Debates of April 23rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, when victims are facing sexual misconduct or violence, it is so important to have a trauma-based response because going through the justice system re-emphasizes the challenges and hurt that they have gone through. We need to make sure that our justice system not only provides support to Canadians who are trying to move forward, seek justice for themselves and end the harm they have been facing, but also provides the perception of justice being conducted so that more people who have been harmed and have faced sexual violence or misconduct are also able to come forward and trust the system to take care of their justice as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the Liberals use the Arbour report as their shield in why they are gutting all the amendments that were made by the defence committee, some of which were even supported by the Liberals, where we worked across party lines as Conservatives, Bloc members and the NDP.

Much has changed since the Arbour report came out. We know that at the time, there was a mandatory duty to report; the military police and health care providers were not fully ready or trained, but now they are; military members were not under the victims' rights charter, but now that charter is in effect; military members did not have access to a fully mature SMSRC for supports; military members did not have access to independent legal supports; and finally, military members did not have access to victims' liaison services. All those things are in place now.

The Canadian Armed Forces has changed, so why not give the rights back to victims so they can choose what system best suits their need, regardless of their rank or where they are, whether in or outside Canada, on training, on base or in the community?

They should have the supports they are asking for, not what the Liberals are shoving down their throats.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that sexual misconduct and violence, even in the Canadian Armed Forces, is not something that came within a day, and it is not something that is going to go away within a day, either.

Yes, Bill C-11 is very important and there has been a lot of progress made within the Canadian Armed Forces, but there is a lot more that should be done to continue to support victims of violence and misconduct. That requires support from all across the aisle.

What Justice Arbour provided is a good starting point. What Bill C-11 would do, I think, is an excellent way to move forward, but it would not be the end. We need to do significantly more.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the brave women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces who call the Ottawa Valley their home to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

Before we get lost in clauses, subclauses and government talking points about modernization, I want to centre this debate where it belongs, which is with the people this legislation is supposed to support and protect. Bill C-11 is not abstract, theoretical or merely administrative. It is about whether a woman who is sexually assaulted while serving her country can expect justice, dignity and protection, or if she will be left to fight alone against the very institution that failed her.

That reality is embodied in the experience of retired corporal Elvira Jaszberenyi. Ms. Jaszberenyi did exactly what we tell service members to do. She reported her rape. She co-operated with investigators. She trusted the system that promised to protect her. Instead, the system closed ranks. Her assailant was already known to military authorities for sexual assault. Evidence went undocumented or disappeared. Key decisions were shielded from oversight. The Military Police Complaints Commission was denied access to critical prosecutorial briefing notes, despite clear recommendations from Justice Fish that this information be disclosed.

When the military declined to proceed, Ms. Jaszberenyi did something few victims can afford to do, emotionally or financially. She pursued a private prosecution in civilian court. That trial did not vindicate her; it exposed her. Her credibility was questioned. Her advocacy was used against her. The fact that she continued to demand accountability was reframed as an agenda. She lost. For the government, that may be a completed file. For women watching from within the ranks, it was a reminder. For those looking to join, it was a warning.

That is the context in which we must judge Bill C-11. The government tells us this bill would restore trust by transferring jurisdiction for sexual offences committed in Canada over to civilian court. Conservatives agree that this change was necessary. It was recommended by justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour and reflects the years of advocacy by victims and experts. However, jurisdiction alone does not equal justice.

Bill C-11 would remove cases from the military justice system while leaving untouched the very accountability gaps that failed Ms. Jaszberenyi in the first place. It would not require the military police to preserve and fully disclose investigative records to civilian authorities. It would not guarantee that oversight bodies would finally receive the information they need to do their job. It would not ensure that civilian prosecutors or judges are properly equipped to understand military power dynamics, chain of command pressures or the realities on base.

Crucially, it would not address what happens after a civilian conviction. A service member could be found guilty of a sexual offence in civilian court and yet face no court martial, no automatic consideration under the code of service discipline and no transparent process to protect others still serving alongside them. That is not a survivor-centred system. This is administrative offloading. We heard this repeatedly at committee.

Victim advocates warned us that Bill C-11 risks creating a jurisdictional void. Military police leaders told us civilian police services lack the capacity to absorb these cases. Prosecutors cautioned that removing concurrent jurisdiction might mean that fewer cases, not more, actually proceed. Ms. Jaszberenyi herself warned us that changing the forum without fixing the evidence handling, oversight and accountability would simply shift the harm from one system to another.

If we want women to serve, we must give them reason to trust. That trust is already fragile. Canadians recently learned the Canadian Armed Forces is not on track to meet its own targets for recruiting and retaining women. The numbers are not just disappointing, they are damning. Women are not choosing to walk away from military careers because they lack patriotism or resilience. They are walking away because they do not believe the institution will protect them when it matters most.

Ms. Jaszberenyi is now retired. After her attack, she was removed from her unit and tasked with painting walls. She was not given work commensurate with her skills and training. She was effectively forced out of service when the Canadian Forces was facing a retention crisis. Imagine the kind of message that sends to our serving women and men. Now she has to deal with Veterans Affairs. After giving testimony on this bill last fall, she was informed by Veterans Affairs that her paperwork had been lost. She needed to resubmit her application. There was no pension and there were no benefits, just more process and paperwork.

No recruitment campaign, no slogan and no equity strategy will overcome a justice system that retraumatizes victims and shields decision-makers from scrutiny.

That brings me to the procedural context of this debate. How this bill has been handled matters almost as much as what is in it. Committee members from multiple parties worked in good faith to strengthen Bill C-11. Amendments were adopted to improve oversight and support the accused fairly, and to address long-standing gaps identified by survivors and experts alike. Those amendments were passed after the committee overruled the chair's initial rulings, exercising its legitimate authority as a master of its own proceedings. Then, nearly 10 weeks later, the government asked the Speaker to intervene, not to clarify drafting but to strike down amendments, including amendments supported unanimously by committee members. The Speaker ruled them out of order. I respect the ruling, but I do not accept the government's conduct.

Committees exist to do the hard, detailed work that the House does not have time to do, clause by clause. When the government invites committee members to engage, votes against them and then asks the Speaker to erase that work after the fact, it undermines parliamentary accountability. This matters because those amendments were not abstract procedural tweaks. They dealt with real issues, including access to trauma-informed training, independent oversight, support for both the victims and the accused, and ensuring key positions within the military justice system could not sit vacant indefinitely. The government chose not to persuade the committee. It chose to erase its work.

On Monday, in debating Bill C-22, I spoke about the government's new-found majority and the choices it faces: to govern and to govern collaboratively or to rule by decree. Bill C-11 gives us the answer. This is not collaboration. It is control. When that instinct is applied to legislation dealing with sexual assault, oversight and victims' rights, the consequences are profound.

The Conservatives believe that reforms to military justice must do three things. First, reforms must protect the victims, not just symbolically but procedurally and substantively. Second, reforms must preserve fairness for the accused because a system that cuts corners will not survive constitutional scrutiny. Third, reforms must strengthen, not weaken, institutional accountability.

Bill C-11 would make progress on the first step by removing jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada, but it would fail on the second and third by refusing to fix the structural flaws exposed by cases like Ms. Jaszberenyi's. A justice system that forces a survivor to pursue a private prosecution because internal accountability failed is a system already in crisis. A system that responds by narrowing scrutiny and striking committee amendments is a system interested in optics, not outcomes.

If the government truly wants to rebuild trust, it must do more than move files between systems. It must control the culture of defensiveness, information control and procedural gatekeeping that allowed known predators to remain on the base and allowed victims to be discredited for demanding better. Women are watching this debate, as are their families and as are potential recruits who want to serve their country without sacrificing their safety or their dignity. They will judge us not on the title of this bill, but on whether its substance reflects reality.

Bill C-11 is incomplete. It is not beyond repair, but repair requires humility, transparency and respect for Parliament. The experience of Elvira Jaszberenyi deserves more than a legislative shrug. It deserves a justice system that learns from failure rather than papers over it. Canada's armed forces cannot recruit its way out of crisis. It must legislate its way out of it, honestly and courageously. That is the standard this bill must meet, and that is what Canadians expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation does have substance and it does meet the reality. What is absent is any sort of Conservative rationale for what the Conservatives are doing to the bill.

Justice Arbour's recommendation five is the essence of the legislation. Justice Arbour worked with literally hundreds, going into thousands, of people, either directly or indirectly, with CAF to ensure that we had the right recommendation. Even the standing committee that the member was referencing earlier came up with another recommendation supporting it. I have never heard the Conservatives, prior to today, question Justice Arbour. Why has the Conservative Party flipped its position and is not listening—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke a chance to respond.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we respect the recommendations made by Justice Arbour. However, while Justice Arbour listened to the victims of sexual assault, she did not have as much breadth as we did in listening to the testimonies of law enforcement, of people who are in the military and of people who had direct involvement in those proceedings, such as former judges and former lawyers in the system. We heard more testimony, and that is why we proposed some amendments, which have been rejected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, who has been a long-time member of the defence committee. She has heard from more veterans, I am sure, than Justice Arbour did in her hearings several years ago. There is a base in the member's riding, and she is always advocating on behalf of members who serve, including the victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. The member has fought long and hard for victims and for the rights of women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We heard from many victims. Christine Wood said she “opposed the transfer of all cases to civilian court, and that was for three reasons: number one, it's broken; number two, it offers victims no choice; and number three, I believe the CAF has to maintain control over its jurisdiction and demonstrate it can be responsible for fixing its own harms.”

A veteran who served, who experienced sexual misconduct and deals with military sexual trauma, is saying she needs choice. Other victims have said the exact same thing. Why will the Liberals not listen?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who does yeoman's duty with different cases serving the armed forces.

We heard from many people, but we need to listen to what the victims said that did not align with what is in the recommendations. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to accuse people who are named in a snitch line and then have to face a court. When a case is taken out of the military system, there is no support for the accused, and there is no guarantee that there is going to be any sense of justice for the victim, because their case may never be heard. The Jordan framework may require that the case be put aside altogether.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her work on the national defence committee.

In 2024, the ACVA committee undertook an extensive study regarding women in the military. More than 100 witnesses came forward over 23 meetings, testifying before the ACVA committee. From that committee came a report that was tabled in Parliament and included recommendation 40, and this was unanimous. All parties agreed:

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 is exactly what Bill C‑11 would do.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the civilian courts are full. Already, cases of sexual assault in the civilian domain are not being heard, because too much time expires between a case's starting and its coming to trial, so the perpetrator gets off scot-free.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11 at report stage.

I know the impact that our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have on operations at home and abroad, and I am pleased to speak to efforts that our government is making to keep them safe.

We know that to fulfill our role as a NATO ally, we must have forces that are ready, able and agile. Just this week, we heard that the Canadian Armed Forces has reached a 30-year record high for recruitment. This is fantastic news for Canada and for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we cannot take anything for granted.

We must keep up the momentum and work hard to create a safe workplace where our forces and the next generation of forces can thrive and make meaningful contributions to Canada. This starts with making sure we provide our forces with a safe and professional work environment in which to train and to build up their skills for the difficult job we ask of them. This is why I am pleased to rise today to speak about the important work that is being done to modernize our military justice system and to restore trust in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a critical step toward lasting institutional reform, as well as toward strengthening trust and confidence in our military justice system. Over the past four years, Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces members, watched as former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish put forward detailed recommendations on how to create meaningful and lasting cultural change in the armed forces.

Their recommendations have been compiled into a comprehensive implementation plan, which Canadians can easily access online to track the progress the CAF is making. These reviews and recommendations have helped define how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are undertaking changes to the military justice system and cultural change. Today I would like to provide an overview of those recommendations and to speak specifically about the implementation of Justice Arbour's recommendation 5, which is at the heart of Bill C-11.

In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the minister of national defence at the time. This report, also known as the report of the independent external comprehensive review, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional gaps and structural barriers that have allowed the problem to persist. In her report, her fifth recommendation proposed a transformative measure to move the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences in Canada alleged against Canadian Armed Forces members to the civilian system. I want to take the time to read out the specific wording of Justice Arbour's recommendation for all members:

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 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.

In short, this recommendation would codify in law that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada. This recommendation would also codify in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction for investigating and prosecuting these cases.

I want to note that Justice Arbour acknowledged in her report that removing concurrent jurisdiction by amending the National Defence Act would take several years to implement, given the size, scale and scope of the changes needed. In fact, she knew how critical this recommendation was, and she proposed that we adopt an interim directive in the meantime to ensure that the change would take place as quickly as possible. She stated:

As previous experience with changes to the military justice system have shown, this will take several years to implement. In the meantime, I expect the [Canadian Armed Forces] and civilian authorities to continue to abide by my interim recommendation. The [Canadian Armed Forces] should cease to investigate and prosecute sexual offences over which it presently has concurrent jurisdiction. Civilian authorities should investigate and prosecute those cases in accordance with their existing concurrent jurisdiction.

The interim directive has been in place since December 2021 and has been working well. Since then, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case has been prosecuted in the civilian courts rather than in the military justice system.

While the interim directive was in place, the legislation was first introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-66 and was one of the first bills to be introduced in the current Parliament in the fall of 2025, as Bill C-11. That is precisely because our government recognizes the importance of building a more inclusive, respectful and safe workplace for our Canadian Armed Forces members.

The bill would implement Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 and protect our forces. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties in the Standing Committee on National Defence run directly counter to recommendation 5. The opposition parties put forward amendments to strike down recommendation 5 and to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation from the bill. The opposition's amendments would make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system, due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill. The lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors.

We cannot go backwards and reverse any of the important changes made on military culture change over the last five years. In fact, since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences covered by the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried by the military justice system. To accept the opposition's amendments would be to reverse this progress and to move backwards.

In conclusion, the bill would establish a clear framework for investigating and addressing allegations of sexual misconduct, in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. Bill C-11, and the amendment it seeks to codify in the National Defence Act, represents a crucial step towards strengthening the forces' trust in the military justice system. This is not the case with the amendments proposed by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 from Bill C-11.

We are encouraged by the positive changes and cultural evolution in the Canadian Armed Forces in recent years, but we cannot stop here, and we cannot move backwards. The people who serve our country risk everything for us. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces must always answer the call to keep Canada safe, and it is our obligation to keep them safe from harassment and misconduct.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that all the sexual assault cases since a certain date have been transferred to the civilian courts. I wonder if he knows how many have been transferred, and of those, how many have been heard, how many are still waiting to be heard, and what happens to the so-called low-level sexual assaults of groping that will not meet the threshold to be heard in civilian court.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am appalled by the member's use of the term “low-level sexual assaults”. Sexual assault is sexual assault.

With respect to numbers, no, I am not privy to the actual numbers of cases, but we do know that all these cases are being tried, as per Justice Arbour's recommendation, by the civilian courts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's comment that a sexual assault is a sexual assault. I think that does need to be reinforced.

As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to seek the best advice possible. The Arbour report contained 48 recommendations, I believe, the vast majority of which have been implemented. The essence of its primary recommendation is in the bill, which is to convert from the military system to the civilian system. Given Justice Arbour's efforts, would the member not agree that we should be abiding by that recommendation, as the Conservatives did just two years ago?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the hon. member that this was Justice Arbour's core recommendation. I am rather disheartened to hear a pattern of members' trying to diminish the results of Justice Arbour by saying, “by this one justice”. It is part of a greater and very disturbing trend of demeaning and diminishing the results of experts and of using “expert” as a pejorative. Justice Arbour was a former Supreme Court justice who talked to hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of victims, and determined that the best course of action would be for these cases to be tried solely by civilian courts.

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

Mr. Speaker, while the member opposite may feel that those definitions are distasteful, there are legal definitions and requirements for levels of sexual assault, and frankly put, the civilian police authorities will not deal with mid and lower levels. They do not have the capacity. It is outside the jurisdiction.

Does the member opposite feel that predators will have a free pass because they know mid- and lower-level sexual assaults will never be dealt with? They are not within the plan of Bill C-11. This has never been addressed.

What is your solution to have mid- and lower-level sexual assaults addressed?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will remind members to speak through the Chair, not directly to members. I cannot speak of solutions, but I invite the member for Winnipeg West to speak of them.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I say sexual assault is sexual assault. We have a justice system that is outside the chain of command. It is outside any coercion and outside any influence on the career of the Canadian Armed Forces member. There is no place for grading these levels of sexual assault. Again, all cases of sexual assault need to be tried in the civilian system.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I actually travelled together to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. I know his commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces is one that is incredibly supportive.

I just want to ask him what his thoughts are on the fact that the ACVA committee made the same recommendation, for us to do this, not even two years ago.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I do not get the disconnect, why this was accepted by the committee two years ago and what the change of heart has been. I hear statements that it is different because military culture has changed, but what evidence do they have of this?

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart, but I also rise with a profound sense of duty, a duty shaped by nearly three decades in uniform, by the survivors who trusted me with their stories and by the communities I represent. I rise not for partisanship, not for theatre, but for the people who have carried burdens far heavier than any of us in this chamber will ever know.

I dedicate my words today to the many active members and veterans I have met across Vancouver Island and across Canada. I have spoken with them in legion halls, on bases, in community centres and sometimes in the quiet corners where people finally feel safe enough to share what they have carried for too long. Most importantly, I dedicate my words to the survivors of military sexual trauma who came to committee.

Before I go any further, I would like to speak to them directly. They were not obligated to share what they shared. They did not owe us their stories, their pain and their truth, yet they came anyway, carrying memories no one should ever have to carry, because they believed that if Parliament finally listened, something might change for the better. They trusted us with the hardest part of their lives, and that trust is something I will not take lightly. It is not something any of us should take lightly. They asked for one thing: choice. They asked not for privilege, not for special treatment, just the basic human right to choose the justice system where they feel safest, can be heard and can be understood. They asked overwhelmingly, consistently and with courage, and I will not stand by while that courage is dismissed.

I also rise today on behalf of all Canadians who expect their institutions to protect the vulnerable, not retraumatize them. I also rise on behalf of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, where I live and which I have the privilege of representing in the House. It is a region with a proud and deep connection to our Canadian Armed Forces. Our communities include many veterans, many serving members and many families whose lives are directly shaped by the culture and conduct of the military.

My riding is home to countless individuals who serve or have served at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, one of the largest military installations in the country. It is a base where my wife and I both proudly served, a base that shaped our lives, our understanding of service and our understanding of the sacrifices that military families make every single day. When I speak about this bill, I do not speak in the abstract. I speak for the people I represent and the communities I know. I speak for those who have worn the uniform and those who still do. I speak for survivors across Vancouver Island and across Canada, survivors who trusted us in Parliament to listen.

I served nearly three decades in uniform. I was trained as a presiding officer, and I believed I understood the culture of the Canadian Forces, but nothing prepared me for what I learned after meeting my wife, who is also a survivor of military sexual trauma. Through her, I saw parts of our institution that too many never see, or refuse to see. I saw the cost of silence. I saw the cost of inaction. Since I first joined the navy in the 1980s, the culture around sexual misconduct has changed. Yes, there have been positive improvements, but there is still much more to do.

If Bill C-11 proceeds without the amendments survivors asked for, without the choices they pleaded for, then not only will we undo decades of progress, but we will reverse them. We will make things worse than we can imagine. At the very heart of the debate is something very simple: choice, the choice for survivors to access either the civilian or the military justice system. It is a choice that already exists, though too few know about it.

What we have before us now is a tale of two approaches. On our side of the committee, we have the testimony of survivors, victims, military police, police and legal experts, those who have lived this reality. Their message was overwhelmingly consistent and deeply human. It was, “Do not take away our choice." On the Liberal side is a plan that ignores the evidence, cherry-picks a few quotes and uses one report while ignoring many others and the voices of so many. It dismisses the voices of survivors and disrespects those who came forward at great personal cost.

If the government removes these amendments, the consequences will be immediate and unavoidable. There will be institutional trauma and revictimization. There will be anger, despair and a profound sense of betrayal among the survivors who trusted all of us to listen and do right by them. Minor cases will go unaddressed. Major cases will go untried. Civilian police forces, already stretched thin, already under-resourced, will be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb. They will take on only the most serious of sexual assault cases.

As for the mid-level and lesser cases, they are outside civilian jurisdiction or capability. There is no plan in Bill C-11 to address those cases. There is nothing. This is a complete failure for future victims but will be seen as a free pass to predators. Members can let that sink in. The government will point to low numbers in the military system and claim success. They are already doing it in the House today. However, only a few major cases will go forward, and the rest will be unreported and unactioned. This is not accountability, and it is not reform. Simply put, this is not justice. This is burying the problem, handing it off and burying the people who trusted us to fix it.

I must also address the role of the press. The mainstream media, funded by 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars, has primarily focused on attacking the opposition party and has not covered the survivors' testimony, the amendments we achieved together and the consequences of removing those amendments. Today I challenge the press, directly, to tell this story, interview the survivors, report what they said and explain what is at stake. That is its job. Canadians deserve to know the truth, not the Liberal talking points.

Removing choices removes protections. The Liberals have been relying solely on the Arbour report, by someone who refused to testify in committee, and yet have failed to mention the Fish and Deschamps reports, which both speak to the benefits of choice for victims.

I want to speak quickly on something I witnessed in committee, something that has stayed with me. As survivors shared their stories, as they spoke about trauma they endured and offered solutions rooted in courage, I looked across the table to members of the party opposite, and I saw a colleague begin to tear up. I saw his humanity. I saw someone who understood deeply the weight of what survivors are telling us.

I say this to every member in the House, especially those with family who serve in the military, maybe their sons or daughters: They must hold on to that humanity. They must not let partisanship smother what was felt in that moment. They must not let party discipline override what they know in their hearts to be right.

Survivors did not come to us as partisans. They came to us as human beings. They asked all of us to do right by them. Emotions must now be matched with action. Compassion must now be matched with courage. We must listen to the overwhelming evidence of survivors and experts, consider all reports and give survivors the freedom of choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member is trying to appeal to all members in the strongest way he can.

However, the reality is that the government is listening to survivors. The government's actions reinforce reports that have been brought forward. We can talk about the Justice Arbour report. He seemed to be offended that it is the report we reference. In June 2024, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which has representation from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals, recommended the same thing.

I would appeal to the Conservatives to listen to all of the victims, like Justice Arbour did, both in confidence and out of confidence. She came up with the recommendation for a reason. Maybe the member could tell us why it is that Conservatives voted—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to allow the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the Arbour report did not look at what is in Bill C-11, which simply would leave the majority of sexual assault cases undealt with, unreported and unactioned. It is not even in Bill C-11. Therefore, regardless of what the Arbour report says or all of the other reports, the majority of victims and reports support choice.

Bill C-11 and the Liberal Party would fail our military in the future. As I directly pointed out, the majority of cases would go unresolved, unreported and unactioned, and that is an embarrassing failure.