armed Forces. Such behaviour causes lasting harm and undermines Canadians' trust in their military institutions.

That is why it is imperative to act now. I applaud the fact that the other parties in the House expressed their support for Bill C‑66 in the last Parliament in a spirit of non-partisan collaboration.

Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.

Bill C-11 will strengthen the independence of military judges, enhance oversight of military police and ensure that serious offences, including sexual offences, will now be dealt with by the civilian justice system. It will improve transparency and accountability, which will help restore public trust and encourage more Canadians to serve in a fair and reliable system.

Our government is also taking concrete action. We have established the sexual misconduct support and resource centre, fully independent from the chain of command. We have introduced a digital grievance form to lower barriers for reporting. We have repealed the duty to report, restoring choice and agency to survivors. We have also launched the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board to strengthen accountability in our institutions.

These measures show that we are not merely talking about intention, but also about implementation. They will enable future generations to serve in a safer, more inclusive and more respectful environment.

Bill C-11 is not just aspirational. It would enshrine these changes in law, embedding independence, fairness and protection for survivors into the very structure of the National Defence Act.

It is the right thing to do for our military personnel, and it is the right thing to do for our country, but this is just a start.

As a proud mother of serving members, I hope my own family and all members of the Canadian Armed Forces will never need to rely on these protections, but for those who have suffered in silence, who have lost faith in the system and who fear coming forward, we see them, we hear them and we are committed to getting this right. They have our backs, and we must have theirs.

I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-11. Let us get it to committee for thorough study and demonstrate that supporting members of the Canadian Armed Forces is truly non-partisan. We need to do this. We need to get it right for them.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I volunteered at the Cambridge Legion for several years, and I am always proud to support our veterans and those serving in our armed forces. We all know that veterans put so much on the line for our country, and all they want is support from our government, but the Liberals have passed legislation like Bill C-5, allowing criminals convicted of sexual assault to serve their sentences at home. In a military context, that could mean that right around the corner from their attacker on a small base, some could still reside.

Does the minister agree that we should repeal Bill C-5, stop soft-on-crime policies and protect not only CAF victims but all victims of sexual misconduct?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is about victims of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We had the opportunity in the last Parliament to get Bill C-66 done, but unfortunately shenanigans in the House prevented us from doing that and it died on the Order Paper.

We are in line to getting all the recommendations in the Arbour report completed before the end of the year. I urge my colleagues not to play partisan politics and make personal attacks, and urge them to support us in getting this bill to committee so we can do a proper study of it and move it along for victims.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a thing to deliver a speech about something one has experienced first hand.

My question is very simple. Everyone knows that this bill was desperately needed. However, will my colleague also be able to devote all her energy to helping everyone who may have been or may become victims, both our veterans and employees of National Defence? Can she ensure that she will be there to help our people?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in 2015. I have always worked closely with veterans' communities and their families. I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs from 2017 to 2019, and I still have phone numbers and I still get text messages from veterans and their families to this day.

I want to remain committed to those who served our country and their families.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that veterans and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces are my friend and colleague's top priority.

During your speech today, you indicated that Justice Arbour consulted with over 16,000 individuals. I am just wondering if the department and the minister himself consulted with victims as well.

How do we anticipate the reaction of survivors with respect to this legislation? We all know that making a complaint of this nature is very difficult. I am just wondering if we have received any feedback from survivors.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Members will address questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was Jennie Carignan, the current CDS, who met with over 16,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I know the Minister of National Defence is always speaking to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families. They asked us, based on Justice Arbour's recommendation, to move the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases to the civilian system. We are listening to them. We will continue to listen to them. We will always listen to them.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this member's commitment to our veterans and our military, and appreciate her the sacrifices her family has made to serve this country.

The member brought up in her speech that the bill would make permanent something that was already brought into effect, I believe in 2021, with respect to the civilian prosecution of sexual misconduct cases. I do not know whether the member has the data on hand, but could she commit to providing, when this bill gets to committee, how many of these cases have been sent to civilian authorities and how many have been denied? Are there any results she could provide?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make sure the information is provided to committee members when this bill gets to committee.

I want to thank the member opposite. We have worked together on many files, and it is always a pleasure to work with him.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank the brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces for their service to Canada and Canadians.

It is with great pride that I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. Now, more than ever, we need to invest in the tens of thousands of brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces, who work hard every day to protect Canada's sovereignty and security. Every day, Canadian Armed Forces members don the uniform and stand ready to protect and defend the people of Canada. That is why our people remain at the core of everything the Canadian Armed Forces does. When someone chooses to serve our country, it is our duty as the government to make sure they have every tool necessary to do so.

It is also our duty to make sure they are treated right. Victims of harassment and sexual crimes in the Canadian Armed Forces should not have to worry about the consequences of reporting what has happened to them to their superiors or an internal legal system. With the legislation we are proposing, we would make sure this no longer happens. We want to ensure that these victims can pursue their cases in civil court, outside the military system and far from reprisals from their superiors.

To bring about meaningful cultural change and change that will stand the test of time, we must reform the system to help victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We must give them options and recourse that do not ostracize or isolate them, but, rather, do the opposite. We must ensure that they feel free to make their own decisions without fear of impacting their future careers in the Canadian Armed Forces. They have our backs. We must have theirs. Make no mistake that supporting our Canadian Armed Forces is a top priority for our government. We will ensure fairness and justice for victims and survivors.

The proposed changes in this legislation would have a direct impact on members of the Canadian Armed Forces in my very own riding, Bay of Quinte. My riding is home to CFB Trenton, also known as 8 Wing Trenton, which is Canada's largest and most strategically important air force base. CFB Trenton is also the largest employer in Quinte West, with more than 4,500 personnel, and it has a significant economic impact on the region. These are precisely the people we are supporting through this legislation. Bill C-11 would help us build a more inclusive, respectful and safe workplace for all of our Canadian Armed Forces members to survive and thrive, including members who serve at CFB Trenton.

We have made considerable progress over the last several years to enact meaningful and durable culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces, including by working to implement all 48 of former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour's recommendations, as others have previously outlined. By implementing Justice Arbour's recommendations and making changes to the military justice system through Bill C-11, we are taking a major step to make sure we keep our brave soldiers safe from harassment and misconduct in their workplace.

A career with the Canadian Armed Forces is a source of unique pride and confidence among those who have the privilege to serve. Our priority, then, as a government is to build a more inclusive and supportive fighting force. It is important to grow a Canadian Armed Forces that reflects the diversity of Canada and Canadians. We know that a more modern military with an inclusive culture will also have a positive impact on recruiting and retaining members.

We are building a 21st-century workplace where Canadian Armed Forces members will feel safe to report incidents. Our forces expect this of us. They expect a workplace where CAF members are treated fairly. In other words, changing the culture of DND and the CAF is not simply the right thing to do; it is essential to the readiness and operational effectiveness of our institution, and it has tangible impacts.

This year, recruitment has reached a 10-year high. We are on an upward trajectory, but there is more to be done, and Bill C-11 is part of our plan to create a safe workplace environment and change in the culture inside the Canadian Armed Forces. Our government has heard the voices of our people loudly and clearly. We have listened and we have acted. We now know there is much more work to be done, but we are making concrete and measurable progress. Bill C-11 demonstrates that anyone who wishes to join the CAF will have access to a fair and reliable legal system.

I want to reiterate the importance of Bill C-11. It would lay the foundation for an improved military culture by modernizing the military justice system, improving support to victims and providing exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities to both investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. We believe Bill C-11 is an important step in a journey designed to achieve durable and lasting institutional reform.

In conclusion, members of our armed forces serve our country with courage and dedication. That is why it is important for the government to take the need to change military culture seriously. Therefore, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this crucial bill to change the lives of our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces for the better. I hope we can all work together to make sure that Bill C-11 passes quickly. Our forces are counting on us.

I want to thank our brave armed forces, especially those at CFB Trenton my riding, for their sacrifice and service to our country.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the member's speech that we agree on. They have our backs and we must have theirs. That is extremely important. We also agree that everyone should be safe from harassment.

The Borden base is in my riding. I am very honoured to represent the men and women of the military who serve and have served in that area.

I used to sit on the veterans affairs committee, and what I have noticed since being elected in 2019 is that a lot of the same issues are being repeated over and over by the government, which has been in place for 10 years. We are studying some of the same issues again and again, such as individuals dealing with PTSD or getting another job after service.

Why would the public believe now that any of this would help any of the people who are serving today and those who have served? For 10 years, it has been the same thing over and over, with lots of promises and absolutely no delivery.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his service to his riding and to the men and women of CFB Borden.

I believe this government is committed to righting the wrongs of the past, as we have seen with some of our legislation, especially Bill C-11, which is a prime example of how we are doing that in a modern Canadian Armed Forces.

General Jennie Carignan is a prime example of the kind of personnel we have shepherding in this kind of change. In my life prior to being elected, I was employed at CFB Trenton. I had the chance to sit in and listen to a town hall held by General Carignan. She said unequivocally exactly what the member opposite was saying: We are making change and we mean what we say.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I asked my colleague whether anything would be done to address the needs of people with post-traumatic stress or people who have been the victims of physical harm. Obviously, she told me that there definitely would be.

How is my colleague going to manage things with an upcoming 5% increase in defence spending and only a few days left to check and see whether funds will also be available for prevention and treatment? What is he going to do to ensure that funding is made available for that purpose?

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are very committed in the new funding for our Canadian Armed Forces to providing services for veterans with PTSD. In fact, in my own riding office, I employ a veteran who looks specifically after the needs of members who serve and have served, current and past. We are addressing those needs directly and immediately. We take this very seriously.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Madam Arbour had 48 recommendations in total. Many of those recommendations have already been put in place. We are hoping to see the others passed this year. We hear criticism about why it is taking this long. It is important to recognize that in 2021, we received the interim report, and within the year, we were already seeing cases being shuffled over through the civil system. The legislation we are debating today would put the process into law.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that. Would it not be nice to see the law in place before the end of the year so that we can say all 48 recommendations have been adhered to by—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Bay of Quinte.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion in my previous life as a journalist to cover sexual assault trials in the court martial system, and I can tell my colleague that while the system was efficient and got the job done, it was in no way, shape or form the proper system whereby the victim had all the protections of a civil case. The legislation before us is guaranteed to right that wrong. We have listened and we will get the job done.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I rise in the House to address two crucial issues that go to the heart of our national security and our commitment to those who serve our country. The first issue is in regard to Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act, a piece of legislation that would fundamentally reform our military justice system. The second issue is in regard to the urgent need for a complete overhaul of the Canadian government's procurement process for military equipment, an area that has been totally neglected and plagued by chronic delays and inefficient bureaucracy. Together, these issues underscore the urgency of protecting our military and strengthening our defence.

Let us start with Bill C‑11, which is basically a repeat of Bill C‑66 from the 44th Parliament, with minor adjustments. This bill amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction over sexual offences to civilian authorities when these offences occur within Canada. This measure is in response to key recommendations in the reports by Justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour, which the Conservatives have always supported.

We firmly believe that all members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace, free from sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism or harassment. Those of us on this side of the House will continue to address these issues, putting victims' needs and rights first, in accordance with our criminal justice policy.

However, this bill is not without its flaws. Offences committed abroad will still be under the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction, which is consistent with section 273 of the National Defence Act. This discrepancy poses problems. By removing the CAF's jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases of sexual misconduct in Canada, there is a risk of losing essential practical skills. How will the Canadian Armed Forces maintain their expertise if they no longer manage their internal affairs?

One positive aspect is the increased independence of the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general. These positions will now be appointed by the Governor in Council, reporting directly to the Minister of National Defence, with limited terms of office. This strengthens their independence outside the chain of command.

The provost marshal will be added to the list of senior officials, along with the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister, who must have any complaints against them reviewed by the minister. However, there are still some inconsistencies. There are arbitrary differences between these positions with regard to their term of office and whether it is renewable.

What is more, this bill grants the Minister of National Defence more power to issue written instructions or directives on particular prosecutions. That opens the door to potential political interference, a risk that we, as Conservatives, cannot ignore, especially given the Liberal government's track record of interference.

Financially speaking, this bill is alarming for accused persons. Right now, the Department of National Defence covers the prosecution and defence costs, but in the civilian system, accused persons would have to pay for their own lawyers, whose fees could reach six figures. That could discourage justice and expose members of the Canadian Armed Forces to false accusations without support.

Despite the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, victims are still waiting for justice after 10 years under a Liberal government. We, the Conservatives, accepted all of the recommendations in the Deschamps report, and we cannot understand why the Liberals have been dragging their feet for so long. We want to hear from everyone involved. We are proud of our men and women in uniform and we support them unconditionally.

Since we are talking about the Canadian Armed Forces, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the serious need for a complete overhaul of the government procurement process for military equipment and services. This inefficient and outdated system is filled with red tape and engenders costly delays that weaken our defence.

According to open sources, like government reports and media analyses, Canada has had equipment procurement issues for decades. For example, projects like the Canadian Army vehicle procurement project, which is worth up to $1 billion, face significant barriers, chronic delays and skyrocketing costs.

The Prime Minister, who, we must remember, is a former Goldman Sachs banker, is responsible for accelerating defence spending in order to meet our NATO commitments. We were supposed to reach a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product, but demands are currently reaching 5%.

There are consequences to that. Right now, we all agree on the idea of investing more in defence. However, there is always a “but”. That “but” is the procurement system. The Liberals will tell us that, last week, they announced a new agency. Again, it is a new agency. All this government has done since it came to power is create new bureaucratic structures.

However, there is a way to manage much more efficiently with the current structure by giving specific directives to the public servants and deputy ministers in place at National Defence, at the procurement service and in the industry. That way, the government would not need to create a bureaucratic structure that will take time to set up and might work eventually, but, for the time being, only adds more red tape.

Things can move quickly if the will is there. Here is the proof. When the Conservative government was in power and we were at war in Afghanistan, we had urgent equipment needs on the ground. This included planes, helicopters, vehicles and personal protective equipment. Former prime minister Harper issued a directive indicating that he wanted to have equipment as quickly as possible, on time and on budget. It got done. Where there is a will, there is a way. The proof is that this happened under the Conservative government. On the Liberal side, they like to build a big bureaucracy, but decisive operational leadership can get things done too. This would go a long way to improving Canada's military procurement system, which has been a train wreck for the past few years.

We do need to reform the military justice system because this system has become a problem, particularly in cases of sexual assault. However, we should keep in mind that a dichotomy will be created by the loss of capacity within the teams that are currently responsible for prosecuting cases that occur abroad versus those that will be responsible for civilian proceedings in Canada. It is important that we have a system that ensures that military judge advocates working on the front lines, as well as the commanding officers carrying out their duties abroad, retain their expertise. We must not lose this strength.

On the military procurement front, we have moved beyond the stage of fine words. We have responded to a request from the U.S. and NATO, and we want to move forward. However, too many companies in the defence sector are still coming to me saying that they are unable to reach anyone within the Government of Canada. No one answers their calls, their emails or their requests. They have a much easier time selling equipment in other countries, while in Canada, their hands are tied. I am not talking about one company, but several companies at all levels, from major multinationals to small companies that make equipment as commonplace as chests for storing weapons, but also other equipment that could be used right now on the ground in Ukraine. A company in Montreal has to sell its equipment in Great Britain in order for that equipment to reach Ukraine because Canada is not answering its calls.

These are observations. As far as Bill C-11 is concerned, we support the idea, but there are adjustments to be made. This has been dragging on for a very long time. I do not know why we are still talking about something in 2025 that should already have been resolved. Let us hope that things speed up and that adjustments will be made. As for military procurement, it is high time that we acted quickly for the Canadian Forces, for the security of the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the interim report had 48 recommendations, many of which have already been completed. We are hoping to complete others before the end of the year. That is the goal, and that includes the passage of this particular piece of legislation. The member is trying to give the false impression that nothing is moving forward. Within a year of the interim report being brought forward, we have seen cases shifted over to the civilian justice system. That is a very strong positive.

Does the member not agree that we can collectively send a very strong message to the members of our armed forces by sending this legislation to committee stage? The committee is best suited to listen to the feedback. It seems to me we should try to get this done before the end of the year. Would the member not agree?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think some information got lost in translation.

I mentioned that it was taking a long time, but I did not say that nothing had been done. I said that it was still taking way too much time. I also said that we supported the idea of Bill C-11, but that adjustments were needed. We will probably be able to make the necessary adjustments at the committee stage.

I was generally criticizing the length of time it is taking, although some steps have been completed.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare to see all the parties agree to move a bill forward through the legislative process. From what I understand, everything will get done in committee.

I see that there is goodwill and that members want to make good recommendations and pass a good bill. Will my colleague's party lend a hand so that we can finally carry out this agenda that should have been implemented years ago?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we supported the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, which were published in recent years. In fact, we were the ones who commissioned the first report.

It is extremely important for us that this problem be resolved. We have always collaborated. We complain about the government moving at a snail's pace, but every time we have amendments to propose, they are based on reality and aim to make things better. We are not proposing amendments just to slow down the process. If we propose an amendment, it is because we think it is essential to do so. That is what we will do.

Obviously, if the government agrees to the Conservatives' amendments, the process will move more quickly. That is our goal.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his service in uniform. I know that he, as a former commanding officer, was responsible for discipline and for maintaining the code of service discipline and the National Defence Act within his unit.

One of the concerns he addressed in his speech is the fact that these cases have already started going over to civilian courts, but we are seeing such a backlog. Is he concerned about victims actually getting justice in the civilian courts, due to the challenges we are seeing across the country right now with the civilian justice system?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is also a veteran and a former commanding officer. He likely had to conduct summary trials like I did.

One of the problems we are seeing right now is that cases are being added to the backlog of other cases in the civilian justice system. That can hurt victims. That is one of the concerns that we Conservatives have. We agree with the principle, but if this bill causes more problems for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to justice, then we have not improved anything.

That is why we need to find a way forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I want to thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for serving our country.

I just have one question. Does the Conservative Party currently support passing Bill C-11?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there are a number of things that need to be addressed. That is why we are asking the government to make amendments and propose changes before going any further. These are fundamental issues.

At this point, we are dealing with problems that have not yet been resolved.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say this is a tough bill or a tough speech for me to give, but I do have my own unique military background, which includes having spent 25 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I spent a lot of that time as a presiding officer. Fortunately, as a presiding officer, I did not have to oversee sexual misconduct cases. Those would go to court martial and were never in my purview.

Let us back up to how we got to where we are today. Reference has been made to Madam Arbour's report, and before that there was Madam Deschamps' report. I want to share with everyone how shocked and disappointed I was when the Deschamps report came out. I was literally flabbergasted.

The Canadian Armed Forces is representative of a cross section of Canadian society. We are going to have bad apples and phenomenally good people. I was somebody who was an infantry officer, who served in a combat arms unit, which gets a bad rap a lot of the time, and I had never personally witnessed any of these cases. It was shocking when it came out because I had not had feedback shared with me by my former female colleagues in our Canadian Armed Forces. I reached out once that report came out and asked some of them about it. Some of them were senior officers. The horror stories that I heard just absolutely blew me away. Unfortunately, there have been challenges within the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to sexual misconduct and justice for the victims being delivered.

I am sharing this because it is important that we get it right. We cannot just overreact. The military is no different than any other organization. Sometimes a solution creates two other problems. We have to make sure we are looking at this from all angles, both for the victims and the accused. The reason I bring up the accused is that we just have to go back over the last half-dozen years or so to see that some very senior officers had allegations brought up against them that in the end turned out to be unsubstantiated. In some cases, the officers were acquitted.

One of my best friends, a still-serving brigadier general, has done a phenomenal job. This goes back to almost 10 years ago. I think it was around 2015 when he was unjustly accused. Fortunately, due to the system finally sorting it out, he has been able to successfully maintain his career in the Canadian Armed Forces. He has been promoted a couple of times since then and currently serves.

I am just bringing that up because it is important that the system works in an impartial way to address the issues. We absolutely have to stamp out any sexual misconduct that occurs anywhere in society, while at the same time making sure that due process is followed.

There are about five elements to this bill from a summary perspective. I want to touch on each one of them slightly, except for one. The first one is that it obviously amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of sexual misconduct offences to civilian courts when they take place here in Canada.

The parliamentary secretary talked about this in her speech. I asked her how it is working so far, and she is committed to getting the data. This ties into another question that I had already asked. We now have about three-plus years of data. I want to know how many cases are being accepted by the civilian courts. What are the findings? Are any of them being delayed? I am concerned about the Jordan principle, because, again, if justice is delayed, these victims will not get the justice they need.

Another aspect to this transfer is that, unfortunately, the cases that occur overseas while our military members are deployed would still be prosecuted by our military police within the Canadian Armed Forces and within our military justice system, with its prosecutors and judge advocates general. This was a question that was brought up during a technical brief. It was asked, and I do not want to say we have been reassured, but the government has been talking about the fact that there is going to be training. My concern is that training has to be really good because why are we saying that our military police, judge advocates general and the military justice system are not good enough to deal with cases here in Canada, but they are good enough when they happen overseas?

Those are the first two points of the bill that would change certain things.

Another aspect of the bill is that it would increase the independence of the director of military prosecution, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general by having them appointed by the Governor in Council and report directly to the minister of national defence with term limits. I am not going to get into depth on that. I do think there are questions that can be asked in the review process of the bill as to how it would actually change anything internally or externally with the independence.

I think it is a little, I do not want to say mythical, but in my experience, and I can speak only from my experience, our military police were very much granted independence for everything they did. It was very much frowned upon and stamped out if somebody in the chain of command tried to interfere with the process going forward. I have had nothing but positive feedback in dealing with our military police, our national investigation service and our judge advocates general in the prosecutions that have taken place.

I talked about the importance of the data. One of the issues, though, that needs to come up as well is that if somebody is alleged to have done something wrong in the military system, they are provided with military defence counsel, but as soon as a case goes into the civilian courts, and if it is one of our soldiers, sailors or air crew who has been alleged to have done something wrong, they are no longer entitled to military defence; they are on their own dime.

I have already provided one example, and there are a couple of others I can think of, where the people who have been alleged to have done something wrong went through the process, and rightly so, but when it was determined that they in fact had done nothing wrong, it cost them literally tens of thousands of personal dollars, if not more. Their only way to get any coverage back was to sue the government or the Department of National Defence and the chain of command, to be reimbursed through civil litigation, which takes way more time.

It is a question I have; I do not know what the right answer is. I am hoping that when the bill gets to committee or goes through the amendment processes, the government considers how it is going to handle that.

What I want to talk about in the last bit of my speech is a bit more technical in nature. I have asked the question; I have not gotten a response back from the ministers or the department yet, but it is interesting that the bill would lay out a deadline for the provost marshal general, as it would now be called, to provide an annual report, a deadline of three months. I am wondering, so it is more of a question the government can take note of because I do not have a response yet, why was there not a similar timeline included for the judge advocate general when the government was updating the military justice system with the bill ? They are mandated to provide an annual report, but there is no timeline on it.

The second question I have that is tied to the previous one is this: What is the “so what”? What would be the repercussions if the provost marshal general did not submit a report on time? What would happen to them?

Ultimately the military justice system is a system that I believe is crucially needed within the military. It ensures service disciple. However, obviously we need to make sure the victims are taken care of. The decision has been made; this has gone forward, and we are moving to civilian courts to prosecute any sexual misconduct. Our military justice system, I fully agree, needs to be improved; however, my only concern is, let us not fix the one problem while creating one or two others.

I am optimistic that all parties can work together to come up with a way to make sure that the bill is the best bill possible to ensure that everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces, men and women who serve this nation, are properly protected.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way the member finished his speech and the comments he shared. I also want to thank him for his service. It is important that we give regard and respect to our men and women in uniform.

Hearing the comments provided to me, and I would say to the constituents in the riding of Waterloo, about some assurance that we can actually move the bill to committee rather quickly, I would like to hear from the member how quickly he believes it could progress so we could get to scrutinizing it and making sure we get it right at committee.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have a clue. Ultimately, I am sure the member's party follows a similar process that we do. The bill has just been tabled. We will discuss it as a caucus.

I know that one of the key jobs of our shadow minister for defence is to determine who wants to speak to the bill. The unique challenge, after a federal election, is that almost 50% of the MPs are brand new in the House. I am a big believer, and I have stood up for this and stated it before, that everybody should be entitled to speak as much as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader speaks in the chamber.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, which was somewhat nuanced. However, considering that it was the Conservatives who appointed Mr. Vance in the first place when there were already allegations of sexual misconduct, and considering that the Liberals did everything they could to ignore those allegations, it is clear that the system needs to be overhauled. The idea behind the recommendations that were made and that are being implemented in the bill is to take the process out of the military's hands and put it in the hands of officials appointed by the Minister of National Defence. However, as we have seen in various cases, the minister does not seem to want to take action and prefers to avoid conflict.

I wonder if my colleague could share his suggestions. Should this be removed from political control? What would be the best mechanism to ensure fair judgments and a fair process in cases of sexual misconduct complaints?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the good things in the bill: It makes reference to certain allegations and complaints having to be dealt with by the minister of national defence.

As for the case the member brought up about the appointment, I cannot speak to that. I was serving in uniform in 2015, when the former chief of the defence staff was appointed, so I cannot speak to what was and what was not known or anything like that.

I do know, and I spoke to this a couple of Parliaments ago, that when allegations of misconduct against the chief of the defence staff were brought forward to the Liberal minister, he chose not to do anything about it, and we ended up censuring him in Parliament. I have a lot of respect for him because of his time in uniform, his three tours in Afghanistan and his time as a police officer, but I have no time for, and this is partly why we are in this problem in the first place, the failure of leadership within the Canadian Armed Forces to stamp out sexual misconduct internally and, in some cases, a failure with respect to ministerial accountability.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the best speeches I have ever heard the member make. It had a lot of meaning, and it has meaning for the people who live on the base in my riding and work in the Canadian Armed Forces.

In the member's speech, he alluded to a time when there were several high-ranking members all charged at the same time with allegations of sexual misconduct. This came at a particular point in time when it could have been very damaging to us had we been involved in a conflict, because it was in essence decapitating our military to a large extent. The member made an inference that there was a sense at the time with some of the conduct allegations that there was political motivation to get them out of the way.

What is in the legislation that might set the member's mind at ease or might alert him to the fact that this could happen again?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough question for me to answer. Again, I do not profess to know every paragraph or clause of the legislation yet.

Political interference is something we all have to watch out for at all times. I think that in this case, our leadership needs to be reviewed, but at the same time, we cannot make decisions hastily on false accusations either. Whether the bill would fully solve that or not, I am not sure, but ultimately it is something we should all be cautious of.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury.

We are here today to debate an important bill: Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. This bill addresses the long-standing concerns raised by victims and survivors in the Canadian Armed Forces and veteran community. This bill is a crucial step in responding to sexual trauma in the military.

As a government and as elected members, we have a duty to ensure that veterans and those currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces receive the support and justice they deserve. Bill C-11 marks a turning point in this journey.

No one can fully understand the relevance of Bill C-11 without grasping the scope of military sexual trauma and its repercussions. Military sexual trauma, also known as MST, is a serious problem that affects a large number of veterans. It encompasses experiences of sexual harassment, assault and other forms of sexual violence that occur during military service. This type of trauma can have lasting and devastating effects on the lives of those who experience it, as it can impact their mental health, emotional well-being, personal relationships and overall quality of life. The effects of this type of trauma extend beyond the individual and are felt in families, personal relationships and communities.

It is a systemic problem that affects many people who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. The Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre provides support services for current members of the CAF, as well as for veterans. However, it can be difficult for victims to seek help and request the services they need.

Bill C-11 is an historic piece of legislation that recognizes and responds to the unique needs of survivors of military sexual trauma. For too long, MST survivors have faced insurmountable barriers to obtaining justice and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. Bill C‑11 introduces measures that enhance transparency and accountability within the military justice system. This bill implements recommendations made by former justices Fish and Arbour to strengthen the military justice system. It provides a mechanism that will allow survivors to file complaints in a way that respects their dignity and ensures that their voices are heard.

This bill establishes a clear framework for investigating and responding to allegations of sexual misconduct while also promoting an environment of accountability and justice. In doing so, it not only supports survivors in their quest for justice, but also sends a strong message that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated in the Canadian Armed Forces. Through this legislation, we are proposing transformative measures to transfer the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences alleged to have been committed in Canada by members of the Canadian Armed Forces to the civilian system.

Another pivotal element of Bill C‑11 is its emphasis on culture change within the military and veteran communities. Addressing MST effectively requires a shift in attitudes and behaviours at all levels of the military establishment. Ultimately, this legislation will help us create a safer, more inclusive and more respectful workplace where CAF members can thrive.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill will also have a significant impact on veterans. The trauma resulting from these experiences can often lead to a range of challenges, such as PTSD, depression, anxiety and other mental health issues. These challenges often arise years after their service has ended.

It is therefore the responsibility of Veterans Affairs Canada to support veterans. This department will continue to play a crucial role in supporting individuals who have experienced sexual violence in the military, by ensuring that they have access to the resources they need to recover from their trauma and by advocating for their needs. Veterans Affairs Canada places the highest priority on ensuring that veterans and their families have access to the services they need when and where they need them.

That is why the department offers a whole host of programs and supports for individuals who become ill or injured in the line of duty, including victims of military sexual trauma. Veterans Affairs Canada ensures access to specialized services and to the supports needed to appropriately address impacts on their personal health and well-being. We are committed to meeting their needs.

The collaboration between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada will help ensure the well-being of those who serve and have served our country in uniform.

I would like to acknowledge the government's determination to implement this important bill, which will change the lives of many members of the armed forces, as well as veterans. There was an urgent need to undertake this reform of the military justice system and put in place the legislative changes needed to effectively address the issue of MST.

This government's commitment to improving the military justice system, strengthening support for survivors and fostering a culture of respect and accountability remains unwavering. It is a collective responsibility that requires the co-operation, understanding and action of all stakeholders concerned.

Our government recognizes the unique needs of the women and men who have experienced sexual trauma while serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why we are taking action by introducing this essential bill. I hope that all of my colleagues in the House will support this bill, which is important for our country's military community and veterans.

In closing, I want to reaffirm our commitment to those who have served our nation. MST is a serious problem, but by passing Bill C‑11, we will take an essential step toward tackling it with the seriousness it deserves.

I want to thank all the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the veterans who have served our country and sacrificed so much to protect Canada, our democracy and our values. It is our turn to support them, and Bill C‑11 is part of our crucial measures for improving the culture in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention. She had over two minutes left. She needs to talk to her staff or to the minister's staff, whoever wrote her speech for her. They could have filled it in a bit more.

I wonder if the member wants to comment on the concerns we have on our side with the soft-on-crime policies the Liberals have brought forward, which are permeating our civilian courts. They are putting everybody out on bail with the lowest conditions possible. We also see that perpetrators of sexual assault, sexual interference and sexual exploitation get to serve their time under house arrest. Those who commit those crimes within the military would have access to the civilian largesse that is coming from the government. I would ask the member if she agrees that civilian penalties should be applied to military members.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his concern about the length of my speeches, but it is unnecessary.

The civilian police already has the necessary jurisdiction in these matters. Once this legislation is passed, they will have exclusive jurisdiction over this information. We expect all police forces in Canada to act within their jurisdiction and enforce the law.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we saw that the Liberal defence minister turned a blind eye to all the allegations against Mr. Vance. He pretended he had not received them.

My colleague spoke about the need to take action. I think it is good to ensure that the process is no longer exclusively in the hands of the military. However, the Minister of Defence will be the one appointing the judges.

Should this not be expanded so that the process does not depend solely on politics? That is one way to ensure that it is truly objective and fair.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to this suggestion, I invite my colleague to vote in favour of Bill C‑11 and then make the necessary changes in committee.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my hon. colleague left us two minutes more to ask questions and that she did not repeat the same points that have been said in the House.

I have a quick question for her. How many of Madam Arbour's 48 recommendations have been implemented, and when should we expect all of them to be implemented?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of Madam Arbour's 48 recommendations, 34 have been implemented. The aim is to have all of them implemented by the end of the year.

I would like to mention that Bill C‑11 is the response to recommendation 5, which will truly enable all of these measures and recommendations to be implemented.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I welcome the new member to the House of Commons.

We have heard from survivors that the government does not consider the transfer of cases to the civilian justice system enough. Many have argued that if, for example, a victim is from Alberta, an accused lives in British Columbia and witnesses to an assault are from Quebec, local police units are not adequately resourced or equipped to handle the case.

Do the Liberals agree that dedicated time at committee will be needed to investigate models for civilian police to ensure a national standard for all victims?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I really hope that this bill will pass at second reading in the House so that a committee can study it and examine all our needs.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I know how important this bill is to the military community and to veterans.

I would like to spend some time today talking specifically about the importance of creating lasting and meaningful cultural change in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as our efforts toward the modernization of the military justice system.

All members of the House know the outstanding work that our Canadian Armed Forces carry out on behalf of Canadians both here and abroad. Our forces deploy all over the world, responding to regional crises, participating in international exercises and so much more. Our forces also deploy here at home to support Canadians, as we have seen in some specific incidents.

As the Minister of National Defence and many of my colleagues have already mentioned, it is our job to support our brave men and women in uniform. They carry out crucial work to keep Canadians safe, and it is our responsibility to create a professional and safe work environment for them so they can strive to reach their fullest potential. This is what Bill C-11 is all about. Bill C-11 proposes to reform the military justice system to ensure it is more transparent so that it can respond effectively and efficiently to the needs of our members.

Over the past few years, National Defence has received various external reports and reviews. These include the independent external comprehensive review and third independent review of the National Defence Act, which were overseen by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish, respectively. These reports speak to the need to reform and modernize the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure that misconduct in any and all forms is a thing of the past. This is about restoring trust in our institutions and proving to our members that when they come forward with any concerns regarding misconduct in the workplace, these concerns will be taken seriously.

Before delving in to the broader cultural change efforts being undertaken at National Defence and in the Canadian Armed Forces, I would like to lay out the changes that are proposed in the bill in question. The proposed amendments to the National Defence Act seek to, first, modify the process for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services; second, expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge to include non-commissioned members; third, affirm the judge advocate general's respect for the independence of authorities in the military justice system while exercising its superintendence of the administration of military justice; fourth, expand the class of persons who may make an interference complaint and provide that a member of the military police or person performing policing duties or functions under the Canadian Forces provost marshal's supervision must make such a complaint in certain circumstances; and fifth, change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to the provost marshal general to align with the titles of other senior designations in the Canadian Armed Forces, such as the surgeon general, the chaplain general and the judge advocate general.

The amendments proposed in this bill aim to reform the military justice system by making it more transparent and responsive to the needs of Canadians. However, these crucial institutional changes are only one aspect of our efforts.

National Defence is grappling with the difficult realities and experiences of our military and civilian members, including some who have been the targets of wrongdoing, harassment and crimes of a sexual nature. The Minister of National Defence has therefore started taking important steps to prevent this problem and find possible solutions.

One of the principal examples of our efforts is the creation of the sexual misconduct support and resource centre. This centre is a major step forward in providing supports to our members. The centre and its resources are available to current and former defence team members, cadets, junior Canadian Rangers aged 16 and older, and family members of the defence community. This means we are able to provide real support to all those who are affected.

We also doubled down on our efforts with the creation of the chief professional conduct and culture in 2021.

That individual is responsible for developing policies and programs to address systemic misconduct, improving tracking mechanisms for reports of professional misconduct, and leading efforts to develop a professional conduct and culture framework that tackles all types of discrimination, harmful behaviour, biases and systemic barriers.

The steps we are taking to respond to Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations and those from the other reports will ensure that future generations of the Canadian Armed Forces have access to more resources and a healthy and respectful work environment. However, we know there is a lot more work to do. Bill C‑11 is just the first step.

I would now like to discuss the measures that National Defence is taking.

To provide context and set the scene, we should start with Justice Arbour's report, “The Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review”, also known as the Arbour report. In April 2021, Justice Arbour launched a comprehensive review with the aim of examining harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. This was a comprehensive review that spanned over 12 months. Justice Arbour carefully reviewed all policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture in National Defence and the military justice system. The final report included 48 recommendations, 17 of which could be immediately acted on. The previous minister of national defence accepted all 48 recommendations on May 30, 2022.

I would like to highlight two key recommendations that Justice Arbour made and share the progress we have made on them thus far.

Recommendation 11 relates to the repeal of the duty to report regulations. In the findings, Justice Arbour concluded that these regulations took away the agency and control of survivors in the reporting process, which would potentially lead to the revictimization of these individuals. The repeal of the duty to report came into effect on June 30, 2024, and we continue to work with the leadership to ensure we are prioritizing trust and safety in our reporting as well as the agency and choices of victims, survivors and affected persons.

Recommendation 48 calls for the Minister of National Defence to appoint an external monitor to oversee the implementation efforts of the IECR's recommendations. We took swift action on this important measure. The minister at the time appointed Madame Jocelyne Therrien as external monitor. Madame Therrien provides monthly progress reports to the Minister of National Defence on the implementation of the report's recommendations.

It is clear that our government has been working diligently to make real, tangible progress on the recommendations in front of us, but we know that there is more to do. At its core, this legislation is about protecting, supporting and empowering our people. We know that members of the forces and their families have our backs, and it is our responsibility to have theirs. As a supporter of our Canadian Armed Forces, I am proud to see the investments our government is making in the defence of our people, both through new financial commitments and our commitments to lasting cultural change.

Let me be very clear. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces maintain an unwavering commitment to implementing the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish. Bill C-11 proposes to help us implement some of the recommendations from former justices Arbour and Fish to ensure that members of our forces have a safe and professional work environment to carry out the difficult tasks ahead of them.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have heard from members of the CAF is that, currently, regarding cases going before military justice courts, their legal fees are covered. They are worried about frivolous litigation and that, if they are in criminal courts, they will have to pay for their own lawyers.

Has the government given any thought to what it would do as a remedy for that?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the work that has been done on this report, and with the multiple consultations that have been undertaken in the formulation of the report and all the recommendations, those concerns have been incorporated and are being looked at. They form part of the monthly progress reports that are provided to the Minister of National Defence. The discussions around those continue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sudbury for her thoughtful speech. She is clearly a woman of action.

The problem we have with her government in the current context is that it is doing the exact opposite. It has failed to take action on behalf of victims, who are mostly women. In this context, will she commit to putting pressure on her party to speed up the passage of this bill and, more importantly, to speed up assistance for victims?

Victims are often left to fend for themselves, especially when they live in more remote regions, like ours. What resources can we offer to victims in the regions to ensure that they can heal and get justice with dignity?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is very important to take action. The government is taking much-needed steps at this very moment with this legislation. This bill really has two objectives: to propose a series of targeted changes to modernize the justice system and to strengthen support for victims and survivors. Focusing on those two things is very important.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I also want to thank Madam Arbour for her report, of which approximately 20 recommendations have already been implemented. The face of the Canadian Armed Forces has changed over the decades. Obviously, more women are joining today and that is a good thing.

Does my colleague believe that Bill C‑11 must also be accompanied by a cultural change within the armed forces, so that women are better supported, better heard, and their needs are properly addressed?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very important that this bill help create a more inclusive, respectful and safe working environment in which members of the Canadian Armed Forces can thrive. Our focus is on that cultural change. We are passionately moving in that direction.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having served in an environment where chain of custody and evidence integrity are critical, I am concerned about jurisdictional overlap.

I would like to have the member tell us how the military and civilian police would coordinate investigations without creating gaps where cases could fall through the cracks.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the consultations that I referred to earlier, regarding the development of this, looked at all of the jurisdictions that exist among the various parties involved in this. This certainly formed part of the report and the recommendations.

Certainly, the military and civilian judicial processes are both equipped and ready to work together in bringing justice for these victims and their families.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

Let me say right from the start that I support the intentions behind this bill. It aims to make our military justice system fairer, protect victims better and increase accountability. These are important goals. I think all of us in the House, especially on the Conservative side, agree that justice and fairness must be part of everything we do, including how we run our armed forces.

That said, we also have a duty to ask tough questions to make sure that while we are fixing one problem we are not creating new ones somewhere else. I want to raise a few concerns. They are not political attacks but honest concerns about how this will work in the real world with real consequences for the men and women in uniform.

One of the biggest changes in this bill is that sexual offences that occur in Canada would now be handled by civilian courts instead of the military. On paper, that makes sense. We want victims to feel safe coming forward, and civilian courts have experience handling these cases. This could lead to better outcomes for victims.

However, here is a question: What happens when something like this happens overseas during a deployment or mission? Our military operates around the world in peacekeeping, training missions and sometimes in combat zones. In many of those places, civilian police and courts are unavailable.

If the military does not have jurisdiction over certain offences, who would handle those cases when they happen abroad? The bill implies that jurisdiction overseas would revert to the National Defence Act and be handled under the code of service discipline. In other words, it would be handled by the military. If military justice is not suitable in Canada, how is it suitable overseas? Would victims feel that justice has been served by a system not deemed good enough at home? This needs to be addressed.

The second thing is command authority. Military discipline is different from civilian life. The military justice system exists to maintain order, morale and operational effectiveness. It gives commanders the tools to act quickly and firmly. This bill would risk taking too much control away from commanders. If issues have to go through a long civilian process with no clear chain of responsibility, our ability to act fast in critical situations is compromised. Commanders should not have unchecked power, but they must be involved, especially during active missions. Let us not weaken their ability to lead and protect their troops.

The third thing is independence versus bureaucracy. This bill would give more independence to roles like provost marshal and director of military prosecutions. In theory, that supports fairness and impartiality. However, we must be careful not to create a system so wrapped up in bureaucracy that it becomes slow or even politicized. Our soldiers deserve a justice system that is efficient, focused and responsive, not one bogged down in red tape.

The fourth thing is communication between systems. Let me give members a real-life example I was told about recently. At a military camp last year, a serious incident of a sexual nature occurred. It was reported by the military to civilian authorities right away and the RCMP took over the case, which is exactly as this bill envisions. However, once the RCMP had the file, there was no communication back to the military. As a result of not knowing what restrictions were to be sent down the chain of command, the military sent both the victim and the accused home on the same bus. That should never happen. That is not a failure of values. It is a failure of process.

Nowhere in this bill is there a formal mechanism for communication between the RCMP and the military. Without one, this kind of situation could happen again and again. If we are going to transfer cases to civilian courts, there must be clear communication every step of the way. The military still has to manage the members involved as long as they are active service members and protect both the rights of the accused and the safety of others.

Finally, this cannot be “set it and forget it”. We need to keep watching this bill as it rolls out. That means oversight, regular reviews and honest discussions about what is working and what is not. Because we overcivilianize the military justice system, we forget that it serves a unique and high-pressure environment, and we risk weakening it. If we weaken military justice, we weaken our ability to maintain order, protect victims and defend this country.

I will say in closing that I support the goals of Bill C-11. I support protecting victims. I support making justice fair and seen to be fair. However, we must think carefully about the real-world impacts of these changes. What happens when offences occur overseas? What happens when communication breaks down? What happens if the military loses the ability to act quickly when it matters most?

These are not hypotheticals; these are real questions that affect the lives of our armed forces members and their families. Let us pass the bill, but let us do it with our eyes open. Let us strengthen military justice, not slow it down. Let us protect victims and protect discipline. We can do both, and we must.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the point my colleague was making about what would happen when these incidents happen internationally. I was chair of the status of women committee when we studied sexual assault in the military, and it was clear that the existing military system is subject to the old boys' club. If someone is in a foreign location, they are forced to work with the perpetrators, and that system was not working. I think it needs a better answer.

Can the member comment?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can comment only on what exists in the bill. The bill does not have any provision whatsoever to revert to civilian justice overseas. Obviously, it is outside the jurisdiction. The flip side of that question is this: If the military is dealing with only those problems outside Canada, how is it going to maintain its expertise in doing so on the civilian side? That is the flip side of the same problem. There is no provision whatsoever in the bill for civilians, and I would like to see that provision.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member actually following the lead of my colleague from Terrebonne in not using the entire amount of allotted time that he had to speak. We know there are many members who want to speak to the bill, but we also recognize that there is some agreement that the bill needs to go to committee so that we can get it right, so that we would be serving the very people who take so much time to serve us.

First, I appreciate that the member was very concise in providing some constructive feedback. I would like to hear from the member on whether he agrees that the work to advance the bill and to make any amendments to it should be done at committee and that we should do it in a timely manner so that we can actually get to all the recommendations by Madam Arbour.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that a flawed bill should be fixed before it goes to committee if possible. This is a flaw in the bill, and it should be addressed. I am not entirely sure how. There is some low-hanging fruit here, like the interpolice communications, that I think can be done very easily. It simply needs a provision in the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to recognize that in the report we are talking about, there are 48 recommendations, and the government is on track to get 47 of those 48 passed by the end of the year. The wild card is actually Bill C-11. All political entities in the House seem to support the essence of that legislation. Much of that legislation, such as the transfer over to the civil justice system, is already being incorporated in an informal way through the Canadian Armed Forces. We are all waiting to see the legislation get to the committee stage.

Would the member not agree, out of respect for the Canadian Forces and the women and men who serve this country so well, that we should try to get this thing passed before the end of the year?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to have seen the last 10 years be more productive, but, unfortunately, they were not. I do not think we should be passing flawed bills at all, especially when there are gaping holes that can easily be fixed.

I served for 10 years; I do not need lessons on how to respect the Canadian Forces.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that my time is not being split, because it is already split, and I am the second half. I say that because I am torn and split over the bill, so I will be sharing my thoughts and comments over the next few minutes. I have been asked to speak to Bill C-11 given the veterans affairs committee's work on MST, military sexual trauma, in the last Parliament.

I am proud to speak to this important issue, but I wish it was not necessary. During that study, the veterans affairs committee heard countless first-hand accounts of how terrible military sexual trauma can be and the lasting effects it can have on a person and their family.

First, we have to solemnly thank all the survivors who came forward to bravely share their stories and pursue claims despite all the challenges thrown in their way. Sadly, the VAC claims process still places a considerable burden of proof on survivors, sometimes forcing survivors to recount their horrific stories several times, and from what I have heard, time and time again.

Many witnesses shared their difficulties, delays and ongoing barriers when seeking help for MST-related health impacts. This is extremely important to note. MST survivors often experience lasting mental health effects, such as PTSD, depression and substance abuse, compounded by physical health problems and challenges in interpersonal relationships.

Many women came forward with heartbreaking accounts, but they had the courage to demand change and accountability from the system they were in. I would like to share some quotes from survivors who shared their accounts with our committee: “I came forward because I could not live with the weight of silence anymore. The trauma followed me home, and VAC made the process so hard that I nearly gave up.” That is not a lone comment.

Another comment was, “Being believed matters. In the military, the burden of proof is too heavy. My entire story was put on trial again when I applied for support from Veterans Affairs.”

Another witness shared this: “There is strength in telling our stories, but it's exhausting to relive the trauma with each new bureaucratic step. We need a system that listens the first time.”

Another comment from a witness was, “When I tried to access help, I felt isolated and invisible. Services were not designed for people like me—they didn't understand what I had lived through.”

These are heartbreaking testimonies that have come forward. VAC needs to train case managers in trauma. Too often, I was confronted by disbelief or ignorance when explaining the reality and the complexity of sexual trauma. The veterans affairs committee dealt with and listened to many witnesses. It was heartbreaking. This committee is doing good work, and we are also going to be hearing about veterans who have committed suicide and how we can prevent this for our veterans community, so it is not an easy committee to be on.

One comment that really hit home to me was, “All I ever wanted was recognition, support, and to be treated like my experiences mattered. MST ended my career and changed my life in every way.”

We need to be there for victims during their time in service and after their time in service.

I am someone who has served and a father of two young girls, and this issue hits extremely close to home. I can only hope that by the time my children are adults, parliamentarians will not still be looking at ways to fix these ongoing crises. Sadly, the current bill would not fix them.

First, I will say clearly to anyone watching that the Liberals are not serious about this issue. If they were, they would not have tabled Bill C-66 mere months before the last election, but they did. If they were serious, they would not have allowed it to die on the Order Paper without real debate. If they were serious, they would have listened to the experts explain the legislation's problems instead of copying and pasting the legislation into Bill C-11, the bill we are debating today. Frankly, Liberals cannot be trusted to stop sexual assault within the CAF. They constantly choose soft-on-crime policies instead of advocating for victims. We have seen that today in the House. Victims seem to be ignored, but those who commit the crimes seem to get away with it.

Those of us on this side of the House believe we must continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment. All military members deserve to have a safe and respectful workplace. All victims of military sexual misconduct deserve timely justice. The Harper government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment in the CAF. After a decade of the Liberal government and two more reports from Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly.

Sadly, parts of Bill C-11 would simply open the door to potential political interference and partisan appointments. First, the bill would give increased power to the Minister of National Defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions. Second, the director of military prosecution, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general would be appointed by the Governor in Council. Canadians are worried about political interference. Given the wide-ranging issues with the ways former defence minister Sajjan handled sexual misconduct cases in 2021, this is for good reason.

For over half a year, Justin Trudeau and former minister Sajjan continually covered up information on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Trudeau's team went to great lengths to block investigations and hide the truth from Canadians. For months in 2021, he orchestrated a cover-up to hide the fact that his top aide, Katie Telford, and former minister Sajjan had direct knowledge of the sexual misconduct allegation against the then chief of the defence staff.

In a statement on the report conducted by the status of women committee in 2021, Conservatives said, “it's become abundantly clear that there has been a lack of leadership” by the defence minister on the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Despite repeated problems, including handling of sexual misconduct allegations, then prime minister Trudeau left former defence minister Sajjan as the minister until after the next election. When sexual misconduct was studied at the national defence committee in 2021, the Liberals filibustered for weeks and then called an election before the committee was able to produce a report. Four Liberal MPs who participated in the filibuster are elected today. Let us be clear that Liberal political interference is not limited to national defence. Liberals have a long and proud history of it.

We have seen time and time again how the Liberals have involved themselves in military decisions when they should have stayed out. This means that parliamentarians who are veterans need to read and go through the bill in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is so wrong in so many ways that I do not know where to begin. Maybe the member should realize that when we take a look at Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations, the goal is to achieve success on 47 of those before the end of this year. Many of the things the legislation would put in place through criminal law are already being administered, in part because of the government's drive to move and shift from military to civil court processes.

The member is just wrong on so many points. Will the Conservative brain thrust recognize that if Conservatives want that 48th recommendation done before the end of this year, they need to get onside? They have to allow the legislation to go to committee. This irresponsible and destructive force, which is better known as the Conservative Party, here on the floor of the House of Commons is the only—

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the destructive force is the Liberal government and the way it has treated our military and veterans. I cannot believe what I just heard. It is nothing but white noise from members of this party. They have done nothing for our military or our veterans.

You should be ashamed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order, please.

I remind the member to go through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether such an amendment should have been made years ago. Various allegations were made, but little action followed, and the previous government did not really make a proactive effort to respond to these allegations.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the Bloc at the veterans affairs committee, and we have seen nothing but time-wasting by the Liberal Party rather than actually doing anything solid for our veterans. It is shameful. I have seen a vet from Quebec come to the veterans affairs committee with a suitcase of claims that have never been addressed. That is exactly what the Liberal Party has: suitcases of claims with nothing done. It is a shame.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague for his service to our country. I know this member very well, and I know this is near and dear to him because of the time he served on the committee. He listened to the testimonies of the victims, as I have. Our hon. colleague Is a veteran, a committee member and a friend and colleague to some of these victims; I want to know just how important this is to him, his friends and his former colleagues.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have probably been a little heated in some of my responses today because I am passionate. I am passionate about the military. I am passionate about how it has been neglected, and we need to actually support our military and properly equip it. I am also passionate about our veterans, who need proper care. They have served and have been willing to put their lives on the line. I want to be clear: As a vet, I was never in a position to put my life on the line when I was serving. I served on a small scale, but, honestly, I know people who have put their lives on the line, and they deserve better.

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-du-Nord. I am still learning French, so I will give my comments in English.

I wish to acknowledge my colleague for his service and thank him for his service to Canada.

On June 13, as the newly appointed Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, I had the profound honour of meeting a delegation of remarkable women veterans. They shared with me deeply personal stories of service, strength and the unique challenges they have faced as women veterans. Their voices were clear: Women veterans want to be recognized not only for their service but also for the distinct barriers they continue to face in access to care and support. They spoke of the power of peer connection, the need for trauma-informed systems and their steadfast hope that the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada will continue to evolve and grow in their supports for women. Their courage, advocacy and vision have shaped my conviction and are the reason I rise to speak today to underscore the importance of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

This legislation would be a significant step forward in addressing a deeply troubling aspect of military service, which is military sexual trauma, also known as MST. MST is a serious concern, with one in four women in our Armed Forces having experienced it in some form. It encompasses sexual harassment, assault and other forms of sexual violence that occur during military service. Trauma from these experiences can have lasting and devastating effects on our CAF members and veterans. It affects their short- and long-term mental health, their emotional well-being, personal relationships and overall quality of life.

To fully understand the relevance of Bill C-11, it is important to first understand the connection between MST and post-traumatic stress disorder. Research has demonstrated that women in service, who are more likely to experience MST, are disproportionately affected by PTSD. The trauma from such experiences, including MST, often leads to a range of challenges, including but not limited to depression, anxiety and other mental health concerns. Veterans Affairs Canada recognizes that PTSD is not just a personal issue. It is a systemic one that has affected many people who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. Additionally, the effects of MST extend beyond the individual, impacting their families, relationships and communities. It can also lead to significant barriers in accessing the support and services they need. As a department committed to the well-being of our veterans, Veterans Affairs Canada understands the urgency of addressing these challenges comprehensively and effectively.

Upon the resumption of Parliament last month, I had a very informative and insightful conversation with Senator Rebecca Patterson, who is a veteran and a champion for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families. We discussed the complexities of MST and the urgent progress still needed.

Bill C-11 would recognize and respond to the unique needs of survivors of military sexual trauma. For too long, survivors of MST have faced insurmountable barriers to obtaining justice and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. We need to improve transparency and accountability within the military justice system and provide a mechanism for survivors to file complaints in a manner that respects their dignity and ensures their voices are heard. This bill would establish a clear framework for investigating and responding to allegations of sexual misconduct while also promoting an environment of accountability. In doing so, the bill would not only support survivors in their quest for justice, but also send a strong message that such behaviour will not be tolerated in the military.

Another pivotal element of Bill C-11 would be a much-needed culture change within the military and veteran communities. Addressing MST effectively requires a shift in attitudes and behaviours at all levels of the military establishment. It is essential that supports and services are both readily available and easily accessible to those who need them.

Equally important is ensuring that victims know where safe spaces exist for them to come forward to share their experiences. Veterans Affairs Canada recognizes that changing entrenched cultural norms is not easily achieved, but it remains essential for creating a safe and supportive environment for all service members.

Bill C-11's focus on prevention and cultural change is a proactive step toward ensuring that future generations of military personnel are protected from such trauma. By removing jurisdiction over sexual offences from the military chain of command, the bill could address the isolation, stigma and fear of reprisal that have silenced survivors for decades.

I extend my appreciation to my colleague the Minister of National Defence and his department for their leadership and diligence in putting forward this legislation. The collaboration between our departments has been pivotal in shaping a response to MST that is both comprehensive and compassionate.

Our government's commitment to improving the military justice system, strengthening support for survivors and fostering a culture of respect and accountability remains unwavering. Its proactive approach and dedication to this cause will be instrumental in the passage of Bill C-11.

Together, the minister and I, as well as our departments, are committed to ensuring the well-being of those who serve and have served our country. My department actively collaborates with the Department of National Defence's sexual misconduct support and resource centre to develop additional supports for individuals affected by military sexual trauma. The resource centre's peer support program is a critical initiative that offers compassionate, trauma-informed support to veterans who have experienced MST.

By connecting survivors with trained peers who understand their unique challenges, this program fosters healing, resilience and a renewed sense of community. It is a meaningful step toward ensuring that no veteran faces their recovery journey alone. In addition to the work within our government, we must also continue to build and strengthen partnerships with other organizations and stakeholders to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive approach. This includes collaborating with military leadership, advocacy groups, mental health professionals and survivors to create a support system that meaningfully improves outcomes.

While Bill C-11 represents a significant step forward, the work does not end here. We must remain vigilant in our efforts to support survivors, hold perpetrators accountable and promote a culture of respect and safety within the military and within veteran communities.

Veterans Affairs Canada is committed to continuing this work, ensuring that the provisions of Bill C-11 are implemented effectively, and that we remain responsive to the evolving needs of our veterans.

By passing Bill C-11, we would take an essential step toward addressing military sexual trauma with the urgency, care and compassion it merits. By working collaboratively with the Department of National Defence and other key partners, we will create a safer and more supportive environment for all those who have worn the uniform and ensure that their sacrifices are honoured by giving them the respect and care they deserve.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a question about Bill C-11 today, but the minister brought up a number of points regarding veterans, Canadian Armed Forces members and personnel, their service and the PTSD related to their service.

In 2017, I passed a bill here in the House, Bill C-211, which made Canada the first country in the world to develop a national framework with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder. I had assistance from all sides of the House to do that. It has been eight years, and we have not received an update from any of the ministries responsible for that.

Would the minister commit to giving us an update on where they are with requirements that were laid out within Bill C-211, the legislation that passed in 2017, that deals specifically with post-traumatic stress disorder, our members and our veterans, through their service?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada takes the mental health of our veterans and the supports for them very seriously, and it will continue to advance the opportunities that we have available to support them. That included bringing in access to mental health supports, which was available for a two-year period with no waiting period, so that we could ensure that veterans got the help and support they needed right away without waiting on paperwork.

I would be happy to follow up with my colleague to discuss other steps in the works right now.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for offering to share her time with me.

That said, I would like to know whether she can tell us why roughly 10 years came and went between the day that Justice Marie Deschamps's first report was released and the day that this bill was tabled. We know that there was a number of earlier reports and bills, but it seems rather extreme to me that it should take 10 years to come up with a bill like this.

Can my colleague explain that time lapse?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many things happened in the previous 10-year period, and I would concur that there is still more work to be done. Our government has accepted all of Justice Arbour's recommendations and intends to implement them.

In December 2022, the former minister of national defence presented a report to Parliament outlining the steps the government would take in response to each of the 48 recommendations, and we have been working on implementing them. Recommendation number five is the only recommendation that can exclusively be implemented through legislation, which is why it is the only Arbour recommendation addressed in this particular bill. The remaining 47 recommendations are being addressed through other means. We are taking steps to make the changes now, so we can improve the response for veterans.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the minister referenced the 48 recommendations. We anticipate we will be able to complete 47 of those as early as before the end of this year. If we had a sense of co-operation in working with the opposition parties, we could pass Bill C-11, which would then mean we could hit the target of completing all 48 recommendations. Even though the bill puts it into law, I think it is important that we recognize that military sexual harassment is currently being deferred to the civilian court system. It is not that we are lagging behind, but this would allow us to put into law what is already, at least in part, being done.

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up an important point.

As was referenced in both his question and previous remarks, there is an opportunity, through the passage of Bill C-11, to be able to advance one of the recommendations, which then puts us on track to have all of the recommendations implemented by the end of this year. I think that is an incredibly important accomplishment that will move our ability to support our veterans and our service members forward in responding to military sexual trauma.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑11 gives us something we have been hoping for for a long time, namely an opportunity to improve the military justice system. Acts of sexual misconduct have been widely reported in the media over the past few years, severely affecting the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces and its leaders. Although I have not been able to find data on this, it goes without saying that the situation has also likely severely affected recruitment efforts, as well as morale among female military members.

This bill is almost the same as Bill C‑66, which died on the Order Paper in January when Parliament was prorogued and later dissolved, leading to the election in April.

Several former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have already studied the issue and made recommendations. First, there was the Hon. Justice Marie Deschamps, who tabled her report on March 27, 2015. That was over 10 years ago. Then there was the Hon. Morris J. Fish, who tabled his in June 2021. That was the third independent review. It contained 107 recommendations, including one to review the process for appointing three key positions in the military justice system: the provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. I think everyone can agree that, in a justice system, the judge, the prosecutor and the defence attorney are pretty important.

Justice Fish proposed better safeguards to protect these individuals from any pressure they might have been subjected to by the military hierarchy. Bill C‑11 addresses that recommendation, and we think it is a wise decision. However, we must remain vigilant to ensure that politicians do not interfere in the justice process, which desperately needs reforms. We must not get to a point where we get rid of one form of interference in favour of another.

As has been mentioned several times in the House, the appointment process in our common law courts justice system is often manipulated. For one, we have often heard about the infamous “Liberalist”. I hope that the “Liberalist”, or the Conservative list, if they are elected in the next election, will not become the tool for appointing judges to the courts that will have to judge or act as prosecutors in cases of sexual assault in the military.

Prior to Justice Fish, in 2003, the late Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, a retired former chief justice, also submitted a report containing 88 recommendations. In 2012, the Hon. Patrick LeSage, former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court, also submitted a report, which contained 55 recommendations. Finally, there was the Hon. Louise Arbour, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who, after pointing out that the exercise had already been done, tabled her report in October 2025, more than 10 years after her colleague Justice Deschamps.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that it is time to take action. We intend to support this bill and hope that it comes into force quickly so that we can have a military justice system that reflects Quebec and Canadian society.

In a recent media interview, the hon. Minister of National Defence said that victims need to have the confidence that the system is transparent and predictable and that they have the support that they need to come forward and to reveal what has happened to them. Not surprisingly, we agree. That is how it needs to be.

The armed forces as we knew them a century ago have given way to an army that is more open to the realities of our society. While the presence of women in the military was once an exception, even an anachronism, today it is the norm for about 15% to 20% of armed forces members. However, the organization of the armed forces has to adjust to this reality. Every member of our armed forces must feel comfortable and fully able to provide the services they are called upon to provide.

As I was saying, Bill C-11 will make it possible to modify the appointment process so it is no longer hierarchical. The following appointments will now be made by the governor general in council, at the recommendation of the Minister of Defence: the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. As I was saying earlier, this was among Justice Fish's recommendations, which were made a long time ago. Now it is in Bill C‑11, which is a good thing.

Bill C‑11 also proposes to remove the military courts' jurisdiction to try individuals for Criminal Code sexual offences. This is very important.

Some troubling situations have surfaced in recent years. We need only think of the case of General Jonathan Vance. He had been the focus of allegations of sexual misconduct long before the Conservative government decided to appoint him chief of the defence staff in the summer of 2015. He was alleged to have committed sexual misconduct, but the Conservatives did not see that as a problem and appointed him chief of the defence staff anyway. That seemed rather odd to us.

Then, in the fall of 2015, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government came to power. That government also did not bother removing General Vance from his position or do anything at all to limit the problems of sexual misconduct. On the contrary, allegations of sexual misconduct have escalated since 2015.

I will not go so far as to name every single person who has been the subject of allegations of misconduct. As a lawyer, I am aware that allegations of misconduct do not necessarily result in a guilty verdict. These individuals must be presumed innocent. That is fine, but it is still problematic at the social level. Society sees that people who lead the Canadian Armed Forces are the subject of repeated allegations of sexual assault or misconduct. Despite this, they are kept in their positions or even promoted. It makes no sense. I hope that Bill C‑11 will enable us to move beyond that era.

The bill also removes the military's power to investigate. Yes, that is obviously needed. Members will agree that a military investigator whose boss is accused of sexual assault or sexual misconduct is in no position to conduct an impartial and effective investigation.

I also want to talk about the process for appointing military judges. The pool is being expanded. The idea is that the person closest in rank is not necessarily the person who should be appointed and that the person could come from any military rank. There are individuals who have undergone training their entire military careers and who may be qualified to be appointed as court martial judges. In many cases, they would probably be better suited to the job than the highest-ranking officer who wanted to do it. This group is going to be expanded. That is good news for us.

The group of people who can file complaints will also be expanded. That is more good news. We must help victims emerge from the shadows and leave behind the era when allegations of sexual misconduct undermined the credibility of our military forces and the lives of women who served in the armed forces. I thank these women for helping to change the hierarchy and the way the armed forces operate. This is the best news we have had in a long time.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. We work together in committee, and because he is a lawyer, I greatly appreciate his thoughts on this bill.

I am very pleased to learn that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that we can pass it quickly. I think that is very important.

Toward the end of his speech, my colleague talked about the importance of giving military personnel, especially women, confidence that the system in which they can file a complaint will be neutral and independent of the military process.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I understand very well why female members of the armed forces may have been quite hesitant to file a complaint against a superior for sexual assault or misconduct. I would have been too, knowing that the person conducting the investigation is largely subject to the orders of that individual and that the judge who will handle the case is also a member of the same military hierarchy. That would be pretty awkward. Ethically, it is rather obscene. It is just not right.

This situation must change so that women can feel comfortable filing complaints if they need to. That does not mean that all complaints will be founded, but at least there will be a serious complaint process so that they can be judged impartially.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

As the member for Hull—Aylmer so aptly said earlier, it is always good to have people familiar with the legal profession among us to share their perspective when we talk about legal matters.

Based on his professional and personal experience, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the possible advantages of a military court over a civilian court when trying cases involving the military. We know that military judges are also part of the institution they are judging, but military knowledge is why military courts exist.

Could my colleague share his thoughts on what the current bill proposes based on his experience with civil and criminal courts, particularly in Quebec, if I remember correctly?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. I have never testified before a court martial or a military court, so I cannot speak from experience.

That said, I am well aware that a judge who has to hear a case like this will need some guidance on what military life is like. However, that sort of thing is an everyday occurrence in the courts. A judge can hear a case involving engineering without being an engineer or a case involving medical malpractice without being a doctor.

Judges are used to having to familiarize themselves with a topic before handing down a ruling. In my opinion, the same will apply to cases involving the military. Judges will need to be informed and receive explanations from the lawyers involved in the case. Surely that is better and more effective.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague and friend to share his comments on the actions, or lack thereof, of the former Liberal minister of national defence in the case of Mr. Vance.

I will remind members that the ombudsman attempted to meet with the minister 12 times and that, on those 12 occasions, the minister refused to meet with him and review the evidence, saying he did not want to interfere with the investigation. However, his government did not hesitate to go after Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who was speaking out against the actions of Scott Brison, who was part of that government at the time.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, either the former minister of national defence did not have the guts and acted in a cowardly manner, or he was instructed to act in a cowardly manner. Given the accusations at the time, it makes no sense that he refused to meet with the ombudsman, refused to look at these cases and refused to make a decision. That is not why he was appointed minister.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Crowfoot.

I rise today on behalf of the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces who call the Ottawa Valley home, and to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. This legislation, which was presented as reform, raises serious concerns about the future of justice for our Canadian Armed Forces and the government's ability to protect both the victims and the integrity of our military institutions.

Conservatives support our women and men in uniform. We honour their service and believe they deserve a workplace free from sexual misconduct, discrimination and harassment. We also believe they deserve a justice system that is fair, transparent and accountable.

Bill C-11 proposes to transfer jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada from the military justice system to the civilian courts. This change was recommended by Justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour, and it has been supported by many victims groups.

Conservatives have long called for action on these recommendations. We have criticized the Liberal government for its delays and lack of urgency. Victims deserve justice, and they deserve it without political interference or bureaucratic excuses. However, this bill does not fully deliver on that promise. It would create a split system where offences committed in Canada are handled in the civilian courts while those committed abroad are under military jurisdiction.

This inconsistency risks undermining the investigative capacity of our military police. If they are no longer investigating sexual offences in Canada, how will they maintain the skills needed to handle cases overseas? This is not theoretical. We have already seen troubling examples of investigative failures.

In February of this year, Ontario Superior Court Justice Cynthia Petersen stayed charges against a Canadian Armed Forces member accused of sexually assaulting his wife. She found that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service had shown bias, failed to document key evidence and even destroyed materials that should have been disclosed.

Justice Petersen called the misconduct "so egregious" that she had no choice but to halt the proceedings. She said it breached the accused's charter rights and shocked the conscience of the community. Two military police officers were suspended and an internal investigation was launched, but the damage was done. This case illustrates the dangers of a system that lacks accountability and transparency. It also raises the question about whether the military is capable of investigating its own conduct.

Another example is the case of Kristen Adams, a civilian employee working in Camp Adazi in Latvia. She was sexually assaulted by an Albanian NATO soldier who grabbed her breast while she was serving Canadian troops in the canteen. When she reported the assault, she was told by the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services that she should have expected such risks when accepting the job. They called it a cultural difference. They terminated her contract early and refused to call the incident a sexual assault.

Latvian military police conducted a superficial investigation, failed to interview witnesses and concluded there was no criminal offence. Canadian military police created a shadow file but had no jurisdiction to act. Adams was left without justice, without support and without answers.

This is what happens when jurisdiction is unclear and accountability absent. This is what happens when the system prioritizes optics over victims.

Bill C-11 does not fix this. It does not ensure that victims like Adams would be protected or that the perpetrators would be held accountable. It does not guarantee that investigations would be thorough or that justice would be served. It does not address the "culture of silence and deflection" that has plagued the military for years.

The case of Private Elvira Jaszberenyi is another sad example. She was a soldier who was raped by Corporal Oleksii Silin in a broom closet at CFB Borden. Military police who investigated her case told her that Corporal Silin was a sexual person. They told her that Silin's wife and kids had left him, suggesting this was a form of punishment. The military police mentioned that as a Russian immigrant, Silin's culture may view slapping a woman as permissible.

Despite that, Silin confessed to the military police that he had pulled her into a broom closet and had sexual intercourse with her. However, what was not mentioned at the time was that Silin was already under investigation for a different sexual assault the year before, but the military refused to prosecute the case.

Private Jaszberenyi complained to the Military Police Complaints Commission, but the commission was not permitted to review all the relevant files, specifically the briefing from the military police to prosecutors. This was despite the fact that Justice Morris Fish had issued a recommendation that these files be provided to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Without access to the briefing notes, the commission was effectively prevented from determining if the refusal to prosecute was reasonable.

While the bill before us would remove the role of the military police from investigating sexual assaults in Canada, the bill would not implement Justice Fish's recommendation to give the commission access to key briefing notes.

Faced with an unresponsive military justice system and bureaucratic hurdles, Private Jaszberenyi would not be deterred. She pursued a private prosecution in civilian court after exhausting all military avenues. The trial exposed the failure of the military justice system to take her complaint seriously. It showed how the victims are forced to fight alone for justice. It showed how the system protects itself instead of the people it serves.

In the end, Silin was acquitted. According to a CTV report on the case, Justice Robert Gattrell “...said he agreed with the defence, which argued Jaszberenyi came across as someone with ‘an agenda,’ who took issue with the military’s treatment of members, particularly women, who come forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct.”

Private Jaszberenyi's own advocacy for justice was used against her. While it is no longer permitted to weaponize a woman's sexual history against her in court, apparently women must not be too insistent in seeking justice. Any effort we make to ensure another woman is not raped can and will be used against us.

Bill C-11 does not address the underlying culture that allowed this to happen in the first place. It would not prevent senior leadership from allowing serious charges to be downgraded to conduct violations. It would not ensure that civilian court outcomes are integrated with the code of service discipline. It would not fix the disconnect between military justice and civilian accountability. Instead, it would shift responsibility without solving the root issues.

The bill would also increase the independence of key military justice officials by having them appointed by the governor in council. While independence from the chain of command is important, the inconsistent term lengths and reappointment rules raise concerns. As well, giving the Minister of National Defence the power to issue guidelines on prosecutions opens the door to political interference. This is especially troubling given the history of interference in previous cases.

Conservatives believe in protecting victims and supporting the rights of the accused. We believe in a justice system that is fair, consistent and rooted in the principles of individual liberty. We do not support a parallel system that undermines these principles.

We also believe in transparency. The military has referred dozens of sexual offence cases to civilian authorities, but it cannot, or will not, reveal how many of these cases have resulted in charges. This lack of data makes it impossible to evaluate whether the transfer of jurisdiction is working. Victims deserve answers. Service members deserve clarity. Canadians deserve accountability.

Bill C-11 may be well-intentioned, but it is incomplete. It does not address the systemic failures that have plagued the military justice system. It would not ensure that victims would be heard or that accused members would be treated fairly. It does not restore trust.

Let us be honest about why the bill was delayed. The Liberals had this legislation ready as Bill C-66. They let it die when they prorogued Parliament. They delayed it again while they scrambled to cover up their green slush fund scandal. They delayed it again while they changed leaders behind closed doors. They delayed it again while they installed a man whose record includes tax haven investments, greenwashing scandals and ties to ethically compromised donors. They delayed justice for victims so they could protect their own political interests. That is the real story behind Bill C-11. That is why victims are still waiting. That is why the system is still broken.

We will push for a fulsome committee study to hear from victims, such as Private Jaszberenyi. We will demand changes that protect victims, support service members and strengthen our justice system.

We owe it to those who serve, we owe it to those who suffered and we owe it to Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we owe it to those who are serving our Canadian Forces and even those who have left the Canadian Forces who still have grievances within the system.

The first nine minutes of the member's comments are hard to dispute as they justified why the government needs to act. When we take a look at the 48 recommendations, they are virtually all in place. Moving forward, we will hit 47 of them, with the exception of the passage of Bill C-11, the only one that actually requires a legislative change to transfer it to the civil judicial system. Just so the member is aware, that directive was given years ago so that we would actually start to see our civil judicial system dealing with these cases.

Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to why that was an important thing to do? We should not have to wait for the legislation.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was important. What we are seeing is that the military police would cover up for their buddies. Commanders who were in charge of different prosecutions would cover up issues. The other thing is that the military police did not have the resources to do proper investigations. The chain of evidence was not kept in order.

For the purpose of it being more sterile, the prosecution suggested that it go to civilian courts. Then there would be less chance that the people who were the perpetrators could get involved and end up with a conviction that was not proper. From that standpoint, yes, we believe that will be one part of the solution. It was requested on behalf of many of the victims.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very passionate and factual speech. The fact of the matter is that in the 10 years that the Liberals have been in power, they have asked for report after report. Then when it was politically expedient and they needed a cover-up, they came up with this bill.

It is a fact that we have so many problems on the civilian justice side of things. As far as the Liberals releasing people on bail rather than sending them to jail, does the member think people who are victims in the military will actually see justice?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that any evidence gathered as part of an investigation should happen immediately, be completely transferred to civilian courts and taken over by police who know how to do it, who have the resources to conduct a proper investigation and gather evidence.

In fact, in many of the cases, women have not even been afforded the opportunity to have a rape test done, to gather evidence for that purpose. They are just switched over to the next mission. These incidents have lasting impacts as victims can be left with life-altering diseases, which can change the course of their lives completely.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our colleague for the work that she has done on these committees. During the 10 years I have been here, she has been a stalwart supporter of victims of military sexual trauma.

I am going to ask the same question I asked earlier on. How will the victims be protected by CAF structures as they wait for justice? It is a concern as both systems have been split and we still have victims who are still serving to this day.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no chance at this point for justice of any kind. What happens is that when a complaint is made, that person is segregated and put in a different part of the base altogether. They are separated from their job. Their continuing education stops. Any hope of furthering any rank structure is gone. When they go to the padre for guidance, the padre will tell them that when they joined the military, they handed over their life. Anything that happens is up to the military, so they have no recourse.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Taxation; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Finance; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac, Taxation.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House. Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to spend some time talking about the context in which this debate is taking place, because the legislative route that this bill took to get to this moment says everything about the tired, old, incompetent government. It is really worth taking a moment to examine that.

This bill is the second attempt to finally, after over 10 years, implement the recommendations of the Deschamps report to transfer the criminal prosecution for sexual offences to civilian court. This was contained in the report and recommendations made to the Harper government in the spring of 2015. That was just before Parliament adjourned ahead of dissolution for the 2015 election. The Harper government accepted the recommendations, and had the Conservatives been re-elected that fall, we would have had the opportunity to table the appropriate legislation to implement the Deschamps report.

Instead, we have had three entire parliaments during which the Liberal government failed to make this legislative change and implement the recommendation that Justice Deschamps made in March 2015. From 2015 to 2019, the government took exactly zero steps to implement the recommendation to address sexual misconduct in the armed forces. However, then minister Harjit Sajjan did take time to cover up the sexual misconduct of the then chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, and during that Parliament, the government did take the time to engineer the frivolous and vexatious politically motivated prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

During the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals also expended no resources to try to deal with procuring important equipment. They did spend time, though, buying rusted-out Australian F-18s while delaying a decision to replace our own fighter jet fleet. They squandered the entire four-year majority Parliament without addressing sexual misconduct in the military or making progress in procuring ships, jets, other aircraft, submarines, land vehicles, artillery, ammunition and base housing.

Then from 2019 to 2021, the Liberals continued to ignore victims of sexual misconduct, although the resignations of senior officers piled up during that Parliament. They continued to delay procurement, as worsening morale began to foment a crisis of recruitment and retention that would start to jeopardize Canada's force posture and readiness to respond to requests from allies on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and respond to China's explicit challenges to Canada's Arctic sovereignty and security.

Then in the last Parliament, between 2021 and 2025, Canada's lack of military preparedness became undeniable and unignorable. In 2023, it became known that there were 16,000 vacant positions in the Canadian Armed Forces and that another 10,000 force members were undertrained and undeployable. It was what kept then chief of the defence staff Wayne Eyre awake at night, according to his own committee testimony.

In 2023, after eight years of neglecting and ignoring the armed forces, other than the occasional morale-sapping pronouncement lamenting military culture, the Liberals finally tabled Bill C-66 but did nothing to advance it for an entire year. They finally introduced it in the House of Commons in the spring of 2024, and as my colleague from Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke pointed out, in the fall of 2024, they spent their entire legislative agenda avoiding compliance with an order of this House and not advancing this legislation.

Let there be no doubt about the government's lack of seriousness about the Canadian Armed Forces in general and the problem of sexual misconduct in the military specifically. Its track record over the past 10 years speaks for itself.

Right now, as I speak in this chamber, ships are rusting out at sea. Fighter jets that should have been ordered and delivered by now have still not been delivered. We would be lucky right now if we could get one submarine in the water for a handful of days per year, and there is no replacement ordered. We have only a handful of operational tanks, barely any available for training. We do not have air defence systems. New transport and refuelling aircraft have been ordered with no plan, no hangars built to house them and no base location decisions made.

Howitzers and artillery pieces are entirely lacking, as well as adequate shells. The government let a production line of artillery shells mothball in an emerging threat environment, and now, as Canada and its allies desperately need this ammunition, we do not have the production capacity. We do not have the production capacity to supply ourselves and our allies with desperately needed 155-millimetre artillery shells. That is a World War I munition, the production of which the government partially shut down on the eve of the Ukraine war.

Base housing is in a deplorable condition, with houses falling apart and a 7,000-unit backlog of personnel waiting to access base housing. Barracks are in horrific unsanitary conditions. Health care is also lacking for many military families. This bill would address a well-known and well-documented problem with sexual misconduct in the military, which is a factor in the recruitment and retention crisis we face and a factor in morale at a time when we desperately need to fill vacancies for almost every single position in all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As I have said before, let me say something about the men and women in our armed forces. They are among the very best people in this country. I have travelled and visited foreign bases of operations in Latvia and England, and these people are the best. They are extremely young people with extraordinary responsibilities. I met a 19-year-old in Latvia who was responsible for training and helping allied soldiers. He was a kid from northern British Columbia with enormous responsibility, and he was so positive and full of energy and enthusiasm for his work.

These are incredible people, and they deserve our support. They are the best, and they deserve protection. They deserve access to justice when sexual misconduct happens.

We have already heard in debate a lot about culture and culture change in the military. Part of the culture change that needs to happen is overcoming the culture of secrecy and the culture of cover-up. That culture has permeated to the very top levels. We saw the former minister of national defence covering up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff. We have seen this type of behaviour at the highest levels, and we see it at the unit level, as my colleague said earlier today.

We have had testimony at the defence committee from victims of sexual assault who say they cannot access justice because of the lack of access to the civilian system, which this bill would ultimately change, and because of the inability to get information about themselves to file a complaint. The reflexive secrecy around even members of the Canadian Armed Forces accessing their own information is part of the problem. This bill would not fix that, so there is a long way to go to ensure justice for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are victims of sexual misconduct.

It is not like civilian access to justice for sexual assault victims is assured. It is far from it. We see over and over again how repeat violent offenders are automatically granted bail as a result of the Liberals' so-called bail reforms of Bill C-75, and earlier this afternoon this very Liberal bench voted entirely against replacing and repealing that law.

We have seen under the current government an erosion of effective law enforcement and justice for victims. We see crime levels that we have not seen in decades. We see an acceleration in crime. We see a lack of urgency in appointing judges so that assault victims can get access to trial, and this bill would not fix all of these problems. This bill contains an important long-standing 10-year-old recommendation, and I hope this Parliament will debate this bill and that we will have a proper debate so we can come to the bottom of this and conclude it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to address some of the issues the member talked about that were outside of the legislation. For the very first time in generations, we have a newly elected Prime Minister who is committed to 2% of GDP. Let us compare that to either the former government or the Harper government. The Harper government was one of the largest disgraces in terms of commitments to our military in generations, and that is a fact; we cannot change history.

In regard to Bill C-11, I would suggest that the member take a look at the 48 recommendations. Forty-seven of them are on the way to being finished this year, with legislation on transferring complaints from military courts to civil courts being the one we want to pass. It is the Conservatives who continuously stand in the road to stop us from making that the law of the land.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. On the very first day of debate, the member is saying that a Conservative is delaying passage because we wish to debate a bill. There is a lot to unpack in that intervention.

I will point out to the member that the previous government, which was the Harper government, procured what was necessary for our troops and armed forces at a time when they were at war. They needed new helicopters; they got the helicopters. They needed transport aircraft; they got it. The current government, which has been in power for 10 years, has entirely neglected the armed forces and neglected the problem of sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why does my colleague think the government took so long to introduce this bill? Yes, there was Bill C‑66, but it died on the Order Paper.

The government has known for 10 years that it needed to act quickly, but it failed to do so. As for General Vance, there were allegations even under the Conservatives. Members will recall that the Liberal defence minister refused 12 times to meet with the ombudsman, who asked to meet with him on this issue so that action could be taken and legislation could be passed. The minister refused to even look at any evidence.

Could my hon. colleague share his thoughts on that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have no answer for the member's question, which was why the government spent 10 years ignoring the problem. That would be a question for the government.

The member is absolutely right. The Liberals had 10 years. They have been in office for 10 years, and it took them eight years to even table this bill. Then they did not call it for a year, so it was not debated. It was moved and we had maybe one day of debate, and then the Liberals spent six months of House time avoiding an order of Parliament, during which time the bill could have been called and debated. The member is absolutely right to point out that the government has had 10 years to do this and it has failed.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech today laying out all the problems and laying out why we do not trust the Liberal government and why Canadians do not trust it either to deliver for our Canadian Armed Forces.

The member used to sit on the defence committee, and we sat there and watched the Liberals try not to let the committee study why Harjit Sajjan, Jonathan Vance, Justin Trudeau, Katie Telford and Zita Astravas covered up Jonathan Vance's sexual misconduct against another serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would ask the member to speak to why the Liberals would cover this up rather than deal with it, waiting 10 years to finally come forward with a bill.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, that is a great question, and it is one that I cannot answer. That is a question for the government. Why did the Liberals wait so long to implement this recommendation?

The very fact that the government, including the former prime minister and minister, spent all of the resources that it did trying to cover up sexual misconduct in the armed forces says everything that one needs to know about how seriously the Liberals took the problem at the time. Even after that episode, it was years before they tabled the bill that would implement the transfer of complaints to civilian courts. It took them way too long, and I do not think they deserve any credit for having finally introduced this bill.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

It is both a privilege and a responsibility to rise in the House today to discuss a matter that affects not only the Canadian Armed Forces, but the very fabric of our democracy: Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. As chair of the national defence committee, I am acutely aware of the critical work being done to ensure that our military and our military justice system are modern, accountable and aligned with the values of Canadian society.

As we make major investments in Canada's national defence, we must not lose sight of the brave men and women in the armed forces and their needs. We have heard from members that they need a modern military justice system to support them, and that is why the changes proposed in Bill C-11 are so crucial. They represent a significant and meaningful shift in how we view military justice. It is one that underscores the importance of culture change within the Canadian Armed Forces.

For those who do not know me, before I was elected to serve in this House, I had the privilege of working in many sectors of the government and public service where I have seen first-hand how important it is for systems to evolve. We cannot afford to be complacent. We must act decisively and without hesitation. That is exactly what this government has done by introducing Bill C-11.

This bill represents not just an update to legal processes, but a commitment to a new era of accountability and transparency within the Canadian Armed Forces. We are not living in an isolated, insular world. The global security environment is more volatile than it has been in decades. As our military faces increasing and complex challenges around the world, we must ensure that our women and men in uniform are prepared, resilient and, most importantly, supported.

One of the most crucial elements of Bill C-11 is ensuring that the military justice system reflects the values we hold as Canadians. These are values of fairness, accountability and respect for human dignity. That is why Bill C-11 includes recommendations from Justice Arbour and Justice Fish to modernize the justice system, focusing on greater transparency, enhanced support for victims and a more independent framework for addressing sexual misconduct.

A key provision of this bill is the removal of the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed within Canada. This is a direct response to Justice Arbour's recommendation that military sexual misconduct cases be handled by civilian authorities. This reform would increase public trust in the military justice system and demonstrate to the world that Canada takes sexual misconduct seriously.

However, it is important to understand that this bill is not just about legal reform. It is about transforming military culture itself. Culture change is never easy, especially in an institution like the Canadian Armed Forces, but it is absolutely essential. As we move forward with Bill C-11, we must ensure that the CAF is a place where all members, regardless of gender, rank or background, feel that they are not only safe, but also heard, respected and valued. This is about creating a safe, modern and 21st century workplace for our forces.

One of the most crucial aspects of this bill is the support it provides to survivors of sexual misconduct. The introduction of the victim's liaison officer program and expanded support services would ensure that survivors are not just heard but supported at every stage of their journey. Victims and survivors can also access the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre, SMSRC, for 24-7 free and confidential support. It does tremendous work and its staff have appeared before our committee to highlight some of the resources available to our armed forces.

This bill would put a renewed focus on improving oversight and accountability in military policing and strengthen the role of military judges in ensuring fairness in the justice system. These are all tangible steps toward building a culture of respect, fairness and trust.

Time and time again, members of the Canadian Armed Forces have cited the need for a modern military justice system where their concerns and cases can be brought forward and evaluated in a fair and transparent manner. To our members: we have heard them, and we are acting swiftly.

Bill C-11 represents an important step forward for the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is only the beginning. The reforms we are proposing today will lay the foundation for future changes. However, those changes will require continued dedication and co-operation from all levels of government, military leadership and the defence team.

As we move forward with these reforms, we must remain committed to the work that still lies ahead. The cultural changes needed within CAF will require ongoing attention, investment and accountability, but with Bill C-11, we are taking a decisive step in the right direction, based on independent and expert recommendations. The time has come for us, and indeed all Canadians, to support transformative measures for the Canadian Armed Forces. I urge all of my colleagues to support Bill C-11 and the vision of a stronger, safer, more inclusive Canadian Armed Forces.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is just a bit shocking, the conversation coming from the Liberal side about how they are moving swiftly and the Conservatives are responsible for delays when, in fact, that member sits with several rows of MPs who were part of a team that prorogued Parliament to avoid taking any credible action on this issue after months of filibustering prior to that.

I wonder how that member can square the circle of sitting with members who actually prorogued Parliament to avoid taking any real action on this issue, while claiming they are acting swiftly to get something done.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of filibustering was happening in the previous session, a lot of delays, a lot of activity that obstructed government from doing its job. The member opposite is now talking about some partisan issues, recognizing full well that he himself wanted an election, and he lost because people supported the Liberal Party going forward and they are supporting our actions to support our military. When the Conservatives were in power, it was under 1% of GDP. We are strengthening the forces. We are investing in our people, and we are making every effort for them to be safe in our judicial system as well.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that the government has really taken too long to introduce this bill or its previous version, Bill C‑66?

Members will recall that, when the scandal broke, the Liberal government decided to appoint Justice Louise Arbour to make the military justice system independent of the chain of command. That was six years after the Deschamps report, which made the very same recommendation.

According to the Toronto Star, when Louise Arbour was called, she wanted to know if she was seriously being asked to do this work that had already been done. The Arbour report was tabled in May 2022, and there was also the report by Mr. Morris Fish.

Why delay the passage of such a bill for 10 years?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question.

I do not understand why you seem apprehensive.

There is no more time to waste. Let us support Bill C-11 now.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to remind my hon. colleague that he is to address the Chair, not his colleagues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

This is a reminder to all colleagues to speak through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words my colleague has put on the record. One of the things I want to recognize is Bill C-11 comes out of recommendation number five. Recommendation five says we need to take the issue and put it into our civil judicial system, as opposed to the military system. For the last number of years, the government and the military have already moved in that direction, but passing this law will enable us to meet the 48 recommendations that were advanced by Justice Arbour.

I am wondering if he can just provide his thoughts on achieving those 48 recommendations.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reflect on the very nature of why this bill is important. As noted, there have been expert independent recommendations made by two justices recognizing its importance. One of the major priorities is the civilian enablement of the justice system to have more independence and protection for our armed forces and the individuals involved. All of us agree with that. I believe the opposition agrees with it as well. Let us support Bill C-11.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue, and I believe the Minister of National Defence himself admitted this today. One of the most important issues for any military is maintaining discipline and readiness.

By shifting more offences to the civilian system, which is already overburdened as it is, how will the government maintain the swift discipline and operational effectiveness necessary to military service? How is the government going to strike a balance between justice for victims and the chain of command's need for operational order?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having visited Latvia and Estonia, having gone to our bases in the U.K. and having been recently in Petawawa during military exercises, I was able to meet and talk first-hand with some of the soldiers and men and women on the front lines. Believe me, the soldiers, officers and leaders want discipline, but they want fairness and transparency and for their troops to be cared for. They recognize the civilian system is an appropriate step forward.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always such a pleasure for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the constituents of my amazing downtown west Toronto riding of Davenport.

Today I am speaking in favour of Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. The legislation, if passed, would amend the National Defence Act in response to long-standing concerns raised by victims and survivors of the Canadian Armed Forces community. It includes a suite of targeted amendments to modernize the military justice system and build on supports to victims and survivors.

In my role as the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, I know first-hand the impact that our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have on operations at home and abroad. We know that to fulfill our role as a NATO ally, we must have forces that are ready, able and agile. This all starts by ensuring that we provide our forces with a safe and professional work environment. This is the most effective way for our forces to train and to build up their skills for the difficult jobs we ask of them. This is why I am so pleased to rise today to speak about the important work that is being done to modernize our military justice system and to restore trust in the Canadian Armed Forces, also known as the CAF.

In the spirit of the debate, I will focus mainly on the initiatives surrounding Canadian Armed Forces personnel, including our military's efforts to recruit and retain more people and to ensure that their work environment is one that is free from discrimination and harassment.

Let me be clear from the start: Our people remain at the heart of everything our military does. It is, of course, vitally important they have the right equipment to stay agile and effective on the battlefields of the 21st century, but it is the people across the institution who make everything possible. Having the right number of people in the right jobs, each of them contributing to the collective efforts of moving our organization forward, has only become more important in recent years.

We have seen the return of strategic competition on a global scale, with authoritarian leaders from around the world vying for power and influence. They are not afraid to violate international laws and norms in the process. Canadians see this and know this. They see Canada on the world stage, with folks wearing the maple leaf proudly on their uniform around the world.

Here in Canada, Canadians have also seen the Canadian Armed Forces members called on more and more to respond in their own communities when natural disasters strike. As our military continues with its digital transformation efforts, and as we begin to account for the influence of emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing, we remain committed to keeping the human factor, the human decision-making and the human operational planning at the very heart of this work.

This is a time of rapid global change, change that puts our country and our continent at risk, change that threatens our closest allies and partners. Our efforts to build our forces back up to their full authorized capacity and set the groundwork for future growth are essential. When the Department of National Defence and the CAF were developing Canada's defence policy “Our North, Strong and Free”, they recognized this fact. That is why the policy puts forward an ambitious plan to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces' authorized forces strength of 71,500 regular force members and 30,000 primary reserve force members, as well as to lay the groundwork for future growth. It also commits to expanding the size of the civilian workforce across many different critical functions, from training to building infrastructure and from staffing to IT.

First and foremost, “Our North, Strong and Free” commits the Canadian Armed Forces to taking a more agile and adaptive approach to recruiting that includes using digital technology to improve the applicant experience, speed up the required screenings and connect with the new pools of applicants. It also includes innovative measures like a new probationary period for applicants, streamlining the security clearance process, re-evaluating medical eligibility requirements and abolishing outdated processes and criteria wherever possible.

The CAF is also modernizing training by optimizing new members' transition into service, streamlining training activities and providing new recruits with meaningful work more quickly and more effectively.

Through these efforts, they will also redouble their commitment to building a military that looks like Canada and draws on the skill and talent in all parts of our society. We know that having a military that accounts for and engages with the diverse perspectives and experiences of people across our country makes us stronger, more resilient and enables better decision-making.

The Canadian Armed Forces' recruiting efforts through the defence policy are broad and far-reaching, and this year we have hit the highest recruitment numbers in 10 years. That is great news. In addition to significantly boosting recruitment numbers across the country, the CAF is also looking at ways to make the military a viable lifelong career for those members already wearing the uniform. Key to this is modernising how the military manages its personnel, including providing improved career support and delivery of services by better incorporating digital technologies into these activities.

The Canadian Armed Forces is re-examining its policies around compensation and benefits, HR leave and other supports for work-life balance, some of which date back decades. As part of these efforts, the Canadian Armed Forces has accelerated the development of an electronic health record platform that improves the continuity of care for mental and physical health services for CAF members as they are posted across the country.

Our federal government has also created a Canadian Armed Forces housing strategy, improving access to housing wherever CAF members and their families are posted, including building new housing and rehabilitating existing developments. We are making generational investments in affordable child care for military families on bases right across the country, because we know that having safe, reliable child care is important for everyone. This includes CAF members, many of whom face difficulties in finding this kind of care when they deploy. Services like these are obviously essential for them and for their loved ones.

Our efforts in recruitment and retention also closely align with our military's larger culture change efforts. Through “Our North, Strong and Free”, the CAF has re-affirmed its commitment to continuing the important work of building a safer, more respectful and inclusive work environment for all those who serve.

The legislative changes to the National Defence Act through Bill C-11 would ensure that CAF members can have confidence in the military justice system, as well as continuing to implement recommendations drawn from four external reports. These include the “Independent External Comprehensive Review” and the “Third Independent Review of the National Defence Act”, overseen by former Supreme Court justices, Justice Louise Arbour and Justice Morris J. Fish, respectively. I will let my colleagues discuss these reports, and how they are influencing our military's efforts, in more detail.

Through “Our North, Strong and Free”, the Department of National Defence has also committed to spending billions of dollars acquiring new equipment and infrastructure to support CAF operations around the globe. Many of these investments are focused on bolstering the CAF's presence in the Arctic year-round. Securing the Arctic is an important component in the defence of NATO's western and northern flanks and directly supports broader NATO deterrence efforts.

Finally, “Our North, Strong and Free” re-affirms the CAF's critical role around the world, supporting our allies and partners in need. This includes Ukraine, which continues to fight for its very existence in the face of Russia's illegal and unjustified invasion. In the Indo-Pacific, where Canada is bolstering its military presence in support of our regional partners, we are also supporting our allies and partners in need, as well as, of course, in Latvia, where the CAF continues to lead forward land forces in defence of NATO's eastern flank.

As Canada makes a generational and historic series of investments in our national defence, we must never lose sight of the people who serve Canada and Canadians. The brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are at the heart of Canada's national defence. CAF members are deploying in dangerous situations around the world to bring hope. CAF members are repairing and upgrading equipment so their counterparts can quickly and safely deploy.

Through Bill C-11, we would also be supporting our people by modernizing the military justice system, making sure it stays aligned with Canadian law and that it is responsive to the needs of our people in uniform.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about many things related to international peace and security that were different from the bill, so my question will focus on those issues as opposed to the substance of Bill C-11.

The member spoke about the threat to international peace and security associated with Russia's genocidal invasion of Ukraine, and about the Canadian response. I am very concerned that the government chose to create waivers to titanium sanctions. It has a pattern of talking about sanctions and then creating big holes in those sanctions. We still have waivers to titanium sanctions in place that allow the import and use of Russian titanium, and we continue to have barriers to the export of oil and gas that could play a key role in displacing Russian gas exports.

I would like to know what the member's position is on these issues. Why, in particular, has the government put in place titanium sanction waivers to allow the Russian titanium industry to continue to benefit from trade with Canada?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate, because I do want to continue to focus on Bill C-11, that members of our Canadian Armed Forces are always going to be there, not only keep to Canada safe but also to make sure that we fulfill our role as a NATO ally. For us to be able to do so, our forces have to be ready, able and agile.

I hope the member opposite will support Bill C-11, because it would contribute to making sure we have a very strong and free Canadian Armed Forces that will make sure we are doing our part in the world as well.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, looking beyond the sexual scandal and abuse of power highlighted in the 2015 Deschamps report, does my colleague not also find it scandalous that it took more than 10 years to draft legislation to address the culture of silence in the CAF?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, change does take time. What is most important for me is that we have the bill right now in the House and that there is an opportunity for all the members of the House to ensure that we pass the bill. We have made considerable progress over the past several years to enact meaningful and durable cultural change in the Canadian Armed Forces. If we pass the bill, we will continue to make those changes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us about the importance of supporting our soldiers overseas on missions outside Canada and, more importantly, of ensuring that our female soldiers can have confidence in the system that determines when there has been a breach of the rules against sexual misconduct in the CAF.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his advocacy.

We have already made considerable progress over the last few years to enact meaningful and durable cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces. I am pleased to let the House know that we have also provided support and resources for any of the survivors or victims. A key resource is the sexual misconduct support and resource centre, a centre that provides vital services, including a 24-7 support line, peer support services and independent legal services.

We know there is more to do. We are on it. That includes passing the bill.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know about the balance, as in my riding, between the military, which is very important, and agriculture. I know the government purchased roughly 1,600 acres for an Arctic over the horizon radar system. There seems to be a clash. The municipality and the Simcoe Federation of Agriculture are not against the actual technology; what they are against is the site of up to 4,000 acres.

If it affects food security and there is going to be an appropriation of land, how will that play out against protection for our military?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces is always there to keep Canada safe. It is our obligation as a government to ensure that it has the resources, tools and equipment to be able to do so.

The legislation that we are discussing today would help our Canadian Armed Forces build a more inclusive, respectful and safe workplace. It is important for everyone to pass it.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

I am honoured to rise today to speak on behalf of the wonderful people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-11, legislation that proposes long overdue changes to the National Defence Act and related laws. Let us be clear, the bill did not emerge out of nowhere. The Liberals have had 10 years to tackle sexual misconduct in the military, and they chose not to.

Bill C-11 is in response to deeply troubling and at times heartbreaking failures within our military justice system, failures that have been well known and well documented for far too long. I commend the Minister of National Defence for finally introducing this legislation, but I must say that it comes too late for too many. Survivors of sexual misconduct in our Canadian Armed Forces have been waiting, some for years, for a justice system that hears them, respects them and protects them. Instead, they faced delay, deflection and denial.

For years, Parliament has been presented with irrefutable evidence, independent reviews, government reports, surveys and the voices of survivors all pointing to a military culture where not only is sexual misconduct alarmingly common but also justice is often watered down, delayed or even denied altogether. Professor Elaine Craig of Dalhousie University published a 2020 report revealing high rates of plea deals in military courts, deals that allowed perpetrators to sidestep serious convictions. Survivors seeing their cases diluted, dismissed and delayed have lost confidence not only in the process but also in the leadership. Who could blame them? They are not just afraid of legal outcomes. They fear career ruin, retaliation and ostracism if they step forward. In a system where justice is inconsistent, the silent message has been, “Don't speak up. It's not worth it.” We need to change that.

Bill C-11 aims to address some of these long-standing issues, and among the long-awaited provisions are the transferring of sexual offence cases from military courts to civilian jurisdiction when the incidents occur in Canada. This has been a long-awaited step towards impartiality, but we need to investigate further whether sending these cases to the civilian system, as many have been since 2021, will be successful given the severe backup in our civilian justice system.

The bill would also modernize appointments to key military legal positions, including the provost marshal, directors of prosecutions and defence counsel services. Conservatives have been pushing for many years to strengthen safeguards against interference, improving complaint processes and enhancing independence within the military justice system.

Importantly, the bill would also implement recommendations from the Arbour report, which has been mentioned quite a bit in the House today and was led by retired Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. She did not mince words when she quoted that Canadians learned that “investigations were perfunctory, the victims were not believed and often they—not the perpetrators—were punished by senior officers”. That is not just a legal critique. It is a condemnation of a broken system, which has been going on for years, and the numbers confirm it.

According to Stats Canada's 2023 survey on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, nearly 2,000 members of the regular force, about 3.5%, reported experiencing sexual assault in connection to their service. The rates were even higher among young members and indigenous service members. It is a troubling fact for so many reasons, including that we are having such a difficult and challenging time in recruitment.

We have known about these issues for more than a decade. The landmark Deschamps report in 2015, which is also mentioned here, sounded the alarm that victims feared reprisals or removal from their units and had concerns about not being believed or being stigmatized as troublemakers. The culture of silence still exists. It is the result of a systemic failure to build trust.

Since then, the warnings continued and have been ignored by the Liberal government in the last decade. We have seen the 2018 Auditor General's report, the 2021 Fish report, a 2021 status of women committee report, a 2021 ombudsman report and, finally, the 2022 Arbour report. It is clear it is time to transfer these cases to civilian courts, reform the system and listen to the victims. This should have happened long ago. We also need to work on the civilian courts, as we know they have their own issues. It is not like the Liberals did not have all this information for the last decade.

Bill C-11 would give the current Minister of Defence increased powers over key appointments and prosecution guidelines. That is no small matter. Given the government's track record of interference, Canadians have every right to ask, and they are asking, if the minister and the government can be trusted with more power.

Let us not forget that in 2021, the House had to censure the former Liberal defence minister for his handling of known sexual misconduct allegations in the military. We witnessed Liberal cover-ups, committee filibusters and a failure to hold top officials accountable, even when the government knew about the serious misconduct at the highest level of military command.

Any expansion of ministerial authority must come with serious safeguards. The government must explain how it will prevent abuses, protect victims and guarantee independence in the military justice system. Our brave men and women in uniform make enormous sacrifices to protect us every day. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve to know how these changes would apply to them, whether they serve here at home or are deployed abroad. They deserve a justice system that protects them in return.

Let us be clear. This legislation is not a gift and it is not charity, but the bare minimum of what we owe to those who serve. It should have happened years ago. We cannot afford another decade of inaction. We cannot offer more empty promises. We certainly cannot allow the government to pat itself on the back for action it was shamed into taking.

This is why Conservatives will scrutinize this bill closely. We will stand up for victims. We will demand transparency, independence and real reform. We will not let the government off the hook for its past failures, but work to ensure those in uniform finally get the justice and protection they deserve.

To all those who have served and continue to serve, we hear them, we stand with them, and we will fight for the justice they have been denied for far too long.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts with regard to the recommendations. There were 48 specific recommendations brought forward, and 47 of those are well under way, and hopefully, will in fact be dealt with before the end of the year. The one there is a lot of hesitancy about is Bill C-11. Bill C-11 is recommendation number 5, and it is what we are debating today. I will be able to provide more detail on it.

Would the member not agree that at the very least, the Conservative Party of Canada should commit to getting that legislation, in whatever form, passed before the end of the year?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting to me that the Liberals and the member seem intent on pushing this through so fast when these issues have been around for years. In fact, last year, it was filibustered and debated in committee, yet it was killed when Parliament was prorogued.

The bill did not appear out of nowhere. It was in response to deeply troubling failures within our military justice system that have been going on for years. It is interesting that the member is interested in it going so quickly.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in March 2015, and I would like to point out that we are in 2025, former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps tabled a scathing report on sexual abuse and allegations of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. A month later, the Harper government appointed Jonathan Vance as chief of the defence staff.

Then there was the Fish report, but the government was not satisfied with that report so it asked former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour to produce a new report. Justice Arbour herself was surprised that she was being asked to redo work that had already been done. It is now 2025, and earlier I heard a Liberal member tell us that change takes time, and yet it took 10 years to introduce a bill to protect the most vulnerable members of our armed forces.

Does my colleague not find this to be a clear demonstration of the disregard for women, among others, in the Canadian Army?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member. It has been a long 10 years, with many people being hurt by the lack of legislation, which needed to come forward a long time ago. Survivors of sexual misconduct have been waiting for years for the Liberal government to do something about this, and they need to be heard.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech and for her important work in Parliament.

A former member of the House, who was, as it happens, from the same province, former defence minister Sajjan, was given an opportunity to receive some information about very serious issues of this nature from the ombudsman and tragically chose not to deal with that information at the time. I do not think we have heard anything from the Liberals thus far in today's debate about how that unfolded or contributed to where we are today on these issues.

I wonder if the hon. member has comments on what happened then and why action was not taken when information was initially available.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is pertinent to this debate because it exemplifies the fact that so many important and troubling issues have occurred in the last few years concerning this deeply troubling issue in the military system, which should have been acknowledged, moved on and changed a long time ago. Unfortunately, the Liberal government chose to avoid the issues that needed to be addressed.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians hold deep pride in the men and women who wear the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces. They serve in dangerous places with courage to defend the values and freedoms we hold dear. We ask them to put country before self, to risk their lives so that we can continue to live in safety and freedom. For far too long, too many of those who have served have had to fight another battle, the battle to be heard, to be believed and to be treated with dignity when they come forward as victims of sexual assault or misconduct within the very institution that demands the highest standards of honour and integrity.

That is why today's debate on Bill C-11, the government's new military justice reform bill, matters. Our conversation today is not just about amending sections of the National Defence Act. It is about the culture, credibility and future of the Canadian Armed Forces because of the way that Bill C-11 now intersects with our criminal justice system. It is also about the way we prosecute crime, in general, in Canada.

It has been more than a decade since the 2015 report of former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps rocked Canada with her findings on sexual misconduct in our armed forces. She made 10 recommendations. Operation Honour followed and was supposed to change both culture and outcomes, but years later, the Auditor General reported that Operation Honour had little measurable success. Investigations were still slow, accountability was still weak and the culture in some parts of the military continued to allow perpetrators to avoid serious consequences. Justice Deschamps called the Liberal government out for its failure to act in this regard.

The next report came in 2021. It was done by former Supreme Court of Canada justice Morris Fish. It gave the Liberal government another failing grade and made 107 recommendations. In 2022, former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour delivered yet another comprehensive external review, this time with 48 recommendations, again emphasizing broken trust and calling for action.

Three former Supreme Court of Canada justices laid out a road map for reform, and yet, as the Liberals hesitated, as progress stalled, as survivors were left waiting, it was Conservative pressure through parliamentary questions, committee hearings and public advocacy that forced this issue back onto the national stage again and again. We can fairly say that without the sustained efforts and tenacity of victims, Bill C-66, which still died on the Order Paper when the Liberal government prorogued last time, and now Bill C-11 may never have been introduced.

The Liberals will now claim credit for these reforms, but it is Conservative MPs who ensured that the voices of victims were not forgotten and that meaningful change could not be avoided. The fact that we are still here 10 years after the Deschamps report debating the same issues with the same victims still waiting for change is a damning indictment of the Liberal government's ability to deliver results.

Even with all of this to work with, Bill C-11 still includes some very strange inconsistencies. Term lengths and reappointment rules differ across positions. The director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services would serve seven-year terms with no reappointment, but the provost marshal, on the other hand, serves for four years and can be reappointed. There seems to be no clear rationale for these differences.

Similarly, giving the Minister of National Defence the power to issue prosecutorial guidelines in specific cases and giving the Governor in Council authority over appointments and removals, which is cabinet, opens the door, intentionally or not, to political interference. The minister's involvement in reviewing inquiries and authorizing acting appointments could compromise independence and BillC-11 does not fully clarify how offences outside of Canada would be handled. I hope the Liberals will collaborate with Conservatives on these issues and others raised by my colleagues and that they will be ironed out as the bill progresses through our parliamentary system.

Beyond the wording of the bill, however, we cannot ignore the context in which this debate takes place. The government has promised to grow the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO obligations. It has pledged to recruit and retain thousands of new members in the coming years. That will require trust that every person who joins our forces will serve in an institution that protects them, upholds the law and embodies the values that we defend abroad.

That brings me to a very serious concern. The government is proposing to transfer all sexual offence cases from the military justice system to civilian courts. The principle makes sense: Justice must be independent. However, modernization is not just a word; it is a commitment to follow through. It means resourcing reforms properly. It means ensuring civilian authorities are ready to handle the additional caseloads. Right now, our civilian court system is in crisis. Court backlogs are staggering. Serious criminal cases have been stayed or dismissed because of delays. Victims of assault, including sexual assault, are waiting years for their day in court. Therefore, when the government says it will hand military cases to the civilian system, we have to ask how the civilian system would cope. What additional resources would be provided to the provinces along with this downloading to ensure these cases and others do not end up stayed for delay?

While we are speaking about justice, let us talk about the need to reform Liberal bail. Just this afternoon, the Liberal government voted down a Conservative private member's bill that would have tightened bail provisions for repeat violent offenders, including sexual offences. These are people who, under the current government's lax laws, have been released time and time again and have shown a staggering ability to reoffend. The Liberals talk about protecting victims, but when they had the chance to take common-sense steps to keep dangerous criminals off our streets, they said no to reform and yes to Liberal bail, which would apply to these cases under Bill C-11 the same way it applies to other cases in our justice system.

Canadians deserve a government that takes justice seriously. Our men and women in uniform deserve a military where justice is not only done but is seen to be done and is done expeditiously. The integrity of our justice system, civilian and military, depends on consistency. The Liberals cannot claim to stand for victims in uniform if they turn their back on victims in our communities. They cannot say that they believe in accountability for the forces if they do not demand it in our courts.

The government has to move beyond symbolism and performative legislation. It must demonstrate through action and results that it understands the gravity of the trust that it has broken and the responsibility it carries to restore it. If we fail to get this right, then we fail not only today's soldiers, sailors and aviators, but also those we hope will serve tomorrow.

Canada is vulnerable. Our allies are increasing their defence commitments. The global security environment is becoming more dangerous. We will ask more of our military in the years ahead. Leadership begins with integrity at home. Before we can ask our soldiers to defend Canada's values overseas, we must prove that those values govern our own institutions. The rule of law, equality and justice must not be words in a report, but living principles in every part of our justice system.

For the sake of our soldiers, sailors and aviators serving in Canada and abroad, let us get it right. The time for excuses has long passed. Fix the criminal system, or get out of the way and let us do it. Let us ensure that the civilian courts have the capacity to deliver justice quickly and fairly. Above all, let us commit across party lines that never again will the men and women who serve Canada have to wonder whether their own government will stand up for them when they need it most.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about the Liberal government's track record when it came to supporting the Canadian Armed Forces. We know the legislation we are debating today is significant, as well as some of the investments we have announced over the past few months.

What does the member have to say about the fact that the lowest level of defence spending ever, in the history of the Government of Canada, was made under the Conservative Harper government?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the prosecution of serious criminal offences around sexual misconduct. The government has had 10 years and six months to bring this forward. We need to get it right and we need to work together to do that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is an interesting and necessary bill, but we have to wonder why it took 10 years to introduce it. First, the Liberals requested so many reports that they virtually ran out of former Supreme Court justices to ask. They asked for a bunch of reports. Then they introduced a bill and let it die on the Order Paper.

It would be fair to ask whether the Liberals were simply not interested in military justice, because when the Canadian Forces ombudsman tried to meet with Minister Sajjan, not only did the minister refuse to meet with him, but he did everything but hide in washrooms and broom closets to avoid meeting with the ombudsman.

My question for my colleague is this. Why, for 10 years, were the Liberals so uninterested in military justice, which is so important to the most vulnerable people and members of our armed forces?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I think he has raised a point that really needs to be addressed.

We have gotten to a point on this file where the trust is so low that we need to move these kinds of offences into the criminal justice system. I really cannot help but wonder what would have happened if the Liberal government had acted faster during the 10 years it had to do this. I wonder if we could have gotten to a point where members of our armed forces had an opportunity to work this out internally and were able to build that trust.

We cannot go back. We can only move forward, and for as long as this has taken, we hope the government will take our advice and continue to work on this bill.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for an excellent speech. I think she clearly identified some of the issues and concerns she has with this legislation.

Earlier today, we had the Liberals vote against being tough on crime and instead, support their soft-on-crime approach by voting against the jail and not bail motion that Conservatives put forward. The member identified that she does not necessarily have confidence that victims of sexual violence and assault in the military will receive justice in our courts.

Does the member think that because of the Liberals' failure to pass legislation that is effective and brings justice to victims?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not as much with the courts as it is with the speed of justice that the government feels they need to pursue. When it comes to the issue of Liberal bail, they Liberals say they have been waiting for that, they are waiting for this, they are waiting for a trade deal. They are waiting and waiting. Canadians are tired of waiting for the Liberals. They use lots of nice words, but it is time to act and it is time to move forward on so many files, including this one.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Considering the sense of urgency, considering its importance to the future and to the victims and considering the need to find solutions, is my colleague truly willing to work with us to find solutions quickly and get this bill passed?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we will see what the amendments are and what the process brings.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation.

I have listened to the entire debate thus far on this legislation, and I must say that it is a little disappointing. All members of this House really need to recognize the essence of why we have Bill C-11 before us. I have heard many comments with regard to individuals. I have heard many comments with regard to members' opinions about what the government is or is not doing. I have heard a lot of misinformation being put on the record.

I had thought this legislation would be well received, and to such a degree that we would be talking more about the victims and why it is important that the House of Commons pass this legislation.

[An hon. member]

You had 10 years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was just heckled that we had 10 years, and I plan on addressing that head-on.

Hopefully we will see the official opposition at least acknowledge the reality, as opposed to trying to continue to mislead. That is what we have witnessed today. Individuals trying to follow the debate would have a false impression after listening to Conservative after Conservative stand up to speak. Some speeches I really enjoyed, especially certain aspects of the speeches, for example when members opposite stand up and talk about victims. That is truly why the government, for years now, has been moving forward on dealing with the recommendations. It is all about the victims.

I have had the opportunity, privilege and honour to serve in the Canadian military. I was an air traffic control assistant posted in Edmonton, and I had wonderful opportunities to serve in our forces for just over three years. Whether they are marching with World War II veterans or sitting in a tower in Lancaster Park, I have the deepest amount of respect for the men and women who have served in many different capacities.

In many ways, we are the envy of the world because of our Canadian Forces and the many contributions they have provided, whether through peacekeeping abroad, participating in protecting our freedoms and the rule of law, being in countries abroad during world wars, fighting the mighty Red River when it was flooding the city of Winnipeg, fighting forest fires or stepping up during the pandemic. As I know my colleagues have and as all of us should have, I have an immense amount of respect for the work done by the personnel who make up our Canadian Forces.

When I think about why this is an important piece of legislation, it provides a very strong message to members in the forces today. As much as we value and appreciate what they do for Canadians day in and day out, we too appreciate their need for certainty. We want changes so that every member of the Canadian Forces can feel safe in their environment.

I heard a number of members talk about specific files where there was sexual abuse or sexual harassment. We know that takes place. That is the reason we have had studies take place.

The number of recommendations from former chief justice Arbour was 48. Bill C-11 deals specifically with recommendation 5. I actually printed off all the recommendations. I want to read recommendation 5 so that people who are following the debate will get a really good understanding of why we have the legislation before us.

These 48 recommendations are recommendations that the government has been proactively working on, virtually from day one after they were brought into being. On budgetary expenditures, in the 2022 budget, I believe there was somewhere in the neighbourhood of close to $100 million over a number of years that was actually allocated. On legislative actions, today we have Bill C-11 dealing with recommendation 5.

It is important to recognize, contrary to the misinformation coming from the other side, that the government has been taking action. Let there be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the government has not only taken the issue seriously but is also taking specific actions to deal with it. The best example I could give is the fact that, as of right now, there is a very real chance that all 48 recommendations will be dealt with before the end of this year. The one that is causing the problem is one that I believe every member in the chamber actually supports, at least in principle.

I will read the actual recommendation from the former chief justice:

Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the [military police] may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity.

That is the recommendation. It is the only recommendation that compels the government to bring in legislation. Ultimately, we did not wait for the legislation to appear before us. We actually took action within a year of the interim report to ensure that we had prosecutions and investigations taking place in a civilian setting. That is how important it was for us.

I do not recall any of the Conservatives pointing out that this is the case. Rather, they amplified that nothing has been done. In fact, hundreds have actually gone in that direction. The legislation is to put it into law permanently. That is the purpose of Bill C-11. It would then put us in full compliance with that particular recommendation.

Then we hear the Conservatives again trying to give the false impression that we are sitting on it and not respecting the principles of recommendation 5.

What is worse is that, if a political entity in the House has prevented the legislation from becoming law, it is the Conservative Party of Canada; the Conservatives just do not realize it. Seriously, do they not remember what was taking place last year? Do members remember when they were jumping up and down, demanding their privileges and points of order and saying they were going to shut down Parliament?

I remember the hours and days, going into weeks and weeks, when the Conservatives refused to get anything passed. Where was that caring attitude for the victims then? That was all tossed aside because the Conservatives were more interested in their own political fortunes than they were in the victims.

If we take a look at the legislation, it was actually introduced as Bill C-66 back in September of last year. They had the opportunity to provide comment on it. They did in part, but then they came up with that game because they were more interested in having an election. They will have to excuse me for not being overly sympathetic when they try to give the false impression that, as a government, we ignored the situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the day, we had taken action to ensure that victims of sexual abuse and harassment within the military were going through the civil system. That is the fact, but they deny that.

Then, the Conservatives have the brevity to try to say that the Liberals are the reason the law itself has not been enacted.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You may be able to heckle something across the way, but all you have to do is read Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is factually true and the Conservatives know that. Last year at this time, they were a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, refusing to let legislation pass, period, end of story. That was their attitude. It was a minority government back then too.

At the end of the day, I appeal to the members, especially the new members, because I can appreciate that the new members were not here during the Conservative debacle to see the destructive force. I can say to those new members that we have an opportunity.

I can tell that every member who has spoken today, from all political entities, seems to be supporting the principles of Bill C-11.

[An hon. member]

Right, then sit down. Let's go.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I will tell you what: If you agree to pass it, I will sit down right now.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if I did that, the Conservatives would not be done talking. At the end of the day, if everyone supports the principle of the legislation, then why not let it go to committee? Why oppose it going to committee?

You had the chance last year and you blew it. You have another chance this year. If you want to give some credibility to some of the comments that Conservatives were putting on the record when they talked about the victims, at the very least, recognize—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is rising on a point of order.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has been here long enough. He knows he needs to be directing his comments through you, the Chair. He continues to answer and go through and say “you” and use those terms. I ask that he show respect to you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I think the member realized the error of his ways. There is a little back-and-forth going on right now, so I would encourage all members on both sides to remember to address their comments through the Chair and keep the heckling to a minimal dull roar, if possible.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that this might be the first time the member has actually had a valid point of order. I apologize for using the wrong wording, but the facts remain. At the end of the day, we can in fact send a very strong and powerful message on Bill C-11 by allowing the legislation to pass. Some of the members of the Conservatives are going to say, “Whoa, just wait a minute; we brought it in only today, and we have had only eight hours of debate on the bill.”

The Conservatives have a shadow minister dealing with justice who introduced a private member's bill, and he is arguing that it should be passed virtually instantly. Fortunately for him, because it is a private member's bill even though it would make substantial changes, there are going to be only two hours of debate for second reading. We have had three or four times that already. Then it is going to go to committee, where it is going to be timed, and then it will come back, and that is because it happens to be a private member's bill even though it is proposing to make profound changes to our judicial system.

If the political will is there, we all know that the legislation before us could go to committee. What is the advantage of its going to committee now? I would suggest that by allowing the bill to go to committee, members opposite would be able to share their concerns and to look at potential amendments and propose them. If they have a substantial good idea, they should be able to convince other members to support it. After all, it can pass only if we get more than one political entity in the House in favour of it, so if they are really convinced on their arguments, or they want to have a good, thorough discussion at the committee stage, why hold off and why wait? They can tell me the justification.

I have had a Conservative member say that there is virtually no difference between Bill C-66 and the bill that is before us. The member could be right. I do not know all the details of it, but let me assume that the Conservative member was accurate in the statement he made. If that is the case, Bill C-66 was introduced in January 2024 or March 2024, so the Conservatives have had ample time to deal with what is within the legislation.

Surely to goodness, if the Conservatives have some amendments, they should be primed and ready to go. Once we get the bill out of committee, then it is back here in the House, and many members can speak once again to it, but let us at least get it to the committee stage so we can be in a position before the end of the year to actually pass the legislation and have it receive royal assent. Would that not be nice?

We have an opportunity to meet all 48 of the recommendations, and I would encourage my colleagues opposite, if they are genuine when they say they want to have further discussions and debates and look at possible amendments to the legislation, to allow it to get to that stage.

Having said all that, I want to provide a very quick comment in regard to the military overall, and the reason I want to do that is that many people kind of went off track in their discussions on it, even me possibly, to a certain degree, but when it comes to the military, our new Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Liberal caucus have done an incredible job of ensuring that we are going to be able to achieve the 2%, a commitment the Prime Minister has made. I know it would make a difference, but when we talk about victims, or about military expenditures and the many things we are doing for the members who serve in our forces, we know we can always do better, and we will strive to do that.

However, let us at least acknowledge that, at the end of the day, since having a new Prime Minister, the file on the Canadian Forces has been moving forward, second to no other prime minister in the last 40 to 50 years. I believe the Prime Minister will continue to ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are being looked after in every way, which includes seeing Bill C-11 become the law of the land.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said this debate is all about the victims, and one of the victims was navy Lieutenant Patrick White, who testified before the defence committee last year about the navy leadership's attempts, under the Liberal government, to cover up the sexual assault committed against him by Officer X. Today, we learned that the witness and victim, Patrick White, has been fired by the military. He was supposed to be protected by parliamentary privilege as a witness.

If the government cannot protect witnesses with the full power of Parliament, how can we trust the government that the legislation will prevent sexual misconduct instead of just covering it up?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not go into any details on specific files, but I think it is safe to say that shifting the responsibility from military court procedures to civilian control is a very strong positive, and that is what this legislation would do. It is based on recommendation 5 of Madam Arbour's 48 recommendations.

I hope that members of the forces and other interested people following the debate will recognize that not only are we trying to advance legislation, but we have ensured that certain actions have taken place for a number of years to protect victims.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague from Winnipeg North would agree with me that, in an organization as hierarchical as the Canadian Armed Forces, we cannot allow a code of silence to hide sexual abuse or discrimination, or allow it to exist at the highest levels of the armed forces. We cannot have a system where those responsible for judging it are part of it, and military justice clearly failed miserably in this case.

To reassure my colleague, I want him to know that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill and will work in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I recognize that the Bloc has been very supportive of the legislation. I would suggest that Bloc members being as candid about the legislation as they have been sends a very strong message in favour of protecting victims. I appreciate and respect that.

We need to look at ways to possibly enhance the legislation. One thing I have heard from Bloc members is that they have some reservations, so I look forward to seeing the bill go to committee and providing Bloc members and others the opportunity to make changes that would give the legislation more strength.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for many years, Canada has opened the doors for women to be part of the Canadian Armed Forces, but unfortunately, they have not had justice when they faced sexual discrimination or sexual misconduct.

Bill C-11 offers an opportunity to take these particular issues out of the military justice system and into the civilian courts. Can the member talk about why that is an important development and how it would make sure that victims of sexual assault and sexual misconduct have an opportunity to have their case heard fairly?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the forces and the military should not be evaluating their own bad behaviour. I appreciate the member's comments. Back in the early 1980s when I was serving, there was a certain mentality there, but I believe it has improved dramatically since those days.

I can honestly say that when we pass legislation of this nature, it sends an even stronger message to young women, minorities and all members of the forces so they know they have the backing of the government, because it provides clarity. The more we can provide clarity, the healthier our forces will be.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this very seriously. I believe the member for Winnipeg North is a veteran, so I understand he has skin in the game, too, and takes it seriously as well.

For the last 10 years, I have been here, working respectively across all party lines. We know the government filibustered the defence committee for three months. We know the Prime Minister's Office covered up the investigation on former minister of national defence Harjit Sajjan.

How, for 10 years, have they allowed this injustice for the victims of sexual assault to go on? The member says they have been doing something, but we know they have not been, because we have heard it. We heard it first-hand from the victims of sexual assault, those who are still enlisted and those who have left the service because of the trauma caused by MST.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean about false impressions, because if we were to listen to what the member just finished saying, one would be of the opinion that nothing has been taking place. For example, I can recall, I believe it was Bill C-77, where we had the declaration of victims rights. I can remember speaking to that bill years ago. This was a Liberal government initiative.

I have talked endlessly today about Bill C-11, and how it is one of 48 recommendations. Out of those 48 recommendations, we are hoping to achieve 47 of them before the end of this year. If the Conservatives were to get on side, we could do 48, but only if we can pass Bill C-11.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians' trust on this subject and in the government has been deeply eroded, especially given what has happened over the last 10 years. As someone who spent nearly three decades in policing, I know accountability is not about changing titles. It is about having and enforcing proper oversight.

How does this bill ensure military prosecutors and police are not only independent on paper, but also in practice, free from command influence or retaliation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation and the actions we have taken in the last number of years has ensured victims of sexual abuse or harassment are going though the civilian system today. It is the law enforcement agencies.

For example, and I use this as a hypothetical example, if there were an issue that arose in the city of Winnipeg, I suspect it might be the City of Winnipeg police that would do the investigating, and it would be then the province that would do the prosecuting. I know there are some discrepancies, because it still all needs to be worked out, but this is already happening today, at least in part. It is about having faith and confidence in our judicial system.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get my colleague's perspective on today's debate.

Why does he think some Conservative members are framing this in partisan terms, blaming the Liberals for prorogation of Parliament and delaying Bill C-66, when they themselves were calling for an election? Given the importance of moving forward with the amended bill, especially improvements that could be done at the committee stage, do you believe we can work together to pass the bill and protect the victims?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Statements are to be made through the Chair.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. If we were to take a look at what was being said on the floor of the House of Commons last year, it would be very clear we could have passed Bill C-66. It did not pass and get royal assent because the Conservative Party had an agenda that was politically self-serving, as opposed to serving Canadians. This is the reality. I would debate that issue anytime, because that is the truth.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

I want to let you know that I will be splitting my time, should any remain, with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

First of all, I want to tell people what this bill does, if they are not aware. It is similar to Bill C-66 from the last Parliament with some language changes in English and French to fix some errors.

It essentially amends the National Defence Act to transfer the jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civil authorities when the offence takes place in Canada, but it remains under the Canadian Armed Forces if it occurs outside of Canada.

The legislation incorporates recent amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and publication ban rules into the National Defence Act and tries to increase the independence of the people who are involved in these prosecutions and investigations from the chain of command.

It also identifies different levels of review, including the minister, to try to get greater accountability.

I want to say right up front that I am very happy to see this bill coming to the House; it is just a shame it has taken so long.

I have been here in the House since 2015. I can remember in 2015 when the first report, the Deschamps report, came out. Minister Sajjan sat on it for five years and did nothing to address the sexual misconduct that was rampant throughout the military. At that point in time, a light was shone on it.

We were doing a study in 2021, at the status of women committee, which I was chairing. I know there was a study done as well at the defence committee. However, this was at at the time when General Vance had allegations of sexual misconduct against him and the PMO and Minister Sajjan knew about the allegations. Did they investigate him? Did they suspend him while they investigated? No. They gave him a $50,000 raise. What did that say to the victims who were waiting for justice? They had been waiting for five years, since the Deschamps report, and then this broke. Then there was all the filibustering at the defence committee by the Liberal government. There was not that same problem at the status of women committee.

We had testimony after testimony from women who had experienced sexual violations, such as gang rape in the first eight weeks of being in the military. We heard horrific stories. They were hard to hear. It was really disheartening to know that all of the survivors did not believe anything would change in the military after all this time. It was disheartening to see the government demand another report and get the Arbour recommendations, then a year later demand a third report. It has been 10 years and now all of a sudden it seems to be in a total hurry. I think victims could be not blamed for thinking that it is virtue signalling. That is what we have seen from the government to this point.

That said, I want to talk about a couple of things.

First, I want to talk about the actual problems I see in this bill. Basically, when we look at the testimony that was heard, what was clear was when there were allegations of sexual misconduct, especially against a senior officer, the old boys' club would gather around and there was punishment given to the complainant. In some cases, if they were overseas, they were returned home as if they were discharged or demoted out of the situation. I am sure there was some good intention of protecting and not having the victim have to work day after day in the environment with the perpetrators, but obviously this is not an acceptable trauma-informed way of dealing with the situation.

I do not have a problem with moving the jurisdiction to the civil courts; however, what I would say is this. When I was on status of women, we heard testimony of sexual violations. About 40% of them do not even get a police report done. Of the 60% that get a police report done, only 5% of them make it to trial. Of the 5% that make it trial, only 1% ever get a conviction. Of the 1% that get a conviction, the penalty is measured in months of house arrest or community service compared to the trauma the victim has experienced.

While we can say that yes, it was the recommendation of all the reports that we transfer the issue out of the CAF and put it into the criminal court system, we have a problem in our criminal court system. We do not have enough judges. We do not have, in many cases, any penalties, and are letting repeat sexual violent offenders out on bail. We hear about it day after day. I have a pile of examples I could read.

Are the survivors of sexual misconduct in the military going to be better off if they have to go through the current court system? Many of the rapists are getting off on the Jordan principle, which says that if they wait a certain amount of time and there are not enough judges and they cannot hear their case, then they go free. That is not justice. That is one of the concerns I have. The legislation would not really fix the problem of making sure we deal with the problem and get justice for the victims.

The second thing I am concerned about is how the criminal courts and that legal process would interface with the military. How would they exchange information to co-operate in investigations and prosecutions? I see that there would not really be anything in place to allow them to share the information, and that is problematic.

The other thing is that international incidents that occur would still be investigated under the prior system under the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard testimony from people who served overseas and who were sexually assaulted, and the resolution there was not good, so not changing that would, again, not address the problem for the victims.

When it comes to looking at some of the other issues we have heard about, today under the military system, if somebody is accused, then the military covers the cost of the litigation for them. Therefore if there is a complaint that is not valid, and frivolous complaints can come forward, it can be very expensive. If we move all of that to the criminal courts, then the individual is on the hook for the expenses, whether the charge is a valid one or not. That is another area where the government should take a look at what it has put before the House and see whether there is a way of shoring that up so it can determine that if there is pernicious prosecution, the military can pay for it.

Another thing in the bill is that the government has created a whole bunch of new term limits, and they are not consistent across everyone. I believe that the intent is to make people more independent from the chain of command, which I support, but it is not clear to me why the terms are all different and why the government would put new roles in place. To me, it would create a lot of bureaucracy. If we look at the Liberal government and its record, this is what it does. If the Liberals want to solve a housing crisis, they create not just one bureaucracy; they are on number four. When it comes to defence procurement, the Liberals have decided the broken system would be fixed by putting a new defence procurement bureaucracy in place. It is the same for the major projects system, and I could go on.

There are still things we need to repair, and at the end of it all, it comes back to trust. The victims do not trust the current government, because it spent 10 years doing nothing, and they do not believe the Liberals now. I do not know why the Liberals think people would believe them until they see actual action and something put in place that would get victims the justice they need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in getting the member's thoughts in regard to the 48 recommendations. We have been very clear throughout the day that 47 of them are well under way, and we are anticipating that we could have them complete before the end of the year. The recommendation that has a question mark on it is actually Bill C-11.

I wonder whether the member is in a position to provide some assurance to members of the forces and to others that, from her perspective, she would like Bill C-11 passed before the end of the year so we could unanimously say that all 48 recommendations have been complete.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of confidence that the amendments I have just gone over, which are all reasonable amendments, would be accepted at committee, based on the history that I have seen, where the Liberals continually turn down the common-sense amendments of the Conservatives. This is our only opportunity to air those concerns and get them in the public, but certainly we will support the bill's going to committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent work. It is almost 10 years that we have been together in Parliament, and I think she has been involved in the work of the status of women committee for all or most of that time.

One observation I would have about this debate is that the Liberals are speaking a lot about the changes they are making to military justice, in particular, bringing this into a civilian context. However, this is also about a context in which we have a dramatic increase in violent crime across the board in this country. We are seeing more burden placed on our police officers and courts. This follows the application of a failed Liberal ideology to the justice system. One needs only to consult violent crime data to see that violent crime was going down prior to 2015 and started going up after 2015. It is not hard to identify what might have been a significant contributing factor to that change in trajectory.

Would the member have any thoughts on how the bill fits into the larger trajectory of events around violent crime in this country?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, rape is up 76% in this country. We do not have enough judges. Rapists are walking on bail. Repeat offenders are walking on bail. As I have said, the conviction rate is slim to none.

We cannot move things from the military justice system to the criminal justice system unless the criminal justice system is fixed so that women and men who are sexually assaulted in Canada get justice.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those statistics are alarming, for example, that we continue to see a very low conviction rate. That is discouraging, no doubt, to those who have been victims and might be considering coming forward or in instances in which we have perpetrators who are repeatedly released on bail, even though they are repeat violent offenders.

We had an opportunity today to try to take some action on that, when the Conservatives put forward a constructive proposal through our opposition day motion to move forward the jail-not-bail private member's bill. The government is trying to create anticipation around a bill that has yet to come forward whereas we, as Conservatives, have already prepared a bill and put forward a solution. The Liberals voted against even advancing that to committee. Victims cannot wait any longer.

I wonder if the member would like to reflect on the results of that vote today and what message the Liberals' opposition to our constructive proposal sends to victims of crime.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have already outlined the fact that Canadians have lost trust in the Liberal government. This is just another fact. Obviously we need bail, not jail.

For six months, the justice minister has had an opportunity to introduce the things that would reverse what is in Bill C-75, which gives people bail. It talks about the least restrictive punishment at the earliest possible opportunity. That means fines and bail today. That is what is happening.

That is not justice. That is not going to make victims want to come forward, because going through the process of the investigation and the trial is very punishing to them. There is no evidence for how they are going to be protected by the Canadian military while this civil process is going on. Are they going to be protected in their jobs? Will they be exposed to their perpetrator? What will happen? What will be done to protect those people?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always with great pride that I rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

That is especially true when we are discussing our armed forces since the Valcartier military base is a just a few kilometres from my riding. It is very well represented by the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier. As with all members who have a military base in their area, there are hundreds, even thousands, of military personnel, former military personnel, and military families living in my riding.

We can be proud of our military, which shone with distinction when it was called upon around the world. It happened in World War I with the Battle of Vimy Ridge, in World War II with the tragedy of Dieppe and the Normandy landings, but also during the landings in Italy, in which my father participated with the very prestigious Royal 22nd Regiment.

Closer to home, there are all those who served in the war in Afghanistan. I want to remind everyone that Canadians died there, including a young man from Loretteville, close to where I was born. Corporal Jonathan Couturier died on September 17, 2009, when he was barely 23 years old. He served under our flag, and it is important that we remember that.

The Canadian military has had its moments of glory, but it has also had its share of trials and tribulations, like any organization. As with any organization, depending on the social situations in each era, there have been challenges to be faced. I remember very well that when I was about 10 years old, in the mid-1970s, a tragedy happened not far from my home in Loretteville. A soldier who no longer had his wits about him because he had drunk a little too much alcohol unfortunately killed some children. This incident brought a lot of attention to the problem of alcoholism in the Canadian Armed Forces. What did they do? They took the problem and dealt with it properly. They succeeded in significantly reducing that alcoholism that was rampant among members of our army in the 1970s.

Members will also remember the infamous and unfortunate scandal in the mid-1990s involving the Airborne Regiment, when Canadian soldiers in Somalia dishonoured our flag and their uniform by engaging in behaviour that was completely unacceptable. That is why the regiment was disbanded in 1995 by prime minister Jean Chrétien, as everyone likely remembers.

As I said, whenever challenges arise in the military, they must be addressed, and the Canadian military has always seized the opportunity to resolve difficult situations.

The current situation involves sexual misconduct in the Canadian military. Yes, that is the reality we have to deal with. That is why we are gathered here today to discuss Bill C‑11, which directly addresses this concern about sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, particularly with regard to the chain of command and the utterly reprehensible incidents that have occurred in recent years.

Bill C‑11 is reminiscent of Bill C‑66 from the last Parliament. Essentially, when there are cases of sexual misconduct, the bill aims to have the judicial process take place in the civilian system and not in the military police system, under military law. In addition, the government would appoint the military leaders who are responsible for discipline.

Regrettably, the issue of sexual violence is not something new. The Canadian Forces and Canadians have been dealing with it for more than a decade. It was in 2014 that Stephen Harper's Conservative government tasked former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps with investigating the everyday reality of sexual violence in the Canadian Forces. One year later, Justice Deschamps tabled a scathing report that showed, unfortunately, in black and white, that sexual violence was a serious problem. About ten recommendations were made, which were adopted by the Harper government.

Then came the 2015 election and, unfortunately, a period of total darkness on the issue of sexual violence.

For years, under the Justin Trudeau government, neither its ministers nor its MPs chose to do the right thing. True, other inquiries were held, yet this only raises the question of why they were necessary, given that the evidence already confirmed the need for immediate action to solve the problem of sexual violence in our army.

For five years, the government was asleep at the wheel. It called for another inquiry by two different judges who each conducted their own inquiry, even though we all knew as far back as 2015 that action was needed. Still, the government did nothing. Obviously, what shocked everyone into action was the incident involving General Vance, Canada's top soldier. Here was a soldier who held the Canadian army's most powerful position, who was initially the focus of rumours, then allegations, then substantiated evidence and then a trial.

Why is it that, for all these years, nothing has been done? Why is it that this government, for 10 years, has done everything it can to cover up the affair? Why is it that, while this case was being studied by a parliamentary committee on April 12, 2021, the Liberal government, along with the Bloc Québécois, decided to put an end to the parliamentary inquiry? This was followed by many other developments that I will have the opportunity to discuss later, the next time this bill comes before the House.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Military Justice Modernization Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are resuming the debate from two days ago on a very important bill about a very sensitive subject. We must be serious and rigorous in doing this work, since it concerns misconduct in our armed forces, more specifically, sexual assault. That is why we need to take the time to do things right.

This is an important issue. Every time the army has been faced with an internal problem, it has been able to take control of the situation and deal with it properly. Two days ago, I was talking about some sad events that took place in the 1970s in Loretteville, where I live. Alcoholism was a serious problem for many of our soldiers at the time. People died as a result, and the army took the situation in hand and corrected the problem.

It was the same thing later on, in the mid-1990s. Sadly, members will recall that the internal traditions of the Canadian Army's paratrooper unit were resulting in inappropriate behaviour. Crimes were also committed when this unit was operating in Somalia. Once again, when the army was faced with an ethical issue, people acted appropriately, and things have improved since then.

From 2015 to 2025, we have been grappling with the issue of sexual misconduct by some of our military personnel. I say from 2015 to 2025 because it is important to remember that, during this period, three reports were produced on the same subject, and the conditions were the same.

The first report was tabled by retired Supreme Court Justice Deschamps in 2015. It contained 10 recommendations for addressing the scourge of sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, the government that was elected a few months later failed to act for years. Five years later, another investigation was conducted and it reached the same conclusions, namely that the problem had to be addressed. Subsequently, a third report recommended taking action.

All of this coincided with the sad episode involving Canada's number one soldier, General Vance, who was facing such accusations. What started as rumours became allegations; testimony was given, a trial was held and a decision was rendered.

It was time for the government to take action. We might even say that we wasted 10 years before doing the right thing in this case. Nevertheless, some progress has been made because of all the attention this issue has received. What the government is currently proposing deserves attention, of course. Fundamentally, we agree. That is why we are going to work hard on this bill in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments the member has made not only just now but also when he introduced his comments the other day.

As the member just said, the principle of the legislation, which takes sexual harassment and assault out of the military court system and puts it into the civil system, is something that, it would appear when listening to all the debate, everyone inside the House wants to support.

If he supports the principle of it, would the member not agree to get into some of the details? This is not to prevent debate, but, in order to get into some of the details, it might be a good thing to see it go to committee, where we will have ample time for more debate.

After that, there will be more debate once it gets to third reading.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, as I said earlier, we agree with the principle of this bill, which addresses this serious issue.

With all respect to my veteran colleague, I just want to tell the member that he and the government should have done something 10 years ago. Unfortunately, they delayed and delayed. As said clearly by a colleague in the Bloc Québécois two days ago, who expressed the time frame of everything exactly, we have seen a cover-up by the government.

Yes, I welcome the comment by my colleague, but he should have done that 10 years ago.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that it has been 10 years. That was the timeline we saw with the Liberals.

My hon. colleague and I worked together on this file, and I remember studying this issue. With all due respect, I would like to ask him a question. Who appointed Mr. Vance 10 years ago? Was it not the Conservatives?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 2021, the Bloc enabled the Liberals to stop the work being done at the committee with respect to Mr. Vance.

The reality is that all parliamentarians are united in facing the challenge posed by this bill. We must tackle this sad and unfortunate reality head-on in order to fix the problems associated with sexual misconduct. This needs to be properly studied in parliamentary committee.

As we have seen over time, particularly on April 12, 2021, the committee was unable to do its work because members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois decided to shut down the proceedings.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the great work of the member.

In sharing his comments, the member spoke a bit about the intent and principle behind this bill versus what the bill actually achieves. I am just wondering if he wants to add any more comments to that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his hard work in his riding and here in the House of Commons. I remember pretty well when he got elected for the first time. I had some responsibility at that time to welcome him, and I was very proud to welcome him. I am prouder than ever to see that he is doing a very good job here in the House of Commons and also in his riding.

For sure, we all share the same principle of having to stop the sexual assaults and all that stuff in the army. Everybody agrees with that. With the colours that we defend here, we fight for the will of the people. The best way to address this issue will be in the committee, where we will study it correctly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just six months ago, we had a new Prime Minister elected here in Canada, with a new government. He has brought forward this legislation, so I think it is good timing.

With that as background, would the member not agree that, in principle, if we support it, we should get it to committee stage, where it can be thoroughly discussed? Ultimately, we can get it back for third reading, when we can have a lot more debate.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this should have been done 10 years ago.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. This is an issue that I have been following since the beginning of my first term. As the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, I have had to take a stand on this issue and study it at not one but two committees, namely the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and the Standing Committee on National Defence, which is why this reform is so important to me.

I will begin with a bit of background. Next, I will address the issue of women in the Canadian Armed Forces and the fact that they are victims of a closed system. I will then talk about the Liberals' inaction and the Conservatives' silence. I will also address the Bloc Québécois's position, and I will close with a few statistics.

Bill C‑11 seeks to modernize the military justice system and remove the military's jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada. This is a direct response to the 2022 Arbour report and the 2021 Fish report, which were released after decades of sexual misconduct scandals in the Canadian Armed Forces. Justice Arbour called out the military's culture of sexism and silence, where women were afraid to come forward.

The Bloc Québécois will support the principle of Bill C‑11 so that it can be studied in committee, but we denounce the past inaction of Liberal and Conservative governments. We are looking forward to a more in-depth study of this bill because our goal is ultimately to ensure that justice is independent, credible and sensitive to the realities of victims. This topic was the subject of two studies at the Standing Committee on National Defence, where I witnessed Liberal filibustering that was quite striking. At the time, I was replacing my colleague, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. This situation led to this file being submitted to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for a study in hopes that the less partisan spirit of this committee would lead to the creation of a report, while everything was at a standstill at the Standing Committee on National Defence.

Since the Deschamps report in 2015, all reports have pointed to the same culture of misogyny and impunity. Some have even drawn parallels with the #MeToo movement of victims speaking out. Mr. Vance, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Sajjan and Mr. Trudeau are concrete examples of political leaders failing to bring about real cultural change in the armed forces. Despite the announcements and Operation Honour, victims continued to be betrayed by the chain of command. Ironically, in July 2015, despite the allegations against Vance, he was appointed chief of the defence staff and put in charge of this operation. That is just insane. The Bloc Québécois maintains that no credible reform can be achieved without an independent military justice system. That is the main idea we heard during the two studies.

Women in the armed forces have been the victims of a closed system. Jonathan Vance is the symbol of this contradiction: He was leading the fight against sexual misconduct while being accused of it himself. Victims feared repercussions on their careers, and investigations were often biased or hushed up. That is what we heard from witnesses. What is changing with Bill C‑11 is that sexual crimes are being transferred to civilian courts. This is a major step forward. It will end the conflicts of interest, as investigations will be conducted by civilian police. The bill provides for the independent appointment of key military justice actors, such as the provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions, and the director of defence counsel services. It also provides for the introduction of a liaison officer for victims, ensuring more compassionate support. Finally, it ensures that provisions on criminal offences and publication bans align with the Criminal Code.

However, women are still waiting for meaningful culture change, which includes respect, listening and transparency. They want mandatory training for civilian prosecutors on military realities and trauma. They are waiting for stable and predictable funding for victim services. They also want rigorous monitoring of the implementation of the Arbour report.

Madam Arbour said she was surprised when she was contacted and responded that she thought the work had already been done with the previous report. She finally tabled her own report in May 2022.

I would now like to address the Conservatives' silence and the Liberals' inaction. As I said earlier, the Conservatives appointed Mr. Vance, despite the allegations that had already been made against him. The Liberals were warned by their ombudsman, and they refused to intervene for years. In 2019, they even raised Mr. Vance's salary retroactively to 2018. The government finally took action, but only after pressure from the media and the public, particularly following a Global News article in February 2021.

In the meantime, women saw their careers destroyed, their mental health compromised and their trust broken. I remember the testimony of Stéphanie Raymond, a former CAF master corporal, who was so courageous throughout this whole affair. She appeared before the committee and shared her terrible ordeal.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑11 at second reading. However, the Bloc Québécois is demanding that justice be independent and transparent. We also want a feminist and inclusive approach to implementation, as well as collaboration with Quebec and the provinces and territories in order to align services. This is important. We often say that, while it is good to identify the situation and have a Criminal Code, the implementation of everything that has to do with the justice system is the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and territories. This is important to keep in mind. We must fight against sexual violence by listening and being respectful and fair. Quebec and the provinces are responsible for providing appropriate psychological and social support and social services for victims.

We must also be conscious of intersectional realities. Women, LGBTQ communities, indigenous people and people with disabilities often do not share the same circumstances. At the end of the day, what the Bloc Québécois wants is culture change. There is no other way to tackle an issue as serious as a culture of misogyny and toxic masculinity. The Bloc Québécois called for a complete culture change in sport, and we are doing the same thing now for the armed forces, because women deserve to feel safe in that space.

I have a number of statistics to share about sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces: 7.5% of women in the regular force were sexually assaulted in 2022, compared to 2.8% of men; 27.3% of women reported being sexually assaulted at least once in their military career; 64% of victims did not report the incident to an authority; 41% said they did not speak up because they feared retaliation, and others were convinced that it would not make any difference. About 86% of assaults occurred in the military workplace. In 2017-18, disciplinary action for sexual harassment was taken in only 20 cases, which is paltry.

Intersectional data is also available for LGBTQ+ communities. I would like to mention that some non-heterosexual military members report higher rates of assault and that 67% of members have witnessed discriminatory or sexualized behaviour, often related to gender or sexual identity. The LGBT purge left a dismal legacy: From 1950 to 1990, hundreds of soldiers and police officers were fired for their sexual orientation. I want to thank the members of the Fondation Émergence who came to my office here in Ottawa and filled me in on this sad story. I also want to acknowledge Martine Roy, an activist and former member of the armed forces. She said that the military justice system needs to be improved to make it fair and reliable, to strengthen support for victims, which is essential, and to give civilian authorities the jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. These are all important messages.

In closing, here are some more important facts: 19% of military personnel were exposed to sexualized or discriminatory behaviour in the previous year, 34% of them being women. The reported rate of assault has increased since 2016, rising from 1.7% to 3.5% in 2022. Only 21% of victims reported the incidents, down from 2018. Sixty-one per cent agree that sexual misconduct remains a major problem. Young people, indigenous women, people with disabilities and LGBTQ members are the most at risk.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her very informed speech. She is always very well prepared for all the debates she takes part in.

I am pleased that she mentioned in her speech that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. As I said, my colleague always backs up what she says in her speeches with facts and figures.

Beyond supporting this bill in principle, does my colleague have any specific proposals for improving it?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned some proposals. What women are still waiting for is a real culture change, so there is some action that can be taken.

We also want civilian prosecutors to receive mandatory training on military realities and trauma. It is all well and good to set up independent tribunals, but we must also proactively educate people to ensure that they are truly aware of the different realities faced by military personnel. I am thinking in particular of PTSD, a reality we can openly talk about now, as well as mental health. It is therefore essential to provide better training, as well as stable and predictable funding for victim services, which is something we are still waiting for.

Careful oversight is also needed. Some of the recommendations from the Arbour report have not been addressed in the bill. Perhaps an analysis should be done to determine what is in the bill and what is missing from it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague did a good job summarizing the Bloc Québécois's position, which is what I will be standing up for at the Standing Committee on National Defence when this bill is studied there, probably soon.

In short, we are thinking that it is about time. We will not say it is too little, too late. It took a while, but at least there is something now. While it is far from perfect, we applaud the intent.

What does my colleague think about how long this took and the fact that General Vance was able to be hired, reappointed and even given a raise, by bipartisan consensus, when there were known internal allegations of misconduct?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question from my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton is important and essential. My colleague will be the one who will be able to propose improvements to this bill in committee on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

As I said, issues related to purges and cases of assault have existed within the armed forces for decades. These situations have dragged on. Although the Conservatives knew about them in 2015, they still appointed Mr. Vance. Subsequently, despite what the Liberals knew, they kept him on and even gave him a raise.

If the media had not exposed the situation in February 2021, would the Conservatives or Liberals ever have voluntarily taken action, or would they have continued to sweep it under the rug and hide this culture that needs to change?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for all of us to realize that we have substantive legislation before us that would take cases out of military jurisdiction and put them in civilian jurisdiction. We have been waiting a long time for this. We have a new Prime Minister who was just elected a number of months ago, and he has made this a high priority.

Would the member not agree that we can continue to have the debates and discussions at committee, and that if there is a need for amendments, at least there is an opportunity to propose those amendments? After all, it will come back to the House for third reading, where we can continue to debate it. Would she not agree that timely passage to committee would be helpful in dealing with this issue?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we still have to do the work in a reasonable and rigorous manner in committee, as the Bloc Québécois always does.

What we do know is that the media reported on this story in 2021, and it is now 2025. Things need to change.

Among other things, the Quebec government's report on rebuilding trust recommended the creation of independent tribunals and the transfer to the civil system. This was requested by many victims during their testimony. It is one way to restore victims' confidence in the system so that they feel truly listened to and so that they no longer believe that the armed forces system is about friends protecting friends.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, it is my turn to address the House, and I do so as the Bloc Québécois critic for veterans affairs.

Because of my background in psychosociology, I see victims in a very specific light. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is looking at various issues facing veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. For instance, these men and women may attempt suicide or develop substance abuse problems in response to the trauma they have experienced.

Bill C-11, which we have been discussing for several days now, deals with a truly important topic. We must address it seriously and with empathy, and honestly, we need to consider the purpose of the bill from an intellectual perspective. As I was saying, we need to address this topic with the dignity and respect it deserves.

That is my hope today as I address all my colleagues. Bill C-11, or the military justice system modernization act, seeks to address gaps and systemic wrongs that directly affect the lives of many women and men.

For the record, I would like to highlight an important article published in April 2014 in L'actualité by Alec Castonguay and Noémi Mercier, which alerted us to cases of sexual misconduct. The article talks about Lise Gauthier, a 51-year-old woman from Sherbrooke who spent half her life in the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to quote the first paragraph of the article: “Lise Gauthier does not have enough fingers to count the number of times that she was raped, assaulted or sexually harassed by her fellow soldiers.”

On March 27, 2015, former justice Marie Deschamps released a scathing report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. This report discusses the existence of a sexist culture, as my colleague the member for Shefford would say. I would like to think that this culture does not exist anymore.

The military turned a blind eye to these inappropriate behaviours for many years, starting in the backrooms. I think everyone knows about Jonathan Vance, who has been the subject of much discussion. He had just been appointed the future chief of the defence staff. At the time, the investigations went nowhere. The system was protecting itself.

In 2018, military ombudsman Gary Walbourne held a private meeting with the then minister of national defence, Mr. Sajjan. Mr. Walbourne tried to discuss a case of sexual misconduct involving Mr. Vance. The victim had decided not to pursue the matter out of fear of retaliation. It was hoped that Mr. Sajjan would intervene to protect the victim, who was Mr. Vance's subordinate. He could have easily derailed her career.

The crux of the matter is that the chief of the defence staff was at the centre of the military prosecution process. That does not even meet minimum ethical standards. He then became toxic toward anyone who had the misfortune of being in his sights or who spoke out about issues. To be clear, I would call it a military #MeToo.

The then minister of defence, a career soldier, wanted to protect chief of the defence staff, General Vance. What is more, he gave him a $50,000 pay raise. He did not just turn a blind eye. He did worse than that. Let us put ourselves in the victims' shoes for a moment. They must have thought that something did not add up and that things did not make sense. How must they have felt knowing that their attacker was Canada's highest-ranking military officer and that he was untouchable, and then finding out that, on top of that, the minister was going to give him a pay raise? A person cannot be both judge and jury.

I think of all those who have chosen to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces. We can only commend them for their decision with dignity and respect. Whether they are actively serving, reservists, or even retired from the forces, we owe them respect, and above all, we must protect their dignity.

It is always good to get back to the heart of the matter. Dignity is an intrinsic value of being human. It is what makes people worthy of respect, regardless of their circumstances, actions or social position. With that as our moral foundation, every person must be treated with dignity, never simply as a means to an end. These women and men were not treated with dignity.

Bill C‑11 aims to close this appalling loophole where man and system are one and the same. Under this bill, the government would select the provost marshal of the Canadian Armed Forces, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.

This would transform the appointment process into a political process instead of leaving it in the hands of military leadership. These individuals would therefore be immune from any form of blackmail. This is what I want to draw my colleagues' attention to. Jonathan Vance, who had sexual relations with a subordinate, allegedly boasted about how the victim could not file a complaint because he had full control over military investigations.

As I said at the outset, we are currently studying suicide prevention at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We are talking about the trauma experienced by our veterans. I have one major wish. Now that we are closing this gap, it is essential to respectfully provide these people with all the necessary services and supports. They have serious needs.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful for the support of my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. She listed the reasons why these sexual offence complaints need to be handled by civilian courts.

She talked about the importance of implementing policies that support military members and veterans who intend to file complaints. Would she be able to elaborate on the type of policy she would like to see proposed when the bill is studied in committee?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we simply need to look at how the complaints process works. Even here, in the House of Commons, we have a system that prevents us from being unethical and stopping anyone from reporting an incident and filing a complaint. The process will be specifically designed to allow the people who examine and analyze these situations to function as a wholly separate and impartial justice system.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for her work with veterans. When she is at the national defence committee, she always has a lot to contribute to the discussion.

I would like to ask the member whether she has some of the concerns Conservatives have, which are that the civilian criminal justice system has been undermined by the Liberals, and because of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, when someone is charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual human trafficking, they can serve their sentence under house arrest.

Would the requirements for lax sentencing given out by the civil courts, whether provincial or federal, undermine the ability to get justice for victims of military sexual trauma as we move cases from the military court to civilian courts?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would rather not go into detail on that, because, on top of everything, based on what we are hearing at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in particular, there is a knowledge gap when it comes to the services available and the process for either filing a complaint or pursuing legal action. We need to take stock, to determine whether we have everything we need to support victims and decide how we will do that in a respectful and dignified manner, as I said earlier.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to me, what seems to underscore the very importance of the bill is the fact that certain issues could be separated from the military justice system and put into the civilian system. In some cases, for example, circumstances of sexual misconduct and other things of that sort could be directed directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission without going through internal processes.

I wonder what the member would say to that.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the objective of this bill, all we need to do is think about a person who files a complaint against someone who has the authority to retaliate or make threats and change their life.

Essentially, we have been waiting 10 years for this problem to be addressed. This is a first step. I am certain that in committee, among parliamentarians, all members will be able to work out the best course of action for victims.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island. I would like to take a minute to recognize a resident from Langford, Mr. Matt Gariepy, who recently retired from the Royal Canadian Navy after 23 years of service. I congratulate Matt.

Today I am honoured to speak on behalf of the brave men and women serving our country in the Canadian Armed Forces. As a veteran myself, I am proud to have worked with so many heroic men and women, and I share much respect for those who have served and continue to serve. I understand first-hand the support that all people in uniform need, and I have made it part of my mission to continue to listen and to ensure that their needs are met.

Unfortunately, all too often, people in uniform are impacted by military sexual trauma, an issue that Bill C-11 looks to address. My Conservative colleagues and I wholeheartedly believe that we must address and provide realistic solutions to the issues of sexual misconduct, racism, sexism and other forms of harassment in the military. All military members deserve to have a safe and respectful workplace, especially given the amount of sacrifice we already ask of them and their families.

Deschamps, Fish and Arbour are three former Supreme Court justices who have released separate reports dealing with sexual misconduct in the military, the first of which was published in 2015, yet we are still waiting for a majority of the recommendations to be implemented. Less than half of them had been implemented as of the last public updates, and I am at a loss as to why the government has sat on its hands and ignored our military members again and again, especially those who are suffering from military sexual trauma. They deserve better than what the Liberal government has yet to give them.

Under the current system, victims and their families have no answers, and their cases continue to sit, awaiting proper action. It is 10 years and three separate reports later, and we are finally seeing the Liberal government start to implement legislation to help deal with the horrific travesties of justice, something the Liberal government should have dealt with years ago.

Though desperately late, Bill C-11 has the potential to meet one of the many outstanding recommendations that need to be implemented from the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports. The bill is something the Conservatives want sent to committee, where it clearly needs rigorous study. We need to hear from experts, including those in the legal community, and we need to hear from victims and those who have served or are still serving.

Unfortunately the legislation is not without issue. Conservatives already spoke to numerous stakeholders about the bill when it was in its previous form, Bill C-66, and there are many questions and concerns that must be addressed, which is why we support the bill in principle but believe it requires in-depth study at committee.

One of the concerns that has been brought forward is that the legislation would open the door to increased political interference with new Governor in Council appointments of the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal. They would be moved from their current reporting structure under the judge advocate general, and while the intention of the change is well-meaning, meant to create independence from the military and the judge advocate general, it would ultimately give more power to the minister of national defence.

Not only would the minister have direct control over the key investigatory and legal positions in the Canadian Armed Forces, but the change would also allow them to issue guidelines related to Bill C-11 with respect to prosecutions. While the change would mitigate military interference, it would also open the door to direct political interference. Given the evidence we have seen first-hand of increased political interference from the Liberal government over the last decade, it raises concerns that this pattern may be even worse under the legislation. I am talking about cases like Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and the former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance.

Moreover, the logistics around the lengths of the appointments and the process of how individuals would be appointed is unclear. There would be no consistency with the other Governor in Council appointments. We must address these issues before implementing the bill.

The bill indicates that investigations and prosecutions would be moved under civilian authority for sexual misconduct cases that take place within Canada, which we support, but what about the cases that take place abroad while on deployment? Those would still be investigated and prosecuted by the military police, who often already struggle to successfully investigate and prosecute under the current system, and now the concern is that those skills would only atrophy, as they would see fewer cases. This must be considered and accounted for in legislation to ensure that Canadian Armed Forces members can be properly served justice at home or while deployed abroad.

Additionally, while the military police can still start investigations of these cases on Canadian soil, they are to pass the investigation along to civilian investigators as soon as possible. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to ensure that these investigations are unhindered. This brings us back to the concern over political interference.

An unhindered civilian investigation will be vital to the success of cases in civilian court, so it is key that the bill outlines that process and includes the importance of unobstructed, independent investigation. There need to be tight protocols for the collection and sharing of information related to the investigations, and there need to be solid protocols for unrestricted access by civilian investigators. These are only a few examples of the key issues that will require rigorous committee examination of the bill.

The last concern I wish to speak to today is that of the capacity of the civilian courts to take on these cases. We have seen, over the last 10 years, the civilian courts become more and more overwhelmed because of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies. The bill would only add to a system that is already over capacity. This may lead to prosecutors' refusing to try a case because of an unlikely probability of conviction. What recourse will this leave victims? Internal service code of discipline punishments may still be possible, but will they happen?

I fear that this will just feed the mentality of excusing systemic military sexual trauma in the Canadian Armed Forces. Our service members do not feel safe or respected. They do not feel supported or honoured by the government. We must deal with the issue of sexual misconduct and harassment so that our forces can begin to feel that respect. Many military sexual trauma survivors are being released or quitting the Armed Forces, along with many others who face systemic issues in the military, which is having a huge impact on recruitment and retention.

We are short approximately 16,500 members in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are desperately short on the hard-working men and women who train up our troops to deploy on missions. Currently, there are over 10,000 undertrained and undeployable members in uniform. That is, over 10,000 men and women do not have the skills or necessary training to perform the jobs they have been hired to do.

This is both unsustainable and embarrassing for Canada as a nation. We must do everything we can to ensure that the supports our troops actually need and that they are asking for are implemented so that they can feel safe and respected in the workplace, be it on base in Canada or deployed in Latvia.

Over the last few days of debate, we have heard a lot about the big names who have been accused of sexual misconduct, such as the admirals and generals who have been charged. Of course, that is what we hear in the news. However, my concern is for the names that do not make the news: the young lieutenant who was repeatedly raped by his commanding officer; the corporal who has gone to her commanders only to be told the evidence is not there, or worse, have the evidence swept under the rug; the young sergeant who was pinned down and raped by her peers because she had received a prestigious award; or the master corporal who was raped by a fellow allied service member in Latvia, outside Canadian jurisdiction and where local authorities are not willing to prosecute. I have heard first-hand as Canadian Forces National Investigation Service members told a victim that they had all the pieces needed to get a solid conviction, but they have been told not to prosecute because it would reflect poorly on the military.

These are all examples of MST victims that I personally know. I have met them, and they have shared their stories with me. These are all examples of what victims are dealing with.

This is why we need to move cases to civilian court and why Conservatives generally support Bill C-11, despite its being 10 years late. We need to make sure these changes are implemented effectively through detailed examination in committee. It is good to see some common agreement in the House on some of the overall goals of the bill. I look forward to resolving these issues in detail in committee so that we can bring the bill back for third reading and see proper legislation in place.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his personal testimony on this bill. I would like to confirm whether I understand correctly that the official opposition intends to support this bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for study.

I would also like him to explain what he expects from this study in committee. Can he tell us about one or two amendments that he would like to see made to the bill in committee so that he and his colleagues can support it at third reading?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to supporting the bill's going to committee. It would be very important to see that cases of military sexual trauma are treated equally for personnel deployed versus personnel in Canada.

It is going to take a lot of committee work to investigate to achieve a fair result, as well as to find a more effective way of avoiding outside influences, be they at the political level or the military level, so that civilian investigators and prosecutors are able to respond without bias and actually properly investigate these issues.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill responds to the recommendations in the Arbour report, including recommendation 5, which essentially proposed completely removing from CAF jurisdiction the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed within Canada.

I would like to know whether my hon. colleague agrees with this recommendation, which is central to this bill.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, that is one of the recommendations coming out of the three Supreme Court justices' reports. If implemented, then Bill C-11 would achieve one of those many recommendations that still need to be actioned. It would be nice to see that one achieved. We look forward to seeing the other recommendations completed also, to resolve these issues.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, for his excellent speech, for his service to Canada as a member of the Royal Canadian Navy and for being there to hear the stories and support those members who have been victims of military sexual trauma. He got quite emotional in that, when we hear these stories and hear how the chain of command did not want to prosecute certain individuals because it might mess up those individuals' chances for career advancement, we can see why the bill is necessary. It is sad that it has been 10 years since we first learned about this, and the Liberals are bringing this forward only now.

Could the member address whether or not the bill would deal with the issue of information sharing, when we transfer these cases to the civilian courts, between local police agencies and the courts with the Canadian Armed Forces so that the code of service discipline and the ethos that is supposed to permeate throughout the entire military will be properly enforced at the military level while individuals are seeking justice in the civilian system?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, that is the purpose of one of the items to be investigated at committee: to ensure that information is transferred. I can speak personally to cases that military police have investigated in which items, documents, divisional notes and stuff have disappeared and made those investigations more challenging to complete. Something to be looked at in committee would be proper, full authorized access to records, statements, witnesses, etc.

I look forward to addressing that at committee. It is a key and important part of ensuring that these types of matters can be investigated fully by civilian authorities.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the much-needed modernization of the Canadian military justice system and the transformation of the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Bill C-11 is an important step in renewing the Canadian Armed Forces and ensuring that our military institutions reflect the values of justice and dignity that Canadians and CAF members both expect and deserve. Canada's military justice system must not only reflect fairness, accountability and respect but also uphold the trust Canadians place in the institutions that serve them. Through Bill C-11, we also have a responsibility to protect them.

Bill C-11 represents change at a time when Canada is making significant investments in the armed forces, but we cannot invest in our military without investing in its people, especially women, victims and survivors of sexual misconduct.

Before my election to the House, I spent my career advancing systemic solutions, equity in political systems and policy reform to strengthen women's representation in public life. I worked to ensure that women and other under-represented groups have a voice in the decisions that affect their lives, particularly in spaces where their voices have traditionally been absent.

Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is in many ways an extension of this work. The legislation is about giving every member of the armed forces the tools, the respect and the support they need to serve in an environment that values their safety and dignity.

The Canadian Armed Forces have a proud and essential role in defending our country and ensuring the safety of all Canadians. Members of our armed forces protect Canada at home and abroad, responding to natural disasters, defending our sovereignty and contributing to international peace and security efforts. Their service across Canada is a source of national pride.

For too long, incidents of sexual misconduct have had deep impacts on individuals, families and entire units. Independent reviews from former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish made clear recommendations.

Bill C-11 would respond to them, ensuring that all Canadian Armed Forces are safe from harassment and from misconduct. The legislation strengthens the system by implementing Justice Morris Fish's call to shift sexual offences to civilian jurisdiction and by building on Louise Arbour's 48 recommendations to address systemic cultural issues.

First, the bill removes CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Civilian authorities would have the exclusive responsibility to investigate and prosecute these offences.

This is not a technical adjustment. It is a matter of principle. Sexual violence must be addressed with the full transparency, accountability and independence of our civilian legal system. Bill C-11 would enshrine in law that CAF would no longer have jurisdiction over such offences. Civilian police forces and authorities would have exclusive jurisdiction, ensuring greater clarity and fairness in how these cases are handled.

These issues are not unique to the military, but they have been compounded by a justice system that, at times, seems ill-equipped to address the complexities of misconduct, especially in a culture with power dynamics that are deeply entrenched. This is why Bill C-11 is not only about reforming policies; it is about continuing the cultural transformation inside the CAF. It recognizes that military justice must evolve alongside the needs and values of a changing society. We are committed to ensuring that the Canadian Armed Forces become a place in which every member, regardless of gender, background or rank, feels safe, respected and empowered to serve.

Another priority of the legislation is to rebuild public trust in the Canadian Armed Forces, in response to the decades of concerns raised by victims and survivors of the Canadian Armed Forces community.

When victims tell us that they have been harmed, we must listen. Our government is taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce that trust within the Canadian Armed Forces. The reforms in the bill would strengthen the independence of key roles within the military justice system, including the provost marshal and the director of military prosecutions.

These roles would be elevated to increase their independence, ensuring that decisions are made based on law and evidence and not on hierarchy or politics. To reinforce transparency, the provost marshal general would be required to submit an annual report to the minister detailing the activities of the military police and the provost marshal. This reporting requirement would reinforce accountability and ensure that Parliament and Canadians are kept informed of progress and challenges within the system.

Perhaps most importantly, the bill would enhance support for victims. It would establish the right to request a victim liaison officer, whose aid would be provided to victims throughout the transfer of cases, regardless of jurisdiction. This is a meaningful acknowledgement of the trauma that victims often endure and the need for compassionate, survivor-centred approaches. The bill would help ensure that no matter where a case is handled, the victim is never left to navigate the system alone.

As we debate Bill C-11 today, we must remember that while modernizing the military justice system is important, equally vital is supporting survivors of sexual misconduct.

Over the past decade, the sexual misconduct support and resource centre, or SMSRC, has been an essential part of the defence team's response to sexual misconduct. Through its work, we have been able to provide survivors and those impacted by sexual misconduct the resources they need to begin healing.

Let me take a moment to highlight some of the critical programs and services the SMSRC offers to survivors.

For anyone who has been affected by sexual misconduct, whether as a victim, a witness or even a supporter of a victim or survivor, the SMSRC provides 24-7 access to confidential, trauma-informed services. For example, the 24-7 support line is available to any member of the defence team or their family, offering anonymous, bilingual counselling and guidance about available options for support, including referrals to community resources.

Additionally, the response and support coordination program assigns a dedicated coordinator to support survivors at every stage of their journey, from initial disclosure through to legal proceedings, even helping survivors transition to civilian services if they choose. These supports are just one part of services for victims and survivors.

Bill C-11 goes even further to ensure the justice system within the CAF is truly aligned with Canadian values. One of the most important provisions of the bill is the transfer of jurisdiction over criminal sexual offences to civilian authorities within Canada. This provision aligns with Justice Arbour's recommendation to ensure that such cases are handled by civilian authorities, where they can be investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated independently of the military hierarchy. This move sends a strong message, not just to the survivors but to every member of the Canadian Armed Forces, that sexual misconduct will not be tolerated and will be treated with the seriousness it deserves.

This bill is not just about legal reform; it is also about ensuring that military culture evolves. Culture change is not easy, but it is possible. We have seen progress. We have heard survivors speak out. We have seen a growing recognition that the status quo is no longer acceptable. We must move beyond silence and build a culture of accountability, transparency and respect, not just within the CAF but throughout society on all of these issues.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary role of gender violence experts such as Julie Lalonde, Farrah Khan, Pamela Cross and Emma Phillips, who have courageously pushed for our institutions to change and invited us all to have a role in changing our understandings of the persistent violence in our communities. This work is especially important as we seek to recruit and retain the next generation of CAF members.

Young Canadians want to join institutions that reflect their values. They want to serve in workplaces that are safe, inclusive and respectful. This bill would help us build exactly that kind of workplace, one where all members can thrive.

Bill C-11 is the legislative embodiment of this progress. It is the result of years of advocacy, consultation and reflection. It represents a clear signal that this government is serious about transforming the Canadian Armed Forces and our military institutions.

Bill C-11 is not the finish line. It is another step in a longer journey of institutional change. The reforms are not just about fixing a broken system, but about building a better one with a military justice system that reflects inclusion, respect and accountability. It would ensure that every member of the CAF, regardless of rank, gender or background, can serve with confidence knowing their rights will be protected and their voices heard.

I want to acknowledge the survivors who have spoken out, the advocates who have pushed for reform, the experts who have provided guidance and the members of the CAF who have called for a better system. Their courage and persistence made this legislation possible.

I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-11. Let us stand together in support of survivors, in support of reform and in honour of our CAF members, not only with words but through action.

I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let us build a Canadian Armed Forces where every person can serve knowing they are safe, respected and valued.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sex assault victims, whether they be military-based or civilian-based, have an absolute lack of trust in the Canadian legal system. There is significant under-reporting, and inconsistent investigative measures are taken. When a matter does get to court, there are Crown attorneys who either display an interest or a lack of interest. There is revictimization within the trial process itself.

How does Bill C-11 address those deficiencies?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has worked in the gender violence space for many years, I know there is distrust of our systems among survivors, and there is work to be done in all of our legal systems to build back trust. There are some very strong elements in this bill that are based on the strong recommendations coming out of the reports from both justices that give us a pathway for that.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the very essence of this bill. One of the recommendations in the Arbour report is recommendation 5, which I mentioned earlier. It proposes completely removing from CAF jurisdiction the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed within Canada. As I understand it, that was the only recommendation that required legislation.

Does my colleague believe that the bill fully responds to recommendation 5 of the Arbour report?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from my understanding, this bill would allow us to establish and move forward on the particular requirement that was noted.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how is removing military jurisdiction over sexual offences a necessary step to rebuilding the trust of victims and survivors who have lost faith in the system? Can you explain that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions should go through the Chair.

The hon. member for Spadina—Harbourfront.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why is this important? Part of what surfaced in the reports was the existence of the chain of command and it being a challenge in the culture of the military. The bill would allow for a different approach to justice, which was one of the recommendations put forth very strongly.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague across the way to answer the question, if she can, about why the Liberals are splitting the treatment of crimes committed on Canadian soil from those committed when our armed forces personnel are deployed off Canadian soil.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will confess that I am not able to speak to that; I do not have the answer, unfortunately.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in principle, what we have heard from all sides of this House is support for the legislation. A previous Conservative speaker summed it up quite well in saying that the principle is there and we need to get it to committee. I agree with that member.

We have now exceeded the five-hour mark. If we allow the bill to go to committee, many questions, like the one just asked, could be answered, because there is just reason for them. I am sure if the member really wants an answer, we can provide it to him. If he wants to come across the way, I would be more than happy to talk to him off to the side.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on getting this bill passed so it can go to committee.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important legislation to pass so that survivors can feel safe. One of the other elements in the legislation that I think is really important is the annual reporting. The measures there are best practices in this space, and I think this is an opportunity for us to do the right thing.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this chamber to put some words on the record about Bill C-11. This piece of legislation is of national importance. It is well overdue given the time that has elapsed since the recommendations came forward in the initial report, which I believe was commissioned by a Conservative government, on the heinous acts and actions within our Canadian Armed Forces. It is past time that we address these issues in a serious way.

The bill would impact my constituency of Brandon—Souris quite closely. I very proudly represent the hard-working Canadian Armed Forces personnel stationed at Canadian Forces Base Shilo, which includes the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the 1RCHA and the many other serving and civilian personnel who operate that base, which has a huge impact. There are over 1,100 employees in total, which is significant in western Manitoba. I am really proud to represent those folks, first as their member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and now here in the House of Commons.

From a constituency service perspective, issues around sexual transgressions and sexual assaults within the military come to my constituency office far too frequently, as do the impacts of the lack of services that should be available to many who experience such devastating actions from their colleagues, their spouses or anyone else who chooses to perpetrate such deplorable actions. These are certainly not issues that I am a stranger to, sadly. That is a very unfortunate reality, but it is the reality, so I felt it was important to get up and put a few words on the record in support of the fact that we need to do better by the people who put their lives on the line for this great country under our proud Canadian flag.

It is very important to note that Conservatives have always said that members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace and that those who have not experienced that while wearing the uniform deserve justice. We have heard lots of Conservatives raise personal examples, some very personal, of where that has not taken place recently or over the course of many years and, sadly, many decades. It is time to deliver a system that works better for victims and does not protect the bad actors in our system. We have so many systems now in this country that are focused on protecting the wrong people, and victims are left behind. This is just one example, but it is an important one that needs to be addressed.

While we certainly support the recommendations and support addressing the system to ensure that there is justice for folks who have experienced this type of trauma within the Canadian Armed Forces, we believe that Bill C-11 requires careful study at committee. That is why we are putting words on the record now in debate. The government, which has taken so much time to deliver a bill on this issue, continues to question why the Conservatives are speaking to it. It is because we have important questions that the Liberals need time to answer. We know they are not the most expeditious when it comes to investigating concerns that are raised by Canadians, particularly by the official opposition, and when it comes to the legislation they put forward.

We are putting them on the record now so that when the bill gets to committee, we sincerely hope, the Liberals may have some answers. I just previously raised a question for a Liberal member who, to her credit, admitted she had no idea what the answer was. I asked why the bill would treat crimes differently on Canadian soil than when our armed forces personnel are deployed. I credit the member for her honesty, but members who are speaking to the bill from the governing party, which put forward the legislation, should likely know the answers to questions before they get up to deliver remarks in the House of Commons.

That said, a couple of the concerns we have are about the civilian courts and their capacity to handle the cases. We understand that they may be, and in fact likely are, more experienced in dealing with these types of cases, but the courts are already backlogged. Time and time again, cases of serious violent offences, whether they be sexual in nature or cases of violent behaviour, run up against the Jordan framework, where the perpetrators are getting off on their charges because the courts cannot get through the process fast enough to have cases heard and verdicts delivered.

If we would now be adding more cases into the civilian court system, what provisions would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the court system could handle the additional workload coming its way? The Liberal government has been silent on that front, which is a concern, because if the Liberals are promising that the cases would be heard in a more effective manner, they need to put the resources behind the bill and streamline the processes to ensure that the cases would not get thrown out because of the Jordan framework.

Why would the legislation cover only domestic cases? I raise that again because it is an important point. The military police would be dealing with fewer cases overall, so that speaks to a potential lack of training or a lack of experience in dealing with cases as time goes on, yet they would still be called upon to do cases overseas. What standards and what training and expertise requirements would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the military police keep their standards up and in fact improve them while investigating cases overseas?

This can be challenging at the best of times when there are different jurisdictions and in many cases different nations and citizenships that are involved when such cases take place on multilateral operations, such as the ongoing deployment in Latvia. Soldiers from CFB Shilo in my constituency just completed a six-month stint in Latvia. Where does that leave the military police and their capacity?

Current crime stats are on the rise domestically under the Liberal government; we know that is a fact. We do not anticipate demand going down; in fact it would likely increase for civilian courts if they would be handling military penalties and cases. It could also mean that the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies under Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, where people who commit violent sexual offences are allowed to serve out their sentence on house arrest, may be allowed to do for military cases as well should they all move to the civilian system.

On a very small base, like the one in my constituency, there could be people living just down the street from their perpetrator on house arrest while their case goes through the court system and after conviction. We find that completely unacceptable in terms of the scope and impact it would have on the victims, who should be our priority. The Liberals have failed on the domestic civilian front, and we are very concerned they will fail again, as they have been failing, the victims within our Canadian Armed Forces.

I think we have raised some significant concerns that the Liberals have failed to provide any reasonable answer for, and that is why it is important that we thoroughly debate the bill, both here at second reading and at committee.

I want to be very clear that we want equal treatment for victims in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to ensure that there is commonality across the board, and we want to make sure that victims are treated with the respect, the dignity and the justice they deserve.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his service in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am very grateful to him. I am also very pleased to know that he and his colleagues are going to support this bill. He asked a very sincere question.

I have a question for him too. Does he believe that the current military court system serves the interests of Canadian Armed Forces members who are victims of sexual misconduct, or does he believe that using civilian courts instead is a better option for those individuals?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think Conservatives have been pretty clear that we believe the military system as it currently exists has failed victims within the Canadian Armed Forces who have experienced sexual trauma. However, we are concerned about the capacity of the civilian courts to handle additional work, when they are not getting through all the work they currently have before them. Many perpetrators of violent crimes, including sexual assaults, are getting off based on the Jordan framework.

While the current system is failing members of the Canadian Armed Forces, we do not want their hopes for better service to be dashed when military cases move into the civilian court system, because the civilian courts are currently not serving victims as well as they need to be either.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what does my colleague think about General Vance's statement that he had nothing to fear because he controlled the judicial process?

How did we get to this point, where a person in authority believes he is above the rules, above the law, and safe from punishment because judgments involving military personnel are under the control of the military high command itself?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course the situation my colleague raises is a terrible one to be in. I cannot imagine the feeling of being trapped in a system someone feels is protecting, or is protecting, their assaulter, the person who committed one of these crimes against them. It is a terrible situation that members of our Canadian Armed Forces who are the victims of these types of crimes have been subjected to. We need to do better by them.

Conservatives are certainly going to work hard. I know that my colleagues on the national defence committee are going to work very hard to ensure that if the bill proceeds, it does so in the most effective way possible to make sure that victims are protected and that they receive justice under the law.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we agree that moving the trials to the civilian courts would provide victims with, hopefully, a little more certainty that the proceedings could go ahead. However, there is a concern, because I do not see anywhere in the bill the Liberals' trying to address the lack of judges and the lack of courtroom space. I would hate for somebody to run up against a situation where they are not able to get to the end of a sentencing or a trial within a given time frame, and the charges are tossed because they were not able to get through the proceedings in a timely manner.

I am just wondering whether the member has any concerns about that.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right; we are concerned about a lack of judges, a lack of Crown prosecutors across the country right now, and certainly in provinces. Time after time, cases are being pleaded down or in many cases completely thrown out because they hit the Jordan framework.

If the federal government is serious about ensuring that victims within our Canadian Armed Forces receive the that justice they deserve and that this country should be providing to them, they need to be stepping up with resources to scrap their soft-on-crime Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 laws and putting additional resources into our courtrooms to ensure that the cases are heard in a timely fashion so we actually deliver justice for victims in this country.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-11.

Those who serve our country deserve a Canadian Armed Forces that is safe, respectful and free from harassment, discrimination and misconduct. When harm does occur, they deserve a justice system that is clear and fair and that puts victims and survivors first.

For far too long, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, especially women and other under-represented groups, have faced incidents of sexual misconduct and harassment that have shaken confidence in the military justice system. Survivors have told us again and again that the system was not working for them. This is unacceptable.

Bill C-11 builds on the brave testimony of survivors and on the tireless work of two former Supreme Court justices, Justice Arbour and Justice Fish, who both studied the issues closely. The bill responds directly to Justice Arbour’s recommendation 5 and to several of Justice Fish’s recommendations to strengthen the military justice system.

The legislation would remove jurisdiction from the armed forces to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Those cases would now fall under the civilian justice system. This is a major change. Until now, there was what is called concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that both the military and civilian systems could handle such cases. In practice, that created confusion and inconsistency, and too often, victims were left uncertain where to turn.

By making civilian authorities the exclusive jurisdiction for the offences, we would be providing clarity, transparency and fairness. Just as with cases of murder or manslaughter, alleged sexual offences by armed forces members in Canada would be handled in civilian courts. This change ensures that very serious crimes would be treated with the seriousness and independence they deserve.

Bill C-11 would also enhance support for victims. It would establish a victim liaison officer, available to victims throughout the transfer of cases regardless of jurisdiction. Victims would no longer be left to navigate two systems on their own. Instead, they would have a designated officer to help them understand the process and have their voice heard.

The legislation would also strengthen independence within the military justice system. Key positions such as the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services would be elevated to Governor in Council appointments. This step would remove real or perceived influence from the chain of command, giving members greater trust in the fairness of the system.

Bill C-11 would also address historical discrimination faced by under-represented groups in how cases have been processed and transferred. The bill would ensure that the military justice system remains aligned with the Criminal Code and the civilian justice system, creating greater fairness for all.

We know this is not happening in isolation. Since 2021, when Justice Arbour issued her interim recommendation, the director of military prosecutions has already ensured that 100% of Criminal Code sexual offence charges are being laid in the civilian justice system. The bill would take the next step by putting the practice into law.

Some people may ask why the legislation focuses only on offences committed in Canada. The answer is that this reflects the reality of jurisdiction. For offences occurring abroad, military police would still have to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned, just a couple of minutes ago in his speech, that Bill C-11 would provide officers to victims.

[An hon. member]

That is debate.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is not debate; this is fact. It is not in Bill C-11. Bill C-11 does not provide that support.

The Canadian Armed Forces is doing that through the Department of National Defence through the sexual misconduct support and resource centre—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is there a regular practice of the House, tradition or custom that the member could refer me to on this point of order?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

The standing orders say that members cannot be informing the House of what is not in the bill. They are making stuff up, so—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order. This is not germane to the debate. I was listening to the member for Surrey Newton in debate, and I believe it was germane.

The hon. member for Surrey Newton.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this bill is not only about legal frameworks but also about cultural change. Our government is committed to building a Canadian Armed Forces that is inclusive, respectful and professional. That is why we are implementing all 48 of Justice Arbour’s recommendations, of which about 20 are already completed, and the rest will be done by the end of 2025. The last recommendation is this bill. If this bill goes through, that will be the last recommendation by Justice Arbour completed. We are also acting on Justice Fish’s recommendations, prioritizing the ones that most improve independence, transparency and fairness. Bill C-11 reflects that commitment.

I know some will raise concerns about delays in the civilian system or the capacity of civilian police to handle these cases, but let us be clear that these cases are already being investigated and prosecuted by civilian authorities. Our police and courts are the right place for them. Others may point out that the military system could have moved faster to adopt these changes. I agree that change has not come quickly enough, but today, with this bill, we are locking in reforms that could not be rolled back because they would be enshrined in law.

Members of the armed forces make sacrifices every day to protect Canada and Canadians. They put service before self. They stand ready to defend us in times of danger. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure that they serve in an institution that protects them as much as they protect us. This bill is about fairness, about restoring trust and, most importantly, about sending a message to every member of the Canadian Armed Forces, especially every survivor of misconduct. We hear them. We believe them. We are acting to make the system better.

Legislation alone will not erase misconduct or rebuild trust. That work requires leadership, training, accountability and a deep cultural shift inside the forces, but laws do matter. They set the framework for justice. They signal what our society values, and they provide the tools for change. Bill C-11 is not the end of the journey, but it is a critical milestone. It states clearly that sexual offences do not belong in the military justice system. Victims deserve support, independence and fairness, and the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a justice system worthy of those who serve.

I urge all members of the House, regardless of party, to support this important legislation. Let us get it done.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to point out that the member erred in his speech. Conservatives supported the Deschamps report, and that was 10 years ago. It took 10 years since the Deschamps report, and the Jonathan Vance scandal, for the Liberals to finally bring this forward.

He also erred in saying that the sexual misconduct support and resource centre was opening up a section to help victims navigate the legal system in civilian courts because of Bill C-11. No, it was already doing that before Bill C-11 was brought forward. That again is something that was brought forward in the Deschamps report, as well as the Arbour report.

Lastly, I would like to point out that this bill would give direction to the Minister of National Defence because of the cover-up by the Liberals with Harjit Sajjan, which the member for Waterloo helped cover up when she was House leader. She always defended Harjit Sajjan for refusing to investigate Jonathan Vance.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some of the past incidents that have happened are awful and unacceptable. This is why we brought this bill forward. The members on the other side must be aware that this bill was brought forward in the previous Parliament as well, and because of the filibuster the Conservatives did, we could not get it passed. I ask the Conservative member to support this bill, so we can have it in committee and serve those people who deserve justice.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order.

I hear lots of members suggesting things that the member for Surrey Newton could say or what others could say. I will recognize members if they are in their seats and want to be recognized.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the former prime minister's entourage clearly knew that Mr. Vance was facing allegations. There was talk about serious suspicions of sexual misconduct cases. This matter is extremely serious and outrageous. I have young daughters and I feel disgusted.

The bill introduced in the previous Parliament was the same as this one and it failed to pass. Does the government truly intend to pass this bill quickly, as the gravity of the situation demands?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to have a cultural change. I am reading the new defence policy, and on page 17, it clearly mentions all we have to do. This is the work that was complemented by the introduction of Bill C-66. That work can only be completed if we get this bill through. The sooner we get that done, the sooner we will be able to achieve what we all want to achieve, which is justice for the members who protect Canada and Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made some really interesting comments, especially when it comes to the recommendations of Justice Arbour and the fact that this Parliament could achieve advancing all 48 of them.

I find that interesting because we come here to work and to represent our constituents. The constituents of the riding of Waterloo expect me to show up to work, and it seems that the Conservatives are almost irked that the government could accomplish satisfying those recommendations.

I would like to hear from the member what his thoughts are when it comes to the men and women in uniform, the fact that this should be a non-partisan issue and the ability to call the question and get this to committee, so that the committee can spend the time it needs to do the scrutiny to ensure that we do get it right. I agree that we need to get it right.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, out of those recommendations from Justice Arbour's report, more than 20 have been implemented. Every recommendation will be implemented by the end of 2025, including this bill, which is the last one.

As the hon. member said, let us get this bill passed and get it to committee so that we can focus on the other bills that Conservatives want to talk about.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice modernization act.

The Minister of National Defence has made it clear that Canada's new government is committed to ensuring the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have a workplace where all members feel supported, respected and included. Canadians have watched over the past few years as the Canadian Armed Forces has made significant efforts to organize—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have a point of order from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not commenting on the presence or absence of anyone, but, given the numbers of us here, it seems we could listen to a speech without the heckling.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will remind colleagues that, if they want to take separate discussions out of the House, they are welcome to do so.

The member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam may resume.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have watched over the past few years as the Canadian Armed Forces has made significant efforts to modernize and evolve as a 21st century workplace. While much has been accomplished toward this goal, there is still much more to do. Proposed Bill C-11 is another critical step towards meaningful and lasting institutional reform.

Bill C-11 focuses on strengthening trust and confidence in the military justice system. This would be the next step in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces' efforts to address recommendations from independent reviews from former Supreme Court justices Fish and Arbour. These reports, and the more than 100 recommendations that stem from them, remain extremely important to our larger cultural change efforts. Overall, these reviews have helped define how DND and the CAF are undertaking changes to the military justice system and cultural evolution efforts. They have allowed for an impartial evaluation process, highlighting both the efforts that have fallen short and the barriers that still exist, and have made recommendations to improve. That is why today I will provide an overview of these independent external reviews and the progress that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have made to address their recommendations to date.

I will begin with the independent external comprehensive review, also known as the Arbour report. This review was launched in April 2021 and led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour to examine harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture, including in the military justice system itself. The final report was made public on May 30, 2022, and the minister at the time welcomed all 48 recommendations. When the final report was received, there were 17 recommendations for which implementation could be undertaken immediately.

This included the implementation of recommendation number 48, appointing an external monitor to oversee the implementation efforts of the Arbour report's recommendations. The minister at the time appointed Madame Jocelyne Therrien as the external monitor who provides monthly progress reports to the minister on the implementation of the recommendations. She also provides biannual progress reports that are made available publicly.

The minister also announced the implementation of recommendations 7 and 9, changes to the military grievance and harassment processes, in August 2023. With the implementation of these recommendations, any CAF member who has experienced sexual harassment, sexual misconduct or any other form of discrimination based on sex or gender while performing their duties can now choose to bring their complaint directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission without first exhausting internal grievance and harassment processes.

The Arbour report also outlined improvements for the military college system in recommendations 28 and 29. That is why, in December 2023, the minister announced the seven people appointed to the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board to review Canada's two military colleges. In March 2025, this board released its report, which included 49 recommendations covering a range of areas, including cost, governance and quality of training.

As we see with Bill C-11, which is being debated here today, we would also address the key aspects of recommendation 5 of the Arbour report by removing the CAF's investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Since December 2021, all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges are now being laid in the civilian criminal justice system and no new Criminal Code sexual offence charges are being adjudicated in the military justice system. The Canadian Forces military police group is also leading a Criminal Code sexual offences operational framework working group with the Ontario solicitor general and Ministry of the Attorney General to develop a framework for the transfer of cases.

Bill C-11 also addresses several recommendations from Justice Fish's third independent review of the National Defence Act. Bill C-11 would address eight recommendations from this review. These amendments seek to, among other things, first, modify the process for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services; second, expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge to include non-commissioned members; and third, affirm the judge advocate general's respect for the independent authorities in the military justice system while exercising its superintendence of the administration of military justice.

These amendments seek to strengthen trust in military justice authorities operating independently from the chain of command and to bolster the trust and confidence of Canadians in the military justice system.

We are taking these recommendations seriously and moving quickly. We know that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are counting on us. As our government makes a generational investment in Canada's national defence, we know that we must invest in our people. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces are the foundation of Canada's national defence. Members have told us time and time again that they want to feel safe, protected and empowered to serve in a modern 21st-century workplace.

External reviews of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have also told us that we need to modernize the military justice system. That is precisely what we are doing in Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. The legislative changes proposed in Bill C-11 would play a critical role in helping us address several important recommendations regarding sexual misconduct and would enhance trust in the military justice system.

I encourage all members of this House to come together to support this important piece of legislation.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pose the same question to the member that I did to one of his colleagues, because I did not get an answer.

The reality is that sex assault victims, whether they be in civilian court or military court, have a complete lack of trust in the system. They call it a system; they do not call it a justice system. There is under-reporting and there are problems with investigations. Some police services believe them; some police services do not. There are difficulties in obtaining additional evidence. There are difficulties with the Crown chosen to prosecute these files. There are issues with the overcrowding in our courts to begin with. We have to apply the Jordan principle. It is no small wonder that in Ontario alone there is an abysmal record of success in prosecuting sex assaults.

With all of the deficiencies that I just presented, which I presented to one of the member's colleagues, what does Bill C-11 do to address them?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not dispute that those deficiencies exist, I think they are problems for another time and another bill. What we are focusing on now is the military justice system modernization act and how we deal with it in the military system. Let us focus on that. As we carry on and move into other areas, let us focus on those areas when we get to them.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous comments about our overloaded court system, the lack of Crown attorneys and delayed bail hearings due to the lack of Crown attorneys. Would the member not agree that these things are totally under the jurisdiction of the provinces and that we have to hold our provincial governments to account to improve them so that this bill can be more workable?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree. We need to allow provincial governments to operate within their jurisdictions and do what they need to do. We can certainly support them to whatever extent we can, but let us focus on what we can do with this bill in the interim.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to remember how this bill came into being. Despite the extremely serious sexual allegations involved in this case, the Liberal government's former minister of national defence flatly refused to meet with the military ombudsman 12 times, refused to look at the evidence and even claimed that he wanted to avoid interfering in the investigations.

My question is simple. Why should we expect the Liberals to behave responsibly this time by quickly passing a bill that they failed to pass in the last Parliament?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we brought this bill forward to be passed, and we count on the support of all members of the House to do so. It is clear that all members value the importance of this bill and the need for it to pass.

The bill that was introduced in the previous Parliament, as mentioned, was unable to be proceeded with because of the filibuster that went on, which basically brought Parliament to its knees. We intend and wish for this bill to be carried forward to fruition. We want to get it to committee and pass it with the necessary amendments and appropriate improvements.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that for the first time, Oshawa residents sent a woman to be their representative in the House of Commons. I am thinking about that a lot as I listen to the folks across the way in the Liberal government say things like “cultural change”, “fairness”, “trust”, “inclusive”, “respectful”, “we hear them”, “support” and “independence”. These words are being used over and over again.

In civilian courts, as it stands, sexual abusers are let out on bail with the least onerous conditions. That would still be the case. How are we protecting women?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are very important considerations that we have to look at seriously right across the board. However, what we are dealing with today is the military justice system modernization act, and I think that is what we should focus on.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today as the member for London—Fanshawe to rise to give a speech on such an important topic.

As Conservatives, we honour the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. Their duty is to protect Canada. Our duty is to protect them. Bill C-11 is presented as an effort to do that. It continues the long overdue modernization of the military justice system, and it claims to deliver justice for victims of military sexual misconduct. However, Canadians expect results, not rhetoric. They want to see the bill achieve real progress for victims, for due process and for the discipline and effectiveness of the forces.

The bill would amend the National Defence Act so that most sexual offences alleged to have occurred in Canada move to the civilian system. It would align military law with recent Criminal Code updates, including publication bans and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. It would create greater distance between the chain of command and three key justice actors by shifting appointments to the Governor in Council and by having them report directly to the minister. It would rename and rank-inflate the provost marshal to provost marshal general. It would set non-uniform terms for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.

On paper, some of this reflects previous expert recommendations made by legal scholars and victims' groups. Conservatives have long said that everyone who serves deserves a safe and respectful workplace free of discrimination, racism, abuse of authority and sexual misconduct.

There is no question that we support the goal of this legislation. Unfortunately, we know that the legislation, in its current form, does not address serious concerns with respect to the capacity, consistency or independence necessary to deliver real justice without creating new problems and inviting political interference.

Let us start with capacity.

Bill C-11 does not add a plan to ensure capacity or specialized expertise for military cases entering provincial systems. Since 2021, the government has been sending cases into the civilian stream. Victims and witnesses have waited, and many historical files were never taken up because of stale evidence or flawed investigations.

Civilian police and Crown offices are already stretched. The bill does not provide a clear path for historical files. A promise without a plan is not justice. Victims deserve timelines, trauma-informed supports and real prospects of conviction when warranted by evidence.

My second concern is consistency.

The code of service discipline forms a comprehensive framework that upholds discipline, efficiency and morale. It would still apply to almost everything except sexual offences that occur in Canada. Sexual offences outside of Canada would remain under military jurisdiction. Why should the same allegation be treated differently?

This split risks undermining coherence. It weakens the feedback loop between criminal accountability and service discipline for conduct that can be directly tied to military duties and to unit cohesion. Instead, the bill should ensure that findings in civilian court automatically inform service discipline and career consequences. It should also define how the forces would protect complainants on base while civilian processes run their course.

The government needs to explain how military police would maintain their investigative competence if they lose domestic experience in the very file type where expertise matters most. It does not explain how the forces will coordinate with host-nation authorities in deployments at sea or on allied bases where civilians work alongside our members. If we do not plan for this now, we risk weaker investigations and a two-tier outcome for victims depending on geography.

Next is independence and the risk of political interference.

The bill would have key members of the military court system report directly to the minister. Independence from the chain of command is the stated goal, yet the bill would give the minister power to issue written instructions or guidelines in respect of prosecutions. It would vary term lengths in ways that look arbitrary. It would rank-inflate the provost marshal general. It would remove reappointments for two directors but not for others.

When appointments move to cabinet without clear and uniform safeguards, Canadians see the risk of political interference. They have seen it before. They have seen political interference and a pattern of delay that undermines confidence, leaving victims waiting. If the government wants trust, it should ensure clear, uniform and transparent selection criteria, fixed terms and public disclosure of any ministerial directives.

Fairness is also essential. Justice must work for both the complainant and the accused so that outcomes are credible, sustainable and trusted by all. A process that is trauma-informed for victims and procedurally fair for those accused produces stronger convictions and more legitimate acquittals.

When prosecutions move to the civilian stream, service members should have clear access to legal assistance so that every case is decided on evidence and law, not on personal means or uncertainty about representation. Ensuring both fairness and consistency is what gives victims true justice and strengthens confidence in the entire system.

Finally, in terms of culture and leadership, reports have described a long-standing culture of silence and a pattern of plea deals for minor service offences. That did not magically end with a new bill title. Trust requires leadership accountability. Trust requires that senior ranks cannot use their position to blunt investigations or to steer outcomes.

This House must make it clear that nobody is above the law. That includes ministers who ignored evidence, chiefs who were protected and senior officers who allowed plea-downs that erased the seriousness of the conduct. Policy language is not enough; implementation and oversight are everything.

As I said, there is no question that Conservatives support the goal of this bill, but we need to take a responsible approach for this important legislation. We will support moving Bill C-11 to committee because victims deserve progress, not more delay.

At committee, we will press for amendments in the following areas, among others: a civilian capacity plan with provinces and territories, including funded training, dedicated contacts for military files, service standards for charging decisions and public reporting on timelines and outcomes; a clear bridge between civilian verdicts and the code of service discipline so that automatic administrative reviews follow criminal findings; real independence safeguards, including uniform non-renewable terms for key directors, transparent merit-based selection criteria and publication of any ministerial directive with reasons; a legal assistance framework for accused members in the civilian stream, with eligibility rules and cost controls so justice is decided on facts, not finances; an overseas investigation plan that sets joint tasking with civilian partners, external reviews of serious cases and clear agreements for ships and allied installations; victim support in practice by expanding the sexual misconduct support and resource centre mandate to provide legal navigation, workplace safety planning and communication with civilian authorities; term and rank discipline that removes unnecessary rank inflation and focuses on capability and accountability rather than titles.

This is how we honour the courage of the people who came forward, including those who were ignored or punished for speaking up. This is how we protect current members who still worry about reprisal on small bases or in tight units. This is how we preserve discipline and effectiveness so that the forces can recruit, train and deploy with confidence.

Victims want justice that is timely and real. Members want a system that is fair and predictable. Canadians want a military that reflects our values and can meet the threats we face. Conservatives will work in good faith to improve this bill. We will insist on independence with accountability. We will insist on capacity with timelines. We will insist on leadership that takes responsibility rather than hiding behind process.

Our men and women in uniform are the best of Canada. They deserve a justice system worthy of their service.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that victims deserve progress. I agree. We have a new Prime Minister, who was elected less than six months ago, and we already have before us Bill C-11. Every member, it would appear, supports this legislation in principle. Allowing it to go to committee does not stop debate; it allows progress, something the member himself is asking for.

Would the member not agree that we should allow the bill to go to committee, continue the debate there and then have it come back for third reading with more debate? Would he not recommend to his House leadership team that progress is important on this legislation, as the Prime Minister has asked for this to get passed?

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned progress; I said justice. The Conservatives are looking for justice for victims.

On another note, the Liberals have had 10 years to tackle sexual misconduct in the military. Instead of reading the report by Justice Deschamps, which was on Minister Sajjan's desk, the Liberals, upon forming government, ignored the problem for five years, asked for another report and then, just to be sure, asked for a third report a year later.

I am not on the defence committee personally, but bringing the bill back to committee is the best way forward for Canadians.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my Conservative colleague speak. We remember that there were very clear allegations of sexual misconduct against Jonathan Vance at the time. However, he was still appointed chief of the defence staff, even though the Canadian Armed Forces had just been criticized for their handling of sexual misconduct and sexist culture. Instead of appointing someone with an unblemished record, the government at the time chose Mr. Vance.

I would like to know why this time would be any different. It is easy to say that the bill does not go far enough, but what exactly are you proposing to strengthen this bill?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker, but I heard only half of the translation.

With regard to Bill C-11 and the Conservatives suggesting moving it back to committee, I just want to remind my Bloc colleague that we support moving Bill C-11 to committee. We will press for amendments, such as a civilian capacity plan with the provinces and territories, including funded training, dedicated contacts for military files, service standards for charging decisions and public reporting on timelines and outcomes, and also victim support in practice by expanding the sexual misconduct support and resource centre mandate to provide legal navigation, workplace safety planning and communication with civilian authorities.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague seems to be saying that there are problems with the interpretation. He did not hear half of my question.

Is that because he was not wearing his earpiece or because there are problems with the simultaneous interpretation?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is possible that the member did not hear everything that was said.

The interpretation is working in both languages. Sometimes members do not catch all of what the interpreters say.

As the hon. member is well aware, it can be difficult to interpret all the ideas and words that members use, depending on how quickly someone speaks.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oshawa.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that victims deserve justice. I wonder if he can comment on whether he feels that they will receive fair justice currently in the civilian courts when they are instructed by Bill C-75 to let people out on bail as early as possible and under the least onerous conditions. Until we fix that, we are not getting them justice.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does focusing on fairness for the accused risk undermining victims? Not at all. Fairness protects everyone. A trauma-informed process that is also procedurally sound produces stronger convictions that stand and acquittals that are respected. Victims want justice that lasts, not verdicts overturned because the process was flawed.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will start by sharing that the NDP supports Bill C-11.

I dedicate this speech to the victims of abuse in the military, who deserve justice.

Canadians who serve and have served in the armed forces and reserves deserve our respect and gratitude. Women, men, members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, indigenous people and racialized minorities have all served in our military. Too many of them have been subject to sexual assault. Too many have to endure racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia in the course of their service.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces put their lives at risk to defend our sovereignty at home and abroad. They and their families sacrifice so much in order to serve Canada. The NDP is committed to ensuring their health, well-being, safety and protection. We advocate to ensure that they have supports and services while serving and when they leave military service.

The Canadian Armed Forces is important for our security and, indeed, our sovereignty. We are all shocked by the news stories of military sexual trauma, and we all want to see meaningful culture change in our military.

I begin by sharing a historical perspective on why we support the bill. In 2015, Justice Deschamps issued her report, with important recommendations. It took the Liberals years to respond.

In 2022, the Liberals accepted recommendations in a separate report by Justice Arbour. The Liberals told Canadians that they would begin transferring all criminal sexual offence investigations to civilian courts. This is another Liberal broken promise. Three years later, approximately half of the cases remain within the military justice system. Why? We do not know.

There were major problems with the cases that were transferred. Retired corporal Arianna Nolet was one of the first military sexual trauma victims to have her case transferred to civilian courts. Unfortunately, her case was stayed because of time delays in the back-and-forth between military and civilian police.

Since this incident, multiple other cases have been stayed because of delays, resulting in a lack of justice for survivors. The causes for the delays were twofold: First, civilian authorities were wary of taking over a case, and because of concurrent jurisdiction, they were not mandated to accept the case. Second, the transfer of case files by the military police was significantly delayed, causing commentators to speculate on whether the military police was unduly stalling the transfer.

New Democrats continue to advocate for better outcomes for survivors of military sexual trauma. My friend and colleague, NDP MP Rachel Blaney, was responsible for the landmark parliamentary study on the experience of women veterans. They gave first-hand accounts of the horrific treatments they endured while serving in Canada's military. The study culminated in a powerful report in 2024 entitled “Invisible No More.” This report was the catalyst that finally pushed the Liberal government to act.

NDP MP Lindsay Matheson undertook a summer of consultations with survivors and subsequently introduced a private member's bill. Bill C-362 would have immediately ended concurrent jurisdiction and ensured that no future cases were caught in the tug-of-war over jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Lindsay's bill, Bill C-362, died on the Order Paper when Trudeau prorogued Parliament.

Given the state of Bill C-11 and the way it was tabled, some questions must be studied at committee. I will name a few. First, the bill does not adequately address incidents in the reserves, the navy, the cadets program or international deployments. Why are they not included? Do they not deserve justice?

Second, survivors feel betrayed by the federal government. Survivors tell us they need more pathways to justice. They say pathways to justice will be taken away. What consultations included victims, and in what way are their voices included in Bill C-11?

Third, the bill may have the unintended consequence of creating a binary between criminal behaviour and lesser forms of harassment, which may become more permissive and have fewer supports. What amendments will be needed to ensure victims of any abuse see the justice they deserve?

Fourth, since the sexual misconduct by senior leadership scandal, the NDP calls to make the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces ombuds an officer of Parliament are amplified. This position must have the power to compel documents and conduct systemic investigations. Will other parties support amendments to ensure greater civilian oversight?

Fifth, amendments are needed in terms of the new victim liaison officer. The commanding officer must not be the one to appoint the officer. Given that many cases directly or indirectly involve the commanding officer, we need to find an alternative to this proposal. The appointment must occur outside the chain of command. Further, parliamentarians need to review legal assistance for survivors and the independence of counselling services for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Sixth, the Prime Minister warned of an austerity budget. Expanding the mandate of civilian law enforcement without a corresponding increase to their budget will create problems, and, indeed, potentially cost more. The November budget could include cuts to legal services and law enforcement agencies. This makes no sense. Will the budget further cut funding for the military police?

Seventh, given the composition of the Canadian Armed Forces, investigations may include victims, witnesses and others across multiple jurisdictions, and potentially in secure military locations. A local police unit does not have the resources for these cases. It may be logistically difficult to recruit and deploy civilian law enforcement on an ad hoc basis. How will cases be investigated by civilian police when incidents occur across jurisdictions, especially for incidents that may occur during domestic operations, including routine operations in the north and Arctic naval coastal patrols? What about incidents that happen abroad? What tools will civilian courts have in international deployments, navy ships, etc. that cannot immediately be accessed by civilians?

We need to ensure issues such as custody of evidence are considered to avoid having cases thrown out.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I referred to the principles of the bill in terms of transferring the process from military courts into the civilian court process. There are many different forms of support, and it seems to me that all members are supporting that particular principle. Discussions have also been taking place with our partners. After all, judicial responsibilities are not only federal; they are provincial, federal and municipal. All three play a very important role.

Does the member not believe, overall, that the transferring of sexual assault cases out of the military courts and into the civilian courts is a positive thing? Does she have confidence in the independence of the judicial system to make sure the victims are, in fact, being treated appropriately?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I mentioned in my speech that there was a promise three years ago about that transfer, and more than half of the cases have not been transferred. We also need to question what would happen for processes that happen outside Canada as the bill relates only to offences happening within Canada. With the military police not investigating or prosecuting domestic offences, we must ask, will military police be trained and equipped to handle incidents abroad?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces tolerating sexual misconduct. The reports that are before us, by Arbour, Fish and Deschamps, all say that without changing the culture, the problem will not be solved.

Is the hon. colleague optimistic that Bill C-11 would push the Canadian Armed Forces to reform its conduct, which is the root of the problem?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the biggest change we will need to discuss at committee is the appointment of a victim liaison officer. At this point, the appointment process would remain with the commanding officer, which is not the form of culture change we need to see. To support victims, who would be most impacted by this legislation, we need to make sure that support for them comes from outside of the system that keeps them victimized.

This reform has been a long time coming, with changes last being made in 1998. We need to make sure it does not take another 27 years before any unintended consequences can be corrected.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague would like some changes to be made to how things are handled abroad, outside Canada. Could she clarify whether the NDP intends to suggest amendments in this respect? If so, what kind of amendments would they be?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, we want to see amendments regarding investigations or incidents that happen abroad. As we know and as we have heard, even domestically some investigations have victims from one territory and witnesses from other provinces or even abroad. There should be better supports to ensure that these cross-jurisdictional issues can be streamlined.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate a bill that is very important for the military community and for Canadians, that is, Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act.

This bill will have a significant impact on members of the Canadian Armed Forces as well as veterans. Indeed, Bill C‑11 address the concerns that victims and survivors within Canada's military community have shared with us over the past few years. It includes a series of targeted amendments that aim to modernize the military justice system and strengthen support for victims and survivors.

The bill responds to recommendation 5 of the report from former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour and the eight recommendations of the report from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish. More specifically, the bill proposes to make six amendments. I will give a brief overview of all these amendments.

First, it will enshrine in law the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Second, it will enshrine in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Third, it establishes a victim's liaison officer, who will be available to victims throughout the transfer of cases, regardless of jurisdiction. Fourth, the bill seeks to strengthen the role of key positions in the justice system to make them more independent. Fifth, it seeks to address the historical discrimination faced by under-represented groups in how cases have been processed and transferred. Finally, the bill ensures that the military justice system remains aligned with the Criminal Code and the civilian justice system.

Our government takes the well-being of Canadian Armed Forces members very seriously. That is why we have worked hard in recent years to implement all 48 recommendations from former Justice Louise Arbour's report. More than 30 of those recommendations have already been implemented. By the end of the year, with the passage of this bill, I hope we will be able to say that not just 47 recommendations, but all 48 recommendations made by former Justice Arbour have been implemented.

I would like to provide an overview of Justice Arbour's recommendations. Three years ago now, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, entitled “Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”, contains 48 recommendations that focused on reforming the “institutional shortcomings and structural impediments” that allowed the problem to persist.

In recommendation 48 of her report, Justice Arbour called for the Minister of National Defence to appoint an external monitor to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in the report and other external recommendations that she accepts. The external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, shared her fifth report in July. Ms. Therrien emphasized that we are making progress and are on track to meet the intent of the 48 recommendations by the end of 2025.

Indeed, in our efforts to follow up on recommendations 1 and 2, we have made significant progress in clarifying definitions and terminology.

In June of last year, the defence team announced that policies using the term “sexual misconduct” would be updated to replace it with “harassment of a sexual nature”, “conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature” and “crimes of a sexual nature”. In addition, “sexual assault” will be separately defined in the relevant policies.

In March of this year, CAF adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of harassment and violence, aligning its harassment and violence prevention program with the public service workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This resulted in a unified workplace harassment and violence prevention policy that applies to both National Defence public service employees and members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

This change also addressed recommendation 3 of Justice Louise Arbour's report. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces who experience or witness harassment or violence in the workplace now have a simplified incident reporting system, informal resolution mechanisms and a simplified investigation process.

We have also made progress in providing a range of relevant services and supports to victims. In response to recommendation 14 of Justice Arbour's report, the sexual misconduct support and resource centre has expanded its services to include a full-time legal resource responsible for providing information and assistance to victims of sexual misconduct in a military context. The next step will involve providing access to civilian lawyers able to contribute their assistance in different parts of the country at no cost to victims.

Bill C‑11 takes another step forward by improving support for victims and assigning exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities for investigating and prosecuting Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Our government remains steadfast in its ongoing commitment to addressing all forms of misconduct and unprofessional behaviour within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is imperative to ensure that victims and survivors receive the support and justice they deserve.

In conclusion, Canadian Armed Forces members are always there to ensure Canada's security and it is our duty to protect them from harassment and misconduct. The 48 recommendations made by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour clearly showed us the path to follow to change the culture of our institution, and the external auditor, Jocelyne Therrien, is ensuring that we respect this commitment, this new path.

In closing, I want to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the veterans for their service to Canada. I hope that all my colleagues in the House will support this bill so that we can ensure justice for victims of harassment and sexual misconduct.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reports that are before us, those by Arbour, Fish and also Deschamps, all say that the problem with the Canadian Armed Forces around sexual misconduct will not be solved until the culture there is solved, a culture that has found sexual misconduct acceptable or at least tolerated in the context of the military setting.

Why is the member optimistic that Bill C-11 is finally the solution to that problem?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my hon. colleague very well, and I know he takes these issues very seriously.

It is not a guarantee that the culture will change, but it is clear that we must take every step possible. One of the first things to do is assure victims of sexual harassment or misbehaviour that the system is not stacked against them. The way to do that, as we saw in the report by Madam Justice Arbour, is to take them out of the system where they could be seeking justice from their superiors or where those working on a file could be trying to pursue a case against a military superior. That does not lend confidence to the system, so it is important for victims to have an independent system, which is what they would be guaranteed by criminal courts outside of the military service. That is the first step, and it is one step that would go a long way to changing the culture in the military.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is important to recognize in the debate is that the legislation would reinforce and put into law what has been happening for the last few years: Allegations of sexual assault and harassment are being transferred over to the civilian judicial system. Passing the legislation would ultimately be a significant step toward putting into law what we have attempted to put into practice. Hundreds of cases have already gone through the civilian justice system.

It is also important that we continue to work with our provincial and territorial stakeholders to ensure that the proper resources are in order. I am thinking specifically of the timing of charges and court proceedings.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important point the member for Winnipeg North raises in the House. Because the system has been in place and there has been action already on some of the reports that have been brought forward, which understand the scope and severity of the situation, these things have been acted on.

Now we are codifying this. Now we are making sure that the resources are put in place. Now we are making sure that training is provided and that our folks in the armed forces understand better how to transfer files to the civilian courts and provide support to the victims of sexual misconduct and harassment in our system.

These are very welcome changes, and it is wonderful to hear in the questions from different colleagues that there seems to be general support among members to make sure the bill gets to committee. I hope it becomes adopted as legislation before the end of the year.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government passed legislation allowing criminals convicted of sexual assault, including date rape, to serve their sentence under house arrest. Now the Liberals want Canadians to trust them with this new legislation. How can the Liberals be trusted to enact justice reforms to protect members of the Canadian Armed Forces against sexual misconduct, given their record of allowing sexual predators to serve their sentences at home?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many elements to the premise of that question that I have some difficulty with, but there are two things that should give the hon. member some confidence. First of all, this legislation reflects directly the recommendations by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish. Second, the member can take confidence in the fact that the person responsible for making sure the recommendations are being followed going forward, Madame Jocelyne Therrien, is following through on them. She can assure parliamentarians and, most importantly, members of our Canadian Armed Forces that these recommendations are being followed through on.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. The effect of the bill would be to remove the military court's jurisdiction to try offences of a sexual nature and move them to civilian courts, which would have exclusive jurisdiction.

Our proud Canadian Armed Forces has a deep-seated problem that the bill aims to tackle. This is not new information; it is something we have known about for a long time. Let me read what Justice Marie Deschamps said in her report 10 years ago, which was commissioned by the Conservative government at the time. It is a report on sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. She found “a disjunction...between the high professional standards established by the CAF’s policies on inappropriate sexual conduct...and the reality [on the other hand] experienced by many members day-to-day.”

In other words, everything looked good on paper, but in reality not so much; it was quite a different story. The judge heard from many witnesses and summarized some of the evidence in her report. That was 10 years ago. Here we are in 2025, finally acting on it. The Conservative Party has always supported all the recommendations of the Deschamps report, and it is a shame they have just not yet all been implemented.

Bill C-11 is before us now. Before I get into the details of the bill, the good, the bad and where improvements are required, I want to shed a positive light on our proud Canadian Armed Forces. We can be proud of our men and women in uniform. I want to share some examples of their great success stories.

In Operation Reassurance, Canada was serving as the framework nation for NATO's multinational battle group in Latvia, a key part of NATO's enhanced forward presence to deter aggression in eastern Europe. That is more important now than ever. Operation Unifier was Canada's military training mission supporting the armed forces in Ukraine. That is also very important at the moment. Of course, we also have Canada's participation in NORAD, the binational military partnership between Canada and the United States, still our best friend.

In all these missions, the Canadian Armed Forces has distinguished itself with high professional standards and effective performance and has gained the respect of our NATO partners. All of this has happened despite the fact that the Liberal government for the last 10 years has underfunded the Canadian Armed Forces and not met our NATO commitments. Our NATO partners are counting on us.

I want to take a moment to highlight some of the work that is being done in my local Conservative association, the group of volunteers at home that keeps me grounded and connected to my community. It also includes my advisers; they are currently working on a policy statement that they are hoping will advance all the way to the Conservative Party convention scheduled in Calgary for early next year. It is about funding the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO requirements. I want to thank my team back home for working on this very important issue. I want to give a big shout-out to the current president, Reese Yearwood, and the past president, Wout Brouwer, both of whom have been working diligently on it.

I will now go back to Bill C-11. It is an enactment in response to two reports. I talked about the Deschamps report. There is also the Fish report of Mr. Justice Fish, from April 2021, which offers a sweeping critique of and reform road map for Canada's military justice system. The second report is by Louise Arbour from a year later, 2022. It delivers a scathing assessment of how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces handle sexual misconduct and institutional accountability.

I will read a couple of quotes from each of the reports, because I think they are important. They are both very extensive reports. I did not read the whole of the reports, but I read big sections. I highlighted a couple of paragraphs to quote.

This is from Mr. Justice Fish's report:

My review has confirmed the factual findings of the Honourable Marie Deschamps, who in 2015 completed her independent review on sexual misconduct in the [Canadian Armed Forces]: the nature, extent and human cost of sexual misconduct in the CAF remain as debilitating, as rampant and as destructive in 2021 as they were in 2015.

Through all those years, there was not much improvement.

Louise Arbour writes, and this is a quote that really hit home for me:

The [Canadian Armed Forces] has a long history of recruiting among military families. I was quite struck to hear that many serving members of the CAF, including high-ranking officers, would not encourage their daughter(s) to enrol today. Indeed, the exposure of sexual misconduct in the CAF has caused as much damage as defeat in combat would have to demoralize the troops and shock Canadians.

We have a serious problem of misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is long-standing. It is deeply entrenched in the culture. It is not easily resolved, because it is hard to change the culture of an organization.

That is exactly what Bill C-11 is attempting to do. We support it. The thinking is that taking the whole business of investigating and prosecuting crimes of a sexual nature out of the Canadian military justice system and putting it into the civilian justice system will encourage victims to report without fear of impeding their career advancement and without fear of being isolated by their peers or being labelled as troublemakers.

Will it work? It may. I hope so. It is hard to change the culture of an organization, which is the fundamental foundation of this problem.

This is what Judge Deschamps said about the Canadian Armed Forces' culture when it comes to sexual misbehaviour, noting the failure of earlier attempts to solve the problem.

This is what she said:

...cultural change is key. Without broad-scale cultural reform, policy change is unlikely to be effective. This requires the [Canadian Armed Forces] to address not only more serious incidents of sexual harassment and assault, but also low-level sexual harassment, such as the use of sexualized and demeaning language, which contributes to [a hostile] environment....

I would conclude from this that sending serious cases of sexual harassment to civilian courts is only the tip of the spear. There is a more fundamental problem that needs to be resolved.

Maybe a few high-profile cases will make a difference, as happened with General Vance, in terms of highlighting the problems. Maybe it will help, but this will not happen without full support from the leadership.

It is important to hear from leaders in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This is what General Jennie Carignan, current chief of the defence staff, has to say: “These reforms will enable our operational effectiveness and support a respectful culture that will ensure our institution continues to earn the trust of [Canadian Armed Forces] members and the Canadians we serve.”

If she is optimistic, I am hopeful that the bill would steer us in the right direction. There are deep-seated problems. I would point out that there have been attempts before. I am thinking of Operation Honour. We had been optimistic that it was going to get to the root of the problem. In the end, that program was abandoned because it was not taken seriously by the leadership or by the rank and file.

We support the bill's going to committee. I would hope that the chief of the defence staff will come there and give evidence. If I have the opportunity, I will ask her questions about how this is going to solve a deep-seated cultural problem.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑11 is essential. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces always show up to protect Canadians and their safety. We also have a duty to protect them from misconduct and harassment.

We heard from our colleagues today during our debates. I think we all agree on the importance of this bill. A number of these colleagues have said they would like the bill to be studied in committee.

First, I would like to ask my colleague whether he agrees that Bill C‑11 must be sent to committee as soon as possible so that it can become law by the end of the year or as soon as possible. If so, can he share his opinion with his party's leadership team to make that happen?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party members are signalling that we are in support of the bill. It has many problems. I do not think it goes far enough to solve the institutional problems in the Canadian Armed Forces, but it is a step in the right direction. I think it is going to be a very intensive study at committee. There are a lot of questions to ask. We will need to have a lot of witnesses appear before the committee and answer what I think they will find to be very challenging questions.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does my colleague explain the fact that we have always tolerated the absurd situation in which those responsible for adjudicating cases of potential misconduct in the military are the senior military officers themselves?

Does he consider this to be odd?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed odd, and that is exactly what this bill is trying to do: take the decision-making, investigation and prosecution out of the military justice system and put it into the civilian justice system, where it belongs. I recognize that there are problems with the civilian justice system, as a lot of my colleagues have pointed out, so this is not a silver bullet, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can elaborate a bit on what the situation would look like for someone who committed an offence here in Canada but also committed the same offence overseas. I am wondering what that would look like and how this bill and the court system would handle it. Would it create a weird two-tier system that could be problematic for victims trying to receive proper justice?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question. Our focus always has to be on victims of crime, to make sure they get proper support and that they have a sense that justice is being done. The court system should not just be a legal system; it should be a justice system. It should do justice.

It is an interesting hypothetical the member put to us. One of the reasons that crimes abroad need to be investigated abroad is that our civil authorities would have a hard time with investigations. I can understand why that distinction is being made, but it certainly would create complexities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging, in a sense, that the Conservatives support this piece of legislation. I am wondering if the member sees the benefit of having the bill go to committee at this stage. We would have much more time at committee to deal with it, as opposed to holding it up indefinitely. Maybe that would allow for more debate on Bill C-10 or another piece of legislation the Conservatives oppose.

Would the member not agree that the sooner this bill goes to committee, the more opportunity there would be for other bills, especially if we want it passed before the end of the year?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North often asks questions of that nature, saying, “Why not just hurry things through?” I think there is a big advantage, to members of Parliament and the people we represent, to debating important legislation like this in the chamber. If it had been hurried off to committee, I would not have had the opportunity to research it, learn more about it and speak to it, hopefully in a half-intelligent fashion.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with the brave military personnel who have suffered from sexual misconduct within our Canadian Armed Forces. Their courage in coming forward has exposed systemic failures that have persisted for far too long, and these failures demand our unwavering attention and action.

Let me be clear from the very onset that Conservatives unequivocally support victims of sexual misconduct. We believe they deserve justice, transparency and a workplace free from harassment, discrimination and abuse of power. This is not a partisan issue; it is about honouring the service of the people in uniform and ensuring their safety and dignity.

However, while victims deserve justice, they have been let down time and again, not just by individuals but by the very government charged with protecting them. The Liberal government has had a full decade to address the issues but has repeatedly failed Canadians and members of our armed forces. We must ask, why should Canadians, especially those in uniform, trust the government?

We saw one glaring example when the former minister of national defence, Harjit Sajjan, was complicit in covering up the sexual misconduct allegations against the former chief of the defence staff, General Jonathan Vance. When Sajjan was presented with evidence, he refused to accept it. Not only that, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also complicit in the cover-up for three long years. These were years of silence and inaction while victims waited for justice. Let us remember that the Justice Deschamps report commissioned under the previous Conservative government was delivered in 2015, with clear recommendations to tackle sexual misconduct, yet the Liberals sat on the report, leaving it to gather dust while the problems festered.

Fast-forward to years later, and what do we see? The government finally brings forward Bill C-11, but only after a decade of delaying and only when political cover became necessary. The bill, while containing some positive changes, raises more questions than it answers and introduces concerns about political interference that could further harm victims and service members alike.

National defence is not just about tanks, planes and ships; it is also about people, brave men and women, who put on the uniform every day to protect our country. They deserve respect and protection. We must invest not only in their equipment and training but also in creating a military culture free from harassment and misconduct. How can we expect a culture of accountability and readiness when the government continues to neglect funding, equipping and modernizing our military?

I will remind the House that the Royal Canadian Navy is operating decades-old warships well past their prime. Our Royal Canadian Air Force flies 40-year-old CF-18s that are past their operational life span, while the government has dithered with their replacement. The Canadian Army lacks basic resources, from personal protective equipment to modern artillery. There have been reports of soldiers buying their own equipment, and training has been cancelled due to budget cuts. Meanwhile, Canada remains well below NATO's 2% defence spending target.

As far as recruitment goes, the Canadian Armed Forces is facing a shortfall of 16,000 personnel.

The first responsibility of the federal government is the protection of Canada and those who serve us. We face a rapidly changing global threat environment, from Russia's invasion of Ukraine to the instability in the Middle East and growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific. Our military must be strong, prepared and respected, and this includes having a justice system that is fair and trusted.

Conservatives fully support transferring jurisdiction of most sexual offences committed in Canada from the military justice system to civilian authorities, as has been recommended by the respected Deschamps, Arbour and Fish reports.

Unfortunately, this is not the reality. Our civilian courts are under-resourced and overwhelmed. Court delays are rampant, and victims of sexual assault often see their cases dismissed or delayed under the Jordan principle, which forces charges to be stayed if trials are not held in a reasonable time frame. This means adding further trauma and uncertainty to survivors. According to testimony heard at the status of women committee, only a tiny fraction of reported sexual assault cases ever lead to convictions. Even then, penalties are minimal.

Victims deserve justice free of political gamesmanship, and the accused deserve a fair and impartial process.

Let me remind the House about the handling of Jonathan Vance's case. Despite credible allegations, the government gave Vance a raise while investigating his wrongdoing. It was a clear signal to victims that their suffering was secondary to political expediency. Moreover, the defence committee, which should have been a forum for accountability, was suspended for months amid Liberal filibustering, preventing proper oversight and investigation.

The government's pattern of delay, of denial, of shielding high-ranking officials and of stalling justice cannot be ignored. We have heart-wrenching testimony from survivors describing gang rape, sexual violations and the pervasive culture of silence within the military. They have waited years for reforms that have only just now been proposed. Bill C-11 may be a step forward, but it is long overdue and still incomplete. Victims deserve better than being used as political pawns.

Conservatives call on the government to finally take responsibility, implement meaningful changes now, ensure the civilian justice system is fully resourced to handle these cases, protect victims from further trauma and provide them with real justice.

To those who have suffered, we see them and we hear them. We stand with them. However, to those who have allowed this problem to persist for a decade with political games and cover-ups, the time for excuses is over. Our national security depends not only on weapons and strategy, but on the moral strength of our institutions. We owe it to every man and woman in uniform to uphold justice, integrity and respect.

Conservatives will continue to hold the government accountable for its failures and push for real reforms that serve victims, respect due process and restore trust in our Canadian Armed Forces.

The House resumed from October 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with privilege in support of Bill C-11, an important piece of legislation that strengthens the National Defence Act, modernizes our military justice system and, most importantly, centres the rights, safety and dignity of survivors of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces.

The legislation represents another critical step in our government's ongoing work to rebuild trust within the military community and to ensure that those who serve our country can do so in an environment that is safe, respectful and free from harassment or discrimination.

We ask a great deal of the men and women who serve in uniform. They are there for us in times of crisis, whether responding to natural disasters, supporting peacekeeping missions abroad, or standing ready to defend Canada. It is our duty to be there for them as well, to ensure that they are protected not only from external threats but from the harm that can exist within their own ranks.

In terms of responding to survivors and calls for change, Bill C-11 responds directly to recommendation 5 from the report of the former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, as well as eight recommendations from former justice Morris Fish's reports.

This bill would codify in law what has already been put into practice since 2021: that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. From now on, these offences will be investigated and prosecuted exclusively by civilian authorities.

This is a clear and necessary shift. The bill would provide survivors with clarity, with fairness and with the confidence that their cases will be handled outside the chain of command. It would also help ensure that sexual offences are treated consistently and transparently, aligning military procedures with the Criminal Code and the civilian justice system.

Bill C-11 would also establish a victim liaison officer to support survivors throughout this process, regardless of jurisdiction. It would enhance the independence of key justice actors within the military system to prevent real or perceived conflicts of interest.

Following the leadership of survivors and advocates, I want to take a moment to highlight some of the tremendous work that is being done in my home province of Nova Scotia to advance justice for survivors of sexual violence. Nova Scotia has become a national leader in confronting the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs. Thanks to the tireless efforts of survivors and these advocates, our province has recognized how NDAs have too often been used to silence victims of sexual assault, harassment and misconduct both in everyday life and in their work.

Through strong legislative leadership and community advocacy, Nova Scotia has taken bold steps, ending the use of NDAs that prevent survivors from speaking their truth. This movement is grounded in compassion, in fairness and in the belief that justice must never depend on silence. The courage of survivors to come forward, many from the military community, has brought us to this point today. Their voices have reshaped how we understand accountability and transparency, not just in the civilian world but within institutions that have historically struggled to face their own culture of misconduct.

In terms of the importance of implementing all of these recommendations, while Bill C-11 represents real progress, we must also see it as a broader commitment to implementing all 48 of Justice Arbour's recommendations and the recommendations of Justice Fish. We cannot stop at partial measures.

Implementing all recommendations is essential to building a durable culture of change within the Canadian Armed Forces. This includes addressing systemic discrimination, improving leadership accountability, enhancing victim support systems and ensuring that diversity and inclusion are embedded at every level of the institution. Our government has already implemented roughly 20 of Justice Arbour's recommendations, and we are on track to complete them all. As we move forward, we must also ensure that the survivors continue to be at the centre of every policy, every decision and every reform.

We need a culture of respect and trust. Culture change takes time and begins with clear action. It begins when we replace silence with transparency, when we move from protecting institutions to protecting people and when we show through legislation, not just words, that we are committed to justice and equality. Bill C-11 is about restoring confidence that victims will be heard, that justice will be fair and that no one is above the law. It is also about ensuring independence, that military justice actors are free from the influence of command structures and that survivors can trust the system to serve their interests, not its own reputation.

In closing, I want to recognize the strength and resilience of survivors in the Canadian Armed Forces and across the country, who demand better. Their courage has driven this change. As legislators, we have an obligation to honour that courage with meaningful action. Bill C-11 would do exactly that. Let us be clear that this is not a finish line. It is one more step in a larger effort to create a military culture grounded in dignity, equity and respect, a culture that reflects the values of the country our members have sworn to defend. As Nova Scotians have shown through their leadership on ending NDAs, progress is possible when we listen, when we act and when we refuse to accept silence as the price of peace.

I am proud to support the legislation, and I call on all members in all parts of the House to join me in supporting Bill C-11 for the women and men who serve, for the survivors who have spoken out and for a future in which every member in the Canadian Armed Forces serves with pride, safety and dignity.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I gather from the member's speech, as far as the seriousness of the government or the military commitment or leadership, is that the rights of those serving in the institution were neglected completely and ignored in terms of what happened in the last 10 years.

What in the bill would assure us that we are going to change the conduct of the past to give people the rights they deserve?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I just spoke about in my speech. It is about rebuilding that culture of trust. We can talk about the last 10 years of government or the last 10 years of this, but the bill would address recommendations that have been given to us. It is about amending the NDA to address Arbour's recommendations, which will, in turn, support victims.

I look forward to your voting with us on the bill when it comes time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would remind members to address their comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is transformative in the sense that sexual assault and harassment will be put in civil court as opposed to the military court process. This is, as the member put it, a very strong step forward. However, it is also important to recognize that after the reforms came forward, we had already started the shift to do that. That has been happening for the last couple of years.

Passing the legislation is the right thing to do, and we look forward to its going to committee. I would ask the member for her thoughts on the importance of the bill's going through the system.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, good morning to my colleague. When he asks that question, I reflect back to 2021 and how the military police has been asking complainants whether they wish for their cases to be investigated in the military or through civilian police. What we have been looking at, which is part of the recommendations list, is that we need to take the two apart and have it run through our civilian justice system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, cases of a sexual nature have been transferred to civilian authorities since the minister issued a directive to that affect in November 2021. Can the member speak to how that is working with regard, for example, to historical sexual assault cases, and I understand there have been some challenges with that, as well as the backlog we face in our courts and the implications of the Jordan decision?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member about the backlog, and it is unfortunate that we even have to talk about backlog when it comes to violence of a sexual nature within the military or within civilian life. I would also like to mention that as of July 29, 2024, the military police had referred 150 case files of offences in the criminal sexual offences code to civilian police, through federal, provincial, territorial and municipal agencies, since 2021. Following these consultations, or complaints, of these 150 cases, 103 of them have been accepted while 46 files have been declined by civilian police. Although the numbers are not 103 for 103, this tells me there is progress being made.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is new to the job. He inherited a mess from his predecessors and is now trying to fix a decade of Liberal mismanagement and neglect.

I hear him saying the right things about Bill C-11. I am sure he believed it when he stated:

Canada’s military justice system must reflect the values of fairness, accountability, and respect that Canadians expect. With this legislation, we are delivering on recommendations made by former Supreme Court of Canada Justices Arbour and Fish and taking decisive steps to strengthen trust in the Canadian Armed Forces. These reforms will help ensure that every member serves in a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment, one that upholds the highest standards of integrity, reinforces operational effectiveness, and honours the commitment of those who wear the uniform in service to Canada.

With bold words like these, it was, to put it mildly, disappointing to read in the Ottawa Citizen that Patrick White, the naval officer who brought to light an alleged serial sex offender in the Canadian navy whose crimes were being ignored by military leadership, is being released from the naval reserve against his will. Supposedly, there is no place for him, while, at the same time, the alleged perpetrator continues to serve.

What message does that send to members of our armed forces and to the Canadian public? The whistle-blower is dumped from the military, while the alleged criminal continues on as if nothing happened.

The issue is not which court and jurisdiction will deal with sexual assault charges involving those serving with the military, which is the scope of this bill. The issue is that those in charge of military justice and their superiors apparently do not see anything wrong with the status quo. If no charges are being laid, what does it matter which court has jurisdiction?

This is part of a disturbing Liberal trend on this issue. Covering up wrongdoing and avoiding transparency seem to be the norm. For example, in 2021, the then prime minister and his defence minister continually covered up information on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, going to great lengths to block investigations and hide the truth from Canadians. The former prime minister orchestrated a cover-up to hide the fact that his top aide and his defence minister had direct knowledge of a sexual misconduct allegation against the then chief of the defence staff. When sexual misconduct was studied at the national defence committee in 2021, the Liberals filibustered for weeks and then called an election before the committee was able to produce a report. This is an example of Liberal lack of transparency on this issue, something not fixed by a change in the justice system.

The Liberal government has had 10 years to tackle sexual misconduct in the military. In 2015, Justice Marie Deschamps issued her external review of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. The former Liberal minister of national defence had that report on his desk when he was sworn in. Did he act? Obviously, he did not. The Liberals ignored the problem for five years, then asked for another report. Then, just to be sure, they asked for a third report a year later.

When will military sexual trauma victims get the justice they deserve? The previous Conservative government took significant steps to protect Canadians and to stand with victims of crime. We understand that the highest priority for any government must be to ensure the safety of its citizens. This is a responsibility that the previous Conservative government took very seriously. Putting the rights of victims back at the heart of the criminal justice system is important to us. Standing up for victims means helping to ensure that victims have a more effective voice in the justice system and are treated with courtesy, compassion and the respect they deserve at every stage of the criminal justice process.

When a whistle-blower is told there is no place for him in the military while the alleged criminal keeps his job, it looks like the military criminal justice system is about the rights of criminals, not about supporting victims and certainly not about justice. No wonder our military is in crisis. It is not just antiquated and inadequate equipment. It is not just the lack of vision. It is a feeling that those in charge, the Liberal politicians and military leadership, cannot be trusted to do what is right for the men and women serving in our armed forces. They are not trusted to do what is right when confronted with allegations of a serious crime. No wonder enlistment is down and recruitment efforts are not gaining traction. Who would voluntarily enter what appears to be a toxic work environment?

It saddens me to say this, but I have little trust in the Liberal government's ability to bring justice to those who have been sexually assaulted while serving in our armed forces. I sincerely hope this legislation is not just Liberal virtue signalling. I hope to see a change in attitude towards sexual assault and a willingness to see prosecutions proceed swiftly and fairly. Changing the culture to make such crimes unacceptable may take time, but part of that culture change is showing that such behaviour will no longer be tolerated by leadership at every level of the Canadian military.

If moving jurisdiction for sexual assault away from military authorities to civilian ones results in an improvement in the way justice is administered in Canada, then, it would seem to me, this bill is worth supporting. However, is there any evidence this is actually the case, or will there still be cover-ups? The Liberal record for the past 10 years is one that has been soft on crime. We have seen violent offenders set free on bail to reoffend as a direct result of the Liberals' policy. Why would their attitude towards sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces be any different?

Conservatives believe we must continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. All victims of military sexual misconduct deserve timely justice. Does this bill deliver that?

The previous Conservative government accepted all recommendations in the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment from the Canadian Armed Forces. After 10 long years of Liberal government and two more reports from Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly. There are aspects of Bill C-11 that open the door to potential political interference and partisan appointments. Those include giving increased power to the Minister of National Defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions, and having the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal appointed by the Governor in Council.

Conservatives are proud of and support all men and women in uniform serving Canada. We believe they deserve a workplace free of sexual harassment. Maybe this legislation can be improved at the committee stage. Maybe the Liberals can convince us they are serious about dealing with sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. This time, let us hope they are actually doing something instead of just telling us there is a serious issue to be dealt with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that there has been no prime minister in the last 50 or 60 years who has done more for the Canadian Forces than the current Prime Minister, who was just elected a few months back, whether it is giving pay raises to members of our forces, the commitment of 2% of the GDP or looking at the true value of having this legislation brought in this fall and his commitment to trying to get it passed.

The biggest stumbling block, of course, on all three measures is getting the Conservatives on side and voting in favour of the types of initiatives the Prime Minister and the new government have put in place. When we look at Bill C-11, taking this from military into civilian courts is a good thing. We hope to get support from the Conservatives, but let us remember it has already been in process, in reality, for the last few years.

Would he not agree that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the hon. member on the government side would at least recognize the 10 years of misconduct, the 10 years of mismanagement and not taking the issues that happened in the military seriously. He used the podium to praise the current government. He missed my point when I spoke about the last 10 years, the last prime minister and what they have done by filibustering at the committee level to downplay this serious issue. That is what he is missing.

I hope that he will admit to those mistakes.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something I took very much to heart from the hon. member's comments is the Liberal government's failure with regard to the justice system, specifically on bail and sentencing reform.

At the justice committee, we did a bit of math. We noticed that, in the last 557 days, the only two pieces of justice legislation the government brought forward have been the online harms act and Bill C-9. That is it. We have a crisis on the streets of Toronto. The government is not willing to get serious about the crime and chaos on our streets.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. Canadians have seen complete neglect of the justice system in the way of approaching crime and the way of dealing with it. That is why I was hoping they would stand up today, admit to the mistakes of the past and assure us, and Canadians, that they can move forward seriously and honestly to make sure they correct the wrongdoing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the point of justice, I disagree with Conservatives. We do not advocate for an American-style criminal justice system. It is very different in terms of the whole “three strikes and you're out” thing.

Under the Prime Minister, again, through consultations, we have made a pledge to bring in bail reform. That means working with the different stakeholders.

Given the extent of consultations that have taken place and given that he knows we are going to receive bail reform legislation this fall, does the member concur that the Conservatives should get behind this type of legislation and, at the very least, when we do present it, allow it to get to committee stage so Canadians have the opportunity to provide direct—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government has not learned at all after the last 10 years. It is still the same rhetoric, name calling and talking about American politics to somehow convince Canadians otherwise. Liberals have to be serious. They are in government. They have to be serious about these issues and deal with them responsibly. That is what they are not hearing.

By the way, I insinuated in my speech that, if the government is serious, the bill could deserve to go to committee in order to enhance it, improve it and make it a better bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. In short, the bill would amend the National Defence Act by removing investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction in respect of sexual offences from the code of service discipline and would transfer such jurisdiction to civilian authorities on an exclusive basis to the extent that such offences are alleged to have arisen within Canada.

The legislation would implement recommendation 5 of the report of Madam Justice Deschamps, in which she undertook an external review of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces. Recommendation 5 is the only recommendation that requires a legislative change. I would note that the report of Madam Justice Deschamps was issued all the way back in March 2015. The government of the day, the Harper Conservative government, committed to implementing all 10 recommendations of the Deschamps report.

Of course shortly thereafter, there was a change of government. There was the election of the Liberals, and nothing was done. It is quite rich to see members across the way patting themselves on the back for introducing the legislation, because if in fact the legislation is the answer to addressing very real issues and challenges within the Canadian Armed Forces with respect to dealing with allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, then the Liberals have a lot to answer for, because it has taken them a full 10 years in government to finally introduce the legislation. However, I digress.

With respect to the substance of the bill, it would transfer jurisdiction from the code of service discipline to civilian authorities with respect to the investigation and prosecution of offences of a sexual nature within the Canadian Armed Forces. By way of background, I will say that the purpose of the code of service discipline is to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. That broad proposition has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1992 Généreux decision and the more recent 2019 Stillman decision, and it is stated in section 55 of the National Defence Act.

Conservatives stand with victims first and foremost, and it is on that basis that we will be supporting the legislation at second reading. That being said, I would submit that the bill warrants careful scrutiny when it is studied at committee. The legislation essentially stands for the proposition that the code of service discipline, the military justice system, is not fit for purpose, is not suitable and cannot be trusted to investigate offences of sexual assault and other sexual misconduct. That is the essence of the bill, whether the government would characterize it in that fashion or not.

It begs the question then, if that is so, what about other serious offences? The code of service discipline, after all, would apply to all other criminal offences within the Canadian Armed Forces; indeed, it would continue to apply to offences of a sexual nature where those offences are alleged to have arisen outside Canada. If concurrent jurisdiction of the code of service discipline is objectionable in the case of sexual offences, then should it not perhaps be considered objectionable in the case of other offences?

I say that in recognition of the uniqueness of sexual assault cases in terms of investigating and prosecuting them. I recognize that, but it does raise questions about whether the bill is a piecemeal or ad hoc approach to reform rather than a fully thought-out and comprehensive set of reforms to our military justice system.

I would, furthermore, ask what evidence there is that simply transferring the cases to the civilian authorities serves victims. I say that because there was a directive to the Minister of National Defence issued in November of 2021 to begin transferring sexual offence cases to the civilian authorities. I want to know to what extent that is working as intended. To what degree are these cases being prosecuted? What has been the rate of conviction? How are historical cases of sexual assault being proceeded with now that they fall within the jurisdiction of the civilian authorities? I understand there have been some challenges in that regard.

What about the extent to which prosecutions have been stayed because of a very real and serious backlog in our court system, having regard for the Jordan decision, which imposes a very strict timeline between the laying of charges and the conclusion of a trial, failing which there is a presumption of unreasonable delay and a stay of proceedings? I understand that this too has been an issue.

We need answers to these questions. We also need to better understand to what extent the bill would improve the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces now that the investigations of sexual assaults and sexual misconduct would largely fall outside of the chain of command and be transferred to the civilian authorities, absent a clear chain of responsibilities. To what degree would that impact how occurrences of sexual misconduct are handled, and to what extent might that put certain victims of sexual assault in a more vulnerable position? These are some of the many questions that need to be addressed.

I know that my Conservative colleagues on the national defence committee look forward to working with members on all sides of the House to hear from as many witnesses as possible, first and foremost from victims of sexual assault but also from actors within the military justice system, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, victims groups and so on. We need to have a thorough study to deal with some of the complexities that have to be addressed in what is a well-intentioned bill, the objective of which I support.

We need to get it right, first and foremost for victims of sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces who deserve a safe workplace, and we need to ensure, when it comes to the Canadian Armed Forces, that there is an improvement in the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member in the sense that I believe it is virtually unanimous in the House that the principle in the bill of taking the cases, including the investigations, from the military courts and putting them into the civilian courts, is the right step forward. We all agree with that.

The member raises valid concerns with respect to the transition. He is right; bringing cases over to the civilian system has been taking place for the last few years now. I would ultimately argue that the principles of the legislation are fairly well accepted. With respect to the details, I too share some of the concerns. I think there are variations between the different provinces and territories. The federal government has been working with the different stakeholders to try to iron out details of some of the situations.

I would concur, and I would ask the member this: Does he not agree that to get into that kind of detail, sometimes it is best to do that at the committee stage?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the member. There are a lot of nuances to the bill. There are a lot of details that have to be sorted, and there may very well be some amendments required to get it right, and that is why we are committed to seeing that the bill move forward to committee today.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I thank him for it. However, I would like to share an additional concern with the House.

We hope that there will be some changes in committee to allow for impartiality when there is a ruling. This being said, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is currently studying the issue of suicide among veterans.

Does my colleague agree that, beyond just the current legislation, there is a cultural phenomenon that exists and that we absolutely need to make a complete 180°?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the hon. member that there are cultural issues that have to be tackled.

There have also been well-documented instances of a failure to hold certain leaders within the Canadian Armed Forces accountable. It is not necessarily the systems that are in place and the code of service discipline that are the problem; it is what have been instances of a lack of accountability by individuals who have failed. Regrettably, the government was complicit in that regard when it played a major role in covering up the wrongdoing of Vance. That cover-up went all the way to the top, right to the former prime minister and to his chief of staff, Katie Telford.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech very clearly outlines what our concerns are and what our interest is in having the bill properly studied at committee.

I have to ask the member how we got to this place. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, and they have failed to prioritize and to take the proper action needed to redress the very deep issues within the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces that they have not only allowed to continue but in fact, through their actions, their complicity and the cover-ups, as mentioned by my hon. colleague, have also made worse for victims and for all members in uniform.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that, sadly, is the record of the Liberals. At every step of the way, they have dragged their feet. They say that this is needed, that this is the solution: take jurisdiction out of the code of service discipline when it comes to sexual offences and transfer it into the civilian system. That recommendation was recommendation 5 of Madam Deschamps' report, which was 10 years ago. Then the Liberals proceeded to have Justice Fish issue a report, and then they asked Justice Arbour to undertake the same study, the same review, that Madam Justice Deschamps had undertaken years earlier.

It is a record of inaction. It is a record of failure.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today is a particularly important day. No, it is not my birthday, and it is not my mother's birthday. This is a day that so many of us have looked forward to. Over my right shoulder is the other member of Parliament from Kamloops, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. I stand before this House with tremendous pride.

For those who do not know, I was a prosecutor before I was elected here. Most people have heard that far too many times, I know. One of the things I mostly prosecuted was Internet offences against kids. The term “child pornography” disgusted me. Children cannot consent. It is sexual abuse. Pornography depicts consenting adults.

In 2021, when I was running, I said my first order of business would be to change that law. I stood on doorsteps saying we would change that verbiage. When I gave my first speech in the House, I spoke about that. I spoke about a number of other things, but I called upon this House to do it. With my colleague and friend, I drafted the bill and he presented it. He sponsored the bill and, together, it navigated through the House of Commons and the Senate, and it received royal assent on October 10, 2024, one year ago today. That means that today the term “child pornography” disappears from the Canadian legal lexicon. It is called what it is: child sexual abuse and exploitation material. I am profoundly proud of that today.

Before I begin, I want to recognize Walter Behnke of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, an exceptional individual who has given so much. I appreciate all that he has done. I thank Walter for his tremendous contributions to our democracy.

I also want to highlight Daniel Martin and Karen Martin, two people who have contributed tremendously to the vitality of the democracy that is Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Daniel is a navy veteran, somebody who cares deeply for the flag, deeply for his country and deeply for others. The same goes for his wife, Karen, who I know volunteers as a lawyer. People think that lawyers are just there to make money. She actually retired at a relatively young age and still gives back to young lawyers. She still volunteers in any way she can. I thank them for what they have done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and for their tremendous contributions and assistance to me.

We are speaking here to Bill C-11. The crux of Bill C-11 is about sexual offending in the armed forces. The bill has two elements of the debate that I would love to raise. The first element of the debate is the colossal failure when it comes to sexual offences, particularly sexual offences in the military, but that is actually just symptomatic of the tremendous failure of the current Liberal government when it comes to sexual offences, period. The other issue, then, is, what do we do with it?

At the outset of this speech, I spoke about my experience prosecuting sexual offences against children. Most of those involved the Internet, but I also prosecuted a number of sexual offences, and I will say this: Victims who experience sexual trauma, at whatever age but particularly at a young age, live a psychological life sentence.

Let us make no mistake about this. The fact that the Liberals have not legislated on this is on their hands. The Harper government legislated on sex crimes, drugs and guns. The Liberals have repealed legislation on guns. We saw that in Bill C-5. The Liberals have legislated with respect to drugs. We saw that extensively with conditional sentence orders. They have not legislated on sex crimes. If the Liberals are so ideological, why will they not address sex crimes?

Perhaps I am getting animated, but if there is something to get animated about, it is that there are victims each and every day who walk with demons they do not see but that they feel and hear. They carry this pernicious offending, particularly against children, although it happens to adults too, for the rest of their lives, and the Liberals have not legislated on it. Someone can still commit a sex offence against a child and serve house arrest.

Robbery is the taking of property by force. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Sex assault is the taking of dignity and consent by force. The maximum sentence is 10 years. If someone takes a child's innocence, it is 14 years, but not to worry, house arrest is still an option.

When I get up here to speak about the military and sexual offending within the military, and when I get up to speak about sex offences generally, I am appalled at what we have done, or failed to do. It is actually even worse when we know of a problem and sit idle in Parliament.

I put forward Bill C-299 to add life imprisonment to sexual offences and put most sex offences on par with property offences. I was heckled when I introduced that bill. Then we wonder why we are in the state we are in where this insidious offending happens, completely under-reported. If we think it is under-reported in the military, I am sure it is just as under-reported in society. Myths and stereotypes abound: “Who will believe me?” These are the problems, and they have been perpetuated in the military by this House's inaction.

I challenge the Liberals across the way. I will try to look each and every one of those who are here in the eye and question what we are doing here. Why are we sitting here? We are talking about a really nuanced subject. We are talking about transferring investigative authority and prosecutorial authority to civilians in the prosecution service. That is something we have to recognize as an issue. Prosecuting sex offences is not easy, and I do not say that to pat myself on the back. I say that because it is something I had to learn to do. Investigating sexual offences is even harder.

I came across something recently. A police officer said that a victim had not said no. For those watching at home, it is not “no means no”. It is only “yes means yes”; that is it. These are the issues we are dealing with, and that was from a member of a police force that was not a military police force. We need widespread education, but if I can underscore one thing in this speech, it is that this House has failed when it comes to sex offences. We should all be ashamed.

We as Conservatives have faced push-back because we want mandatory minimums for an offence for which the victim is serving a psychological life sentence. People will say that it failed in the Harper era. It failed in the Harper era because all we needed was a safety valve to say “except in exceptional circumstances”. That is it. I implore one of my Liberal colleagues, Conservative colleagues, Bloc colleagues or anybody else to put that forward.

If there is one thing we should be prepared to do, it is to send people to jail when they hurt people sexually, especially in the military. My commitment to victims is this: For anybody who touches a kid, if I am in a position to legislate on it, I will not take my foot off the gas pedal until those offenders see the inside of a jail cell for a very long time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at what has been taking place over the last number of years, I believe there has been significant movement forward. It is one of the reasons that today we see sexual assaults being tried in the civil process as opposed to the military courts. Bill C-11, in essence, would put that into criminal law to ensure there is further clarity on the issue. This Prime Minister, understanding the impact on the Canadian Forces, has ensured that we have this bill before us today, and he has been the Prime Minister for less than six months.

We are hoping to see the legislation get to committee so that we can listen to what Canadians have to say about it. I agree that all members have a role to play on this, but I would also argue that all members are concerned about victims. The Prime Minister has demonstrated that by the commitment to having this legislation before us. Would the member not agree?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know we are all concerned. I would never say that we are not all concerned, but I am troubled by the fact that I have been here for an hour and it has only been that member who has asked questions on behalf of the Liberals when there are many talented Liberals sitting in the House who can talk about it.

Let us take the member's logic here to its end point. The Prime Minister is so concerned about sexual offences that Bill C-11 has been put forward. Well, correct me if I am wrong, but was this not already discussed in Parliament on a past occasion? If the Prime Minister is going to be such a leader on this issue, where is the legislation to punish sex offenders writ large? The Liberals have washed their hands of it.

With all due respect, I will accept the proposition that we, as members, believe that sex offences need to be dealt with appropriately. I will not believe the contention that the Prime Minister has made it a priority, because he has not made it a priority.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to point fingers at the government in power but I would like to ask my colleague a question. How is it that the Conservatives had the nerve to appoint a chief of the defence staff whose record was not unblemished?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I know the case my colleague is referring to. Obviously, I am not going to justify any appointment of any wrong person, period. I am not sure who made what appointments. I do not want to presume that we are referring to the same person.

I know there have been cover-ups. I believe there have been cover-ups, frankly, by the Liberal government. Those cover-ups are completely unacceptable, and those cover-ups should end. We should be appointing good people. I thank my Bloc colleague for raising that.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his commitment to prosecuting sexual crimes of any nature.

As a former journalist of many years, I covered not only court proceedings as a “court and cops” reporter, if you will. I also covered CFB Trenton, Canada's largest air base. In that role, I had occasion to report on and cover sexual assault cases heard before a court martial in hearing rooms at CFB Trenton.

On more than one occasion, it struck me that the accused was present in the room, represented quite often by a civilian lawyer, but the complainant, in almost all cases a woman in uniform, had to make her complaint in a room full of other uniformed individuals. Would my friend not agree that this setting is not the ideal setting for this kind of complaint, and that it should be in the civilian realm?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have had the pleasure of meeting my colleague across the way. In case we have, I apologize, but I do welcome him to the chamber.

Under the Criminal Code, I believe under section 486.3 or something like that, there are witness accommodations that are available in the civilian system. I am not a military expert, so I do not know if those accommodations are available there, but I would support those accommodations being available. There are things like screens, or testifying from a separate room by CCTV. Victims should have access to those, so I would agree.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that it carry on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)