Debates of April 23rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women's study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice.

When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts.

I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will remind members to please address their questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the veteran affairs committee. In fact, the veteran affairs committee submitted a report to the House in June 2024 entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”.

In that report was recommendation 40, which I will quote:

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

That was passed unanimously with the support of the Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. By the way, I hold her in high regard, but my question has nothing to do with that. How does she feel about the fact that, for weeks, we have been doing our committee work and now, when the majority of committee members have worked to get amendments adopted, the government is doing everything it can to undo what has been done?

Is this not a slap in the face to democracy? Has the majority gone to the Liberals' heads?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and also for the work we do together in committee.

My priority is the women and men in uniform. The chief of the defence staff has had conversations with over 14,000 Canadian Armed Forces members and victims, and they have made it very clear that these cases need to be transferred to the civilian system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words the member has spoken.

Through the debate already this morning, one of the greatest concerns I have is that the Conservative Party seems to be saying Justice Arbour's recommendations are limited and have timed out, in essence, and that there is no obligation for us to respond to that report.

Justice Arbour did an incredible job for members of the CAF, recognizing the importance of the issue, and came back with a specific recommendation. My understanding is that this is the primary recommendation, from a justice who canvassed many members of the CAF.

If the member could comment in regard to the Conservative Party just throwing that report—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is actually very appropriate to read the preface to Justice Arbour's report into the record, because it still rings true. It says:

Thousands of Canadians have served, and continue to serve, with honour in one of the country’s most prestigious organizations: the Canadian Armed Forces.... Many, however, were denied that chance. Members of the LGBTQ2+ community were purged. Members of Indigenous and black communities, and other visible minorities and equity-seeking groups, have been largely absent, clearly not welcome. For years, women were simply shut out.

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

Things have changed in the Canadian Armed Forces for the better. We cannot go back. For the victims who never came forward, out of fear of retribution, out of fear for their lives, today is for them. We heard them. We listened. We are there.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many stories in this whole sad affair. Some of them involve tragic misconduct and victims left with the aftereffects. There is the story, which spanned many years, of continued impunity, as people were protected by successive governments. Then came the bungling and the never-ending delays. Finally, our very democracy plays a part in all this, as well.

First and foremost, it is the story of victims of misconduct. Members will recall the whole story, which has been told many times in the House, of General Vance, who was protected by successive ministers of governments of all political stripes. This general was able to live with impunity, bragging that he would be forever protected and untouchable at all times because he had control over the military justice system. Members will recall that it took a long time for this story to come to light, and when it did, many said that silence was the best response—that eternal guilty silence that keeps victims voiceless.

It is also the story of several commissions of inquiry. I am thinking of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Several commissions of inquiry came to a number of conclusions after thousands of people were interviewed. There were thousands of testimonies; thousands of voices were heard in the context of this tragic case. This is an issue that has since dragged on for more than 15 years. It took more than 15 years to come up with the first version of a bill in the last Parliament and, in the current Parliament, the bill now before us.

This is a matter of democracy. I believe that, as members of Parliament, we are being shortchanged, and democracy is being shortchanged, by what is happening right now. Allow me to digress for a moment because this is important. Let us not forget that this is also the story of a government that called an election last year. What was the outcome of that election? It resulted in a minority government. That means that we go before the voters, present them with options and ideas, and show them where we are headed and what we are proposing. That is where democracy decides. It decides by determining which idea has majority support. In other words, there were more votes and more seats for the current government's proposal, but there are still enough voters who said they did not agree. The result is that the government in power has a majority that is not absolute. It is a simple majority, but one that is not absolute in terms of the number of seats. That was the verdict in April 2025. The message to the government is to work with the other parties, because more people chose the other options combined. If my math is correct, that is what it comes down to. I am no fan of the Canadian parliamentary system, but it seems to me that, in the history of these highly imperfect institutions, that is just how it works. That is the result. That is what it amounts to.

Let us come back to the story of this government that introduced Bill C-11 and the opposition parties who voted in favour of the principle of the bill because everyone agreed with it and action needed to be taken. People have suffered and others will continue to suffer if nothing changes. After the opposition parties acted in good faith and the House adopted the bill in principle, it was the committee's turn to patiently do its work. For several weeks, it heard from witnesses and reviewed reports and briefs, including one from the Barreau du Québec, which said that it liked the idea of the bill but that some small changes needed to be made. We also heard from a number of victims and victims' associations, who made recommendations and told us that, when cases are being transferred, the military justice option needs to remain open. Even though transferring cases to the civilian system is generally a good thing, we still need to have some sort of military system for certain cases, so we should not close the door on that completely.

That was the subject of an amendment that was deemed admissible, and I am happy about that because we are the ones who proposed that amendment. The Conservative amendment regarding complete freedom of choice was deemed inadmissible recently, even though it was also adopted in committee. Our amendment does not propose complete freedom of choice, but it says that if experts in the civilian system recommend keeping the case in the military system, then that might be a good thing for some victims.

It worked, and I am very pleased about that. This is an example of a recommendation made by the Barreau du Québec, which ultimately concluded that Bill C-11, as it stood, was unsatisfactory, even though it was well-intentioned. A whole host of other recommendations like that were also adopted by way of amendments, often with the majority support of the two opposition parties. Some amendments were adopted unanimously with the support of the Liberal Party, but, for the most part, it was the opposition parties that joined forces and managed to gain the upper hand. I am pleased that we managed to achieve this. It was democracy at work. In our committee, the majority consisted of opposition MPs. I would remind members that we patiently listened to victims, experts, the Barreau du Québec and other stakeholders who came to tell us what they believed should be done. Some of the recommendations in the Fish report were even subsequently deemed inadmissible. That report, which remains something of an authoritative reference on the subject, was deemed inadmissible—that says it all.

It is also the story of a government that secured a majority by getting opposition members to switch sides, swearing up and down that its approach would be collaborative. In the days that followed, however, one of the first things they told us was that they plan to unilaterally change committee composition without even talking to the opposition parties. That is what collaboration, co-operation and working together in the House mean to them. It is also the story of a government that then attempts to throw out all the work that committees have been doing for weeks, along with the democratic decisions of parliamentarians who voted on committee business. This is the story of a committee chair who decided amendments were out of order. We overruled his decision with a majority vote in committee, but he got his way in the end. It is also the story of a Speaker of the House who heard my appeal and that of my colleague, the Conservative Party's defence critic, who rose in the House to say that we heard the victims, that we could not ignore them and that certain recommendations could not be ruled out of order.

From a procedural standpoint, for example, our proposal to consider establishing an office did not entail the allocation of additional resources, yet it was deemed inadmissible on the grounds that it required additional resources. Our proposal does not run counter to the intent of this bill, which aims to reform military justice to make life more bearable for victims and to better address cases of misconduct. I am sorry, but when we have good ideas to improve a bill and flesh it out, that aligns with the bill's intent. In our case, given that we are stuck with this highly imperfect Canadian parliamentary system, we have decided, procedurally speaking, to include in the bill the need to consider establishing an office. This does not mean creating the office itself or adding new resources. It costs nothing to mandate the government to look into the issue. It does not cost a penny to include it in the bill.

However, the Speaker decided to reject all of those amendments. Even though a few admissible amendments remained, we found out only yesterday evening after checking the Notice Paper that the government had rejected them in a last-ditch effort—like I said, their majority is going to their heads—to erase, destroy, undo and dismantle everything that members had accomplished in committee. What a slap in the face for the experts, the victims and democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, can I get the member's perspective on the recommendation brought forward by Justice Arbour to do that complete transfer, and can the member acknowledge that there would have been a great deal of effort in coming up with that recommendation? Is it the Bloc party's position, as it for the Conservatives, that they should just disregard that recommendation?

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

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens. He gets up, walks around, talks and then asks a question that I already answered in my speech. We have come to expect it.

As I said, this is not about complete freedom of choice. The amendment known as BQ‑2 did not involve complete freedom of choice. What the amendment said is that not every case needs to be automatically transferred. Our initial response would be to transfer these cases, but if experts and the civilian system consider it advisable to keep them in the military system, that would be allowed. That is all.

I will close by saying that Justice Arbour could have come and testified, as she was also invited to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that he wants to manage public finances in a wiser, more rigorous way. A House of Commons committee spent hours studying an extremely important report. The committee heard from experts and victims. Members of Parliament and their staff, as well as the committee staff, examined the matter during several meetings. Public funds were used for the benefit of parliamentary democracy.

Now we are learning that the government is completely ignoring all the work that was done. This government is not looking at it at all.

I would like my colleague to comment on the frustration this caused him. What does he think this all means? What does all this show about the government's understanding of parliamentary democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, it shows that the government understands perfectly well how things work, but that it could not care less. In other words, it knows exactly what tactics to use to trample on the rights of members of Parliament, and in this particular case, to show utter contempt for the victims who appeared in order to have their say. That is what all this tells us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence with me.

I think that today we are talking about victims. We are talking about the issue of victims' trust in a justice system. I would like my colleague to talk about the 14,000 victims who testified before Justice Arbour that they did not trust the military system. Since 2022, all sexual abuse cases under the Criminal Code have been tried in civilian court, and that arrangement is working.

Why could it not continue to work?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question with a question. I am going to do what the Liberals do during question period and answer with a question. Someday it will be their turn to ask questions in the House, because nothing lasts forever.

What does my colleague have to say to the victims, the victims' associations, the Barreau du Québec and the experts who told us that they were in favour of allowing cases to be transferred to the civilian justice system, but not at all costs? It may be suitable for some cases, but not all.

I understand that complete freedom of choice is not necessarily the right option for the sole reason that not everyone always has the information and there can still be things like manipulation behind the scenes. We agree on that. However, BQ‑2, which was adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on the committee, would have made it possible to determine, on the recommendation of civilian court experts, that certain matters were best left to the military justice ssytem.

What does my colleague have to say to the victims who came to testify?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his hard work on Bill C-11 at committee, bringing in witnesses and listening to them. We worked across party lines to get the best possible amendments to this bill that listen to victims.

The member talked about how the Liberals have now stolen their majority in a very sneaky way by getting floor crossers. Can he talk to the fact that now the Liberals get to ignore what the victims actually said at committee, and why they would do that when this is actually in the best interest of the Canadian Armed Forces and those survivors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague. We worked very well together on this.

I think this just goes to show that the Liberals' majority has gone to their heads. They are going to be extremely arrogant in the coming years. The next three and a half years are going to feel very long and drawn out, but the public will judge for themselves. The proof will be in the pudding. This shows that the Liberals do not care about what we heard or about the weeks and weeks of work we did listening to what victims had to say.

That is extremely frustrating, but I am still interested in seeing how the member for Nunavut, a former NDP member, will vote, because she made several recommendations when she came to committee. Now, she is a Liberal, so I am interested to see how she will vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and express some thoughts on the amendments and the tactics we see the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives is taking on this issue. The degree to which they try to give the false impression that the government is not listening to members of the CAF and that the government is not sensitive to the issue before the House today is really unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the government party is the only political entity out of the three big parties in the House that is actually giving attention and credit to the amazing amount of work Justice Arbour performed on behalf of our CAF members. We are not talking about hundreds through this whole process, but literally thousands of members of the CAF who were engaged in one way or another, and that is not to mention the dozens, if not hundreds of women whom Justice Arbour would have been directly or indirectly in communication with.

What do we hear today? Whether they are from the Bloc or the Conservative Party, members are taking the position that it does not matter what Justice Arbour had to say—

[An hon. member]

Cry me a river.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member said, “Cry me a river.” Shame on the Conservative member who would say something of that nature when we are taking a look at how important the issue is.

I will stand up for every woman in the Canadian Forces—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the record, the member who made that statement is actually from the Bloc Québécois. That is for correction purposes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

That is not a point of order, but a matter of debate.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton is also rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should stop engaging in demagoguery at the expense of victims, since the Liberals were the ones who showed that they did not care. He should stop pretending to be upset when we know that is not true.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

This is a very emotional topic, but we must be careful about what we say in the House. Members should not use certain words and phrases. I am therefore going to ask all members to be careful about what they say here.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc should be ashamed of the position it is taking on this legislation. I am not going to apologize for standing up for what I believe to be true.

We have a justice who has done a phenomenal job of reflecting the need for change. I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I had the opportunity to serve very proudly, and I have worked with members of the CAF over the years. I have a deep respect for the work that has been done to date, military, non-military and government, in order to deal with the cultural changes required in our forces.

We have made significant progress. Listening to the debates during second reading, I thought there was a universal acceptance of the need to transfer to the civil process investigations or the court process, and, where we can, to provide that additional support. We have a government that has recognized that, and that is why we have Bill C-11.

As opposed to trying to marginalize Justice Arbour, who did the work, why do we not read what she actually said? Allow me to quote the justice, who said:

Recommendation #5: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the 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.

Those are the points I amplified when I first spoke to this legislation. We then had the Conservative critic standing up in a response to marginalize what is an absolutely critical and important issue. It is an issue that I honestly thought the Conservative Party was on side with, until the other day, when the Conservatives made the decision to bring forward all of these amendments.

That is not to discredit the committee process. Whether it has a majority or a minority, I believe we have seen a government that responds very positively to the work the standing committees do. It does not matter if it has a majority or a minority. Quite frankly, there is a responsibility for all of us to be thorough in those recommendations that have been presented.

I have not heard an argument brought forward that counters what Justice Arbour would have taken into consideration. I have confidence in her holistic approach to deal with the issue in the report that she brought forward. It includes 48 recommendations, and dozens of them have already been implemented. I do not know the exact number, but I can assure members that we are well on the way to the full implementation of that report. That is what this legislation would do. From what I understand, it would take the essence of that report, the most significant aspect, and put it into law.

Based on the debate we are hearing from the unholy alliance of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, they are now saying we should throw out that recommendation, but on what grounds? There was a committee. The standing committee met. Contrast the discussions that took place there to those Justice Arbour would have had with many members of the CAF. Meetings were done in confidence, no doubt, along with some that would have been done in a public forum.

I always thought that, as politicians, we are supposed to look at ideas and thoughts and base decisions on the work of the people who have that comprehensive understanding and have done the homework. I would suggest that Justice Arbour did the homework on this issue.

It is interesting. We put in place, shortly after the recommendation was made, an interim measure that would see the transfer of these files into the civil process. Given the opposition to it today, I would ask how many members of the Bloc Québécois or the Conservative Party have stood in their place in the past year and a half and more, or the last few years, and actually asked a question about it. I cannot recall any. I have been here for a lot of question periods. I do not recall any Conservatives standing up, saying they do not believe in Justice Arbour's position and we need to keep this in the military justice system. Please, when the members opposite stand up and speak, correct me if I am wrong.

At the end of the day, we are trying to reinforce the strength and confidence our CAF members and Canadians as a whole have in building a Canada strong Canadian Armed Forces. We have a Prime Minister who, in less than a year, has raised defence spending to 2% of the GDP, and we are going beyond that. We just had a record number of candidates recruited to join the Canadian Forces. We are talking about a record number in well over 30 years. The numbers are going up. We are recognizing that we need to increase the pay. We have recognized that we need to build on our military and industrial infrastructure to support the CAF.

Today, we have legislation to protect the interests of CAF members. We should be talking about how CAF membership contributes in so many ways to who we are as a nation. We should get behind the members, support them and support the legislation, as it has been suggested by the government.