Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I was a member of the Canadian Forces for 22 years. I witnessed military justice being applied in various cases. Later, when I became a major, I was trained to preside over summary trials and, as a unit commander, I had to administer military justice. I tried some cases by summary trial. There were some situations and some problems related to sexual misconduct.
That is why, on the Conservative side, we are very aware of the situation. We do not talk just for the sake of talking. There are people here who have experienced the system first-hand. Our defence critic has been watching what has been going on for years. We are not just talking for the sake of talking. We are proposing meaningful change.
Let us get back to Bill C-11. Yes, we believe that changes are needed regarding sexual misconduct. However, once again, the Liberal government has missed an opportunity. It has completely missed the opportunity to do the right thing. Instead of addressing the issues in a rigorous, balanced way, it is adopting a rigid approach that is inappropriate and out of touch with the realities on the ground. The result is a bill that ignores critical testimony, rejects reasonable improvements and risks exacerbating the very problems it purports to address.
Today I will be speaking to Bill C-11, and I want to be clear from the outset that we are not just talking about technical adjustments. We are talking about a fundamental question that all Canadians can understand: When a victim comes forward, do we listen to them, or do we impose a solution on them? That is important. In committee, we heard some powerful testimony. Survivors courageously came and talked to us. They shared their experiences, their realities and their concerns. Experts on the military justice system also testified. These are people who understand both its strengths and its weaknesses. Despite these differing perspectives, one message kept coming up: People want to have a choice. They want to choose the system, the process and what works best. They do not want a decision imposed from on high. They do not want a rigid mechanism decided without their input.
The Conservatives did their job. We listened and took action alongside the Bloc Québécois. I would like to thank my Bloc colleagues. Excellent parliamentary work was carried out in the Standing Committee on National Defence. As I said earlier, our critic has been there for a long time. He knows his job, as do our other colleagues on the committee. Former lieutenant-colonels sit on the committee. These are people who have experienced the military system and witnessed the problems with military justice. As I said at the start, I myself have seen victims. There have been trials, and we have experienced the situation first-hand.
The proposals, both those from the Bloc Québécois and those from the Conservative Party, made sense. The aim was really to address the shortcomings of the bill and put victims back at the centre of the process. For example, there is a problem with clauses 7 and 8. In its current form, the bill completely removes the military justice system's jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada. It mandates an automatic transfer to the civilian system. There are no nuances, there is no flexibility and there is no room to adapt.
We put forward a simple solution: give the court martial jurisdiction if that is what the victim wants. That is essential. There is a system. It can be done. The victim can choose. It seems to me that it does not take a genius to understand that. What matters is recognizing that every situation is different. Judgment must be exercised and victims must be respected.
We also put forward sound oversight mechanisms: a five-year sunset clause providing for a mandatory statutory review to examine how well the system is working. We also proposed measures to avoid delays in transferring evidence because delays can compromise the truth.
All too often, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Take the Jordan decision, for example. So many cases drag on, stall, and make no progress. Ultimately, the Jordan decision applies, but it does not work. We end up with a system meant to handle sexual misconduct. Victims, most of them women, end up going through a civilian process that drags on forever. In our view, if the military system can continue to do its job and the victim wants to keep the matter in the military system, that should be allowed. Why not? We do not understand why the Liberals are against this.
Everything we did was done in collaboration with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, as well as our NDP colleague who has since crossed the floor to become a Liberal. Back then, her thoughts were with the victims. Now, her thoughts are with her Liberal team, which sees things differently.
Our proposals were reasonable, balanced and based on witness testimony. However, all of it was thrown out and rejected, with a big red X over top. All the important work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence was dismissed out of hand.
The government does not even have its majority yet, but it managed to knock us back anyway. Imagine what will happen when the government has a majority on committees and in the House. It is going to steamroll right over the work of opposition members who are working to improve bills.
It would have been a different matter if all the opposition parties had joined forces to demolish the bill. Sometimes that happens. For example, we defeated Bill C‑2. However, we supported this bill. We agreed with it; it simply needed to be improved. What no one can wrap their heads around is the government's refusal to improve it.
I have been here for 10 years. Often, the Conservatives, and often with the support of the Bloc Québécois, make proposals that the government rejects. A few years later, a problematic situation arises, and we say “we told you so”. However, people quickly forget.
The bill will pass and, in five years, we may talk about it again. We are going to say that we said in 2026 that it would not work, and we are going to ask why they did not listen to us at the time. Now is the time to do the right thing. We are here now. Why not listen to intelligent proposals from the opposition parties?
Another key issue is political interference. We can see that political interference in the process is possible. In fact, the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to issue directives in the context of specific proceedings. Politics could interfere in the directives. This is an important power that must be exercised with care, and that is why we proposed giving this responsibility to the judge advocate general, known in military terms as JAG. This person is an independent expert. Justice must never be politicized. Once again, the government rejected this proposal. Why?
We even proposed what is known as a principled amendment. The bill states that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction. We disagreed. We said that, in a state governed by the rule of law, no one is above the law. To be clear, we said that if a military judge commits an offence, they should be tried like anyone else. It seems to me that this makes sense. Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are not subject to the law, but the Liberals refuse to accept that. Why?
The pattern is very clear: We make proposals, and the Liberals shut us down. Victims ask for something, and the government imposes something else. Experts make recommendations, and the government ignores them. The Liberals have chosen to impose systematic transfers to the civilian system. This is a system that is already overburdened, a system that is often ill suited to military realities. This is not a solution; it simply shifts the problem.
The bill could have been improved. It could have been balanced, more respectful of victims and certainly more faithful to the recommendations heard in committee, but the government made a choice to be stubborn and to dictate rather than listening. On this side of the House, we will continue to defend a clear approach. The Liberals talk about listening to victims and respecting their autonomy, but they do the opposite. If they are asked whether they want to strengthen the independence of the system and ensure fairness for everyone, they will say yes, but with this bill and their refusal to accept the amendments, they are showing their contempt for victims.
Those who serve our country deserve better. They deserve a system that works, that is credible and that can be trusted.
