Debates of April 23rd, 2026

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 28 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Review of the Conflict of Interest Act”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Before I conclude, I want to thank all of our witnesses, the analysts, the clerk, the technicians and translation staff for their work on this report. It is a fairly comprehensive report that provides significant recommendations to changes to the Conflict of Interest Act.

Public Accounts

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I am presenting the 10th report, entitled “National Trade Corridors Fund - Transport Canada”, and the 11th report, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27: Vote 1 under Office of the Auditor General”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to a motion adopted on Monday, April 20, regarding section 13 of the Auditor General Act.

Everyone agrees that the Auditor General and her team should have access to the information they need to do their job. However, certain federal entities under the scope of her audits were withholding information due to access to information disputes. While her office ultimately obtained the requested information, this process consumed significant time and resources that could have been better spent delivering audits to Parliament and services to Canada.

The committee is therefore reporting to the House on the need to modernize section 13 of the Auditor General Act and will be writing to the Treasury Board Secretariat requesting a written response to this matter within 90 days.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition today that discusses Bill C-260, the care not coercion act. This is in the wake of many veterans' experiences in this country. When they reached out to Veterans Affairs seeking help to live their lives, they were instead pushed towards the idea of medical assistance in dying.

The petitioners are concerned with these instances and are calling on the government to support Bill C-260, the care not coercion act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table a petition in support of Bill C-260, the care not coercion act.

Petitioners highlight many reports of veterans, as well as people with disabilities, seniors and others, who have been seeking unrelated health services or other kinds of services from the government and have, instead of being offered the assistance they are looking for, had those officials, out of the blue, suggest or promote to them that they seek facilitated death instead.

The CEO of Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr, has recently testified that she hears weekly complaints, from people with disabilities in particular, highlighting these situations where somebody who is seeking unrelated public services is having death promoted to them as a way out instead. This is not the approach that Canadians expect, especially from government employees who are not even involved in the provision of these things.

With this in mind, petitioners ask that the government support Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, and support additional actions to combat the growing problem of MAID coercion. I understand that the bill is scheduled to have its first hour of debate next Wednesday, April 29.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C‑11.

Motion No. 15 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 14 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 14 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 7, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 7 to 12 on page 3 with the following:

7 Section 70 of the Act is amended by striking

(b) deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 5.

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

moved:

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 5 to line 34 on page 7 with the following:

70.1 Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, an officer or non-commissioned member does not have authority to investigate, for the purposes of the laying of a charge under paragraph 130(1)(a) or an information under the Criminal Code, in relation to an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) that was, or is alleged to have been, committed in Canada.

70.2 (1) Nothing in section 70.1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions, before the arrival of the civilian authority having jurisdiction in the matter, to the extent necessary to prevent the commission, continuation or repetition of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) that, as the case may be, is being, was, or is alleged to have been committed in Canada, including

(a) making an arrest in relation to the offence in accordance with Division 3 of Part III of this Act or section 494 or 495 of the Criminal Code; or

(b) if an arrest is made under paragraph (a), conducting a search incident to the arrest.

(2) Nothing in section 70.1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from securing or preserving any evidence of or relating to the offence referred to in subsection (1) before the arrival of the civilian authority having jurisdiction in the matter.

(3) Nothing in section 70.1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from securing or preserving — to the extent that their powers, duties and functions under this Act, other than under subsection (1) or (2), or any other law authorize them to do so — evidence of or relating to an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) that was, or is alleged to have been, committed in Canada.

(4) An officer or non-commissioned member shall, as soon as feasible, transfer a person arrested under paragraph (1)(a) to the custody of the civilian authority having jurisdiction in the matter and transfer to them any evidence secured or preserved under any of subsections (1) to (3).

70.3 Nothing in section 70.1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from initiating or conducting a private prosecution in relation to an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h).

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-11, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 13 on page 8.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-11, in Clause 15, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 9 with the following:

years but may be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures in accordance with section 165.101.

(b) replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 9 with the following:

(4) On receipt of a request referred to in subsection 165.101(1), the Governor in Council may, if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances that justify it, suspend the Director of Military Prosecutions from office until the Governor in Council decides whether to impose any remedial or disciplinary measures.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), “exceptional circumstances” include circumstances in which there are allegations of serious misconduct or allegations related to a risk to occupational health and safety or to a risk of injury to international relations, national defence or national security.

165.101 (1) The Minister may request of the Governor in Council that an inquiry be held to determine whether the Director of Military Prosecutions should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures for any reason set out in paragraphs (12)(a) to (e).

(2) On receipt of a request, the Governor in Council may appoint a judge of a superior court to conduct the inquiry.

(3) The judge has all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court, including the power to

(a) issue a summons requiring any person to appear at the time and place specified in the summons in order to testify about all matters within the person’s knowledge relative to the inquiry and to produce any document or thing relative to the inquiry that the person has or controls; and

(b) administer oaths and examine any person on oath.

(4) The judge may engage the services of counsel and other persons having technical or specialized knowledge to assist the judge in conducting the inquiry, establish the terms and conditions of their engagement and, with the approval of the Treasury Board, fix and pay their remuneration and expenses.

(5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), the inquiry shall be conducted in public.

(6) The judge may, on application, take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the inquiry if, after having considered all available alternative measures, the judge is satisfied that

(a) there is a real and substantial risk that matters involving international relations, national defence or national security will be disclosed;

(b) there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the inquiry such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public; or

(c) there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered.

(7) If the judge considers it appropriate, the judge may take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of a hearing held in respect of an application under subsection (6).

(8) The judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that they consider credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case.

(9) An interested party may, with leave of the judge, intervene in the inquiry on any terms and conditions that the judge considers appropriate.

(10) The Director of Military Prosecutions shall be given reasonable notice of the subject matter of the inquiry and of the time and place of any hearing and shall be given an opportunity, in person or by counsel, to be heard at the hearing, to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence.

(11) After the inquiry has been completed, the judge shall submit a report containing their findings and recommendations, if any, to the Minister.

(12) The judge may, in the report, recommend that the Director of Military Prosecutions be suspended without pay or removed from office or that any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure be taken if, in the judge’s opinion, the Director

(a) has become incapacitated from the proper execution of that office by reason of infirmity;

(b) has committed misconduct;

(c) has failed in the proper execution of that office;

(d) has been placed, by conduct or otherwise, in a position that is incompatible with the due execution of that office; or

(e) no longer satisfies the minimum standards and conditions of service applicable to officers.

(13) The Minister shall send the report to the Governor in Council who may, if the Governor in Council considers it appropriate, suspend the Director of Military Prosecutions without pay, remove the Director from office or impose any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-11, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following:

17 (1) Subsection 165.17(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3) The Minister may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular prosecution.

(2) Subsections 165.17(5) and (6) of the Act are re-

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

moved

That Bill C-11, in Clause 18, be amended

(a) by replacing line 24 on page 10 with the following:

“officer or non-commissioned member or former officer or non-commissioned member who is a barrister”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 10 with the following:

“province and who has been or was a member of the Canadian”

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-11, in Clause 40, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 29 with the following:

years but may be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures in accordance with section 249.181.

(b) replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 29 with the following:

(4) On receipt of a request referred to in subsection 249.181(1), the Governor in Council may, if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances that justify it, suspend the Director of Defence Counsel Services from office until the Governor in Council decides whether to impose any remedial or disciplinary measures.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), “exceptional circumstances” include circumstances in which there are allegations of serious misconduct or allegations related to a risk to occupational health and safety or to a risk of injury to international relations, national defence or national security.

249.181 (1) The Minister may request of the Governor in Council that an inquiry be held to determine whether the Director of Defence Counsel Services should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures for any reason set out in paragraphs (12)(a) to (e).

(2) On receipt of a request, the Governor in Council may appoint a judge of a superior court to conduct the inquiry.

(3) The judge has all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court, including the power to

(a) issue a summons requiring any person to appear at the time and place specified in the summons in order to testify about all matters within the person’s knowledge relative to the inquiry and to produ

(b) administer oaths and examine any person on oath.

(4) The judge may engage the services of counsel and other persons having technical or specialized knowledge to assist the judge in conducting the inquiry, establish the terms and conditions of their engagement and, with the approval of the Treasury Board, fix and pay their remuneration and expenses.

(5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), the inquiry shall be conducted in public.

(6) The judge may, on application, take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the inquiry if, after having considered all available alternative measures, the judge is satisfied that

(a) there is a real and substantial risk that matters involving international relations, national defence or national security will be disclosed;

(b) there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the inquiry such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public; or

(c) there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered.

(7) If the judge considers it appropriate, the judge may take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of a hearing held in respect of an application under subsection (6).

(8) The judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that they consider credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case.

(9) An interested party may, with leave of the judge, intervene in the inquiry on any terms and conditions that the judge considers appropriate.

(10) The Director of Defence Counsel Services shall be given reasonable notice of the subject matter of the inquiry and of the time and place of any hearing and shall be given an opportunity, in person or by counsel, to be heard at the hearing, to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence.

(11) After the inquiry has been completed, the judge shall submit a report containing their findings and recommendations, if any, to the Minister.

(12) The judge may, in the report, recommend that the Director of Defence Counsel Services be suspended without pay or removed from office or that any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure be taken if, in the judge’s opinion, the Director

(a) has become incapacitated from the proper execution of that office by reason of infirmity;

(b) has committed misconduct;

(c) has failed in the proper execution of that office;

(d) has been placed, by conduct or otherwise, in a position that is incompatible with the due execution of that office; or

(e) no longer satisfies the minimum standards and conditions of service applicable to officers.

(13) The Minister shall send the report to the Governor in Council who may, if the Governor in Council considers it appropriate, suspend the Director of Defence Counsel Services without pay, remove the Director from office or impose any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 40.1.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 40.2.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-11, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 40 with the following:

graphs 70(d) to (h) of the National Defence

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-11, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 40 with the following:

fence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today.

Bill C-11, when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward.

There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one. They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form.

Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country.

When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs.

I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11, previously Bill C-66. It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side.

Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence's not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level.

The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill. What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away.

When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11, he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66, never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up.

We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French.

Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec.

When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.”

Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country.

We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims' being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account.

Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF's authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.”

I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut, who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence. I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, sit on the defence committee. I would like to know what the member across the aisle thinks about all the victims who were heard by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, the hundreds of victims who were interviewed and said they did not want their sexual assault to be investigated by their boss. They wanted a separate system. What does the member say to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to know exactly what Madam Justice Arbour thought. We invited her to committee, but she did not even bother showing up to defend her report.

Let us put this in perspective. Madam Justice Arbour's study and report were done years ago. Things have changed. The director of military prosecutions had said that, on a short-term basis, they needed to adjust and pivot, and to move all cases under the ministerial directive from one of the former ministers of national defence. Because of that, the military is prepared to deal with the cases today. What Madam Justice Arbour said before is now irrelevant.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. My question is quite simple. If it were possible to make just one amendment to this bill, is there a particularly important one that my colleague would want to immediately make to the bill? If so, what is it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems.

With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the incredible work he has done in committee respecting victims of military sexual trauma, and the work he is doing to rectify the problems there.

We heard testimony from civilian police forces that they had significantly limited capacity, sometimes enough to deal with two to three cases of major sexual assault, whereas in their areas, they have data saying that there have been 15, 17 or 20 cases per year. Could the hon. member speak to the capacity of civilian police forces to deal with these cases, and to what would happen with those cases they have no capability to deal with?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file as well. As a veteran, he has always been there to champion people who have experienced military sexual misconduct.

We heard from the Victoria Police Department that it does not have the resources or the number of investigators needed, that it is already dealing with a backlog and that it has been offered no support and no resources from the federal government. We also received a written brief from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction” and says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”.

Instead of having the ability to collaborate with our military police and national investigative service, they now have to go on base and take over all those investigations, without resources provided by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be here today for the debate at report stage of Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have the privilege and responsibility of supporting the women and men who serve Canada in uniform. I believe that responsibility is shared by all members of the House.

As the mother and mother-in-law of three serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I know first-hand that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are among the very best of our country: skilled, dedicated, professional and deeply committed to something greater than themselves. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them, and each time, I am reminded of a simple truth: We ask a great deal of them. We ask them to serve in uncertainty, to operate in high-risk environments and to put service before self every single day.

In return, we have a responsibility, a collective responsibility, to ensure they have everything they need to succeed. That includes the right equipment, the right training and, critically, the right environment.

It must be a safe, respectful and dignified environment. It must be a healthy work environment, where everyone feels protected and able to serve, because serving one's country should never come at the expense of one's dignity.

Eliminating unacceptable behaviours, including sexual misconduct, is central to that responsibility. These behaviours cause real harm. They erode trust. They damage morale. They impact recruitment and retention. Ultimately, they weaken operational effectiveness. There is no place for this in our military. There is no place for this in Canada. That is why today's debate is so important.

Cultural change and growth within the Canadian Armed Forces is simply too important to be exploited for political or partisan gain. Our military members deserve better, their families deserve better and Canadians deserve better.

Through Bill C-11, we are proposing important amendments to the National Defence Act to modernize the military justice system. The legislation is about ensuring that the system remains fair, effective and worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. At its core, it would strengthen accountability, reinforce independence and ensure alignment with the values Canadians expect.

As introduced, Bill C-11 would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. These offences would instead fall under civilian authorities for investigation and prosecution. This reflects the practice already in place since 2021, following the interim recommendation of former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, and this legislation would formalize that approach. I would like to note that the interim directive has been an effective measure while we await the passage of Bill C-11.

The interim directive to implement recommendation five has been in place since December 2021, and since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, as Justice Arbour recommended. Any attempt to undermine or undercut the progress made in the past five years under the interim directive is a disservice to victims and survivors.

I note that Bill C-11 also advances key recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish to strengthen the system's effectiveness and credibility. These include strengthening and modernizing appointment processes for senior military justice roles, broadening eligibility for military judges, reinforcing the independence of military justice authorities and expanding mechanisms for interference complaints. These are not technical adjustments. They are foundational reforms. They go directly to the integrity of the system.

The bill also strengthens support for victims by expanding access to liaison officers, including those acting on behalf of victims. It also aligns military justice legislation with recent amendments to the Criminal Code regarding offenders and publication bans. The military justice system is about maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Modernizing it is essential for lasting institutional reform.

Our objective is clear. It is to strengthen trust and confidence among defence team members and all Canadians.

Trust must be at the heart of any justice system.

Trust must be earned through action. The changes proposed in Bill C-11 are part of a much broader transformation. We are undertaking meaningful reforms across recruitment, training, leadership and oversight. In fact, this week the Canadian Armed Forces reached its highest recruitment in 30 years.

This is excellent news for Canada, but we must not lose sight of the important work we are doing to ensure that the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces has a safe and supportive work environment.

I can assure members that we are fully committed to implementing the recommendations of Justices Fish and Arbour. These recommendations provide a road map for concrete and measurable change. We have strengthened our recruitment and assessment processes. A probationary period now ensures that recruits comply with security requirements, meet medical standards and, above all, possess the values expected of those who serve their country: respect, dignity and integrity.

We have clarified how sexual misconduct is defined and addressed, breaking it into clearer categories so that each form can be dealt with appropriately. We have aligned our approach to harassment and violence with the Canada Labour Code, creating a single, consistent framework across the defence team.

We have enabled direct access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in certain cases because transparency and accountability are essential to cultural change. We continue to track progress publicly through our comprehensive implementation plan, a detailed road map that Canadians can see and follow.

As noted by the external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, there has been significant effort and meaningful progress, but she also reminded us of something important. This work is never finished.

Creating a respectful and inclusive workplace is an ongoing commitment.

It is one that requires sustained leadership, accountability and commitment.

The measures in Bill C-11 represent an important step forward. More than that, they represent progress: progress toward a military justice system that reflects our values, progress toward a workplace where every member can serve with dignity and progress toward rebuilding and reinforcing trust. It is a step to better protect those who serve and to build a safer, more respectful environment.

It is also a step towards building confidence in our military justice system.

We owe this to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. We owe this to all Canadians. Let us continue this work together. Let us get this done for them.