Debates of April 23rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, it is 2026. The first allegations against General Vance date back to 2015. At the time, rather than taking action, the Harper government gave him a promotion. Since then, we have had the Arbour, Deschamps and Fish reports, and yet here we are, still talking about this crisis in Canada's military justice system. I have two questions.

First, I would like to know why all the governments, and by that I mean the Harper government, the Trudeau government and today's government, have shown so little concern for this issue. Second, in my colleague's opinion, why did the government refuse to consider the Bloc Québécois's amendment that sought to give victims a choice between the military and civilian justice systems in circumstances where these victims' trust in the current military justice system may be undermined?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that nothing around here moves the way I would make it move, if I were the one in charge. “Cathay for prime minister.” No. I am quite happy to not be in charge. That being said, the reality is that politics interfere often. I think the member knows that as well, even from where he sits.

The member asked why in the world this has happened. That is a really good question, and it does not get asked often enough.

I firmly believe the reason all of this excellent opportunity to give our veterans the best chance to change the culture of the armed forces has been denied is that it is more politically expedient for the government to make it go away.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful and heartfelt words.

We may hear the party opposite continually refer to the Arbour report, yet much has changed since then, such as the mandatory duty to report and access to the SMSRC. Military members at that time did not have access to victim liaison services or independent legal support.

I was wondering if my colleague could explain why the party opposite continues to refer to the report of Justice Arbour's, who did not testify at committee, and has failed to refer to the Deschamps and Fish reports, which supported that choice for military sexual trauma.

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually wrote down “cherry-picking” on my paper. The Liberals are not choosing to look at the broad picture of what has been presented to them on behalf of veterans who have suffered military sexual trauma, and who will continue to suffer under the CAF until things improve and the changes are made that truly need to be made.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a piece of legislation that is very important to the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces.

I begin by thanking the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families for their service to Canada.

As Canada's new government rearms, rebuilds and reinvests in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is critical that we start with our people. Our work to attract, recruit and retain members of the Canadian Armed Forces requires a safe, healthy work environment where our forces can thrive, grow and contribute.

The changes proposed in this legislation are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team, which continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians. Bill C-11 aims to modernize the military justice system and incorporate the recommendations from two external reports from former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish.

The bill would implement nine recommendations in total, including recommendation five of former Supreme Court Justice Arbour's report and eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish's report. At present, the amendments made by members of the opposition during the study of the bill at the Standing Committee on National Defence run counter to the Supreme Court justices' recommendations.

I believe all of my colleagues in this House will agree with me that bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our highest priorities, free from politicization and partisanship. Canadians expect us to take culture change in the military seriously. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces expect us to take culture change seriously too.

I will take some time to go through the changes that Bill C-11 aims to implement from Justice Arbour's work.

In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, known as the report of the independent comprehensive external review, or the ICER, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional shortcomings and structural barriers that have allowed the problem of sexual misconduct in the CAF to persist.

When the legislation was introduced last fall, before amendments were made at committee, Bill C-11 proposed to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada from the military police to the civilian police. This is Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation in action. As Justice Arbour laid it out, the goal is to remove these offences from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces, putting the investigations into and the prosecution of offenders in the hands of civilian authorities. Moreover, this recommendation fulfills our promise to victims and survivors that they can have confidence that their cases will continue to be handled fairly and with transparency outside of the military chain of command. This change and others proposed through Bill C-11 complement programs, services and initiatives already in place to make sure that survivors receive the support and guidance they need to help them through the difficult process they often face alone.

Before going into further amendments made at the committee stage, I will take a moment to discuss the existing supports that are available through the Canadian Armed Forces' programs and illustrate how Bill C-11 is yet another piece of the puzzle in supporting victims and survivors.

The Canadian Armed Forces sexual misconduct support and resource centre is a key tool for victims and survivors. Within this centre is the community support for sexual misconduct survivors grant program. This program extends the support offered through the centre into the communities it serves, increasing collaboration between National Defence and third party, community-based organizations. These organizations can in turn provide valuable support for survivors and have the capacity and expertise to provide support to those affected by military sexual trauma. These essential resources complement the centre's other offerings, ensuring that survivors can access support anywhere in the country when, where and how it is needed most. Through peer support programs, survivors can share their experiences and support one another in groups that include mental health practitioners and trained peer supporters with their own experience of sexual misconduct or military sexual trauma.

While these programs and tools can help survivors cope with the experience of sexual misconduct or trauma, it is equally important to support them through the complex and difficult process of pursuing justice. Many survivors have said the justice system makes them feel excluded or even victimized all over again. This is one of the driving forces behind the changes to the military justice system proposed in Bill C-11.

I will speak briefly to Bill C-11's journey through committee.

Justice Arbour's recommendation five, the recommendation to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct cases from the military police to the civilian police, is at the heart of Bill C-11. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties at the committee stage run directly counter to this recommendation. It would be 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. Moreover, the lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system, victims and survivors.

It is important to remember that an interim directive to implement recommendation five by transferring cases until legislation passed has been in place since December 2021. That means that since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought into the civilian justice system, and none of these offences have been tried by the military justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, just as Justice Arbour recommended. However, opposition amendments propose to reverse this directive, reject Justice Arbour's recommendation and, in fact, go backward.

Victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces deserve clarity and transparency, not steps backward. It is clear that the interim directive and the spirit of Justice Arbour's recommendation five have been making a tangible, clear and meaningful difference over the past five years. Since December 2021, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case that has occurred in Canada has been successfully transferred to the civilian system. This means that every new case is being prosecuted in a manner that is fair, that is transparent and that inspires trust in the system for the victim. Bill C-11 would take the final necessary step to make this a lasting reality and ensure that all cases would, once and for all, go through the civilian court system.

Any attempts or suggestions to overturn, stall or block this progress from continuing are a disservice to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Bill C-11 would ensure that victims and survivors of Criminal Code sexual misconduct would have a fair, transparent process without any real or perceived influence from their chain of command. Over the past few years, I have watched the Canadian Armed Forces undergoing a period of cultural evolution and change. Like many Canadians and many of my colleagues, I am encouraged by the positive and forward-looking changes that have been made.

I know that building trust and confidence in our military justice system is a critical element in ensuring that this change continues and endures. The proposed changes in Bill C-11 would modernize the military justice system, and particularly how that system handles cases of Criminal Code sexual misconduct.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would suggest that my colleagues not use “chain of command” until they understand what it means. People are removed from the chain of command today and put into the JAG system, or at least they were prior to this.

I want to quote Dr. Karen Breeck, who is a former officer in the Canadian Armed Forces and is also a medical doctor. She testified that the military of 2025 has changed. She said:

Today the chain of command has extensive awareness and training. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre is fully operational. Victims' rights legislation is in force. Independent legal and victim supports exist.... What evidence still shows that [the civilian system] remains the best way forward?

I wonder if my colleague could comment on one of the victims who said much the same thing as—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South a chance to respond.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, we give great weight to the testimony of victims and of the good doctor my colleague referenced.

I would note that Justice Arbour, who has a long and illustrious career in the judicial system and who has been recognized as an international champion of human rights, carried out a very extensive investigation for her report, for which she consulted hundreds of witnesses, or possibly close to 1,000. She stated through her review that she still found a deeply deficient culture within the military and she had seen no meaningful improvements. Therefore, I would defer to Justice Arbour's recommendation.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I put a question to a member who I believe is sitting right next to my Liberal colleague. Since I did not get a complete answer, I will try asking her that same question.

Members from my party, the Bloc Québécois, and members of the official opposition, the Conservatives, have worked hard on bills in committee on several occasions. We proposed amendments, worked in good faith, heard from witnesses and really did a thorough job. However, when those bills come back to the House, the Liberals just undo all that work and that is it.

Is this indicative of how the government intends to manage its future majority?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee at which this was studied. However, I am a lawyer, and I have worked in the space of intimate partner violence and violence against women, so the perspective I bring is my own.

As far as working through amendments and committees, this is something that I believe every elected member of Parliament wants to do in good faith at all times. That does not necessarily mean that colleagues across the aisle will get the result they want every time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her incredible support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

She mentioned that she is a lawyer and has worked in this kind of field. I would like to ask her if she knows of any other workplace where an employee who is a victim of sexual assault would have to report that sexual assault to their employer and have it investigated by their own employer.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has asked really goes to the crux of what Justice Arbour found in her report.

I would say that no, I do not know of any other situation where a victim would potentially have to come forward to superiors or have the case heard within a workplace.

I think we have to be very cautious. I know my opposition colleagues have been talking about options, but we have to be cautious about weighing options and certainty, and we have to be very cautious that we do not underestimate the potential pressure or coercion a victim may be subjected to by superiors within the workplace to have their complaint heard, in this example, in a military court because there could be more favourable conditions to the accused in that situation. That is something we have to be very cognizant of.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, when it first came to the national defence committee, was meant to transfer sexual assault cases from the military to the civilian justice system. It was not supposed to be a controversial bill. It arose because of the need to address sexual assault in the military. All of us in the House have, I believe, deep down, the best interests of Canadians at heart.

As a former officer, the bill matters to me. All of us in the room value the strength and dedication of our troops, but not one of us wants to see greater physical strength turned against our own. I have another personal reason for taking the bill seriously. I have a daughter who recently earned a university degree and a civilian pilot's license. She has recently applied to the Canadian Armed Forces to fly as a pilot in defence of our country.

Those of us in the House who are fathers of daughters will understand all too well the deep rage that wells up at the mere thought of someone doing harm to our daughters. I want to assure the House that I take the bill very seriously indeed, and that I really mean what I am about to say. Those of us who have sons should be aware that, because of the higher number of men serving, 40% of sexual assault cases involve male victims.

Like all of us, I had heard over the years horror stories involving sexual predation in the military, and I assumed, after having listened to the media, that this bill would be a sort of rubber stamp because everyone would want it. I assumed that victims of sexual predation in the military would want to stay far away from anybody in uniform. I assumed the victims would believe they would get a better shake in an inherently less structured and more liberal civilian justice system. I thought the victims would associate the military with the crime and understandably believe that, if their case were to be tried in the military, somehow the chain of command could influence the outcome, even though it has nothing to do with actual chain of command.

The Liberals told us that the victims of criminal sexual assault would be too traumatized to choose between a civilian investigation and a military investigation. It was best, according to the Liberals, if the state chose for them. This sounded a little bit like the old TV show Father Knows Best.

When we first started this investigation, I had no reason to believe that the victims would want anything to do with the military system, so I let it go. I think there are all sorts of other problems with the bill that we could fix with other amendments, and I am sure my colleagues will address those, but I want to talk specifically about the importance of choice.

Like I said, I had assumed that no one would object to moving the crime into the civilian system. I was shocked. I was surprised at the responses of the academics, the military and the civilian police, and I was truly shocked at the response of the victims.

We talked to academics. One professor pointed out that the conviction rate for sexual offences was not very high in the military justice system. Another academic, former JAG officer Rory Fowler, responded that, if the object were a high rate of conviction, perhaps Canada should emulate the North Korean justice system. He said that, quite likely, the reason for a low rate of conviction was an excellent defence team available in the military and referenced a recent high-profile case in which a JAG lawyer, Major Francesca Ferguson, supplied quality defence for a private who was falsely accused, right up to the Supreme Court.

Rory Fowler argued that the culture in the military has changed radically over the years. Back in the 1990s and earlier in this century, high-profile cases of sexual predation drew national attention to a real problem with sexual assault and the way it was handled in the military justice system. As a result, the government reacted and ordered high-level independent reviews of the military's handling of sexual assault in the military. The Deschamps report came out 11 years ago and the Fish and Arbour reports followed it. They all had ideas for change. The Arbour report had 48 recommendations, including steering victims toward the civilian justice system.

The problems in the military had not just kicked off a few reports, like most government studies do. They also kicked off a significant institutional culture change within the military. The senior leaders in the CAF did not just treat the Arbour and Fish reports as annoyances that had to be suffered through; they treated them as a new mission.

By late last year, the CAF had actioned all 48 of the Arbour report recommendations and were still actively engaged in culture change. Culture change is much faster in a top-down chain of command. When the organization is built around instant obedience, instant cultural change can happen very quickly when it comes from the top in a sincere effort.

Next, we listened to the defence and prosecution teams from the military. They argued that the studies the bill was responding to were out of date or no longer applied to current military culture. They said that they had both the know-how and the professionalism to handle the job. In fact, they said they were surprised to learn that the Liberals intended to remove jurisdiction because the CAF had made sweeping changes and spent enormous effort reforming the system. They also said the culture of the CAF had changed. We have two bodies of experts who are saying that the culture has changed.

Then we listened to the civilian police who told us that, although they had the capability, they no longer had the capacity to absorb yet more work, especially in locations with military bases close by. One such police chief told us that the witnesses might be scattered in redeployments to other jurisdictions in Canada or internationally. She said a case in those circumstances would be almost impossible for her department to investigate.

Then we listened to the victims of sexual assault in the military. These brave soldiers rose above the crimes that were done to them and were brave enough to testify in front of the nation in hopes that what had happened to them would not happen to others. Their testimony shocked me. These are the very people I thought would have the strongest desire to stay out of the military system, but the vast majority insisted that they wanted a choice. For various reasons, they wanted a choice.

After numerous victims spoke, it became obvious that the victims wanted choice, so we co-operated with the Bloc member on the committee to amend an outdated Liberal motion into one that every stakeholder, from victim to investigator, wanted. Our amendments gave the victims choice. Dr. Karen Breeck, a former medical officer in the CAF and a victim of sexual assault, put it to us succinctly:

First, the military of 2025 [has changed]. Today the chain of command has extensive awareness and training. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre is fully operational. Victims' rights legislation is in force. Independent legal and victim supports exist. What evidence still shows that [the civilian system] remains the best way forward?

So far so good, but late Friday afternoon, the Minister of National Defence tabled Bill C-11 at report stage. Instead of our amended bill, and in defiance of civilian lawyers, military lawyers, civilian police, military police and even the victims themselves, what came into the House had been stripped of all our amendments. Why? It is because the artificial Liberal majority can now just stiff our soldiers and download the problem onto lower levels of government. The Liberals are not doing it to help our soldiers. They are doing it to push the problem off the federal plate, and then they will just not have to worry about it anymore.

I appeal to my fellow veterans and to the MPs on the other side of the aisle to listen carefully to what one of our own veterans had to say about this. The veteran said that this bill, if it were stripped of all the amendments that were asked for by victims, cannot claim to be putting people first and that the bill, without the amendments, is not about making life easier for uniformed members but about making life easier for politicians. That is a very different thing and it is, frankly, dishonourable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the member's assessment.

I think that he undervalues the many discussions that Justice Arbour would have had with victims. We are not talking about a few dozen; we are talking about hundreds, directly, and indirectly through the Canadian Forces, we are talking about thousands.

I believe that the Conservative Party has marginalized those victims. There is a reason Justice Arbour came forward with that recommendation. I cannot recall the Conservatives ever asking a question that contradicted the recommendation that Justice Arbour brought forward, and it has been there for four years. Has this member, or any Conservative, asked a question about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member, a veteran himself, knows very well that, in the military, with a top-down chain of command, culture can change very fast, because it is an order-based society.

The Arbour report is several years old, and the culture did not stop to wait for the Arbour report. Right away, the military started the culture change, and you know that very well. You know that if you go back—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I hate to interrupt the member, but he has to speak through the Chair and not directly to the other member.

I will let the member finish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. However, if the member is acquainted with the military today, he knows very well that the culture has radically changed in a very short period of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the first allegations against General Vance came out in 2015. The Harper government gave him a promotion. This has been going on for over 10 years. It is now 2026. We got the reports from justices Arbour and Fish, and Justice Deschamps examined suggestions for legislative changes. However, in the bill before us today, the government has decided to ignore a major recommendation made by Justice Arbour, namely that a victim be given a choice between the military and civilian justice systems. When we asked the Liberals earlier why they ignored this amendment, which was not only discussed in good faith but also adopted by the committee, they simply replied that it is all well and good to work in good faith, but we cannot always get what we want.

What does that say about what the government thinks of victims' rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have put to us that we should remove choice because victims are going to be too traumatized after an assault to actually make a choice. This reminds me of the 19th-century idea that women became hysterical and really had to be directed and taught by men, because when they became hysterical, they were not capable of making good choices. I find that this is paternalistic and insulting to the women who are victims. Frankly, the Liberals are simply throwing out the Arbour report as if it concretizes their point, but it does not. It tends to push people toward the civilian system, but it does not make it mandatory.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated what my colleague spoke to in regard to how things have already progressed and moved along, which has given to a lot of those survivors something that that party does not like to appreciate: hope.

I just had an interaction with one of those survivors, who was in absolute tears because she sees and knows how many of her colleagues she is going to have to help. She said that they will say “life is over”, and they will be added to those numbers who have lost their lives because of this and not survived. What does the member have to say to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, in its original intent, and that is the reason the amendments were stripped off, is simply to help the government, because the government has to deal with these problems when they arise. If the Liberals get it off their plate and dump it into the municipal police force or into the civilian provincial courts, they will not have to deal with it anymore and it will now be somebody else's problem.

I just do not see how the Liberals can keep a straight face and keep saying “Arbour” over and over again as if it means something. It does not. The victims want choice.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by recognizing the critical role that the Canadian Armed Forces plays. Every single member of the Canadian Armed Forces makes a commitment to serve this country. They step forward with a willingness to protect others, often at great personal cost and sacrifice.

Because of that, we, as members of Parliament, have a responsibility to make sure that the systems around them, especially the justice system, work the way they are supposed to work and there is equality, fairness and justice. When these systems do not work, the consequences are very serious. They affect individuals, and they affect people's confidence in the institution. Ultimately, they affect the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.

At a time when the world is changing and we cannot always rely on the same assumptions that we used to, it is more important than ever that Canada strengthen its own defence capacity. That includes making sure that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces can rely on the systems around them to create a safe workspace for them. The strength of our Canadian Armed Forces is not just about capability; it is also about whether the people serving in it have confidence in the institution itself. That is where Bill C-11 comes in.

Over the past several years, we have heard directly from survivors of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, and what we have heard has always been consistent: The system was not always clear; accountability was difficult to navigate; and in too many cases, people lost trust in the process.

The issue has been examined closely, including through the independent review led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. Her findings pointed to a clear problem with how sexual misconduct cases were being handled within the military justice system. In particular, she spoke to the impact this has had on trust and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces and the need for a more consistent and reliable approach.

One of her key recommendations was that Criminal Code sexual offences should be handled in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 follows through with that recommendation. What Bill C-11 does, in practical terms, is provide clarity. It sets out that Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada involving members of the Canadian Armed Forces are to be investigated and prosecuted within the civilian system. That clarity is important. It means that individuals are not left navigating uncertainty. It means that cases are not delayed by questions of jurisdiction. It means that there is a consistent approach to how these serious matters are handled.

It is also important to recognize that this direction is already being followed in practice. Since 2021, these cases have been proceeding through the civilian system. Bill C-11 would ensure that this approach is clearly established and consistently applied moving forward.

Bill C-11 also introduces stronger, practical measures to ensure that victims are not left navigating the system by themselves. For example, it would establish victim liaison officers, who will support victims throughout the process, including during the transfer of cases between military and civilian authorities. The bill would also expand access to these supports to individuals acting on the victim's behalf, ensuring continuity and guidance at every stage.

It would improve access to information by strengthening obligations to inform victims and witnesses of their rights, including in relation to publication bans, and ensuring that their wishes are considered in the entire process. Importantly, it clarifies that victims can speak about their own experiences, while still protecting the identity of others when required.

Another important aspect of Bill C-11 is the focus on independence. It takes steps to strengthen how key roles within the military justice system are structured and appointed, so that decisions are made free from real or perceived influence from chain of command. That really matters, because confidence in the system depends not only on outcomes, but on whether people believe the process itself is fair and independent.

The opposition has put forward amendments that would reintroduce a degree of flexibility between the military and civilian systems, including allowing cases to move between jurisdictions. However, that approach, to me, raises real concerns. It would add unnecessary complexity to an already difficult process, create the potential for delays and place a greater burden on individuals at a time when clarity is most needed. It is also not a trauma-informed approach, unfortunately. It asks individuals, often in the immediate aftermath of harm and trauma, to make complex decisions about how their cases should proceed.

What we have heard is clear. People are not asking for more complexity. They are asking for a system that works. Bill C-11 is one part of a broader effort to address long-standing concerns within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about making sure that every member of our armed forces can serve with dignity in an environment that reflects the values that we expect as Canadians.

I am just now coming from the Indonesian embassy, where we were celebrating Ms. Kartini's influence on equality of opportunity for women, not just in Indonesia but across the world. That is exactly it. What Bill C-11 would do for our community and the Canadian Armed Forces is make sure that women and men who have faced sexual violence and sexual misconduct have the ability to take various approaches toward justice, make sure that their harms are acknowledged and rectified, and make sure that the workplace they operate in, which is already a very high-stress one, is one they can function in, where their services are valued and contribute to the growth and progress of Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces provides a very important role within our country and across the world. We need to make sure, through all the measures and tools available to us, that the serving men and women have the ability to serve effectively.

With that, I do support this legislation. I hope that all members in this House will do the same and that this bill with respect to sexual misconduct, Bill C-11, along with all the other bills we have brought forward in the past few months, such as Bill C-16 to combat coercive controlling behaviour, or bail reforms and Criminal Code reforms across our country, gets quick passage so that Canadian Armed Forces members impacted by this have the swift justice they require.

I look forward to questions from members.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing an awful lot about Justice Arbour's report. It was made in 2022. Since then, a lot of time has passed and a lot of improvements have been made. When a report like that is made, I would think Justice Arbour would want to come to committee, share the rationales and say whether they are still effective or if there needs to be change. For some reason, she did not show up at all.

Can the member articulate why someone in that position would not show up at committee to give their input?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I am really a big fan of is efficiency. Justice Arbour put in her time and effort and made some very significant contributions to this issue. I think it is now incumbent upon us, as members of Parliament, to move forward judiciously on this bill and make sure it provides the necessary support for our Canadian Armed Forces in the most efficient and fastest way possible and contributes to the improvement of our justice system in general.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk a bit about the importance of people's trust in the justice system when they are victims of sexual trauma.