Debates of April 23rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the right to choose, the member indicated, which I think was somewhat demeaning, that this only applied to women. Obviously, in the armed forces, there are a lot of issues. On this issue, I can attest, from male members of the armed forces having spoken with me, that this is as much an issue to them as it is to women.

Would the member like to retract that statement?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I misspoke, I sincerely apologize. There are men and women who have reported cases of abuse. I did not in any way mean to impugn anyone in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleague for his great work on the national defence committee.

I would like the member to elaborate a bit about what we heard in terms of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who would not come forward to file complaints out of fear of retribution and that their careers would be limited, and that is why we brought forward Justice Arbour's recommendation.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We heard testimony on a different report at the national defence committee yesterday on francophones in the armed forces, and one of the members who testified had testified earlier. This was an officer who, in Afghanistan, was sexually assaulted, but failed to report because the assailant in this case was a superior officer.

That goes to the crux of why we are making these changes. It is due to a reluctance or fear of reporting because of the chain of command.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-11 follows what I would call a really troubling pattern of behaviour toward veterans in Canada, especially when it comes to women veterans. This is the same party that proudly claims to be feminist, but it will happily disregard what women are advocating for the second it no longer suits its political agenda.

I will remind everyone in this House that it was the Liberals who propped up Justin Trudeau, the self-proclaimed feminist, who would immediately fire any woman from his caucus who dared to stand up to him. It would appear now that Liberals continue to follow in those footsteps. Much has been said already today about we are seeing happen here.

[Disturbance in gallery]

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I will remind those who are attending not to make comments from the gallery.

The hon. member for Airdrie—Cochrane can resume.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about it already, but clearly, in the defence committee, a lot of witnesses came forward, like veterans, and in particular, women veterans. They talked a lot about having the ability to choose and how the justice they needed to receive would be done. The Conservatives listened to that. We worked across party lines to see improvements to the bill.

The Liberals did not seem to listen so much, which seems to be a pattern. They like to pretend that they care. They are about to have a majority government that they achieved through backroom deals. They think that means that now they do not have to work with others, work across party lines or listen to the victims. Instead, they can just ram through the changes they want to see. Here, they are trying to do what is politically expedient for them, but they are not listening. They are not hearing the concerns that are being raised.

I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and fighting for our veterans there. Just a little over a year ago, we tabled what I would consider a landmark study on the experiences of women veterans. That is a study we did over several months. There were about 25 meetings to hear witness testimony. We heard some testimony from women veterans that was absolutely heartbreaking. I know many of the same veterans would have come to speak to the defence committee about the experiences they had, like with military sexual trauma. There are a lot of things that women veterans have experienced during their time in the Canadian Forces, like ill-fitting equipment and other things that are not designed for our women in our military.

The Liberals publicly claimed how important this study was for them and how much they cared about this cause. In the end, out of the recommendations that were made, as far as I can tell, the only thing that was acted upon was the idea of creating a women veterans council to advise the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Of course, what we have seen since that time is that the women who were appointed to this committee were telling us that they were not being listened to. They were expressing their frustration. They were expressing concern about the fact that they had no access to the Minister of Veterans Affairs or to the Government of Canada. They simply felt like they were being used for photo ops or as a showpiece.

In the end, despite raising these concerns with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and despite many of us raising them at committee, there were still no efforts being made to listen to or address any of the concerns the members of this council were trying to raise. In January of this year, there was a massive resignation of the majority of the members of the women veterans council, because they claimed they were being ignored. We are now seeing that very same thing play out here with the Minister of National Defence. Therefore, after being forced to finally address the issues that were plaguing the Canadian Armed Forces and driving members from its ranks, and after public embarrassment from an Auditor General's report, only then did the Liberals decide there was a need to address these issues.

As I said, many of these same women veterans we heard from at the veterans affairs committee bravely came forward to recount their experiences, to talk once again to a parliamentary committee and face the trauma they experienced. They offered their advice on ways to amend Bill C-11 to ensure that victims of the broken justice system had their voices heard. Of course, the goal was to ensure that the military justice system would learn from its mistakes, so future members of the CAF would not be subjected to the same cruel experiences that they were subjected to. The amendments made in the national defence committee came straight from veterans. Those veterans had been on the receiving end of the failures of the military justice system. They were the same veterans that the Auditor General reported about and who suffered undue hardship under this system.

Once again, the Liberals will pretend that this entire initiative is their own doing to support women. Then, as soon as they got their majority, they dropped the charade and completely wiped out some of the amendments that came from the very work of these women who came forward. Not only is this disrespectful to all of those who came forward and all of those who made themselves vulnerable to try to help future CAF members, but it is also a blatant display of disregard by the Liberal government. It is clear that, once again, this is just another “check the box” for them. Rather than trying to fix the issue, it is some kind of a show of pretending they are doing something.

First, the Liberals sat on this issue for almost 10 years, while the media exposed case after case. I do not think Canadians are going to forget how long the Liberals buried their heads in the sand to avoid this issue. What is clear now is that the Liberals are going to attempt to ram through this legislation, rather than actually accept the things that were heard and the work that was done across party lines so that we could actually address the issues in the way the veterans were calling for.

The disrespect for veterans does not end there. There have been numerous scandals in just the last few years alone where the Liberal government deliberately continues to ignore what veterans are asking for. I think about the Presence in Absence monument. For those who do not know, this is a monument the Liberals funded, which was supposed to honour those who gave their lives in Afghanistan. The Liberals did not do their due diligence and did not ensure that the project was inspected in the right way. It was constructed listing the names of many surviving veterans as killed in action, and other names, of those who actually did lay down their lives, making the ultimate sacrifice, were left off that monument. As we can imagine, survivors and family members of those who were killed in action were furious. The Province of Ontario put forward a motion to Veterans Affairs, just looking for a simple apology, and there was nothing. It is a clear pattern.

With the time I have remaining, I will speak briefly about what the Liberals are doing in terms of the $4-billion cuts they are making to Veterans Affairs and what impact that is going to have on veterans. Veterans are screaming out, because they are going to see five-year wait times to get some of their basic benefits as a result of some of these cuts, including to the bureau of pensions advocates and other cuts. It is shocking, disappointing and sad. It just continues on. This is just another example where veterans are being ignored and not listened to, and where they seem to be the last thing the government thinks about or considers. It is not right. Veterans certainly deserve better.

What I would say to the government is to think about the veterans who came forward and how much courage it must have taken for them to recount their stories. What needs to be done is to ensure that the recounting of their stories and the bravery they showed to come forward and try to make things better for their fellow future veterans are honoured in a way that involves listening to what was said and acting upon it, rather than just trying to ram through a piece of legislation and trying to pretend that the Liberals have done something by checking a box.

The Liberals need to ensure that these veterans, particularly women veterans, have their voices reflected in this. I do not think that is what we are seeing now, when they are refusing to accept some of the amendments. I really hope that, perhaps, after listening to some of this today, the government will take a step back and say that it needs to make sure these voices are heard and work with the things that have been done across party lines to make sure those experiences are reflected in this. I do not see that now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did listen intently to the intervention of my colleague across the way. He referenced a report that was tabled by the ACVA committee in June 2024. I actually participated in that study as well. That report made a unanimous recommendation, recommendation 40, which states:

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.

This is exactly what Justice Arbour recommended in her recommendation 5, which is exactly what is in Bill C-11. I am not sure why there is a change of heart. We listened to veterans, and this is what they asked for.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I need to remind the member of is that we are hearing, and the committee heard, from veterans, from women veterans, who have come forward, and they are saying that they need to have the choice. That is what the amendments, which the government is ignoring, are seeking to do.

The government can stand up and pretend it is listening. It can claim that it cares. If it really cared, it would listen to what we have heard and act upon it. That is what the amendments give the opportunity to do.

The second the government thinks it has a majority government and can do whatever it wants, the idea that it would work together to try to work with everyone and do what is in the best interest of veterans is just completely thrown out the window. That is done the very second it thinks it does not have to listen anymore.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the committee and that sort of thing.

The hon. member has the role of shadow minister. Could he explain some of the interventions he has had with people outside of the committee, such as the regular forces who have come to him and the everyday experiences he has had, back and forth, with them?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were to really summarize what I hear from veterans all the time, and I hear it frequently, it is probably summarized best in the words of former prime minister Justin Trudeau when he told veterans they were “asking for more than we [can] give”.

That is what veterans feel like they are being told by the government, consistently and constantly, that they are asking for more than we can give. Frankly, we can never give enough. Our veterans, who serve the country, who are willing to lay down their lives for the country, deserve to be treated with respect. They deserve to have what they are entitled to for the service they gave to the country. Right now, they are not seeing it and they are expressing their alarm.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on workplace safety. Does he know anywhere in the world where someone who reports a sexual crime gets investigated, prosecuted and judged by his peers? Does that make any sense to him?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that anyone here is suggesting that.

If we are to talk about workplace safety, let me talk about the workplace our veterans serve in. Our veterans are willing to lay down their lives for this country. They put themselves in the most difficult positions, ones that any of us could never even imagine. They do that because the government asks them to do that. The only thing that they expect in return is that the government takes care of them and listens to what they need. That is not happening under the government. It is about time the government starts listening to veterans and providing what veterans deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Pays‑d'en‑Haut.

Today, in the House, we are debating a bill that is very important for the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to begin by thanking Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans and their families for their service to our country.

This bill seeks to modernize the military justice system and originally included recommendations from the reports of former Supreme Court of Canada justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish. These changes are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team as they continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians.

The bill responds to recommendation 5 from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour's report and the eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish's report. However, the amendments made by the committee and proposed by opposition MPs run counter to these recommendations. I believe that all my colleagues in the House will agree with me on the following point: Bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our top priorities. That is why I believe it is crucial to hold this debate here, so that we can discuss the importance of upholding the recommendations of former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour.

Today I will address the importance of recommendation 5. In 2022, Ms. Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, entitled “Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”, contains 48 recommendations that focused on reforming the “institutional shortcomings” and “structural impediments” that have allowed the problem to persist.

Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 is that civilian authorities should have exclusive jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences alleged against members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I quote:

Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the [Canadian Armed Forces]. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the [military police] may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity.

She also states the following in her report:

...I do not envisage a type of permanent transfer process by which a victim would report a crime to the [military police], who would then transfer the case to a civilian police service. The experience of the interim recommendation has shown that to be unworkable. I expect victims to be told to contact civilian authorities directly, and such contact to be facilitated by the [military police] and the [Canadian Armed Forces] so far as possible.

However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties run directly counter to this recommendation. This will make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill as amended by the opposition parties. The lack of clarity and transparency will have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors.

Since December 2021, all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges have been laid in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried in the military justice system, and this arrangement is working.

Justice Arbour also relied on the results of the Declaration of Victims Rights consultation in issuing recommendation 5. In her report, she notes:

Common themes in the response to the consultation included “fear of reprisal and retaliation, lack of support, shame and embarrassment, issues with the system, the accused being protected, and the individual responsible for handling complaints being the perpetrator.” There was also a widely held perception, both among those who identified as victims of a service offence and those who did not, that the military justice system fails to treat victims with dignity and respect....

This lack of trust and fear of reprisals were also raised by the vast majority of witnesses during the committee's consideration of Bill C-11. Here is an example of testimony received by the committee. On November 20, 2025, Paula MacDonald made the following statement during her testimony before the Standing Committee on National Defence:

When I went to the civilian police, I was told more than once to go back to the military system that failed me. At the same time, my leaders reframed my complaints. Instead of naming sexual harassment and abuse of power that led to sexual assault, they called me emotional, hypersensitive and a mental health problem.

She continued:

In my case, the Canadian Armed Forces didn't simply mishandle a file; it used the machinery of the military justice and grievance system to protect its membership, who violated the National Defence Act and silenced me. The misuse of state power that the charter is meant to guard against is what they did.

It is exactly why the reforms like Bill C‑11 and a real shift to independent civilian jurisdiction over sexual offences is so urgently needed to maintain the rule of law within the Canadian Armed Forces.

She also said the following:

If a Canadian solution is to move it to the civilian system— and it seems that this is our Canadian solution—where our three Supreme Court justices, who are experts in the delivery of justice, say it should be, then this is what we need to do.

I think it is pretty clear that there is a lack of trust in the military justice system when it comes to sexual offences. That is why the defence team implemented most of Justice Arbour's recommendations, and we need to do the same for recommendation 5.

This bill should establish a clear framework for investigating and acting on allegations of sexual misconduct in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. That would not happen if we adopted the amendments put forward by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 from Bill C‑11. We are encouraged by the positive changes in the culture of the defence team in recent years. Bill C‑11 and the changes it will make to the National Defence Act are a crucial step in strengthening that trust and ensuring that this change is permanent.

Canadians who serve our country risk everything for us. In return, we owe them our full and unconditional support.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, having listened to and read a lot of the testimony, that what the member just mentioned about the concerns of one of those witnesses is absolutely true. At the same time, 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.” She goes on to indicate that it should not be an either-or but a both-and. We know that victims come with different perspectives.

What the government has done is chosen what is best, most applicable and appreciated by itself and the Canadian Armed Forces. It removes it from the very place where the issues are being done. They—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give a chance for the member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, Justice Arbour interviewed 14,000 people and most of them did not want these cases to remain in the military system. The trust is not there.

A change in culture is happening slowly. We hear that things are improving at the Department of National Defence, but they have not yet improved enough. Victims still fear retaliation. They fear being reprimanded, and they fear that their case will not be dealt with appropriately.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It is important to take an interest in what we are debating here in the House. While my colleague may take an interest in the debates here in the House, he is not, to my knowledge, a member of the committee that studied this bill. He can correct me if I am wrong.

The committee members worked very hard on this. Bloc Québécois and Conservative members proposed amendments that came back to the House. It was not the first time that happened. I think we have seen that with other bills in the past. The government says it wants to collaborate, but it just dismisses the committee's constructive work once the bill comes back to the House. This does not bode well for the future when the governing party has a majority in committees.

Is this how it is going to be from now on, or will there be genuine collaboration?

I have my doubts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to correct my colleague. I have sat on the Standing Committee on National Defence since I was elected, and I am happy to do so. I sat in on all the testimony that was given in connection with the study of Bill C‑11.

Some witnesses did say that they would rather have a choice, but the vast majority of witnesses said that they did not trust the military justice system, that they were not convinced that investigations would be carried out properly within the military system and that they chose the civilian system. This has been in place since 2022. All the criminal cases of sexual abuse are already before the civilian courts. It works very well, and we do not see the point of going backwards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on the Standing Committee on National Defence. He talked about all the other sexual assault victims. Recommendation 5 in Justice Arbour's report stems from the work she has done. She listened to witnesses and victims and made this recommendation, the same one that was in the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Can my colleague talk about the other victims who were not able to appear before the committee? We are listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work with the military. Coming from a military family, I appreciate the service of her two sons. We did indeed listen to witnesses, and we are aware that the majority of them do not want their cases made public. They do not want to disclose their assault in public. I think it is important to take their opinions into account, along with everything that was said to Justice Arbour. She heard testimony from 14,000 people, and it is important to consider what they said.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have no experience in the military, and I do not serve on the national defence committee, so why am I here? I serve on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have been there since 2015. As a matter of fact, I am the matron of the committee. I am the only one who has been there this entire time, outlasting a decade's worth of 10 ministers and different members every time the government has had an election. I have experienced everything on that committee, in my heart and in my mind, with all of those who have come to share their stories and their concerns. I am standing here today simply on behalf of the survivors of military sexual trauma in whatever form.

We did a study of women in the military, and out of that study came the report “Invisible No More”. Survivors spoke of their experiences, and I have to say there is no other way to hear what the government should be doing than to sit down and not just read the report but watch and listen to every one of those individuals who took the risk, and were brave and courageous, to come and share exactly what has happened to them in the military.

I am hearing the concerns that it was so devastating, and it was not treated properly, so we are going to move it all over to civilian court. These women know what is happening here. They are not being heard and are not being respected. They do not want to have everything shifted over to the civilian court. There are reasons for that, which are rational and were shared at the committee, and they are being completely ignored. Why? It is because the government wants it to go away. It wants our national defence to be able to function without this in the rear-view mirror.

That is not what the survivors want. They want the option to take their perpetrator to civilian court or to do it within the military. As a matter of fact, if members read all of Bill C-11, they will see there were good reasons, and means, to also give them the choice to move between the two. This is not complicated. It could be done, and every member of the military who has been attacked in some way should have the opportunity to have that choice.

Out of that same report, “Invisible No More”, a recommendation came forward to have a VAC women veterans council. It was announced on December 2, 2024. I was at the installation ceremony for the members who were chosen and celebrated the creation of the council that spring. It joined a plethora of advisory councils that have had minimum input and minimum impact on the decision-making of the government. Believing that their contribution would be different, the members were excited, and then time went by.

I attended a major conference where members of the council were represented, and they were praised for their participation and input in making this conference take place. I later learned from a number of them that no, it was just word salad. They were not consulted.

On January 14 came a letter of resignation from six out of the 12, including five of the eight Canadian Armed Forces members, who put in their letter of resignation because they saw none of what they had expected to have happen in that group. This is what the letter said:

Today, more than ever, we believe in the importance of coming together, speaking collectively, and demanding accountability. Meaningful change will not come from symbolic structures or performative consultations, but from clear institutional commitment, dedicated and transparent funding, and mechanisms that genuinely recognize lived experience as expertise.

This is something I have come to realize over my decade plus on that committee. These women are always considered, but they are never recognized as experts in what they present at that committee. We are seeing that again today in the way they are being responded to.

In response to Bill C-11 in its original form, concerns actually came to light at an appreciation event for women who served in the Canadian Armed Forces, including those who had contributed to the study, that was sponsored and put on by the Liberal women MPs on the veterans affairs standing committee. I was not formally invited, but I showed up. It was there that these contributors expressed openly that they were not happy with Bill C-11 and that it would not do what they need it to do. I had the opportunity to represent them and talk to my colleagues in national defence. They listened. The government is not listening. As a matter of fact, it is being punitive to the very people it should be supporting.

I am just going to quote a couple of the individuals I have come to know and be good friends with. I love their tenacity, their grit, their truthfulness and the fact that they do not see themselves as victims. They are survivors, and they love the armed forces. Their biggest desire is to see this gone, but they do not believe that can happen if suddenly there is no accountability. We know that the chain of command is culpable here. It is part of the problem. I get the rationale, but it is not right, and it is punitive to the very people the government should be supporting.

I am going to quote Donna Van Leusden. She 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. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed—

That creates trauma. That is sanctuary trauma.

—and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did.

She was involved in actually putting together a program that they could have function within the Canadian Armed Forces. They were even doing tests, and it was working. There are a lot of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have seen what has gone on and did not want to be part of that, do not want to be part of that, and looked forward to having this as an option. It was shut down.

I am going to quote Christine Wood, who is the one who bravely said at that meeting of the committee and veterans that they were not happy with Bill C-11, and she explained why. She said:

I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military.

We have different views, do we not? However, it is not an either-or. It is a both-and.

She went on to say:

I support it because the CAF must uphold [its] own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices.

To be clear, I'm not defending the status quo. The military justice system...failed me [too, but] replacing one system that's broken with another system that completely and consistently fails victims of sexual offences does not create justice. It simply relocates the problem, and...removes the responsibility of the CAF for fixing it.

Transferring all Criminal Code sexual offences will, in my view, increase the number of high-harm incidents.

This is important.

Low-level sexual misconduct must be both reported and pursued, because these are the early warning[s]...of a toxic, sexualized culture. Requiring a young, newly enrolled CAF member to walk into an RCMP detachment to report a low-level incident is unrealistic, and it will suppress reporting.

Heather Vanderveer said, “Survivor autonomy is one of the strongest predictors of recovery after institutional betrayal and sexual trauma. Bill C-11 risks creating a system where survivors feel processed through the justice system rather than empowered within it.”

This is wrong, and it is going to cause more problems than it fixes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we move to questions and comments, the member has a device on her desk that was buzzing, and it was interfering sometimes with interpretation. I would ask the member to just move it away. The buzzing does not sound very loud near her, but it is quite loud here. I could hear it, and for the interpreters, it was even louder.

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, Justice Arbour came up with a recommendation to transfer cases to the civilian process. A previous standing committee of the House put forward a report, which the member indicated that she voted for, that said to do exactly what this legislation purports to do

Justice Arbour would have met with literally hundreds of victims. Combined, we are probably talking about well over 1,000 people, directly and indirectly. I believe she did her homework. Based on the expertise she brought to the table and the people she consulted with, she came up with that recommendation.

Does the member believe Justice Arbour is wrong in her recommendation?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the tone in which the member presented his question is appreciated.

I voted for the report. When we voted for that report, we were saying to all those suffering individuals that we were there for them, we heard them and we wanted to see change. I voted for that recommendation at that time.

Over time, those same individuals who gave testimony have had time to process it. What is interesting is that what ended up being the recommendation in that report is also a recommendation that was put forward by that one individual. There are others who did excellent work too.

It needs to be changed.