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 and provide for exceptions;
(d) [ Deleted ]
(d.1) provide for the development of a plan for the establishment of an office of the inspectorgeneral for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces;
(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 or an accused 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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

moved that Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open third 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. This legislation is about the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is about ensuring their safety here in Canada and around the world.

The people of the Canadian Armed Forces are at the heart of everything we do, whether they are defending our sovereignty at home, supporting our allies abroad or serving at bases and wings across Canada.

As a military parent and as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have had the immense privilege of meeting many members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families across the country and abroad. I have an incredible amount of respect for military members and their families as they serve Canada, and I am deeply grateful for their steadfast dedication to Canadians.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces keep us safe every day. In turn, it is our responsibility to ensure that they have a work environment where they feel protected, respected and empowered to serve. Our forces deserve a workplace free from all behaviours that harm our people, threaten morale and undermine team cohesion, including the reprehensible act of sexual misconduct.

We know that a strong, diverse, united and capable armed forces is what we need to defend Canada. It is essential that we eradicate any behaviours that run counter to a healthy workplace. Our operational effectiveness, recruitment and retention depend on our ability to create an environment where our forces can grow their careers for decades to come. Bill C-11 proposes a range of important changes to the National Defence Act designed to support this essential work of keeping our forces safe and helping them thrive in a healthy workplace.

Canada's military justice system must not only reflect the values of fairness, accountability and respect, but also uphold the trust that 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 also modifying the appointment process for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services by making them Governor in Council appointees, and we are changing the term of those positions 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 Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by expanding access to victim liaison officers for individuals acting on behalf of a victim.

Fourth, the bill aligns the military justice system's provisions regarding sex offender information and publication bans with the amendments already made to the Criminal Code in 2023.

These comprehensive recommendations aimed at reforming our military justice system are just one part of a broader transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces. We would make important changes to how we screen new recruits, how we manage Canada's two military colleges, in Kingston and in Saint-Jean, and how we collect, store and use data on workplace harassment, among other things.

These are real, tangible and meaningful changes that would help to get more people in the door more effectively. For example, we would also be instituting a new probationary period for new recruits. This would allow applicants to enrol and to begin their training while the administrative work related to their application file is completed. This is something that multiple external examiners suggested the Canadian Armed Forces implement.

There would be added benefits to the implementation of this recommendation too. For example, during the probationary period, applicants would have to pass the required security clearance check, meet medical standards and show that they live by the Canadian Armed Forces' ethos and values. We need to ensure that our military better reflects the country it serves by drawing from the very best people Canada has to offer, but let me be clear: We will not tolerate bad behaviour.

We are already starting to see positive impacts of the implementation of these recommendations. In fact, our recruitment efforts are already paying 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. This year, we had the highest enrolment for the Canadian Armed Forces in the past 30 years. Applications more than doubled, to over 45,000. The Canadian Armed Forces enrolled 7,310 regular force members, and 70 of the 97 critical roles are now filled.

This is good news for Canada, for Canadians and for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we still have work to do to foster a culture within the Canadian Armed Forces that is rooted in dignity, inclusion and respect for everyone who serves. We know we need to keep our foot on the gas to create a modern 21st-century workplace that can foster the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces. As I have mentioned in previous debate on this legislation, Bill C-11 would fulfill several recommendations put forward in the reviews conducted by former Supreme Court Justices Arbour and Fish.

In addition, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs submitted its 15th report, entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”, in June 2024. This study was the largest study that the committee had ever undertaken. Almost 100 individuals appeared over the course of 23 meetings, and in that report, passed in the House, the committee's recommendation 40 reads:

That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities.

I would like to note that we are also making important progress on many of the other recommendations as part of our broader cultural evolution efforts. For example, in the independent external comprehensive review, Justice Arbour detailed 48 recommendations on everything from recruitment to training and oversight. I am very proud to share that, to date, we have implemented 47 of those 48 recommendations.

We made progress on Madam 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 would ensure that we are better able to address each form of inappropriate conduct through the proper legal, administrative and disciplinary means.

The Canadian Armed Forces has also adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of harassment and violence. This change now allows the defence team to take a unified approach to addressing cases of workplace harassment and violence, applicable to both public servants and members of the armed forces. All incidents of harassment and violence within the defence team will be managed through the workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This measure came in response to Ms. Arbour's third recommendation.

We also acted on recommendations seven and nine of Justice Arbour's report by allowing Canadian Armed Forces members who experience sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, sexual crimes or any other form of discrimination based on sex or gender in the course of their duties to contact the Canadian Human Rights Commission directly.

As many members know, the former external monitor, Madam Jocelyne Therrien, provided regular public evaluations of our progress in implementing these recommendations, including releasing six biannual status reports over the course of her term. Madam 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, guidance and dedication.

In April 2021, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces launched a comprehensive initiative aimed at aligning the culture of the Department of National Defence and the professional conduct of its personnel with the fundamental values and ethical principles we aspire to uphold as a national institution. Since then, we have taken significant steps to evolve our culture and implement concrete changes, including taking measures to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination.

This work encompasses a wide range of responsibilities, such as developing policies and programs that address systemic misconduct, improving mechanisms for monitoring and reporting misconduct, and overseeing the development of a framework for professional conduct and organizational culture that combats discrimination, harmful behaviour, bias and systemic barriers.

To support these efforts, and as we reaffirmed in budget 2024, we are investing nearly $1 billion over 20 years to facilitate these changes within the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are proposing amendments to the National Defence Act to implement key recommendations aimed at transforming the organizational culture.

We have also launched a comprehensive plan designed to guide our efforts to implement the various recommendations. We recognize that cultural change is a gradual process that unfolds step by step and takes time. It requires sustained and ongoing effort. It is essential to the well-being and operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would also like to emphasize that changing the culture and improving the Canadian Armed Forces should be a goal that unites us as parliamentarians, not one that divides us. Improving and strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces is not, and should never be, a partisan issue.

We continue to listen and learn from members of the defence team, external stakeholders, communities and partners as we work to create a safer and more inclusive work environment. We are making real, tangible progress, but we recognize that there is still much more work to be done. This is why we also need to ensure that victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces get the support, the care and the resources they need.

In line with Justice Arbour's recommendation 14 of the independent external comprehensive review, we have worked hard to provide a suite of supports for victims and survivors. Much of that support comes from the sexual misconduct support and resource centre. This centre, which operates independently of the chain of command, provides specialized advice, guidance and recommendations to personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence on all matters related to sexual misconduct. It includes a 24‑7 hotline that offers personnel confidential support, information on available options, advice on how to help others and referrals to care and services.

I would also like to point out that the independent legal assistance program is another valuable mechanism for supporting victims. It offers free and confidential legal assistance, including legal information and advice regarding incidents of sexual misconduct that occurred in a context related to DND and the CAF. It also offers legal representation in certain proceedings related to sexual criminal offences or military offences, the victim's safety or their participation in the judicial process. By offering timely, independent and trauma-informed support, the program plays a critical role in expanding access to justice and choice for affected persons.

It is important to note that there have been important progress and tangible changes since 2021. This is precisely because of the interim directive that put Justice Arbour's recommendation number five into place in a temporary manner, until such time as legislation could be passed through Parliament. As Justice Arbour herself acknowledged in her report, removing concurrent jurisdiction by amending the National Defence Act will “take several years to implement.”

Since 2021, work on cultural evolution inside the Canadian Armed Forces has continued, and we have now implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations. To block Arbour's recommendation number five would be to undo the progress of the past five years.

I want to conclude by reminding members that delivering a culture change is not only the right thing to do, but it is critical for our operational needs. This is not a partisan issue. Our national security is only as strong as our people. Our forces deserve to work in a modern, transparent and trustworthy 21st-century workplace where they can thrive.

That is precisely why we introduced Bill C‑11: to codify in law key recommendations from justices Arbour and Fish. Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation calls for the removal of CAF jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences. This is also in line with recommendation 40 of the ACVA committee. After hearing from almost 100 witnesses, parliamentarians on that committee agreed that this is the right thing to do.

In 2021, upon receipt of Justice Arbour's report, we promised Canadians and members of the Canadian Armed Forces that we would implement this critical recommendation. With Bill C-11, a promise made is a promise kept.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words coming from the parliamentary secretary, and I can agree with some of them. As a woman, I know that women are more predominantly the victims of sexual misconduct and sexual assault, so this bill means something to me.

However, for women and all victims and survivors of sexual assault, the thing that is taken from them is choice at that time. I would suggest that this bill would also remove choice for those folks who want choice in how justice is continued for their case.

In addition, she said that this was non-partisan. It is my understanding that the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc put forward amendments that were passed and that the Liberals have rejected. I would like to understand that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of choice, victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself called the victim's choice between military and civilian courts a false choice. This is because we would be placing a burden on the victim in a time of stress and trauma to choose between two unequal options. Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain of command interference in a Criminal Code case, does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite correct to say that this is not, and must never become, a partisan issue. I would like to ask her a question that touches a bit on the topic discussed by my Conservative colleague earlier.

Can my colleague explain why, after the Liberal government became a majority, it scrapped every amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP?

To me, things seem to be taking a partisan turn. In any case, if not partisan, it is strange. Does this mean that the Liberal government has a corner on the truth and does not need to work in collaboration with the opposition parties?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs submitted a report in 2024 after hearing from more than 100 witnesses. The committee drafted a recommendation to the House to do exactly what we are doing now through Bill C-11.

We listened to the victims and to the recommendations of a number of Supreme Court justices. The chief of the defence staff also spoke with over 14,000 CAF members. I spoke with current CAF members myself and asked them to send me their recommendations. They are concerned that bad habits could resurface if the days when CAF performed the analyses and led the legal proceedings were to return. We told them unequivocally that we were going to implement recommendation five, which is precisely what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday here, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean asked a question on Bill C-11 of the Minister of National Defence. It was a Liberal member asking the Liberal minister if the Liberals would include a sunset clause, which they had removed and which we had already agreed to at committee stage.

The parliamentary secretary actually voted for that amendment, to go from a three-year to a four-year anniversary to bring in a review and a sunset clause. Then the Liberal minister, not listening to our committee, with the report we brought forward, and not listening to the survivors of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault, decided to ram it through and take that out. Now the Liberals are saying, according to the minister, that they would be open to the unelected Senate bringing forward that amendment.

The parliamentary secretary sat on the committee, heard the witnesses say that they wanted a sunset clause, voted for a sunset clause, and then her very own minister gutted the bill and she voted for him to gut the bill of these amendments. Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, actually, I agree with keeping the sunset clause in the bill, and I support the idea of having that put back in. I agreed in committee to put that in, including a four‑year sunset clause with a review of both houses of Parliament. I agree that we hope the Senate, when it does the review of this bill and is going through that process, includes that recommendation and any other recommendations that will strengthen the bill.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her hard work. She has been working on implementing these changes for a long time.

As she explained in her speech, many changes have been made. Almost all of Justice Arbour's recommendations have been implemented. I believe this is an important step for justice and for people who want to work in the armed forces.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. For racialized people, for women who have been victims of abuse of power, can she explain to us what we can expect regarding these changes aimed at encouraging more women and people of colour to apply to join the armed forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that back in 2021, when we launched the inquiry into what had happened within the Canadian Armed Forces, very few people wanted to enlist. There was a lack of trust. Families did not want their children to join the Canadian Armed Forces. I myself have two children and a daughter-in-law who are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. How could I ask another family to let their children enlist in the CAF knowing that they might become victims?

We have made efforts to change the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces. We have implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations. Today, we are seeing a significant increase in enrolment. Our plan is working.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know she is very passionate about this issue. She is standing up for women who have been victims of sexual misconduct while serving in the military. Bill C‑11 addresses many of the recommendations in Louise Arbour's report.

Honestly, what surprises me is that some victims appeared before the committee during its study, and the victims themselves were asking for more protection. As a result, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP all introduced amendments, which were adopted based on the victims' evidence. However, because of its majority in the House, the government rejected them.

I do not know how the member can face any of those victims, who must be disappointed today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have always listened to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families, and I always will. I have been listening to them for years now, and I have heard their accounts.

We introduced Bill C-66 in the last Parliament. It was the same as Bill C-11. We introduced this bill in response to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, as well as those of Justice Arbour, who made it very clear that those powers should be removed from the Canadian Armed Forces. No employer in Canada conducts its own investigations and prosecutions involving its own employees.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Justice Arbour for her report, as well as congratulate her on her recent appointment as Governor General.

With the world more and more uncertain and divisive, I would like to ask my colleague if she can speak to the importance of passing this legislation as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous response, we brought forward Bill C‑66 in the last Parliament to enact this, to make it permanent into law. Unfortunately, that did not go through. We are bringing it forward. We were very clear in the election that we were going to do this. We made sure everyone knew we were doing this, and we are going to finish it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always important that I get to participate in these debates. First and foremost, I just want to thank the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard, who are out there every day, risking life and limb to keep us safe here at home, to secure our borders and to protect our security.

It is often said that having a strong military actually ensures that we have economic prosperity. Having a prosperous country hardens our national security and our national defence. We need to continue to support those in the armed forces in everything that they do.

On Bill C-11, we have worked very hard on the bill for the last year. As the shadow minister of national defence, this is something that is near and dear to my heart, in standing up for those who have served or are serving and who have been dealing with sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Nobody should have to go to work and experience danger that is imposed by their fellow colleagues. When we have to deal with individuals who are being aggressive, individuals who are going to carry out sexual misconduct, that is not a safe work environment.

We look at the brave women and men who serve. They have already decided to step up and do one of the most dangerous things in the world, which is to protect our great nation. Instead of fighting the enemy, they are actually fighting off their fellow soldiers, aviators and sailors who are carrying out sexual misconduct. We have to stop that.

I tell members that I am so disappointed in the Liberal government for not listening to those who serve, not listening to the survivors, not listening to veterans and not listening to police forces across this country, who have all said that we need to ensure that the agency of the victim is protected and that they have the choice to choose which justice system their cases are heard in, whether it is in the military justice system or in the civilian system.

The Liberal government decided to be performative rather than pragmatic. Rather than taking the advice of veterans, rather than taking the advice of those who carry out military justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, rather than listening to police agencies and barristers and military justice experts, the Liberals are ignoring all of that because of the one thing they continue to hide behind, which is the Arbour report.

The government decided to choose political expediency instead of actually bringing in a function within the military that works for everyone, not just those few at the top of the Canadian Armed Forces who are just trying to push this off their table. The Liberals are trying to pass the buck rather than take responsibility.

We heard from so many of the victims at committee, when we studied Bill C-11. The reasoning they brought forward was the inspiration to make the amendments that we proposed at report stage, which were supported by the committee. I fear that, by the Liberals ignoring that advice, that brave and courageous testimony that we heard at committee, the Liberals are retraumatizing these victims.

It just breaks my heart to know that these brave souls stepped up to tell their personal stories of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, sometimes happening many times over their careers. To have that thrown by the wayside at report stage, by the Minister of National Defence, proves that the government is not listening to those who are impacted.

In reality, with what Bill C-11 does, especially here, as we are at third reading, all sexual misconduct and assault is going to be pushed off into the civilian system. There are higher thresholds there before a case will even proceed to prosecution and actually have success within the civilian justice system.

That means that more of these perpetrators, more of these individuals who are committing sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, are going to walk free. Bill C-11 would remove all accountability, all prosecution and the ability to court-martial and carry out punitive measures against those perpetrators. Whether it is high-level or low-level sexual misconduct, removing that from the military would mean no accountability for those who are accused of carrying out sexual misconduct. That also would mean there would be no justice for those who have experienced sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Liberals decided, now that they have their new-found, stolen majority, to run roughshod over Parliament and run roughshod over committees, and overturn all the hard work we did. We worked across party lines to bring forward very reasonable amendments to Bill C-11 that would make Bill C-11 work for those who are serving and work for those who are having to deal with sexual misconduct. We want to be able to use all the tools that are now available within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside the Canadian Armed Forces.

Instead, the Liberals decided to make the bill narrowcasted and unable to carry out the justice that victims of sexual misconduct are looking for. They are using their stolen majority and are even ignoring the advice of the Liberal members who sat on the national defence committee and helped make many of the amendments that were gutted at report stage.

That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting Bill C-11 at third reading. It is a slap in the face to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It ignores advice that came from the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, who said that they can do the job and that they have changed because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Arbour report. They have upgraded their skills and processes to investigate, to prosecute and to hold those to account within the Canadian Armed Forces.

As a matter of fact, they would still have to do that for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when they are outside Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual assault, as defined by the Criminal Code, would still be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces military justice system and under the superintendency of the judge advocate general. It would still be prosecuted if someone is stationed in Latvia, England or Kuwait. Wherever we have our forces stationed, its members would still be subject to military justice, except when they are in Canada. When they are in Canada, that is taken away from the military and from the victims who want choice.

I have to say how important choice is. It is about making sure that those victims maintain agency and franchise over their rights and decide which system is in their best interest. We know things have changed since Justice Arbour had her meetings and hearings with Canadian Armed Forces members. That is going back seven years now and the military has adjusted. New agencies have been put in place.

Let us look at some of the testimony.

Hélène Le Scelleur appeared at committee a couple of times going back several years. She said the following:

Survivors must have the right to choose between civilian and military systems at all times, regardless of location or rank. Choice is not procedural. It is freedom: freedom from our aggressors and freedom from the silence that institutions have imposed upon us. I want to be clear that even with this choice, neither system is sufficient on its own. The military system understands the operational context. The civilian system provides independence and oversight.

We would have balance and what the government wants to do is remove that balance.

In another committee hearing a few weeks ago, we talked about how important it is to have choice in cases where someone was in a jurisdiction where their official language was not spoken. In her case, being from Quebec, a francophone, even though she is bilingual, she said:

... when we're talking about really specific things related to trauma or sensitive issues, I don't think I would be doing it in my second language, because when you're vulnerable, you don't have access to all of the vocabulary you would normally have. I would rather have the option of choosing the military way to make sure that I am going to have services in French, instead of the example you provided of staying in Alberta and having my case dealt with there when I'm from Quebec.

She went on to talk about how she would not be able to get the high-level French support that she would need to go through the civilian justice system within the province of Alberta.

Brigadier-General Hanrahan, who is the Canadian Forces provost marshal general and also the person in charge of the military police and the National Investigative Services, said, “At any point in the process with concurrent jurisdiction”, which means having both the justice system in the military and having access to the civilian justice system, “there's an ability to have a choice change....Concurrent jurisdiction allows us, from an investigative perspective and a prosecutorial perspective, to work with the victim to help them work through those choices at any point along that process.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in its submission to the national defence committee, said when it came to the provisions of Bill C-11:

Bill C-11 would deny victims and survivors the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint might be investigated. This approach departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing.

The one sad part in all of this is that the government is not providing any extra resources to local police forces, when our military bases are set up to take on these extra cases, that they are going to have to investigate on base now. It is not giving any extra resources to the provincial justice systems, so the courts would not be able to deal with the influx of cases that may be brought in. We know that the Jordan framework kicks in, the clock starts ticking and that justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, at the end of the day, we know that with the backlog that already exists within the civilian courts across this country in all jurisdictions, because of the lack of judges, prosecutors and court time, a lot of these cases are going to be thrown out.

We know that, with low-level sexual misconduct cases that are dealt with right now within the Canadian Armed Forces, if they were transferred over into the civilian system the prosecutors would not proceed with the case if they did not think they were going to be successful in front of a judge. That is why, again, we need to provide the choice to our victims and our veterans.

Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who is the former director of military prosecutions, said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.”

That is exactly what Bill C‑11 does. It gives the power to the perpetrator, taking it away from the victim. That is disgusting.

I have to say that we heard from a lot of military experts, some of whom are professors, some of whom used to serve in the military, some of whom are doing both; they are professors of law as well as captains within the Canadian Armed Forces, majors or higher. Afton David is one of them. She said:

I would submit that from my perspective, they should all have a choice…considering both the safeguards and entitlements to the accused, but also the safeguards and entitlements to the victims now within the military justice system, I think we should at least give it a chance to deal with all the levels of sexual misconduct.

Even though all of these changes have happened within the Canadian Armed Forces, the Liberals are throwing it out.

We talked about the civilian system. We heard from lawyers across the country. The Barreau du Québec said it “considers that it would be appropriate to resolve these challenges by amending the bill so as to give victims the choice to decide which system would be best for them, given the circumstances of their situation.”

We should not be going carte blanche and trying to force every case into the civilian system. We need to make sure the lower levels are handled within the military justice system so that appropriate measures can be taken, the code of service discipline is maintained and, at the end of the day, the administration of justice happens, whether it is with respect to a low-level sexual misconduct, inappropriate touching, comments and things like that versus an actual full-on sexual assault.

One thing that came from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that I think we need to consider is that the CACP “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction.” It says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”.

If we look at how Bill C-11, and clause 7 in particular, is written, it would take away the power of the military to actually do its own investigations. If all the evidence is on base or at a training exercise, that evidence could not be collected by the military police. They would have to wait till the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Quebec provincial police or the local municipal police agency showed up to start taking statements from witnesses and making sure it collects all the evidence. What would happen when we are training on Operation Nanook, up in the High Arctic? How would they get there in a timely manner? We always have military police accompanying our forces wherever they are.

We talk about making sure there is ongoing accountability, and I will just touch on some of this quickly. Dr. Karen Breeck is a retired veteran who has worked with members of the veterans community who have experienced military sexual trauma. She says, “The bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases.”

Jessica Miller, who is a survivor, wrote, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates, and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.”

This is important to note. We have already had the civilian system at play since the minister gave the directive to the director of military prosecutions to start prosecuting all cases of sexual misconduct in the civilian system four years ago. We have four years of data now, and that experience has not been in the best interest of the victims. All we have to do is look at some of the high-profile cases that have gone before the courts and have been thrown out or had the charges stayed because of a lack of evidence or because they did not hit the threshold of actual prosecution.

Afton David also said, “Bill C-11 effectively nullifies the code of service discipline's jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences that occur in Canada, rather than transferring jurisdiction. That decision risks passing responsibility to the civilian system without resolving the systemic causes that produce a loss of confidence in military justice in the first place.”

That is a problem. We are going to lose more confidence. We are going to continue to have a situation where all this is going to be removed from the military. That is going to erode leadership and allow leadership to turn a blind eye to the sexual misconduct happening within the Canadian Armed Forces because it will be expected that the civilian system will be handling it.

There is so much more here if we want to really look at doing what is right. Rory Fowler says, “If we want the leadership of the Canadian Forces to ensure that everybody in the Canadian Forces is treated fairly, is listened to and has a voice, then you have to give them the tools to do so. When they fail to use those tools, you have to hold them accountable, and that goes all the way up to the Minister of National Defence.”

He goes on to say that “you can't legislate good leadership and you can't legislate culture change. What you can do is have legislation that allows you to hold leaders accountable.”

Bill C-11 would do none of that. The leadership would still get to pass the buck.

We have talked about the concern that there might be political interference with this bill, that it has been done with political expediency. I have to say, there was a sunset clause, and I asked the parliamentary secretary about it. It was clause 70.3. We added five paragraphs. It was unanimously accepted at committee. The sunset clause is important, and unfortunately, the government took it out.

Knowing that we are opposing the bill, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on National Defence for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 7 to 9, 15, 17, 40, 60 and 61 with the view to amend the bill so as to better reflect the views expressed by military sexual assault survivors and military justice experts in their testimony before the committee”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised, but I am disappointed in the Conservatives for their position on Bill C-11. I think they undervalue the tremendous work that former Justice Arbour did in providing the recommendations that the essence of the legislation is all about. There were 48 recommendations. I believe 36 of them have already been implemented. At the core is the transfer of cases from military authorities to civil justice authorities. That is the very core. Arbour met with hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, everyone from victims to advocates. She herself, who is going to be our next governor general, is recognized around the world as someone who has incredible credentials.

Why is the Conservative Party not agreeing with those recommendations and the essence of the Arbour report?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always disappointed with the member for Winnipeg North. He does not listen to anyone because he is always too busy flapping his lips. If he actually read the testimony we had at the national defence committee, if he had actually heard from victims, they would all have told him that things have changed since Arbour did her report seven years ago. She did all her interviews, she wrote her report, and it was not accepted by the government until five years ago.

The director of military prosecutions within the Canadian Armed Forces even said that he gave the directive to start doing concurrent prosecutions, allowing victims to choose to go into the civilian system. Here we are five years later, and he said that if it was not for Bill C-11, he would have rescinded that order because the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a better job at prosecuting those cases, and victims are telling us that the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a better job of prosecuting those cases than—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Question and comments, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his meticulousness and excellent work, as well as on his insightful analysis of the work of the parliamentary secretary across the way.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments. I hear him talking about the amendment that was intended to give victims a choice. We hear a lot of talk in Parliament about the need to consider victims and ensure they receive support and care. We had voted to uphold a request from victims, namely to have a choice, and the government unilaterally removed that provision after securing a majority, through backroom deals to boot.

I would like my colleague to respond to that. Does he not think there is a danger or a shift on the part of the Liberal Party, which believes it has a monopoly on the truth?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP worked very closely together to bring about the amendments that we wanted at committee. Even Liberal members of the national defence committee wanted to see changes brought in. The importance of choice is something that we heard over and over again. It was the only way we could ensure that the victims would be getting the justice that they so rightly deserve. With the changes that have already occurred within the Canadian Armed Forces, there are more and more opportunities for victims to get the help they need and carry through with the prosecution that gives them the justice they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague just to elaborate a bit more on where the improvements have happened. In fact, ever since that direction to try to move many of the Criminal Code sex offences over to the civilian courts, unfortunately, there have been obstacles that the military police have run into, and lots of these police jurisdictions refuse to accept it because of that higher threshold, so there are victims not getting the justice they need.

However, because this law, Bill C-11, has not passed, the military police are able to do that. Not only have they learned. Not only is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights there, which has come in within the military. Not only has all of this changed, but we actually have landed on the solution and we do not need to change things. Right now, we have a military police system that will try to move things over to the civilian courts when a case is severe enough, but at the same time, they can ensure that justice is served. Would the member agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his incredible service to this country as a colonel within the Canadian Armed Forces.

He is right. So much has changed over the last five years. The Victims Bill of Rights has come in. It was adopted by the Canadian Armed Forces. It is in the National Defence Act now. That ensures the rights of the victim are always paramount and ensures that victim-focused lens in how we deal with every single case. We know that the military sexual misconduct resource centres have been set up across the country to provide assistance to those individuals who have experienced sexual misconduct, to make sure they get the counselling they deserve and also to determine which system works best for them based upon their case.

We know that the training within the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Canadian Armed Forces military police, as well as in the prosecution and defence counsel services, those that are within the judge advocate general's purview, have all improved to the point that it is better than the civilian system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, can the Conservative Party now confirm that it wants us to go back to the old system and not have the civilian justice system involved?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in Bill C-11 that we did support. The problem is that at report stage, the government removed all of the amendments that actually improved the bill and have gone back to a paternalistic system that would not work for victims. We cannot support it.

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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a friend who passed away. It is related to the issue before us, because he was a great citizen who believed in justice. For him, justice meant leaving a healthy planet and clean water for future generations.

We have lost a great citizen in Louis Trudeau. He devoted much of his life to protecting the Bayonne river, and he worked to raise awareness of water issues by giving talks and writing books. He encouraged people to plant trees along riverbanks and get involved in community cleanups. He was the co-founder of the Bayonne watershed organization, and he used the proceeds from his books to fund that organization's work. As his team said so well:

Louis like[d] to remind us that water knows no political boundaries. What happens upstream also affects those downstream. His actions reflect[ed] this universal connection. Today, his legacy lives on. It flows through the rivers, whispers in the forests and echoes in the decisions that we make and in the partnerships that we build.

Mr. Trudeau will always be an inspiration. I thank him.

I am going to take a moment to compose myself before talking about military justice. I would like to set the record straight from the outset, as the Liberal Party's comments this morning were somewhat ambiguous: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑11. We always have and always will, because it is important to look after victims and it is also important to make the Canadian Armed Forces a safe place to work. A strong army is one of the foundations of a lasting democracy. We need people who are trained and properly equipped, but Canada's performance on that score has long been shoddy. We are gradually putting that right. We just need to ensure we do so reasonably, but it is essential. It is the foundation.

Not being able to guarantee the safety, physical well-being and freedom from intimidation of those who serve is a major shortcoming. That is why we have always supported the idea of improving this justice system. Stories like the ones we have heard, including those involving Mr. Vance and Mr. McDonald, who left their posts amid scandal or allegations, must never happen again. In that sense, we agree with the bill.

However, we condemn this arrogant government for using its new backroom majority, courtesy of floor crossers, to completely scrap all the work that was previously done. To me, that is serious. I hope that people on the other side are hearing me, because this is very important. Scrapping constructive, collaborative work accomplished through negotiation and goodwill is a serious matter.

The first Liberal speaker this morning said that reforming the military justice system is not, and should never be, a partisan issue. I completely agree with that statement, but her rhetoric contradicts the government's actions in recent weeks. That is where I see a major discrepancy, a major problem. It feels like I have been doing this constantly for the past few weeks, but I am once again asking the government to collaborate. We are reaching out to the government and offering to work together. However, the government has to be willing to hear us.

I am going to say something in the interest of the common good, which all of us here are expected to promote: Just because the government has secured a majority does not mean that it suddenly has a monopoly on the truth. The fact that people are members of the opposition does not make them idiots. They are capable of coming up with intelligent proposals. I am not saying that partisan politics never happens, but in the case of Bill C‑11 especially, I believe that we did some very high-quality work. Incidentally, the last person who crossed the floor from the NDP had worked on that bill. She had moved her own amendments, but she voted against them after crossing the floor. I am struggling to make sense of that.

I will get to the crux of the matter, because I do not have much time left. I want to talk about one of the things we find particularly troubling. After having met with victims' representatives and some victims themselves, it became clear that victims wanted charges related to sexual offences to be handled outside the military justice system. There was a consensus on this. However, and this is crucial, these victims also asked, with all the nuance and sensitivity that such a matter requires, that the final decision be left up to the victims. The bill was amended to reflect that. We negotiated that with the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, and it is fundamental.

Then the Liberals got a majority and said the amendments were no longer acceptable. It is terribly sad, because some victims might prefer the other option, and that is their fundamental right. Members here can give lofty speeches about caring about victims' rights, about how they need support and proper representation, and about how our justice system unfortunately often gives the impression that it cares more about the fate of the accused than that of the victims. Then, all of a sudden, the government comes up with something like this and takes away that option. Personally, I do not understand. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary will be able to explain it to me. I would like him to explain it to me, because I really do not understand that part.

We also ensured that the legislation clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That was removed too. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans could be appointed as military judges, and we insisted that military judges should be released from the army. The government removed that. I think it was a good measure. If we are carrying out a reform and want to ensure that judges are independent, they cannot be judges and also be subject to the directives of their superiors. They may well be called upon to interpret their superiors' actions. It is nonsense. I do not understand the logic.

The Liberals might say that they have a majority and can do as they please. Message received. Nevertheless, I would like an explanation today as to why the amendment concerning victims' choice to go through the civilian court system was removed. Also, why was the amendment that would have made judges more independent removed? It is truly sad, especially since, in their speeches this morning, the Liberals told us that they had listened to numerous victims, that they had done a really good job, that they had listened to thousands of people. I do not doubt that, but it is not enough just to listen to them; we must hear them and act accordingly.

The job of a politician is not to come in with their own solutions, to claim they have the answer and say this is what we are going to do. No, their job is to listen to citizens, the people involved in the issue, and to try to implement the best possible solution with a view to solving problems for the next generation and for the future. We are supposed to make things better, but I do not see that happening in this case.

The bill is still good, of course, but it is not as good as it used to be. That is a shame. The recommendations of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish are there, at least in large part. An amendment proposing to refer the bill back to committee was introduced this morning, and we will study it carefully. I am not saying that is the solution, but it is worth considering. In closing, I urge the government to work with opposition members. It needs to stop just saying it and actually do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot about the consultations that have taken place. I would refer the member to Justice Arbour's report and the amount of work involved in the presentation of that report. I have made reference to the 48 recommendations in total, of which I believe three dozen have been implemented.

The essence of this bill deals with one specific recommendation that is based on literally hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, CAF members and others. I believe it is the right recommendation.

What are the member's thoughts with regard to that specific recommendation where we would transfer cases from the military to the civilian court?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree on that, as I said in my speech. The question I asked my colleague opposite, to which I have not yet received an answer, is the following: Why not retain the flexibility to give victims a choice?

In any crime, in any unfortunate event that can happen, the most important person is the victim. That person's choice and free will should always come first. I do not understand, and I imagine that my colleague does not have an answer for me because he did not give me one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was tabled by my colleague, and even the comments that just came from the member for Winnipeg North, because I agree with my Bloc colleague that this is about choice for the victims. The member for Winnipeg North keeps bringing up this issue of what Justice Arbour recommended. A lot has changed, and I gave a full speech on this earlier this week at the report stage, highlighting that we have actually gotten this right.

The system now provides that the military police try to transfer any of these Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian courts or to the civilian jurisdiction. However, police in these jurisdictions are coming back saying they cannot do it. Their threshold is too high, they do not have the resources, and now, basically, justice is not getting served. With the choice that has existed now over the last five years, we are giving victims the opportunity to make sure justice is served and for the military to take administrative action even when criminal court proceedings go through on the civilian side.

What does the member think about those comments?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I certainly agree on that. The problem I have is that it seems to me that giving victims a choice should be obvious. What is more, there was consensus, and that is the sad part. All of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done. I do not know what principles it used to do that. If someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it.

As for the recommendation to make judges more independent by having them be released from the armed forces, it seems to me that this recommendation also made sense. We did not get an explanation. The government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen. I hope that this power trip will be over soon, because otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to something. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé clearly described the new dynamic in his speech. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they sometimes forget that democracy is not about saying, “I won, so shut up”. They still have to listen to what the opposition parties have to say.

I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is also our whip, is very wise. I would like to hear his thoughts on what it means, for both this bill and our work as legislators in general, to have a government that does not necessarily listen to the opposition parties.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whom I hold in high regard.

It is unfortunate, but what this means is that the common good will not always be the priority. It means that a majority government thinks that it has the corner on truth. There is no harm in taking an opposition party's amendments into account, particularly on a sensitive and delicate issue like this one. It seems to me that the least the government could do is work together.

That does not mean that we will always manage to reach an agreement, but, once again, what bothers me is that the amendments had been adopted. We worked hard and then the government just ignored everything that we did, without taking into account the work that was done and the testimony we heard in committee.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to add my voice to those of all women and the entire population of Quebec who, this week, have experienced yet another tragedy: the 10th femicide of the year in Quebec in just four months. It is incredibly sad. It is unacceptable. As we speak, 10 women have been murdered by someone close to them simply for being women.

At the beginning of the year, I agreed to join forces with organizations whose primary mission is to support women, so that we can flag this very important message: The next one is still alive. I am joining their efforts. Yesterday, there was a rally in front of the D'Main de Femmes women's centre to say that enough is enough, that this is unacceptable, and that the entire community stands behind all these organizations dedicated to standing up for the cause of women. There are also organizations that help men better manage their anger, because it is together, as a team, that we will be able to build a more humane society and also care for women who are victims of violence. I would like to commend them and also offer my deepest condolences to the family of the woman who was murdered in Gatineau this week, the 10th woman to have been murdered in Quebec since January.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-11, which is somewhat related to women's issues. I think that sexual misconduct gave rise to this bill, which is almost the same as legislation that has been introduced before and which addresses serious needs. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We have always supported any initiatives to ensure justice and to protect women in uniform who have been the victims of sexual misconduct and who have not always felt as though the military has been on their side since it did not take the necessary steps to look after them.

Bill C‑11 amends the National Defence Act and other acts. As I said, the government already attempted to introduce Bill C‑66 in a previous Parliament, but that bill died on the Order Paper. As everyone knows, Bill C‑11 follows the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Morris J. Fish and Louise Arbour, who, in their report on the issue of sexual misconduct, made several recommendations. Bill C‑11 implements several recommendations, including recommendation number five from the Arbour report, with the aim of removing the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of 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 the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. The government would select these individuals rather than having the military leadership do so, and those individuals would therefore be immune to any form of blackmail, so to speak.

The bill now allows military personnel from the rank of private to that of chief warrant officer to become military judges. Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial changes, including the option for victims to receive help from a victim liaison officer. As we know, when someone wants to report sexual misconduct, harassment or sexual violence, having a neutral party by their side to support them in everything they do is very important. Bill C‑11 has made it through a significant portion of the legislative process, including committee work, and it has been a lot of work. I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the tremendous work he did on making it possible to improve the bill.

On that point, the Bloc Québécois members are proud to have secured amendments that improved the bill. Here are a few examples. We added the option for victims to request that a trial be held before a military court rather than being transferred to a civilian court. We also ensured that the bill clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

We also made a compromise amendment that is more realistic by allowing civilian authorities to transfer cases in accordance with victims' recommendations, rather than imposing an automatic transfer. This would allow for the resolution of contentious cases, such as when there are multiple victims or when transferring the case could jeopardize the possibility of a trial within a reasonable time frame. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans can be appointed as military judges and so that military judges are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.

In the meantime, the government secured a majority, as members well know. I would say that there has been an abuse of this majority, which was secured, as we all know, through floor crossers. The committee's work was thorough. The committee listened to victims, who expanded on everything that Justice Arbour had heard and recommended. Victims spoke before the committee and their testimonies were used to form the basis of the amendments that were made to improve this bill. It is understandable, then, that we see this as an abuse of the majority. The government's action is not consistent with what the Prime Minister always tells the media when he does interviews, which is that he expects members to be serious and thorough and that he does not want to see any obstruction.

What we are seeing today is a bill whose amendments were completely thrown out by a majority government, which put them to a vote and disputed them. Because of the government's majority, of course, virtually all of our amendments were defeated. Committees do serious work. If the government can do without the work of committees, perhaps it wants to abolish them. If this is happening now, will it also happen with regard to future bills?

At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we work in relative harmony. I would say that we are working to improve Bill C-22, but I have concerns. I wonder whether I will end up working on amendments that go absolutely nowhere. Will I end up putting effort into a bill whose fate has already been decided by the government? Will the government reject every amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party or the Green Party?

As we know, our democratic system is designed so that the opposition can help improve bills. In the case of Bill C-11, I think the government really missed the mark. I do not think it was really listening, and that is unfortunate. I hope this does not set the tone for all our work moving forward. I do not appreciate having my time wasted, and neither do most of my colleagues. We do not want to waste our time in committee deliberating, listening to witnesses, and then, in the end, not really knowing whether the government is going to challenge everything that had passed.

In closing, as I said, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at third reading. The bill addresses a problem that was swept under the rug by both the Harper Conservatives and the Liberals. Even though we agree in principle, we had to speak out against the government's lack of seriousness when it comes to the democratic process in place in parliamentary committees.

I would like to use my remaining few seconds to commend the courage of my friend, Alain Therrien, who decided this week to pursue his political career by running in Quebec's next provincial election and confronting the Premier of Quebec. That is to his credit. When he sat here, he was a very active leader in our parliamentary lives. I want to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in wishing him the best of luck and success in Quebec's next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, in one sense, I am encouraged that the Bloc members are going to be supporting the legislation, recognizing that we do need to take cases of sexual assaults and abuse out of the military system and put them into the civilian justice system. That is encouraging.

I hope to address the concerns of the member and of the previous speaker in my comments shortly. I would reinforce that the bill would be based on the Arbour report and its findings. She came up with a number of recommendations. Personally, I am very comfortable with those recommendations and hope to be able to substantiate it.

It is more of a comment than a question, in case the member has anything else she would like to add.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commentary.

I think he realizes that the Bloc Québécois truly cares about helping to improve bills. We always say that if a thing is good for Quebec and good for Canada, so much the better. We always approach bills this way, and we take our work on parliamentary committees seriously.

As we have said, we are going to support this bill, but what we had proposed was not a rejection of Justice Arbour's recommendations, quite the contrary. I think that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I said as much in our two speeches. We agree with the recommendations, but we think that certain amendments could have improved the bill to provide better support to victims. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was moved by my Conservative colleague earlier today, which is to put this bill back to the committee to, specifically, look at some of the clauses and amendments that were passed by the committee, including Liberal members of that committee, which the government, unfortunately, has removed during report stage. This is important because the minister signalled publicly in this chamber, just a day or two ago, that he is open to having the sunset clause be put back in. That was passed by the committee when it was studying the bill.

Does the member think it is somewhat hypocritical of the government to say, “We have screwed this up. We made a mess of it. We are going to let the Senate fix it. It can amend it and then send it back to us”? What does the member think?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the official opposition is using the tools at its disposal to make the government realize that it has taken the wrong path by outright rejecting all the amendments that had been adopted by Conservative, Bloc Québécois and Liberal MPs, too; it is worth pointing that out.

I hope that the government, through this permissible parliamentary strategy, will realize that it made the wrong choice and will make amends on behalf of the victims.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of transferring sexual assault cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system, as well as to the amendment aimed at granting victims the right to speak, or even a right of veto, so that they can make a choice in this regard. I know that my colleague is an experienced social worker. She has extensive experience in mediation and conciliation. She has met many people in her career.

I would like her to speak to us about the importance of respecting victims in this type of situation.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of my professional association of social workers, so I cannot use that title anymore. However, I had a very rewarding career as a social worker that helped me to realize that when we are helping or supporting a victim, their consent is important. It is also important to understand how the victim wants to approach the process, how they want to go about it, so that they can feel as though justice has been served for the injuries, violence and harassment they experienced and for their work environment's failure to listen and to provide support.

In that sense, I think that the decision should rest with the victims. Since I did not participate in the work of the committee, I would also like to understand why the government did not agree that victims should have the right to make their own decisions.

[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 Bill C‑11 and to share a few thoughts. I would like to address both the previous speakers from the Bloc, who talked about the government since it has become a majority. I want to be very respectful. The last member spoke about when a bill goes to committee and whether she should prepare amendments, as she is not sure whether the amendments would actually be listened to by the government.

The government has demonstrated, in a very clear fashion, its desire, and in particular that of the Prime Minister, to work collaboratively with opposition members, with all members. If members have good ideas, we want to hear about them. That is a message that the Prime Minister has been very clear on.

We actually have some very good, tangible examples that have taken place in the last week. In fact, the very first action of the government since having a majority in the House of Commons was to pass a Conservative private member's bill, Bailey's law. Then, just the other day, I was speaking on silver alerts, another Conservative private member's bill. We are seeing that bill go to committee. Yesterday, I was speaking about how corporations are not necessarily paying their taxes, because of bankruptcy, and how we could get more information about that through the CRA. Again, that legislation passed third reading yesterday.

That, in itself, speaks volumes in terms of the government's willingness to continue to work collaboratively with opposition parties. I would encourage the member to continue to look at ways we could improve legislation. The government has a healthy, strong legislative agenda as we try to look at ways we could develop, promote and make public policy that Canadians from coast to coast to coast would benefit from. That is the driving factor behind the government, and I believe we have demonstrated that. There is a reason that the amendments to this bill were ultimately rejected at report stage, and I will go into that shortly.

Before I do that, I want to say I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. Even though it was just over three years, it helped shape who I am today. I love my country, I love the community in which I live, and I want to make our Canadian Forces stronger and healthier and to build an environment that is respectful and encourages involvement by those who want to be members of our regular force or our reserves. I like to think all members want to see that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I must say, you look great in that chair. I believe all members would like to have that sort of an environment in our forces.

We have made significant gains to that point. Last year, there were around 7,000 new members going into the regular force. Thousands more applications are being received. The size of our reserve forces is also growing. I believe the Prime Minister has helped changed the mindset that people have when looking at the Canadian Forces today.

Over the years, I have witnessed first-hand how governments have talked about increasing the overall funding, compared to GDP, to the Canadian Forces. We had a president of the United States speak on the floor of the House about the importance of Canada contributing its fair share toward our forces and the United Nations. We were at an all-time low 18 years ago; I think it was just under 1% of Canada's GDP. Our Prime Minister today, during the last federal election, made a commitment to get it to 2%. Not only have we achieved it, but we literally achieved it months ago. For the first time in generations, Canada is back up to 2% of our GDP in supporting our Canadian Forces.

When we talk about the importance of building Canada strong and secure, our Canadian Forces play a critical role in that. The recruitment, in terms of numbers, and the level of interest today are far greater than they were a year ago because, I believe, people are understanding and appreciating that this is a government and a Prime Minister that are committed to building a stronger Canadian Forces. There are many benefits to doing that. If we look at the industries that support our military, our industrial industries, there are many different opportunities for businesses with the growth we are bringing to our Canadian Forces. It is an excellent opportunity. For example, in Winnipeg, I believe we will see growth in our aerospace industry as a direct result of the commitment to grow our Canadian Forces.

We can look at the important role that our reserves play in our forces. We all have, if not directly within our constituencies then close to our constituencies, reserve regiments or military armouries. It is wonderful to see first-hand those individuals who have committed to be part-time members of the Canadian Forces. Again, we see that growth. A combination of things has enabled that to take place.

It was not that many years ago, eight or nine years ago, when the serious issue of sexual exploitation, harassment and abuse was making headline news in media throughout the country. A decision was made that we needed to act upon that. How could we build the Canadian Forces without making sure the people who are prepared to make the sacrifice to participate feel they will be respected?

When we look at Bill C-11, what we need to really appreciate and understand, for those who are following the debate, is what Justice Arbour put on paper and the amount of effort she put into providing a report to the House of Commons. I believe that her report was right on. The recommendations she provided were right on. I made reference earlier to the recommendations that have been implemented, that I believed it was three dozen out of 48. I was really out. It is actually 47 of 48 recommendations that have been put into place. With the passage of Bill C-11, it would mean 48 of the 48 recommendations would be in place.

If we flash back to the time when Madam Arbour was hired to take on that position and come up with the report, there was no lack of interest from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from first-hand victims of sexual abuse, which would include rape and others, to individual stakeholders who were on the periphery but wanted to provide direct input. These are the individuals I have mentioned; we are not talking about a dozen or so. Whether directly or indirectly, there were 100 going up to 1,000 contributions to the “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans” report by Madam Arbour. I cannot recall anyone being critical of that particular appointment.

The last time we were debating this legislation, and I was talking about Madam Arbour, I had no idea that she was going to be Canada's Governor General. However, it is encouraging to see the response to that appointment, and how exceptionally well she is being received into that position. It does not surprise me, because when I was talking about Madam Arbour, I talked about her credentials.

In doing this report, there was no doubt a great deal of thought in making sure we got the right person to do it. One can do a quick Google search and get a good sense of who Madam Arbour is, as a jurist or an advocate, here in Canada and internationally. She is very familiar with the issues at hand, which put her in a great position to do the study and provide it to the government so that the government could ultimately straighten things out and build a more respectful, inclusive Canadian Forces.

When we take a look at the timeline, we see that in October 2021, Madam Arbour submitted the interim recommendations to immediately refer sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature under the Criminal Code to civilian authorities. On June 3, 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal issued a statement regarding the transfer and referral of cases alleged to have been committed by CAF members from the military police to federal, provincial and municipal police services. In August 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal amplified the original direction that came from December 2021 to state that all military police investigations into allegations of criminal offences of a sexual nature were now to be processed through civilian courts.

There has already been a major shift in that direction. If we look at the report, we see that there are 48 recommendations, and 47 of them have actually been implemented. Here is the one that has not been implemented. It says:

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.

I want to highlight the word “exclusively”. I suspect that many of the arguments committee members would have heard at the last committee meeting, Madam Arbour would have also heard in the representations that were made to her.

It continues:

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 MP 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. This should include:

Sexual offences found in Part V of the Criminal Code;

Sexual offences found in Part VII of the Criminal Code, including but not limited to sexual assaults; and

Any “designated offence” as defined in subsections 490.011(1)(a), (c), (c.1), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Criminal Code, to the extent not already captured above.

That is the only recommendation, from what I understand, that has not been implemented of the 48 recommendations. It is a very clear and concise recommendation, I would suggest to members opposite. That is why I appreciate how the Bloc is positioning itself on the bill.

I have a deep respect for what takes place in our standing committees. I understand the pros and cons, the filibusters, the things that come before standing committees, the difference in personalities, how personalities can make a difference and even how a chair can make a difference, but let there be no doubt that there are opportunities for us to see wonderful things come out of the standing committees.

I do not want to take away from the standing committee, but I am confident that Madam Arbour would have been aware of the issues raised at the standing committee.

There is no indecision in her recommendation. People will say that things change in time. Well, what was the Conservative Party of Canada's position a month ago? What they are saying, in essence, is that they have changed their position. Based on what? How does that counter the full report and the 48 recommendations? To what degree was that seriously taken into consideration within the Conservative caucus?

Our newly appointed Governor General, who has to be apolitical, had a report. She had incredible credentials.

We took a look at recruitment today. The numbers are high, a 30-year high in terms of people wanting to become a part of the regular forces, and the reserve numbers are also going up. We are changing the attitude. There is a more respectful culture within our Canadian Forces.

We need to continue to move forward on this legislation, as it will pass. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that whether it is bringing our military to the 2% GDP, supporting our members of the Canadian Forces financially or providing a modernization of the industrialization of Canada's military supplies, we are going to be there to reinforce a strong and secure Canada.

The Canadian Forces play an absolutely critical role, and this legislation is very important. I would suggest that the Conservative Party recognize that the last 12 months have demonstrated very clearly that the government is on the right track, and we need to continue to move forward.

I will not vote for the amendment that the Conservatives want. The Conservatives are suggesting that it go back to committee and that they do not support Bill C-11. I believe that is a mistake and they should be revisiting it and changing their position. It would be nice to see unanimous support for Bill C-11 passing as is being proposed by the government today.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary have faith in our current military police and their ability to do justice for victims when a Criminal Code sexual offence occurs outside Canada, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence, given the direction from Madam Arbour, that for offences that take place outside Canada there is a role for the military police, and that they are more than capable of fulfilling that role, such as the gathering of evidence and working with civilian authorities back in Canada. I think that is the right direction, as has been instructed by Madam Arbour's report, which has my full support.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon pointed out in their speeches that, with its new majority, the government has a frustrating tendency to no longer listen to the opposition parties. That is what happened with this bill. Some amendments were set aside.

I know that the member for Winnipeg North enjoys sparring in the House. Since he rises on just about every issue, he can probably tell me whether the government's new way of doing things involves ignoring the opposition parties' opinions and adopting an “I won, so shut up” attitude.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed the issue of collaboration at the very beginning of my comments. I talked about how, at the first opportunity we had when we had a majority of members on the floor of the House of Commons, the first action that was taken was the passage of Bailey's law, which was a Conservative private member's bill.

We have the silver alert legislation, which is again another Conservative piece of legislation, and we indicated we wanted to see it go to committee.

Just yesterday we passed at third reading, amendments to a bill that deals with the CRA.

The government has been very clear, and the Prime Minister has indicated very clearly, outside and inside this chamber, that we want to work collaboratively with opposition members, provincial governments, municipalities and indigenous communities. That is the right thing to do. We want to build that stronger and healthier country for all.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about his time serving in Canada's Armed Forces.

Just recently, I had the opportunity to spend some time at the HMCS Star in Hamilton speaking with recruits, reservists, veterans and cadets, the young men and women in Canada's military who are so proud of their country and their service. I spoke with the commander who talked about the increase in recruiting and interest in serving in Canada's military and the new opportunities for an advance presence in Hamilton.

I wonder if the member could comment on our role, as the federal government, in making sure that everyone who is serving Canada in our military, in the Armed Forces, is protected and safe in their service.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question because I think it goes two ways. The government has a responsibility. We are living up to that responsibility. Again, I will reinforce that, after this bill passes, the 48 recommendations will in fact be put in place. They are respectful, inclusive and absolutely critical. We need to continue to support our forces in the manner in which we have over the last 12 months. Second to no other Prime Minister in generations, we have a solid commitment.

I also want to make reference to this. The member mentioned my time in the Armed Forces. I had the honour to serve for just over three years, which was an absolute privilege. It is the skill sets that are gained by members of the forces that turn out to be such a wonderful asset in the future. Whether one is in the forces for three years or 30 years, there is a great deal of benefit had by all.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation.

I want to get back to the answer to my previous question. The member stated that if one of the members of the CAF commits a heinous crime, a Criminal Code sexual offence, overseas, he has complete faith in our military police to be able to collect the data, but then it needs to be transferred to the civilian courts.

Unfortunately, that is not what is going to happen when Bill C-11 passes. The same thing that occurs right now will happen when that bill passes. If the military police can find a police of jurisdiction, if there is some way to make that connection and they are willing to take that charge on, then, yes, but in the end it is going to be the military justice system that is going to do justice for these victims.

Does the member have faith that our military justice system can do the job and provide justice for the victims?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the recommendation is fairly clear. It is recommendation number five from the Arbour report. I recommend that the member opposite read the recommendation.

I do believe that military police, in dealing with the issue outside of Canada, have a level of expertise in collecting and protecting the integrity of evidence and securing the situation so that we can ultimately see justice served.

Not all communities or theatres in which the Canadian Forces might participate have the same rule of law or the same court system or justice system that would match the Canadian system. I think the way it has been recommended—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else.

We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think.

I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed? I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it?

I would like to hear a rational explanation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give it my best shot. It is because of a specific recommendation. Justice Arbour knew, consulted and worked with hundreds if not thousands of people, directly or indirectly, including victims. Her recommendation says that these offences “should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.” There is an exemption if it takes place outside of Canada.

I personally have more confidence in that report today than in what has been brought before me. That is the reason.

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

Mr. Speaker, because of the programming motion and the time allocation on this, I am going to be the last individual to speak in this chamber, unless the bill comes back, and there is a very high probability that it may come back, based on the Minister of National Defence's indication earlier in this chamber.

When I spoke to the bill earlier this week, I highlighted the importance that we get it right. This is about the victims. This is about our military justice system. This is about retaining the credibility of our military police and our military prosecutors, but in the end, it is all about a victim-centred, trauma-informed decision within our Canadian Armed Forces.

I have highlighted before that ultimately the decision was made in late 2021 by the director of military prosecutions, in light of the report that came out by Justice Arbour, to try to transfer all Criminal Code sexual offences to the civilian authorities.

In the last five years, we have learned that the civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the resources or the capacity to deal with all these Criminal Code sexual offences. Part of the reason is that sometimes the cases are historical in nature and the courts do not view that they are in the best interest of public safety here in Canada. However, they are definitely in the best interest of justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, discipline and the necessary requirements that we need of our Canadian Armed Forces members.

If all the amendments that were done, in some cases with all-party consensus, get removed and Bill C-11 passes in its current form, the challenge we are going to have is that the victims are not going to get justice. There are two things that I think we are going to see happen at the Senate. Based on the minister's own commentary here in the chamber, he is open to the sunset clause amendment that did pass at committee, which the government has since removed, to be put back into the bill.

The other thing I think needs to be included in the bill is some sort of data collection provision. The biggest challenges we hear all the time, especially as these cases get transferred to civilian authorities, are how many they actually take, how many result in a charge being laid and how many end up with something occurring. These are all very important things that I think we need to do, and I encourage those members in the other place to take this into consideration as the bill goes forward.

However, the ultimate disappointment I have with the government's decision not to respect the victims and the decisions made at committee is that we are not going to get this right. As I said before, I predict that those of us who will have the privilege of still being in this chamber in a few years will be dealing with the next iteration of this bill and, unfortunately, apologizing to the victims who are not going to get the justice they deserve.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, May 4, 2026, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private member's hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.