Debates of May 4th, 2026

Auditor General of Canada

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to lay before the House, pursuant to subsection 7(5) of the Auditor General Act, additional 2026 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today at third reading of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures.

At this stage, we are no longer debating whether the issue deserves attention. We are deciding whether Parliament will act. Bill S-228 asks us to confront a reality that is difficult, uncomfortable and deeply troubling: Forced and coerced sterilization has occurred in Canada, it has caused profound harm and it is not confined to the past. The legislation exists because survivors came forward and asked us to act, and today we must answer that call.

I would, of course, like to thank Senator Boyer for all of her work ushering this bill through the Senate, as well as groups like the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice for all of their work, community justice and health equity groups and my colleagues here on all sides of the House. It has been remarkable to see the support from every single party in this House and those that are not official parties, like the NDP and the Green Party, which have supported this as well.

Beginning in the early 20th century, eugenics policies shaped public institutions and legislation. Provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia enacted sterilization laws that allowed the state to permanently prevent individuals from having children. These laws disproportionately targeted indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and people deemed by authorities to be unfit.

Thousands of procedures were carried out, lives were permanently altered and communities were deeply affected. While those laws were repealed by the 1970s, the attitudes that enabled them did not just simply disappear. Evidence presented to Parliament through Senate committee studies, academic research and survivor testimony demonstrates that forced and coerced sterilization continued after the repeal of those laws and continues to be reported today. Many Canadians believe that this practice belongs to history, but the truth is far more difficult. Survivors continue to come forward with accounts from modern hospitals, describing experiences that echo the very same patterns of coercion, pressure, and disregard for autonomy.

We have heard clearly what these experiences look like. Women have described being approached for sterilization at moments of extreme vulnerability, during labour, immediately after childbirth, while medicated, exhausted, and in no position to provide meaningful consent. Some were presented with consent forms they did not understand. Some were told the procedure was reversible, when it was not. Some were pressured through fear: fear of losing access to care, fear of child welfare intervention or fear of being judged or dismissed. Some were never given a choice at all. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a pattern, and they reflect a deeper problem.

At the heart of this issue is the concept of consent. In Canadian law and in medical ethics, consent must be free, informed and voluntary. It must be given by a person with capacity. It must be based on full disclosure of risks and alternatives. It must be given in circumstances where the individual has the time, the clarity and the ability to make a decision without pressure, and it must be free from coercion. When those conditions are not met, consent is not valid.

What we have heard from survivors is that these conditions were often absent. Consent obtained under duress is not consent. Consent obtained through misinformation is not consent. Consent obtained through fear or authority is not consent. It is coercion, and coercion has no place in health care.

The consequences of forced and coerced sterilization are profound. It is not a temporary harm. It is permanent. It alters the course of a person's life. Survivors speak of the grief over the children they were unable to have. They speak of trauma, of anger and of the loss of identity. They speak of a violation that they carry with them for the rest of their life.

For indigenous women, the impact extends even further. In many indigenous communities, the ability to bring children into the world is not only a personal decision; it is also deeply connected to culture, family, language and the continuity of community. When that ability is taken without consent, the harm is not only individual. It is collective, and it is intergenerational.

We must also recognize that this issue does not occur in isolation. It exists within a broader context of systemic discrimination, colonial history and structural inequities in our institutions. Witnesses before committees spoke about the power imbalance between patients and medical professionals. They spoke about language barriers, cultural barriers and geographic isolation, particularly for indigenous women travelling from remote communities to access health care. They spoke about the fear of child welfare systems and the long history of state intervention in indigenous families. They also spoke about the erosion of trust.

When individuals feel powerless within a system, when they feel they cannot question authority, when they feel they must comply in order to receive care, the conditions for coercion are created.

While indigenous women have been disproportionately affected. It is important to recognize that the issue extends way beyond one individual group. Historically, men and boys were also subjected to sterilization under eugenics policies. Today, other vulnerable populations, including persons with disabilities, racialized individuals, intersex persons and those facing systemic barriers, may also be at risk when consent is not properly obtained. At its core, this is not solely a women's issue. It is a human rights issue. It is about the fundamental right of every person and their bodily autonomy.

Parliament has studied the issue very carefully. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights conducted multiple studies. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs has heard from survivors and experts, and it reached a clear conclusion: Forced and coerced sterilization is ongoing and is under-reported, and it requires legislative action.

The committee's first recommendation was that legislation be introduced specifically to address the issue in the Criminal Code, and Bill S-228 is that response. This bill builds on the work of Senator Yvonne Boyer, who has been a tireless advocate on the issue. Its predecessor, Bill S-250, was studied extensively, refined and passed unanimously in the Senate before it died on the Order Paper. Bill S-228 contains that same carefully developed framework. It has passed in the Senate and is here in the House of Commons. It has already received strong, all-party support and was expedited through committee consideration. That level of consensus speaks volumes.

What would the legislation do? It is focused and precise. Bill S-228 would make it explicit, for greater certainty, that performing a sterilization procedure without a person's valid consent constitutes aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. It would not create a new offence. It would clarify the application of existing law. It would ensure that sterilization without consent is recognized as conduct that causes serious and permanent harm.

The legislation is meant to offer clarity to this issue, because that is essential. While existing assault provisions may technically apply, they have never been used to prosecute forced sterilization in Canada. Survivors have told us that the absence of clear legal recognition has contributed to silence, confusion and the lack of accountability. The bill would address that gap.

It is equally important to be clear about what the bill would not do. It would not restrict voluntary sterilization. It would not interfere with reproductive choice. It would not affect gender-affirming care. It would not criminalize legitimate medical practice or emergency interventions. Existing Criminal Code protections would remain in place, including those that protect physicians acting to preserve a patient's life or health.

The consent framework would remain unchanged. Consent is not valid where it is obtained through force, threats, fraud, duress or the abuse of authority. Bill S-228 would not alter those principles. It would actually reinforce them.

There has been thoughtful discussion about whether criminal law is the appropriate tool to address this issue. It is true that legislation alone cannot solve every aspect of the problem, but ending forced and coerced sterilization would also require improvements in medical training, stronger consent practices and continued engagement with communities and survivors. However, clarity in the law matters. Criminal law sets boundaries. It signals what conduct is acceptable and provides a mechanism for accountability. Without that clarity, enforcement becomes uncertain, and without accountability, trust cannot be restored.

Trust is central to this issue. The relationship between a patient and a medical professional is built on trust. When that trust is broken, the consequences extend far beyond a single incident. People lose confidence in the health care system, they delay care and they avoid seeking help altogether, and the impacts on health outcomes are significant. Rebuilding that trust requires attention.

The legislation is also a step forward toward reconciliation. Forced and coerced sterilization must be understood within a broader context of policies that have sought to control indigenous lives, families and communities. Reconciliation requires more than acknowledgement. It requires action. It requires structural change and requires ensuring that such harms do not continue. Bill S-228 is a step in that direction.

Before I conclude, I would like to again recognize the individuals whose courage has brought us to this point. The legislation exists because survivors spoke out and shared their stories. They relived painful experiences so others would not have to, and they asked Parliament to act. We must honour that courage. At third reading, the questions before us are clear. Will we ensure that Canada's criminal law reflects the seriousness of the violation? Will we affirm that sterilization without consent is not a misunderstanding or an oversight but a grave breach of human rights? Will we act to protect future generations?

Bill S-228 would affirm a fundamental principle: No one's reproductive future can be taken from them without their free, prior and informed consent; no one's body can be permanently altered through coercion or pressure; and no one's dignity is negotiable. The evidence is clear. The need is urgent. Survivors have waited long enough, and I encourage all members of the House to support Bill S-228 at third reading. Let us act decisively, let us act responsibly and let us ensure that this injustice has no place in Canada now or ever again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words the member has put on the record with respect to such an important issue. I would like to highlight in my question and comment the bravery and the courage this would have taken for survivors, individuals who have gone through this experience and who have continued to raise the profile of the issue to such a degree that we actually have legislation before us now that I anticipate will pass, at the very latest, after the second hour of debate. Could the member provide his thoughts in terms of recognizing those outstanding individual Canadians?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government for supporting this piece of legislation, and not only this piece of legislation, Bill S-228, but also the previous version that was lost when Parliament prorogued during the last Parliament, which is now coming up on a year ago.

Yes, survivors' speaking about this was something that meant reliving a lot of trauma for a lot of people. It was not easy in a lot of circumstances for the witnesses, the survivors, to come forward to speak about it openly and on camera. It was very difficult for them. However, they drew on that courage and wanted to ensure that future generations were not impacted by this. They wanted to ensure that there is a correction here. This shows the importance of the topic, and it speaks to the courage of survivors.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for his concern, which we can feel, and for his commitment to this issue. These are deeply troubling issues that are difficult to address, but I think that he is doing so with great dignity. The fact that the bill is now at third reading is also a testament to his strong leadership.

We just quickly completed report stage, but I think it is important to talk about the testimony that we heard from victims in committee. For example, Nicole Rabbit was scheduled for a C-section at the University of Saskatoon on September 11, 2001. We are talking about something that happened less than 30 years ago. She said: I trusted the medical team but knew something wasn't right when I smelled the burning flesh. These were strangers who I had no previous encounters with who insisted I tie my tubes. The medical team took advantage of me in a vulnerable state....No one asked me what I wanted. No one explained to me why I apparently needed this done, and I didn't sign any forms. I still have no real idea what the options were and why they said it was best for them to sterilize me. I know now that the sterilization can't be reversed.

My colleague talked about reconciliation and systemic issues. I would like to hear his thoughts on what we can do to ensure real reconciliation.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although my friend from the Bloc is not on the indigenous and northern affairs committee anymore, I did appreciate working with him during the many years of that committee. He was a great asset to the group. I miss his contribution greatly, but I do appreciate his support, both of Bill S-250, the previous bill, and also of Bill S-228, the current bill.

The member from the Bloc articulated some of the comments we heard and the testimony we heard at committee. That little segment was from just one witness's testimony, but when hearing the story, we could feel the trauma that the person endured. As the member mentioned, it is not as if it happened many years ago. That is in recent memory. It is trauma that is still fresh in someone's mind, and someone will have to live with the knowledge that they will not be able to have any children.

This touches everyone, and I think we need to act right now.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on this file and on the importance of bringing this issue forward. What we know is that the individuals were not always believed. Luckily, society is advancing, but there has just been a case in Ontario where 48 women came forward, and the judge had no problem suggesting that there was no credibility to any of their testimony. I would like to hear the member's comments on the work we need to do on how we ensure that survivors are believed, and that when they come forward, they receive the dignity and respect they deserve.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is something we heard during testimony during the committee process. Many times, the victims did not know what was happening to them. The survivors were not sure what the procedure meant.

This legislation would be a way to correct that wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to briefly make mention of the significance of tomorrow, which is Red Dress Day. Across our great nation, individuals will be recognizing the tragedy that occurred with the murdered and missing women. For me, it is important not only to highlight it but also to recognize that even today we still see young girls and women, particularly from the indigenous community, who continue to go missing and be murdered. We have to be diligent and support indigenous leadership, like my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, who has a beautiful red broach on, I noticed, in recognition of tomorrow's special day.

The legislation we are talking about for private members' hour is about a form of discrimination, in many ways, that took place here in Canada. Not very many people are aware of the type of discrimination I am referring to. We are dealing with the issue of sterilization. Many women, we are talking about hundreds, were coerced or forced in one way or another and convinced that the sterilization was absolutely essential. It came at a substantial cost, and I am not talking about money. I am talking about human rights. It is quite unfortunate that it took so long for us to recognize, as a nation, that it was being done in some provinces.

In Canada, there is a joint responsibility related to many different portfolios, jurisdictional responsibilities between Ottawa and the different provinces. We had some provinces that had a law that supported forcing women, in essence, through coercion and other ways, to be sterilized. B.C. was one, and there were others. That is a very serious violation of human rights. At the core of the issue, it is about trust.

The question I posed to my colleague across the way was to recognize the terror and horror that an individual would have experienced as a survivor. I suspect we would find that many of the women who were put through this tragedy had no sense of what was being done to their bodies, to then find out at a later point that they were sterilized. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to address the emotions and the fact that they were not able to have a child. Often individuals were completely misled to believe that they could change it in the future. Some people today still think sterilization is something that can be reversed a few years later, which is not the case.

It was particularly devastating to some communities more than others. Indigenous people were targeted, if not intentionally, but I would suggest that it was intentionally by many, to have sterilization. It was the same thing for people with disabilities, where the line was crossed.

It is an issue of trust. When we seek assistance or advice, we have faith in the people in our institutions, that they are going to take a balanced approach in providing advice that is based on medical conditions, some social factors, no doubt, and other considerations. We have faith that ultimately was displaced. There was another agenda being served, over and above the interests of the woman who was having to make a difficult decision or, in many ways, on whose behalf a decision was made. One can only appreciate how it is that someone's human rights, very basic ones, were violated in a situation like that.

Coerced sterilization is a serious violation of bodily autonomy. Whether one likes it or not, the bottom line is the realization that it is a woman's right to decide. We as a society need to support that in every way.

The legislation before us, Bill S-228, is not the first time we have attempted to get this through, but I believe that now, given the current political situation and having it at the third reading, we are talking about another hour or hour and a half's debate before its ultimate passage. With the support that the legislation has received from the Senate and members of Parliament, current and past, there is no doubt in my mind that this legislation will not only pass but receive royal assent. That is a good thing. It has taken a long time. As has been pointed out, these sterilization policies were enacted generations ago, probably 60 or 70 years ago.

At the end of the day, the House of Commons is providing clarity on an important issue. The only reason the House is recognizing this is that survivors have had the courage and bravery to continue to talk about it.

I remember in the Manitoba legislature, years ago, when I was first made aware of the issue. There were even issues being raised back then in regard to sterilization and crossing the line between what is advice and consent versus coercion, and it still happens today.

It is because of those brave and courageous women from the past who had to live through that experience and then continue to share their experiences that the public and parliamentarians at all levels have become enlightened about the issue, which ultimately has led to the legislation we have before us.

Survivors, particularly indigenous women, have been clear about the harm caused by forced or coerced sterilization. They are the ones I would like to recognize in particular and thank for their persistence on the issue. They are the reason the legislation will be passed, as well as indigenous leadership, individuals within the disability communities and others, human rights advocates who have seen the violation that has taken place and recognized it for what it is: a lack of consent, disinformation and discrimination.

It is important that we recognize all these negative things that have taken place. It is also important to recognize the many different forms and to be diligent so that it does not continue to take place.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out something that is not directly related to today's topic but that still concerns an issue that affects it, although indirectly. I am wearing a red dress pin because tomorrow, May 5, we commemorate Red Dress Day. It is a time to remember missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

There are some topics that are hard to talk about in the House. Allow me to establish a link. Following my election in 2019, Senator Miville‑Dechêne reached out to me and told me about an all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery. I was surprised that human trafficking and modern slavery still existed in 2019. Perhaps I was naive and living with my head in the clouds. Today, in 2026, I cannot believe I am forced to rise to speak to a bill about forced sterilization. Some of these topics are very sensitive and hard to discuss.

I will address this one by invoking a fundamental principle: the right to control one's own body. This right is at the heart of any free and democratic society. Let us be clear: Forced sterilization is a human rights violation. It is an irreversible violation and a form of institutional violence. This is not a theoretical debate. In 2026, it is still a reality that, unfortunately, has not yet been eradicated.

Behind this bill are women who were deprived of the choice to bring a child into the world. It is unspeakably cruel. As the mother of a four-year-old girl, I have to say this is a very difficult subject. It is not a simple issue. It is a reality that is part of a very dark chapter of our history.

This is, of course, a historical legacy of colonialism. I will share some statistics. Between 1966 and 1976, there were 1,200 sterilizations, 1,150 of which were performed on indigenous women. Clearly, they are overrepresented. In Alberta, 74% of the women who were sterilized were indigenous. This reflects a legacy of eugenics and colonial policies.

There were 580 documented cases between 1970 and 1975. These practices were intended to control certain groups that were deemed “undesirable”. This is systemic racism, and it leads to health inequalities. Contrary to what we might think, this is an issue that is still timely today, as I mentioned in my introduction.

There have been some class-action lawsuits. Over 100 women filed suit in Saskatchewan, and another five lawsuits have been filed across Canada and beyond its borders. In Quebec, 22 cases have been documented, 30 Atikamekw women have filed a lawsuit and testimony has recently been heard in 35 cases.

Let us talk about the issue of consent. These women are often asked for consent when they are in pain and in a vulnerable position. They are often pressured to make a decision. It is reasonable to wonder whether consent is valid when it is obtained from a person in a vulnerable position. This is not something that happened way back in the past. There are still cases before the courts today.

Why do we need to legislate? This constitutes assault, which is already an offence. However, it is difficult to clearly define the act, to take legal action. It is very difficult to punish something that is not clearly defined. That is how we see it. I would like to make a comparison. Sexual assault needs to be explicitly defined. That takes political will, but this legislative change must be made so that it is perfectly clear to institutions that there will be zero tolerance. This right needs to be explicitly stated to better protect these women.

We need to clarify that sterilization is mutilation, a form of aggravated assault. It is defined as any procedure that prevents reproduction. We need to ensure that there is free and informed prior consent. Yes, the purpose criterion protects necessary medical procedures. Of course, we are talking about protecting physicians, but the consent must be valid to exclude any criminal liability. Emergencies are also covered by section 45 of the Criminal Code. This bill protects patients without penalizing professionals who are acting in good faith. That is what we want to do here.

To respond to criticism about criminalizing doctors, I would say that this is a clear law that also protects practitioners. We encourage enhanced consent protocols. The same logic applies to medical assistance in dying or caring for the incapacitated. Above all, we want to avoid a legal vacuum. There are reports that show the current recourse system has failed. Right now, this is a theoretical right with no actual enforcement, which does not really constitute protection.

On top of that, there is the stigma of silence. There is a stigma attached to this. There is also a lack of recognition. It is a taboo subject that no one talks about. By naming it, we are recognizing it, and by recognizing it, we are ultimately protecting these women so that they can continue to make their own decisions about their bodies.

There is are very systemic and social aspect, which is that the groups affected by this issue are indigenous women, racialized women and persons with disabilities. This violence is rooted in power imbalances, as I mentioned earlier. The truly tragic thing about this is that there are many consequences. We are talking about trauma and loss of trust, but also an intergenerational impact. It is not just an attack on a person's body; it is an attack on their entire life. Taking away a woman's ability to give birth is an attack on her right to choose whether to do so. This assault lasts a lifetime for a woman, who will later experience the psychological and physical scars of it all, because there will be scars, many of them.

The Bloc Québécois strongly supports this bill, with certain reservations, of course. We want it to respect Quebec's jurisdiction over health care.

As Bloc Québécois members have repeatedly said, the involvement of indigenous nations is a must. Nation-to-nation discussions are consistent with our vision, and we naturally want indigenous nations to be involved going forward.

We also want to remind members that we will always reject any attempts at federal overcentralization. We will have to keep an eye out, because we see that this federal regime is yet another in a constant stream of attempts to overcentralize. The rights of these indigenous women and girls must be protected while respecting jurisdictions.

Obviously, a law alone is not enough. Professionals also have to be trained. A monitoring and cultural adaptation mechanism also needs to be implemented. We could take inspiration from the Collège des médecins du Québec, whose initiatives promote collaboration and take a co-operative approach. As we have been saying, despite some criticism, this bill does seek to protect physicians. I think physicians want to collaborate on this issue, and we applaud their initiatives considering that the law must be translated into practice. It will take awareness campaigns to make that happen.

We must eliminate the stigma and taboo surrounding forced sterilization, which is indeed still happening. My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, talked about this a little earlier in his question. He used to serve on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and I know he took an interest in this issue. He shared the very real case of a woman who was subjected to this and described the pain and the wounds, both psychological and physical, that she suffered as a result of forced sterilization.

In closing, these women have been ignored and silenced. We cannot forget the victims who have suffered as a result of this atrocity. As parliamentarians, we have a collective responsibility to take action today. By supporting this bill, we can appeal for justice, dignity and recognition.

As a final point, I want to say that this bill is a step toward making amends, but, above all, it is a commitment to never tolerate this unacceptable act again. We are hearing more and more about the need for reconciliation lately, and I believe this bill aligns perfectly with that objective. As elected officials, we must set partisanship aside and move forward for the sake of victims.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George, who gave up his time today so we could debate this very important issue.

Forced sterilization is a clear violation of human dignity. It is not simply a failure of policy by a nation. It is not a mere error in judgment. It is an assertion of control over someone else's ability to procreate in the future. When we examine the history of this country, we have to be honest about systemic violations of this nature and recognize that these violations, as they relate to indigenous people, have not occurred in isolation. They exist within a broader and deeper troubling pattern, a pattern of dehumanization of indigenous women.

The international community has already recognized the importance of informed consent, and so I want to highlight that principle and how it relates to what we are speaking about today in the House. In the aftermath of the Second World War, during the Nuremberg trials, the world was forced to reckon with medical experimentation carried out on human beings without their agreement or consent.

Out of that reckoning came the Nuremberg Code, which established a principle that has long shaped modern medical ethics. This code recognized that the voluntary and informed consent of an individual is essential. This principle is not just theoretical in nature. It was drawn from real abuses in the international era, where human beings were treated as objects rather than as persons. It established a boundary that no government, no institution and no professional should ever cross, yet we are here today debating a very similar issue, even after standards were set.

We must confront the reality that similar violations occurred within our very country. In the 1940s and 1950s, the federal government, through the then department of Indian affairs and in collaboration with leading researchers, conducted a series of nutritional experiments on indigenous children in residential schools. These studies were overseen in part by a doctor, the superintendent of Indian affairs, medical services and prominent pediatricians known for developing infant nutritional products.

I raise this issue to show that forced sterilization is not in isolation from policies that have been advanced in this nation and so we can understand the seriousness of having to legislate against such issues and natures of experiment.

These nutritional experiments were not designed to heal. They were designed to observe, and the observation of these indigenous children was done almost as would be done in experiments watching lab rats. I hate to use that analogy, but this is what was done within our very country. These children were among the most vulnerable, at the time. They were already removed from their families and in residential schools. They were deliberately studied to see how children would react to malnutrition.

In these starvation human experiments, essential nutrients were withheld from these precious, innocent children. In some cases, schools were divided into test groups versus control groups. Critical dental care was also intentionally denied, not because it was unavailable, but because researchers wanted to see how this study of nutritional deficiency would impact dental disease over time. These were not isolated oversights. These experiments were organized and documented and funded by the Canadian government.

Historical records later brought this to light through archival research by scholars. It was shown that officials were aware of the conditions, and yet they still proceeded nonetheless. There was no meaningful consent. Just like we see with the sterilization cases, parents were not informed and children were not given a voice. They were not treated as individuals. They were treated as if they lacked inherent dignity and were subject to experimentation. This is not simply a tragedy in the chapter of our past. It reveals a pattern in which indigenous people were treated as objects of policy rather than as human beings deserving of care, protection and the same respect that all Canadians receive.

That same pattern is reflected in the history of forced and coerced sterilization in Canada. For decades, provinces like Alberta and British Columbia operated under this eugenics legislation. The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta authorized sterilization of thousands of individuals, many without full understanding and meaningful consent. Those disproportionately targeted included indigenous women, girls and marginalized populations. Even after those laws were repealed, the practice did not end.

In recent years, indigenous women have come forth with accounts of being sterilized without full and informed consent. Some were approached during childbirth at moments of extreme vulnerability. Some were pressured into signing forms that they did not fully understand, often at their most vulnerable moment. Others reported that procedures were performed without their knowledge. This is not health care. It is not care at all. It is control over a woman's ability to decide in the future that she may want children. Under Canadian law, it constitutes bodily harm.

In any other context, we would recognize this as an aggravated assault. We must understand that this issue sits within the broader systemic context. We heard about this context in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. That inquiry concluded that violence against indigenous women was not random. It was systemic and rooted in generational marginalization, dispossession and erosion of dignity. Forced sterilization must be understood within this continuum. It reflects a history in which decisions about indigenous women's bodies were made by others and without respect for their autonomy, dignity and humanity.

Bill S-228 is necessary. It would affirm clearly that forced and coerced sterilization is a criminal act. It would reinforce that non-consensual sterilization meets the threshold of aggravated assault under the Criminal Code and draws a clear line that no authority, medical institution or government has the right to override when a person can decide to have a child in the future.

If we are to move forward with dignity, we must confront history fully. We must recognize that policies, once justified under the language of progress, caused real and lasting harm. We must ensure that our laws reflect a different standard rooted in dignity. This bill is a step toward that standard, and for that reason, it deserves to be supported.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S-228, following its careful study by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

At the outset, I want to recognize the important work of the committee. Members heard from 19 witnesses, including advocacy groups, indigenous leaders and legal experts. Their testimony was powerful, grounded in lived experience and essential in ensuring that this legislation reflects the realities of those most affected and the seriousness of the harm we are addressing. Their work has reinforced the urgency of the bill's adoption.

Bill S-228 addresses a reality that is both deeply troubling and unfortunately ongoing: the forced and coerced sterilization of indigenous and racialized women, girls and 2SLGBTQI persons in Canada. Survivors have come forward with accounts of being subjected to sterilization procedures without their free and informed consent, sometimes through coercion, sometimes through misinformation, and often at moments of profound vulnerability, including during childbirth or institutional care.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader legacy of systemic discrimination rooted in colonialism, racism and deeply gendered assumptions about who is deemed fit to have children.

While some may be tempted to view this as a historical injustice, confined to another era, the evidence heard at committee makes it clear that this harm has not been relegated to the past. It persists. That is why this bill matters.

At its core, Bill S-228 is a clarifying measure, but it is no less significant for that reason. It makes explicit what is already implicit in our criminal law: that sterilization procedures carried out without valid consent constitute aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is the most serious form of assault under the Criminal Code. It applies when a person is wounded, maimed or disfigured, or when their life is endangered. Because sterilization procedures inherently involve the alteration of the human body in a permanent and profound way, they fall squarely within this framework when performed without consent.

This bill would remove any ambiguity. It would send a clear and unequivocal message: Non-consensual sterilization is not merely inappropriate; it is not merely unethical; it is criminal, and it is among the most serious forms of violence recognized by our law.

This bill would not create a new offence. It would not alter the law of consent, and it would not interfere with legitimate medical practice. That distinction is critical. Canada's legal framework already requires that consent be free, informed and given by a person with the capacity to understand the nature and consequence of the medical procedure. Consent obtained through coercion, manipulation or abuse of authority is not valid consent.

Bill S-228 would simply clarify how these well-established principles apply in the context of sterilization procedures. It would preserve the right of individuals to make their own reproductive choices, including the choice to undergo sterilization. What it protects is the integrity of that choice.

The committee's study also underscored an important reality: Despite existing legal protections, no criminal charges have been laid in Canada in cases involving alleged coerced sterilization. That fact alone raises serious concerns about clarity, accountability and, perhaps more importantly, trust. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the absence of legal consequences has contributed to a profound erosion of trust in institutions, such as the health care system, law enforcement and the justice system itself.

Bill S-228 is not a complete solution to that broader challenge, but it is an important step. It would provide clarity to police, prosecutors and courts. It would reinforce the seriousness of the offence, and it would signal to survivors that Parliament has heard them.

We must recognize that the harm caused by non-consensual sterilization extends far beyond the physical. It is a violation of bodily autonomy. It is an infringement on reproductive rights, and for indigenous communities, it carries deep cultural and intergenerational consequences.

The ability to have children is not only a personal matter. It is tied to identity, family and the continuity of community. To deprive someone of that ability without their consent is to inflict harm that reverberates across generations. That is why this bill is also consistent with Canada's broader commitments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the national action plan to end gender-based violence.

Bill S-228 reflects a commitment to address systemic discrimination and to take concrete steps to prevent this harm from occurring in the future.

I want to highlight the collaborative nature of this legislation. This bill was introduced in the Senate. I also want to highlight the important work done by members of this place. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, right now in Ottawa, leaders, survivors, families and frontline workers are gathering for the third national summit on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. They are coming together under a powerful theme: “from principles to policy, from resolution to action.”

Tomorrow, May 5, is Red Dress Day. Across this country, we are going to see red dresses in windows, in trees and on Parliament Hill, each one representing a life that was taken, a voice that was silenced or a family that was forever changed. This is not symbolic alone; it is a call to action. The violence that indigenous women face is not random; it is systemic. It is rooted in policies, institutions and decisions, both past and present.

That is why I want to speak to Bill S-228. Bill S-228 is a Criminal Code amendment that makes something unmistakably clear: that forced and coerced sterilization is a crime. It defines sterilization without consent as an act that wounds or maims, making it prosecutable as aggravated assault.

Let us be clear about what that means. It means that what happened to indigenous women in hospitals and medical systems, often without their full, informed consent, is not just unethical. It is violence, and not historical violence. Reports have confirmed that forced and coerced sterilization has continued into modern times within our own health care system. When we talk about MMIWG, we must understand that it is all connected.

The national inquiry called the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls a genocide, not because of one issue but because of a pattern, a system that has, for generations, devalued indigenous women's lives, controlled indigenous women's bodies and failed to protect indigenous women.

I wholeheartedly support Bill S-228, and I thank members for bringing it forward to the House.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of utilizing our time correctly, in talking about the importance of Bill S-228, I want to build on what my colleague was talking about: the importance of making sure that women across Canada have the opportunity to be consulted when they need to make decisions about family planning. Obviously, this issue has affected women in Canada, indigenous women disproportionately, and Black women.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about the fact that tomorrow is Red Dress Day, an important day for indigenous women, when we remember the missing and murdered indigenous women across Canada. This is an opportunity for everyone in Canada to be aware of the issues that disproportionately affect indigenous women—

[An hon. member]

And people with disabilities.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

—as well as people with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for making sure that important comment was made.

Sterilization disproportionately affects marginalized women, women who people think no one is going to look for, women who did not have the support system—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am afraid I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30‑minute question period.

Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side. Members should keep their interventions brief, and they may speak more than once.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disgusting to see the government actually using closure to shut down debate on such a serious issue, sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is disgusting that it is taking away the voice of veterans, of people who are surviving military sexual trauma, and not listening to the amendments being brought forward on Bill C-11.

I do not know why the government is in a hurry on this. We brought it through committee in a relatively organized manner. We had cross-party support from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP to make amendments based on the testimony we heard at committee, and now the government wants to ignore all that, shut down debate and use its sneaky majority to stifle democracy right here.

Why is the minister ignoring veterans and survivors of military sexual trauma and not making sure they have a choice in what justice system they want to use, whether it is the military justice system or the civilian system?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleagues for being here to debate this important issue. I would remind the member across the floor that for 10 years Mr. Harper did nothing about this issue. The Conservatives did not bring a single proposed legislative amendment or change to the whole question of this regime.

What we have decided is that delivering culture change is not only the right thing to do, but it is critical for our operational needs for national security. It is not a partisan issue, as hard as he would like to make it so. My colleague does not recall that we introduced Bill C-11 to codify in law key recommendations from two distinguished judges of the Supreme Court, justices Arbour and Fish, and to rebuild victims' and survivors' trust in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Most importantly, Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation calls for the removal of Canadian Armed Forces jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences. Through Bill C-11, we would be implementing this recommendation exactly as we promised. What we heard from former Supreme Court justices Fish and Arbour, as well as from the chief of the defence staff, military justice experts, victims and survivors, is that these changes are long overdue.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at this bill now, and I would like to know why the Liberal government is prioritizing speed over getting this legislation right for veterans and survivors. The government had 10 years to do something, and now we see it again moving closure. Could the minister comment on that, please?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. We went through a process in committee, an important process. I appeared on this bill. Unfortunately, virtually every substantive amendment put forward by the opposition parties has been ruled out of order by the Speaker's office. As a result of that, we are in the position now where we are, basically, moving forward.

There is a lot at stake here for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. The discussion around political interference is just unfortunate talk. The important thing here is that we are going to be making changes to address long-standing concerns raised by victims and survivors of the Canadian Armed Forces community. It is a suite of targeted amendments to modernize the military justice system.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is a concrete example of the Liberal government's lack of leadership. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years and, what is more, held a majority from 2015 to 2019. However, they waited for a public scandal before reforming the military justice system. Justice Arbour's report showed that the system was failing to protect victims.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Why did they wait for a public scandal before taking action?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of opportunity. We introduced the bill and reintroduced it in the House of Commons. It went through the normal process, and it was Justice Arbour herself who predicted that it would take a few years to bring about fundamental changes. That is exactly where we are now. The hon. member knows this; he is aware of the situation, and we hope to make progress today.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we are now debating not Bill C-11 itself but time allocation, I would like to remind my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence and cast his mind back to when the Liberals were the third party in the House and the Harper Conservatives used time allocation over and over again. In those days, those of us back in this corner would say frequently that we did not need time allocation, that we should properly debate and that the routine use of time allocation is anti-democratic. I hold to that view no matter who is holding the reins of power.

It is anti-democratic to shut down debate early. This is why I will be voting no to time allocation. I do support pursuing Madam Justice Arbour's recommendations, but I do not like being bulldozed.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me an opportunity to talk a little more about what is in the bill.

We would be codifying in law that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer have jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. We would be codifying in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction for investigating and prosecuting these Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. We would be establishing a victim liaison officer to be provided to victims throughout the transfer of cases, regardless of jurisdiction. We would be elevating the role of key justice actors to increase their independence, among other fundamental changes, which I know my colleague, as a lawyer, understands would be important in strengthening not only that justice be seen to be done, but that it actually be done.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it sure did not take long for the Liberals to show their true character. Time allocation and closure motions are the kind of stuff we do when we want to ram things through without proper debate. I know my constituents expect me to come here and to thoroughly debate every single piece of legislation, to ensure that every avenue has been explored. They expect that we go down every rabbit hole and that we know what we are ending up with is a product we can all be pleased with.

I think the justice system needs to be modernized. This has become clear at committee. I think it would be prudent for us to make sure we listen to the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse that has happened in the military to make sure this act really represents the justice they deserve.

Has the minister personally met with any of the victims or survivors of sexual abuse in the military?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Justices Arbour and Fish conducted extensive outreach and consultations with victims, survivors, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, their families, military justice experts and constitutional experts to get this right. In fact, the chief of the defence staff, General Jennie Carignan, in her previous role as chief of personnel and professional conduct, also undertook extensive consultations with over 14,000 individuals. What Justice Arbour, Justice Fish and the chief of the defence staff heard, and revealed in their reports, is that there is a lack of trust in the military justice system, in large part due to instances of real and perceived interference from the chain of command into sexual misconduct matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for us to recognize that former Supreme Court Justice Arbour put in a great deal of effort. She consulted and listened to hundreds, if not thousands, of direct or indirect opinions on the issue. The core of the issue is the transfer of cases from the military courts to the civilian courts. This has been in the works now for a while. There have been all sorts of debates and discussion, whether at second reading or in the standing committee. There are those in the chamber who would never see this legislation pass.

Does the minister not agree that the principle of the legislation is being supported in such a way that the legislation needs to pass in the House of Commons?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after a year-long review of DND and CAF, Justice Arbour said this: “the handling of sexual misconduct by military justice has eroded trust and morale” among the organization. She recommended in recommendation five that the civilian system be given exclusive jurisdiction. We agree.

Bill C-11 would address her recommendation five, that Criminal Code sexual offences alleged against CAF members in Canada should be investigated and prosecuted exclusively in the civilian system. Military justice experts tell us this would provide greater legal clarity, greater legal certainty, to all actors in the justice system and would better serve victims and survivors.

My colleague is right. We have to get this done on behalf of the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are just over a week into the Liberals' sneaky majority, which they got through backdoor deals, and this is the piece of legislation they have decided they are going to ram through and curtail debate. What is this piece of legislation we are talking about? This is a piece of legislation about sexual assault and listening to our veterans. The Liberals are choosing to put political expediency ahead of the needs of victims and our veterans or even listening to our military members. This is all par for the course.

I have seen this in Cold Lake at 4 Wing. We still do not have an answer as to when we are going to get all 88 of the F-35s in, because they do not seem to care. This is just a pattern of abuse from the government of not putting veterans and our armed forces members first.

The question is simple. Will the Liberals admit they are wrong on this and let the debate continue?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the chance to visit Cold Lake. The member has voted against every military investment, including $4 billion for that base. She has had a chance.

Bill C-11 would bolster trust in the military justice system by providing, as I said, legal clarity, as recommended by Justice Arbour. It would enhance the independence of key military justice actors, as recommended by former Justice Fish. For example, by elevating positions of key military justice actors to Governor in Council appointees, we would insulate them from real or perceived influence from the chain of command.

The brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces are always there to keep Canada safe. It is our obligation, all of us in this House, to keep them safe from harassment and misconduct.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today Parliament opened with the words “freedom, opportunity and peace”, something we all get to enjoy. We are enjoying that because of the veterans and those who continue to fight for us and for all Canadians, and now they are asking us to help them, protect them and speak on behalf of their voices.

Why is the government shutting down their voices and closing debate with its manufactured majority?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

As I mentioned a moment ago, which I will repeat for the member's benefit, Mr. Speaker, this is entirely about trust. It is about trust for the women and men in our armed forces today, for them to know that when it comes to Criminal Code sexual offences, they will be prosecuted and investigated on the outside of the department and the Canadian Armed Forces.

In fact, that has been the case since the fall of 2021. The member may not be aware that every new case has been referred to the civilian courts since the fall of 2021. As a result, we are seeing progress, trust is enhanced, and were we to formalize this, it would give us more clarity and certainty.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is transferring sexual offence cases to the civilian courts. They are being taken out of the military system. The problem is that the government is already incapable of making the justice system work, especially when it comes to appointing judges. Quebec is short five judges and Canada is short 27. Victims do not need a change in system. They need justice. For that to happen, the federal government must do its job: It must appoint judges.

Does the government intend to appoint judges as quickly as possible and give the system the resources it needs, instead of just passing the buck?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an important question.

We recognize that the transfer of Criminal Code sexual offence cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system is a complex process. That is exactly why we are signing memoranda of understanding with the provinces. It is to make sure they have the means to deal with those additional cases. We have already signed a successful memorandum of understanding with the Province of Ontario, and work is ongoing with other provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence admitted at committee that he took an old bill, Bill C-66, and brought it back to the current Parliament as Bill C-11. He never talked to anybody in the veterans community. He did not reach out and talk to members in the justice system within CAF. He never talked to anyone at the provincial level about the problems they are having in carrying on these prosecutions.

If he had listened to veterans, and read the testimony that appeared in committee, they would have told him that they do not have faith in the civilian system, especially for low-level sexual misconduct; that they are going to be dismissed; and that there is then no recourse within the military system for any sort of administrative or disciplinary measures against those offenders. If he had been listening, he would have heard from police stations and police organizations across the country, as well as lawyers, saying to give victims the choice, so that they could choose which system they believe they are most comfortable in, whether it was the military system or the civilian system.

If he listened to his own members of the Canadian Armed Forces, like the director of military prosecutions, like the director of defence counsel services, like the provost marshal general of the Canadian Armed Forces, they would have told him that they are all now at a better place, five years since the Arbour report, to actually bring in the changes that are needed to do what is right.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member omits to tell the Canadian people watching the debate that as of the fall of 2021, all of these cases have been sent to civilian courts.

He cannot have it both ways. There has been important progress and tangible changes since 2021. This is precisely because the interim directive that put Justice Arbour's recommendation five into place in a temporary manner, until such time as legislation could be passed through the House, continues. Work on cultural evolution inside the CAF has continued. We have now implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations. To block Arbour's recommendation five would be to undo the progress of the past five years. We do not have the intention of doing that.

I think the member knows this is the right way to proceed. I put my trust in the work of Madam Justice Arbour, Mr. Justice Fish and, for that matter, the chief of the defence staff.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is being rather arrogant, and I think we need to call it out. The Liberals have had several of the amendments from the Standing Committee on National Defence struck down. They were important amendments.

After securing a majority thanks to the floor crossers, the government decided to completely sideline all of the committee's work, even though the general election produced a minority government. For now, it is the floor crossers who are enabling the government to give itself all the power and override the will of the people, who entrusted it with a minority mandate so that it would collaborate. I do not understand why the government does not respect the idea that we must work together. It is not respecting the committee's work.

I have a simple question for the government. Can it explain why it is not respecting the work of the parliamentary committees and the elected parliamentarians who represent the public?

It cannot claim to represent the full spectrum of views based on the floor crossers it used to secure a majority. Democracy thrives on a multiplicity of voices. Right now, the government is completely excluding those voices.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a large majority of these amendments were ruled out of order by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is not exactly helpful.

In recent years, we have made considerable progress towards bringing about significant and lasting cultural change, notably by working to implement 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations.

This bill proposes transformative measures to transfer the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences allegedly committed in Canada by members of the CAF to the civilian system. This bill also implements Justice Fish's key recommendations aimed at strengthening the military justice system. Now is the right time to move forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize how we have enhanced our military, whether it is increasing their budget to 2% of GDP or providing support for CAF members. Just recently the minister made an announcement of 7,000-plus new applications to join the forces. It is all about credibility. The minister sees the value of bringing forward this legislation.

I am disappointed that the Conservative Party of Canada is now in opposition to it. It is interesting, because two weeks ago I did not hear the Conservatives crying about it or saying that they were going to oppose the legislation. It is coming back to the House and now they have taken the position of having the full intention of debating it endlessly so that it does not pass.

My question is for the minister. In terms of continuity and reinforcing confidence in the forces, this is one of the reason why—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have made a decision. We are going to be rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Inherent in that rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting is the important question of bolstering trust in the military justice system by providing legal clarity, as recommended by Justice Arbour, and by enhancing the independence of key military justice actors, as recommended by former Justice Fish. We are moving forward.

The member makes an important point. The Canadian Armed Forces and all the work that we are doing there begins with our people. We need to make sure they can work in a safe, transparent, robust workplace. If there are challenges, members of the armed forces need to know that the legal system that is there to protect them will in fact work.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister went to the Canadian people and said that he was going to move at speeds unseen in generations. We thought that was for major projects, and that is not what we have seen.

Now what we are seeing is speeds moving and steamrolling over committees and over the co-operative work of this House. Is that what the Prime Minister meant by moving at speeds unseen in generations, ignoring the will of this House through the committee network?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, that is not what he meant.

What he meant was we would reach 2% of our GDP spending in 10 months. We would get members of our Canadian Armed Forces a significant pay raise in less than six months. We would increase recruitment by 61%, year over over. We would be making billions of dollars of investment in our 33 bases. We would extend our presence in Latvia for three more years, with 3,000 members in a forward operating location. We would announce $40 billion for investments in the Arctic, including for northern operational support hubs.

We are moving at breakneck speed. The problem is that, in every one of those cases, the opposition has voted against.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, there is officially a new dynamic at play, and the government is being rather arrogant, or blatantly arrogant, even. There is no longer any point in speaking in committee because we are not getting any answers.

There is a new government that secured a majority with the help of defectors, including an NDP MP. Among other things, this MP was one of the lawmakers who worked on amendments to this bill. Some of these amendments were very constructive and improved the bill, but the Liberals removed some of them for no reason, simply because they have given themselves the right to do whatever they want now and to disregard the will of the people who elected us to represent them and work together.

I would like the government to explain to me why it refuses to respect the will of the committee and all the concerted effort that went into producing a better bill for Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, bringing about a cultural shift is not only the right thing to do; it is also essential to meeting our operational needs in the area of national security. This is not at all a partisan issue, and the member knows it.

We introduced Bill C-11 to enshrine the main recommendations of Justices Arbour and Fish in the legislation and to restore victims' and survivors' confidence in the armed forces. Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation involves removing the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences. That is exactly what we have proposed and that is exactly what we we are doing. We hope to have our colleagues' support.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused. At committee, there were a number of veterans who spoke and shared their heart-wrenching stories. We heard time and time again the importance of survivors wanting choice. At committee, the Minister of National Defence said, of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, that we have to be able to look them in the eye, and tell them that we have a well-run and transparent system, and that they can trust the system to help them when problems arise.

How is denying survivors choice and forcing them into an overburdened civilian system that does not understand the realities of military service compatible with the minister's promise of a transparent, well-run system that they can trust?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking our lead from Madam Justice Arbour, one of our most distinguished Supreme Court of Canada justices.

Here is really what is at stake: Victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself called a victim's choice between military and civilian courts “a false choice”. This is because we would be placing a burden on a victim in a time of high stress, trauma and in fact duress to choose between two unequal options. Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.

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

Mr. Speaker, this government, which was elected as a minority government, bought itself a majority by getting members to cross the floor. It is taking the democratic work of a committee and undoing it. Today, it is using the majority it bought to impose a gag order, but that is not the worst part. We have here a minister who is simply repeating the same old lines and who cannot answer a single one of our questions without reading from a script prepared by his staff.

I would like the minister to stand up, leave his notes on his desk and tell us honestly whether he believes that what the Liberals are doing today is democratic.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat myself in French for my colleague's benefit. Victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself described a victim's choice between military and civilian courts as a false choice. I want to emphasize the word “false”. Indeed, that would amount to placing a burden on the victim of having to choose between two unequal options, all at a time of stress and trauma.

Ultimately, asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain-of-command interference, in a Criminal Code case does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is another truly sad day for our democracy and our democratic institutions. The decline in democracy is continuing with the Liberal government.

The defence minister keeps referencing the Arbour report. That report was established almost seven years ago and only five years ago did the government start implementing any of the recommendations in the report. We have had all this despite the fact that seven years later, things have changed significantly. We had CAF members, stakeholders and veterans all come to committee and talk about this, yet the government continues to ignore the voices of those who know better than government what types of systems should be in place and it is gutting every committee recommendation.

Is it not true that the government only wants an audience, not an opposition?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe in conclusion I could remind the member that the chief of the defence staff, in her previous position, spoke to 14,000 individuals. I am not sure where he is deriving his numbers from. As a result of that as well, Madam Justice Arbour actually conducted one of the deepest commissions of inquiry in this whole area.

The member knows better than to hurl this kind of invective. It is not like him. As a result of that, I think what we should do is remind ourselves that this is about enhancing trust. That is what Bill C-11 will do and that is why we are moving forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would like to have a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the result of the vote:

I am told that there is a technical difficulty involving the votes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you may find unanimous consent to allow members to leave the chamber while the Table and the Speaker resolve the outcome of the vote.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the Table is working feverishly to complete the vote count, we believe that all members from our side who made attempts to vote on the app have been accounted for, with the exception of the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

We would ask for unanimous consent to allow for that member's vote to count and be included in the vote.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #108

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declared the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from April 23 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sexual misconduct in the armed forces is a known long-standing problem. It was known during the previous Conservative government. The previous Conservative government received the Deschamps report, which recommended changes, some of which required legislation, in March of 2015.

The report was tabled and its recommendations were accepted just before the 2015 election. If Conservatives had been re-elected in 2015, the legislative changes necessary to address investigations and prosecutions into sexual misconduct would have been taken care of 10 years ago, but that is not how it turned out. The Liberals won the 2015 election. During the entire 42nd Parliament, the Liberals did absolutely nothing. They made literally zero effort to pass the necessary legislation between 2015 and 2019.

We have to go through this to really figure out how we got here, when the Liberals are time allocating this bill today, in 2026.

During the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals' main contribution to the issue of sexual misconduct was to cover it up. That is what it did when it touched the highest levels of the chain of command. Some will remember that former defence minister Harjit Sajjan helped cover up known sexual misconduct by the then chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, along with some help from the Trudeau PMO.

After the next election, in the 43rd Parliament, the Liberals still did absolutely nothing to implement the Deschamps report. They let new reports pile up, such as the Fish report and the Arbour report, while a succession of senior officers continued to be publicly accused of sexual harassment.

Three elections in, the Liberals finally got around to tabling an earlier version of this bill in the spring of 2023. That was eight years after the Deschamps report, and then they made almost no effort to move the bill in the House. It sat there collecting dust on the Order Paper for a whole year before receiving, I believe, exactly one day of debate in the spring of 2024.

Some will remember what the Liberals did in the fall of 2024. They sacrificed their entire legislative agenda in defiance of two orders of Parliament. They willingly did so rather than comply with rulings from the Speaker that found prima facie evidence of contempt of Parliament related to the corruption of the green slush fund and the lies told about the disgraced former minister Randy Boissonnault at committee and his conflicts of interest.

That lost legislative session ended with the implosion of the Liberal cabinet, the resignation of the then prime minister and the prorogation of Parliament. It ended the Liberals' attempt, their first attempt, to legislate the changes recommended by Justice Deschamps.

Conservatives have always supported, and continue to support, the recommendations contained in the Deschamps report. We agreed with the recommendations when we were in government. Conservatives have continued to agree with them while in opposition during the 42nd Parliament, the 43rd Parliament, the 44th Parliament and, now, the 45th Parliament.

When the Liberals finally called this bill, Bill C-11, last December, on a Friday, Conservatives allowed it to pass at second reading without even one full day of debate. Now we have the amendments.

The amendments we are debating are the result of the defence committee's work earlier this year. The defence committee heard brave, courageous testimony from victims of sexual assault, abuse and harassment within the armed forces. They heard about traumatic, harrowing experiences. The testimony that was heard at the defence committee was given serious consideration.

The appropriate jurisdiction of investigations and prosecution is not a simple question. It is true that Justice Arbour recommended that all cases be referred to the civilian system, but it is also true that many victims expressed a variety of concerns about access to justice within the civilian system. That is why Conservatives and Bloc MPs, even the NDP, all recommended that the best way to give victims their best shot at receiving justice is to allow the victim to choose which system makes the most sense in their particular case.

The simplicity of this recommendation speaks for itself. There have been other inquiries and studies done at the defence committee, and none of the inquiries, the studies or parliamentary reports disagreed that there are barriers to justice within a system where the victim and the accused are part of the same chain of command. Nobody is disputing this.

However, as was pointed out by witnesses during the committee's study, the civilian system is also riddled with barriers to justice for victims. Official languages is an issue if a member cannot get service in the official language of their choice in the provincial system of where they are stationed. Delay is another one. That is why the committee recommended choice. It would not be forcing anybody to have their case studied within the military system. It would be giving choice.

During this committee study, no party had a majority. All the MPs worked together, regardless of their party affiliation. There were many amendments proposed, and there was very powerful and compelling testimony that drove these amendments. That is what Parliament is all about: hearing from the witnesses at committee and working together to recommend improvement to the legislation. That is good opposition politics. That is good government party politics.

However, we know that now everything has changed. The Liberals have a majority, and they have already demonstrated the contempt they hold for opposition MPs and for ideas other than their own. In its arrogance and unbridled hubris, the Liberal government is ignoring the wisdom born of co-operation and collaboration. There were 14 amendments, which were all supported by multiple parties, and now the Liberals are intent on ramming the bill through, after spending almost 11 years failing to introduce and pass it.

The member for Nunavut, in particular, contributed to the bill in a very meaningful, important way. This is what Canadians want. Her party did not even have a seat at the committee table, but she as an MP produced a good, sound, principled amendment that was debated and adopted at committee. Canadians say they want their elected representatives to be open-minded. They want them to work together and want them to respect and co-operate with each other. That is what the defence committee members did. They took seriously the amendments offered by an MP who did not even have a vote at the committee.

However, between the clause-by-clause review at the committee and the present, today, when the Liberals now have a majority and have used time allocation to curtail debate on this, the member for Nunavut has crossed the floor and joined the Liberal caucus. She had a history of principled opposition to government. She was one of the few NDP members who remembered that her duty was to oppose the government and not to hold the opposition party to account.

I hope the member for Nunavut will remember this and will not end up opposing her own contribution to the bill, because she proposed the amendment that would allow choice and flexibility in cases of sexual misconduct in the military. She was doing her job, so now that she sits on the Liberal benches, I hope she will actually follow through and support her own amendment.

The member for Nunavut is not the only one. There are other members who have crossed the floor. We now see the Liberals and their true colours: power at all costs and control at all costs, with power concentrated entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament as an institution is becoming obvious to all. I am actually concerned about his limited civic literacy, when he speaks in English and calls other MPs his deputies, and when he sets up photo op signings, pretending to sign bills into law. It is almost as if he needed to be told that it is actually the Governor General who signs laws, not him; that she does so only after they have been agreed to by a majority of members of Parliament, of both Houses of Parliament; and that none of those members in either chamber are his deputies.

I am disappointed that the government took 11 years to deal with a well-known and long-standing problem and that it is proposing to gut this bill after such clear and powerful committee testimony. I supported the bill in principle and sending it to the defence committee. I support the conclusions of the defence committee, which made important amendments to fix the bill. I oppose the Liberals' attempts to undo the committee's work by gutting the amendments today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments toward the end of his speech about the use of the word député, which, as he knows, means “member of Parliament” in French.

However, I am curious whether the member is equally as concerned about the time the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations stood in the House in the middle of question period and, when he was responded to in French, challenged the minister for responding in French. The member said he wished he had answered the question in English. He must be equally as outraged about when that happened. Is that correct?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member completely missed the point. I was not speaking of the Prime Minister's use of French or English. I was talking about his use of the English word “deputy” when clearly characterizing his MPs as his deputies. The Prime Minister thinks that the MPs of his party are his deputies, just there to do his work. However, they are elected by the people of Canada. All MPs are elected by the people of Canada. Nobody is the Prime Minister's deputy around here.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on the government's attitude. The government did not win a majority in the election, yet, thanks to floor crossers, it is laying claim to all the work done over several days in committee by the members who heard from witnesses. There were amendments to which my Conservative colleagues contributed in order to improve this bill.

Now we have a government that has decided to throw out all the committee's work and disregard the will of the voters, who said that they wanted a government that would not just represent a dominant majority and ignore everyone else. Instead, they voted for representation that would work through consensus in the House.

Does the member agree that the committee should throw out amendments that were developed in consultation with the other parties through a consensus-building process?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with what the government is doing, and I thank the member for the way he put it. That is exactly what we have seen and what is happening today. The government is undoing the work of a parliamentary committee that did good work on behalf of Canadians. MPs from different parties co-operated with each other and produced sound, principled amendments to deal with a real problem, and now the Liberals are undoing that work because they can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to do a bit of a recap on the history, including pointing out the fact that in 2014 when sexual misconduct was becoming a major issue, the previous Conservative government commissioned Justice Deschamps to write a report. That report then sat on the desk of the former Liberal minister Harjit Sajjan, who was in the process of trying to cover up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance. The Liberals would rather cover things up than deal with the issues, and they ignored the nine great recommendations from Justice Deschamps.

As a point of interest, I note that Justice Deschamps showed up at the committee's study on Bill C-11. The Liberals always talk about Justice Fish's appearing. He appeared as well and also submitted a written submission. All of them said that choice is an option. The only justice who did not show up and whom the Liberals continue to use as their shield is Justice Arbour. She did not show up at the committee to defend her report, and that report has now been discredited by the testimony we heard from veterans, including in the military justice system.

Why will the Liberals not listen to veterans and military experts rather than try to push through on their own political agenda?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why. The member is asking why the Liberals are choosing to ignore all the testimony and the substance of all three reports. Nobody is saying that sexual assault and misconduct cases must stay within the military justice system. Nobody is recommending that. I have no idea why they are ignoring all the witness testimony they heard and why they spent 11 years not dealing with and solving the problem with legislation to deal with sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are bills that come before the House that are routine, and there are bills that remind us why we are here. Bill C-11 is one of the latter.

When Canadians put on a uniform, they place their safety and their very life in our hands, and we owe it to them to create a justice system that is deserving of that trust. Today we have an actual chance to deliver one, but it seems throughout this entire debate that the government is choosing not to. The legislation before us tries to address one of the most serious and sensitive issues facing our country: delivering justice for victims of misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Let me begin by clearly stating that Conservatives are proud of the brave men and women who serve in uniform. They put their life on the line for Canada, and they deserve a workplace that is safe, respectful and worthy of that dedication, even after 11 years of the Liberals' not doing anything about it. Just as clearly, every victim of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces deserves timely justice, real accountability and, above all, respect. After successive failures of Liberal governments that have been outlined by my colleagues in the House, the victims are still waiting.

This bill is virtually identical to Bill C-66, which died in Parliament when Parliament was prorogued in January 2025. Its recommendations trace back to two independent reports by former Supreme Court justices delivered in 2021. Four years later, survivors are still waiting for a system they can trust. These are the failures we are confronting today.

In the last year alone, just to put it in context, the sexual misconduct support and resource centre received over 1,400 calls, of which 588 were related to military sexual trauma. That is not an abstraction. That is real Canadian soldiers, sailors and aviators who have been consistently failed by the system.

Conservatives approached this bill seriously and constructively. We studied it carefully at committee. We listened to survivors and experts. We worked across party lines with colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP to improve the bill in a very meaningful way.

One thing we heard over and over again from the people who have lived through this system was the importance of choice. It was actually brought up by a member who has since decided to sit on the Liberal benches. Choice matters, because at the heart of the matter, it is about a compassionate, effective system with a simple principle: Survivors must have agency over their own path in justice. We heard it over and over again at committee and over and over again from survivors. It is like with any other Canadian, any other patient, who is choosing their own doctor. Nobody should tell them, and nobody should tell a survivor, which system and which doctor they should use.

However, the government's original approach to the legislation would have done exactly that, the opposite of what we are talking about here. It seems that it is going to dig in its heels and go with that, despite all the work that was done in committee, despite the legislative process working as it should, and despite all the survivors sitting in front of the committee and telling us exactly what they needed in order to have trust in this system.

The bill, before the amendments, would have transferred all sexual assault offences to the civilian justice system, without exception and without survivor inputs. A survivor and veteran told the committee that Bill C-11, as originally drafted, would remove choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. That survivor, that veteran, was not the only one who said that.

I want to say something in the House, because I think people will listen. This is the exact definition of paternalism, real, actual paternalism as we see it in our system today. It is not the kind of empowerment that is needed to hold trust in a system.

Advocates and survivors have also raised concerns about moving cases into an already strained civilian justice system. We know that both systems have strengths and both have weaknesses. We heard that at committee. However, survivors told us clearly that some prefer others, while others prefer a system that works for them, so the committee made that change.

Despite putting that bill forward, with agreement from all three other parties and the witness testimony, the government is choosing to turn its back on it and present the original form of the bill that does not incorporate those changes. For a government that has talked a big game about listening to survivors particularly, in this case, women in the military, after ignoring them for so many years, it is dumbfounding why it would not listen in this case and would go ahead with the very system that they said does not work for survivors.

Through these amendments, the committee secured the right for survivors to choose which justice system their case would proceed in. Again, this would be a fundamental shift toward respecting that autonomy, an autonomy the government said it holds dear. It is not just a procedural tweak. Witness after witness confirmed this to the committee. Witness after witness stood in front of members who now sit on the Liberal benches and agreed with these committee members who went out of their way to make that change.

We also worked to strengthen accountability in the system. We introduce timelines for key appointments, because under the current government critical roles in the military and justice systems have been left vacant for months.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member. She will have two minutes and 50 seconds remaining after question period.

Elwood Quinn

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a pillar of the community of Vaudreuil, Elwood Quinn, who sadly passed away at the beginning of the year. Elwood was a fifth-generation farmer who was deeply passionate about helping people to understand the importance of agriculture and where their food comes from.

Over 40 years ago, Elwood purchased a 130-acre plot of land in Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot and transformed it into a thriving farm and homestead. Since then, hundreds of thousands of families have experienced agricultural life, with pumpkin, apple and strawberry picking becoming an annual tradition for countless families, including my own. He was a tireless advocate for protecting the rich farmlands that sustain us, convinced that genetic diversity is essential to Canada's food sustainability. He was involved in raising awareness around the well-being and safety of farm families.

Thanks to his children, including his son Phil, the farm continues to welcome thousands of visitors a year. As a tribute to his remarkable legacy, a celebration will be held this May to honour his extraordinary life.

May our friend Elwood rest in peace.

Phil DeBruyne

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and pillar of our community, Phil DeBruyne, who passed away on April 13 at the age of 71.

Phil's career was a testament to his unwavering commitment to justice and integrity. He found a passion for policing in high school, graduated from Georgian College and began policing on the front lines at age 20 in 1974. He eventually became an instructor at the Ontario Police College, where he stayed until 2009. Phil returned to school to complete his studies in undergraduate and master's programs, while always maintaining a connection to teaching and policing. He contributed his expertise to the Penetanguishene Police Service Board and South Simcoe Police Service, as well as many local charitable causes.

Phil was polite, kind and generous. He cherished his family and his community. Ethics, honesty and integrity defined him. His faith was his foundation and his principles were his guide. Phil leaves behind a profound legacy, cherished by his wife, Susan, his stepchildren and grandson.

True leadership is found in the quiet, steady dignity of public service to one's community. I thank Phil for his service. May he rest in peace.

Non-Profit and Charitable Sector

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from food banks and employment training to health services and community support, Canada's non-profit and charitable sector supports people every single day. When families need help, when young people need opportunity and when communities need connection, this sector is the first place that Canadians turn to.

Canada's non-profit and charitable sector generates $244 billion in annual economic activity, contributes 8.4% of our GDP and employs nearly three million people across this country. These organizations are not only community builders, they are major economic drivers.

In Spadina—Harbourfront, we are proud to be home to organizations like FORA: Network for Change, Movember, Eva's Initiatives, the Waterfront Neighbourhood Centre, TakingITGlobal, the Casa Foundation and many more. These organizations deliver essential services, create jobs, build local economies and drive social resilience. When non-profits thrive, communities grow stronger, our economy grows stronger and Canada prospers.

I invite all colleagues to join me this evening at Imagine Canada's reception to celebrate this vital sector. The sector's work strengthens our communities from coast to coast to coast.

Finance

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of the Liberal government, Canadians are facing the worst food price inflation, the least affordable housing and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.

Two million Canadians line up at the food bank each month, and Canada's happiness ranking has dropped from fifth in the world to 25th. Now the Prime Minister wants to put another $25 billion on the national credit card for a Liberal slush fund that would enrich Liberal insiders at the expense of Canadians. Conservatives know that Canada should be the richest and most affordable country on earth. We know that housing should be dirt cheap. We know that Liberal deficits drive up inflation and leave Canadian families to pay the bill.

That is why we are calling on the Liberal government to cut the deficit, cut taxes on the work, cut taxes on homebuilding and get rid of all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year.

Juliet Daniel

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, we lost Dr. Juliet Daniel, a remarkable scientist, mentor and leader whose legacy will live on. Born in Barbados, she came to study at Queen's University and she earned her Ph.D. at UBC. She went on to become a full professor at McMaster University and a respected voice in her field.

I had the privilege of meeting her in Ottawa where she spoke about her research on triple negative breast cancer, which disproportionately affects Black women. Her discovery of the gene Kaiso, named after a type of calypso music, was a significant contribution to understanding how cancer spreads.

I give my heartfelt condolences to her loved ones. Dr. Daniel's time on earth was like a comet: brief yet unforgettable. Though our time together was short, I wish her eternal peace. May her legacy continue to inspire women and researchers everywhere.

Battle of the Atlantic

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I attended the commemoration ceremony for the Battle of the Atlantic in Windsor, alongside veterans, cadets and members of the HMCS Hunter. Young men sailed into danger so Canada could remain free, democratic and sovereign. All Canadians are united by a belief in what this country represents: democracy, the rule of law, accountability and the promise of a better future. Even new Canadians deeply understand the sacrifices made to preserve those values.

What we see today is young people facing a jobs crisis, food bank use exploding and seniors worrying about health care and affordability. We see a government drifting from crisis to crisis without a compass. The young Canadians we honoured yesterday sacrificed themselves at the altar of democracy itself. If we will not defend democratic principles here in this place, then where are we going to honour the legacy of those brave souls?

The generation that crossed the Atlantic under fire did so out of a sense of duty for King and country. After 11 years of Liberal rule, Canadians are still waiting for that leadership.

Fred Courtney

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Fred Courtney of Glace Bay, who passed away last Friday at the age of 90. Fred was a hockey legend in Cape Breton. As captain of the 1955-56 Junior Miners, he led his team to a Cape Breton and Maritime championship, earning league MVP. His talents drew interest from the New York Rangers and Detroit Red Wings, yet Fred chose to stay home and serve his community.

Beyond hockey, Fred spent 22 years teaching, 22 more years coaching bantam hockey and over 60 years serving the Salvation Army as Corps Sergeant Major. The Glace Bay Minor Hockey Association proudly presents the Fred Courtney trophy each year in his honour.

I ask the House to join me in celebrating Fred's life, and what a great life it was, and extending our deepest condolences to his family.

Type 1 Diabetes

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 12,000 Canadians will be diagnosed this year with type 1 diabetes, joining the 300,000 already dealing with it in the system. T1D can occur in people of any age. Its causes are not fully known. Most of those diagnosed have no family history of diabetes. It is not caused by diet or lifestyle. It is not contagious or something someone can outgrow. It has no cure.

For more than 50 years, Breakthrough T1D has been working to improve the lives of Canadians suffering from diabetes. Their five-year plan, including $62 million proposed for budget 2026, is part of a $100-million private-public project to translate Canadian medical research into therapies that can benefit Canadians.

I thank them for their tireless efforts.

35th SOCAN Gala

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, SOCAN held its 35th gala yesterday in Montreal to honour the outstanding contributions of our composers, authors and music publishers. In particular, it was an occasion to pay tribute to two of Quebec's musical and cultural giants: Marjo and Luc Plamondon. From Diane Dufresne to Céline Dion, from Charlebois to Dubois, from Starmania to Notre‑Dame de Paris, Plamandon's lyrics have been our constant companion for a half-century, and his world of wonders is now ours to enjoy.

As for Marjo, our iconic Marjo received the cultural impact award for her song Provocante, now a karaoke classic. Marjo and Luc Plamondon, two icons, two giants of Quebec culture, are above all two of us. As Quebeckers, we identify with them and have regarded them as a source of pride for many decades.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I applaud Luc Plamondon and Marjo, along with all of the creators named and honoured yesterday, including my friend, Gaétan Essiambre, who won in SOCAN's national television music category.

Long live SOCAN, long live our artists and long live the songs of Quebec.

Eric Roher

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of a dear friend and remarkable Canadian, Eric Roher. A leader in the field of education and labour law, Eric was at the heart of our community in Toronto—St. Paul's. He was infinitely generous and warm. He loved every inch of Canada so deeply, whether paddling up north or zipping along St. Clair on his Vespa.

It was his love of community that drove him to serve as the president of Holy Blossom Temple, where five generations of his family continue to gather, but it was his infinite optimism that prompted him to open the door of his community and his home to my family and so many others. Eric knew that by bringing people together, by finding joy in each other, we could make the world a better place. This is tikkun olam, the Jewish commandment to leave this world better than we found it. In that, Eric, I can proudly say, was successful.

To Eric’s beloved family, his wife, Beth, and daughters, Jessica, Rebecca and Sophie, my heartfelt condolences are with them. May Eric’s memory be a blessing to us all.

Affordability

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions with the Liberal Prime Minister, it is more cost, more carbon taxes and more of the same. Liberals blame $100 per barrel of oil for high gas prices, but in 2014, oil was also $100, and gas was $1.38 a litre. Today, it is $1.83. That is 45¢ more for the same global price. What has changed? Liberal policy has changed.

Higher taxes, carbon taxes and GST on top of the tax are driving up costs. A weaker dollar, down roughly 20% since 2014, means that Canadians pay more for fuel and food, because our economy is weaker under Liberal leadership. Canadians are paying the price for bad policy. We want all of the taxes removed for all of the year. It is time for Liberals to take our common-sense plan to remove them, unblock our oil and gas production, and make Canada affordable and strong at home.

Cellular Connectivity in the Regions

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the representatives from municipalities, communities and the business sector who have travelled to Ottawa from our regions. These include the mayor of East Hereford, the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles de l'Estrie and managers from Maison Séjour.

They came to share their concerns about cellular connectivity in the regions. Whether it is for road safety, for emergency 911 calls or for our SMEs, which need reliable networks in order to provide services, the lack of coverage is a serious issue in terms of public safety and economic development. The discussions we are having here in Ottawa serve as a reminder that behind the statistics are the very real, everyday realities affecting our communities and that we need to come up with solutions.

I want to commend their commitment to raising these issues here in the capital, and I reiterate my determination to continue raising them in the House.

Finance

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' costly budget demonstrates once again that the Prime Minister's rhetoric does not match reality. The Prime Minister promised to spend less. It turns out that he is spending more, way more than Justin Trudeau. In only one year, the Prime Minister has managed to double Trudeau's deficit, and now the Liberals are on track to rack up a record $1 trillion of new debt.

It begs the question. For all of the spending and all of the debt, what do the Liberals have to show for it? The answer is record food inflation, record housing costs, terrible productivity and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric, he is more of the same. He is just another costly Liberal.

Afghanistan Mission Monument

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, along with parliamentarians, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and families, I had the honour of attending the groundbreaking ceremony marking the start of the construction phase of Canada's national monument to the mission in Afghanistan, a permanent memorial to the 158 members of the Canadian Armed Forces and seven civilians who lost their lives. It is also a tribute to the more than 40,000 Canadians who served during our country's largest military deployment since World War II.

We are also changing the way we honour veterans of modern conflicts.

It is an honour to represent Ottawa Centre and to represent the community where this monument will reside. At its core, this must be a space for all Canadians. It must be a space to honour our history, guide our future and inspire the next generation of remembrance.

Finance

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released four reports on the Liberals' costly credit card budget this morning, and the picture they painted, in our briefing with Annette Ryan, was deeply concerning.

Here is what she confirmed. We still do not have clear definitions of what counts as capital versus operating spending, so she cannot verify whether the government is meeting its own fiscal anchors. The trillion‑dollar investment plan still has no timeline, no performance metrics and no real reporting. The housing plan will not meet targets. The defence plan is a massive unfunded risk. The tens of billions in new spending has no clear governance, no updated costing and no transparency on delivery. The money for the $25‑billion sovereign debt fund will be coming from the Bank of Canada issuing bonds to finance it. Who is buying our debt? An IMF report in April flagged that volatile foreign hedge funds now make up a large share of investors, which puts Canada at serious risk.

This morning's briefing was alarming, to say the least. When will the Prime Minister get serious, stop the credit-card budgeting and let Canadians—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

Moose Hide Campaign

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, along British Columbia's Highway of Tears, a remote stretch of Highway 16 where far too many indigenous women and girls have gone missing or been murdered, Paul and Raven Lacerte were moved to action. They are the father and daughter co-founders of the Moose Hide Campaign. It is an indigenous-led movement grounded in love, ceremony and accountability, calling on people of all backgrounds to take a stand against gender-based and domestic violence.

Wearing a moose hide pin is more than a symbol. It represents a personal commitment to honour, respect and protect women and children in our homes, workplaces and communities. It is about building safer communities where everyone is responsible to speak up and support one another.

On Thursday, May 14, Moose Hide Campaign Day, I am asking all Canadians to renew that pledge and, most important, to take meaningful action because ending violence is a responsibility we all share every single day.

Finance

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to spend less, but then he spent $35 billion more in the last fiscal update alone. He promised to lower the debt; instead, the deficit doubled from just one year ago. He promised fiscal brilliance, but the not even so conservative Globe and Mail calls that “an inversion of reality”. Once an expensive Liberal, always an expensive Liberal.

This year, Canadian families will write a cheque for $3,400 just to cover the interest on the Liberal debt.

Why will the Prime Minister not stop forcing Canadians to pay the credit card bill, and just allow them to get by?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is committed to build a strong, resilient and independent economy.

Despite what we hear opposite, our economy is strong. The IMF projects our economy to be one of the most resilient, fastest-growing in th G7. We are going to continue to build the economy. The spring economic update invests $6 billion in the trades, and it invests in the sovereign wealth fund.

On this side, we are continuing to build a strong economy. That side can continue with the rhymes and rhetoric.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he was the guy who people hire in a crisis, and then spent double what the last guy spent.

Just five years from now, the Liberal credit card bill will reach $1 trillion. All that spending has brought us the highest grocery prices, the worst housing crisis and two-dollar-a-litre gasoline while everybody falls behind. The crisis guy is racking up more debt and promising that somehow it is going to be different this time.

When are the Liberals finally going to stop the credit card craziness so Canadians can afford to live?

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of credit, we have the best credit rating in the world. Wages have grown twice as fast as inflation.

What would the opposition cut? For example, would they cut support for our workers?

Just today, we have invested $1 billion to support the steel, aluminum and copper industries hit by a trade war that the Conservatives deny, with another $500 million for good jobs, like at Beau-Roc, where they are building with steel.

Would these guys cut support for those industries? You can ask them, Mr. Speaker.

Natural Resources

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions with the Prime Minister, it's more cost, more blocking our resources and more of the same because he is just another Liberal.

The Prime Minister said a pipeline was “more probable than possible”, but there is no proponent, no start date, no completion date and no route. There is no plan.

If the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe he is not just another Liberal, will the government tell us on what date construction will start on this new pipeline? We would like just the date, please.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in charge of natural resources will be able to answer that question.

What I can add to that is that the Conservatives, in all their questions, always forget something that all Canadians know, which is that we are in a trade war. A lot of workers' jobs are at stake, and that is exactly why today we announced $1 billion through the BDC to help our steel, aluminum and copper workers, and it is also why we announced $500 million to support workers across the country.

We have been there since the beginning of the trade war, and we will continue to be there.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Americans who are blocking a pipeline to the west coast. It is the government. The biggest barrier we are facing within the industry is the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister has not reversed a single Liberal antidevelopment law, reduced a single tax on our resource industries or delivered a single shovel in the ground on a new project from his Major Projects Office. It is more of the same because he is just another Liberal.

They said that they would move at unimaginable speeds, so on what date will construction start on the new pipeline?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, if instead of working on their social media clips, they actually spent some time talking to proponents, they would understand that we approved the Taylor to Gordondale pipeline, and Pembina is building a pipeline. They would understand that Enbridge approved the Sunrise pipeline and is building a pipeline. Also, if they actually talked to the Government of Alberta, they would understand that Alberta is coming forward with a proposal by July 1.

Finance

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one trillion is the number one followed by 12 zeros, or 1,000,000,000,000. The Liberals have added $1 trillion to the national credit card in 10 years. More zeros mean more debt. More debt means higher taxes. Higher taxes mean less money in families' pockets.

When will the Prime Minister, who is just another Liberal, stop adding zeroes to the national credit card so that Canadians can make ends meet?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to have forgotten the extent to which we are in a tariff war and he refuses to recognize how much we have been there to support the auto sector, the copper sector, the aluminum sector and the steel sector.

Quebec welcomed the announcement we made this morning regarding our $1-billion investment through the Business Development Bank of Canada and our $500-million investment in our regional economic development agencies.

My colleague must recognize that we have reduced the government's operating expenses while still making investments. These investments are driving economic growth. In short, our plan is working, and we stand by it.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, add another zero for the minister's answer. When a student gets nothing but zeros, they fail. This Liberal government is racking up zeros, and Canadians are paying the price for its failure.

What is the result? Grocery prices are skyrocketing, housing is unaffordable, and gas costs a fortune because the Liberal Prime Minister is racking up debt like there is no tomorrow. However, tomorrow it will be our children who will have to pay off this debt, along with the interest that comes with it.

Will the Prime Minister, who is just another costly Liberal, finally put an end to his costly budgets funded by the national credit card?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, I give my colleague 100% for following his leader's instructions. He just had to read the question he is asking us today. He is full of jokes this morning.

We are going to give him a little lesson on the numbers. Right now, Canada's economic growth is the second highest among the G7 countries. We also have the strongest fiscal position in the G7. Those are the numbers. Those are the facts. We have a solid plan, and we are going to stand by it.

The Economy

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have obviously understood that overlooking our businesses and the tariff crisis as they did in their economic update was outrageous. Unfortunately, today's announcement seems improvised. It will not help the SMEs hardest hit by the revised U.S. tariff schedule. All businesses are saying the same thing: They do not want more loans; they are already in debt.

In the very, very near future, in addition to assistance with modernization, they will need cash most of all to survive. This is a first step, but will the government confirm that it is not going to stop there and that it will immediately get back to the drawing board?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question. The fact is that we announced some good news for our businesses this morning: $1.5 billion to help with cash flow. Extremely favourable loans are also on the table, with 0% interest in the first year and very low interest rates in the second and third years. Furthermore, there is no requirement to repay the loan before the end of the term, that is, in three years.

We are doing that because we know that our businesses need help. We are there to help them. We received a positive response from the Conseil du patronat du Québec and from Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec. We are meeting their needs to the letter.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will work together on the first step. However, to quote the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, “For businesses whose survival is currently in jeopardy, this is not enough. They need to have the cash flow necessary to maintain their day-to-day operations, not take on more debt or make investments that will only benefit them in the medium to long term.”

We repeat: Immediate assistance and a wage subsidy are needed to prevent layoffs. When will the government finally do something?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, I was just speaking with the CEO of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec. She told me how pleased she was with the government's work. Of course, there is always more to be done, and we will certainly be doing more.

In the meantime, I think this is good news. It is good news for companies like BRP, which have been affected by the White House's new interpretation of tariffs. The same applies to companies like Manac that employ thousands of people in Quebec and across the country.

That is why my colleague and I were in solution mode this morning.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the revised U.S. tariff schedule in effect since April 6 is a disaster for Quebec's manufacturing industry. The Desjardins Group reports that a quarter of all Quebec exports to the United States are now subject to tariffs. We are talking about a 60% increase overnight. Moreover, it is our small and medium-sized businesses that are being hit.

Today's announcement ignores the businesses that are most at risk. They cannot take on more debt to modernize in the medium term when they are at risk of shutting down right now. They need help today.

Will the government change course?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the King's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of Industry clearly indicated, today we announced additional measures to support these businesses that are facing unjustified tariffs from the Americans.

I, too, have met with many of these businesses, as has my colleague, of course. Our ministers and our members of Parliament are very much aware of these challenges. That is precisely why we have supported these industries and that is precisely why we are here to do more if necessary.

Finance

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Prime Minister racks up the national credit card, because he knows Canadians have to foot the bill.

Despite all the Liberal illusions, it is more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card, all by the same old costly Liberals. Every time these guys say they are going to change, they end up racking up more on the national credit card, now leaving Canadians with $1-trillion debt bill over the lost Liberal decade.

Does the Prime Minister know this is Canadians' money, not his, or does he just not care?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says Canada's fiscal indicators are good. The Bank of Canada governor has said he is encouraged by the federal government's efforts. That is because the Canadian economy is stronger and more resilient than anticipated, with $11 billion less of a deficit, inflation within the Bank of Canada's target, and the highest foreign direct investment in nearly two decades. We still enjoy a AAA credit rating. Wages are growing faster than inflation, and the IMF says Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7.

Those things do not happen by accident. They are proof that our plan is working.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, does this guy want a gold medal for having the second-highest deficit in the entire Canadian history outside of COVID?

The Prime Minister skips on the bill, while Canadians are skipping meals. More than one in 10 Canadians are now living in poverty, and the pain is only going to get worse with these guys piling on more debt. The Liberals spend like there are no consequences. It is Canadians who have to pay for those consequences.

When will the Prime Minister stop the reckless spending and stop the out-of-control deficits so Canadians can afford to live?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, in that member's province alone, the national school food program is feeding nearly 60,000 children, and with early learning and child care spots, families are saving up to $13,700 per child per year. In fact, we have the Canadian dental care plan in that riding as well, which helps over 155,000 people in Alberta.

All across the province that the member claims to represent, people are benefiting from Liberal-developed programs that are helping with the cost of living and making sure families get ahead.

Natural Resources

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that a new pipeline is more probable than possible. Yet, there is no proponent, no start date, no completion date, no route, no timeline, no shovels in the ground, nothing. This is after promising to move at unimaginable speeds.

Despite the illusions, it is clear that the Prime Minister is just another Liberal. If he wants Canadians to believe he is anything other than just another Liberal, will he answer this simple question: What is the exact date construction will begin on a new Pacific pipeline, just the date?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives would stop focusing on their social media clips and focused on what is happening, they would see that Pembina Pipeline is building a Taylor to Gordondale pipeline this summer. They would see that Enbridge is building the Sunrise pipeline this summer. If they talked to the Government of Alberta, they would realize that the Government of Alberta is bringing forward its proposal this summer.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am focused on the people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

The problem is that this is yet another Liberal illusion. The biggest barriers that we face in developing Canadian natural resources are imposed by the Liberal government here in Ottawa. It has not repealed a single anti-development law. There is not one tax cut for the resource sector and not one shovel in the ground through the Liberals' Major Projects Office. It is the same old story, because this is just another Liberal.

The promise was to move an unimaginable speeds. Can he just very clearly state what is the date for this new Pacific pipeline, just the date, please?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, here is what is not an illusion: $4 billion going into the Canadian economy this summer; 2,500 new jobs on the Sunrise expansion this summer; and $3 million annually in new GDP from this summer forward.

If the Conservatives bothered to talk to the Alberta government, they would understand that it is bringing its proposal forward this summer, for the benefit of the people of Alberta and all of Canada.

Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, despite his promises, the Liberal Prime Minister is all about more costs, more carbon taxes and more of the same. He said last May, “Canadians will hold us to account by their experience at the grocery store”. Everyone knows that when fuel prices go up, food costs go up. Mike Beaulieu of The North West Company said that a jug of milk now costs two to five dollars more because of higher fuel prices.

Why is fuel so expensive? It is because of high Liberal taxes, including the newly renamed carbon tax. Will the Liberals scrap all gas taxes all year, yes or no?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is from British Columbia. I know that what people in British Columbia want is the actions we are taking right now. They are seeing the steps we are taking with the groceries and essentials benefit. They are seeing us remove 10¢ a litre off fuel. They are seeing our investments in young people and our economy.

We are addressing the things that people in B.C. want.

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

Mr. Speaker, those empty words will not fill empty stomachs. The Liberals tell us that gas prices are up because world oil prices are at $100 a barrel. Do members know when oil was also at $100 a barrel? It was in 2014, under our Conservative government. The price at the pump then was $1.38 per litre, not $1.99 for gas or $2.29 for diesel, as it is today in Fort St. John.

Will the Liberal Prime Minister stop the illusion and scrap all gas taxes all year so Canadians can afford to live again?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the impact of fuel prices. That is why we brought them down by 10¢ a litre. We are addressing exactly what the member opposite is talking about. We are also delivering the groceries and essentials benefit, and we made the national school food program permanent to help families. We are doing the work that is being asked for.

Finance

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned. The Liberals are on track to add $1 trillion to the national debt since taking office just 11 years ago. Just as with our personal credit cards, Canadians know we will have to pay that bill. The Liberal Prime Minister is not a good steward of our tax dollars. It is an illusion. We have more costs, more taxes, more debt.

The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. When will he get serious? When will he end his costly credit card budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?

[Eleanor Olszewski, Liberal, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our plan in our spring economic update is good for Edmonton. However, my fellow Edmontonians on the Conservative benches should not take it from me. Doug Griffiths, president and CEO of the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, said that our update “aligns closely with what Edmonton businesses have been wanting to see from our federal government”.

I hope every Edmonton MP listens to the people and organizations we represent and gets on board with our plan to build Canada strong.

Public Services and Procurement

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are abusing their majority to cover up the Cúram software scandal.

After spending months denying that any problem related to OAS or any cost overruns even existed, the government has added $451 million for Cúram and the Canada Revenue Agency to its economic update. That means another cost overrun where none was supposed to exist, to fix problems where no problems were supposed to exist either.

We will never know why, because the Liberals either resorted to filibustering or used their majority in committee to kill an investigation into Cúram. Why are they hiding this information from Quebeckers?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, no one is hiding anything from anyone. Everything has been transparent. The procurement process was transparent. Budgets were transparent and were met. This software is helping us bring security to the lives of millions of Canadian seniors every month.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why the program has gone over budget five times already.

The Liberals have had a majority in committee for seven days now. Already, they have killed an investigation into the Cúram cost overruns, which now total $7 billion. They decided that the investigation into Driver Inc. should be in camera, as though they care more about protecting dangerous truckers than the lives of Quebeckers. They have also shut down investigations into health care, veterans' services, the aerospace sector, and more. A culture of secrecy has taken hold in Ottawa.

When will the Prime Minister step in and stop this abuse of power?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, since the program to modernize these processes began, $1.8 billion has been invested out of a total budget of $4.8 billion. In fact, the modernization of old age security was delivered under budget, which is a testament to how rigorously this project was managed. This information was disclosed in a fully transparent manner and reviewed by the opposition parties and the committee chaired by the opposition.

Finance

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' economic update is more of the same: more unchecked spending, more debt for Canadians. The national debt will reach a staggering $1.63 trillion by 2031. That is $1.63 trillion in Liberal debt. The Prime Minister, who boasts about being an excellent manager, is just another costly, spendthrift Liberal.

Will the Prime Minister impose a limit on Canada's credit card?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the members across the way have a hard time with facts, especially when these facts involve math. Allow me to help them out a bit. We have reduced the deficit by $11 billion. We are the second-strongest economy in the G7. Most importantly, we are attracting more investment than we have in the past 20 years. How did we do it? While the Conservatives are busy repeating the same questions day after day, we are responding and adapting to a changing world.

We are here to build Canada strong for all Canadians.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Beauce, one plus one equals two. It does not equal -10, like the Liberals would have us believe. The Prime Minister's spending on the Liberal credit card is having a devastating impact on Canadians: more taxes, more Liberal inflation and more interest charges. That amounts to $3,400 per family per year. While the Liberals are racking up deficits, the price of essentials like gas and housing continue to rise. The people of Beauce are the ones paying the price for this mismanagement which, once again, has been disastrous.

My question is simple: Does the Liberal credit card have a limit?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been very clear about their austerity agenda but we are still waiting to hear which projects they would cut. We hope they can tell us. Would they cut $1-billion infrastructure agreement we reached with Quebec? Would they cut the expansion of the Port of Montreal in Contrecoeur? Would they cut the 865 housing units we just announced to help people in vulnerable situations? We hope they can tell us. We are awaiting a response.

The Economy

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 11 years of Liberal management have resulted in higher taxes, more debt, more credit card spending and more regulations. The National Bank's chief economist reminded us that the Liberals are now imposing over 320,000 regulatory requirements on Canadian businesses, while the United States is deregulating. The consequences of this are layoffs or, worse, closures.

When will the Prime Minister understand that more regulations force additional costs on businesses and that Canadians are the ones paying the price?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, we are already working to streamline the government's structure, simplify relations between Quebec and Ottawa and reduce the number of regulations. We are moving forward and we will get it done. In addition, we are working on issues that affect Canadians.

The Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the various programs we have for seniors and children—all of these are designed to support Canadians in these difficult times. That is what we are doing and we hope our colleagues will join us in this effort.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a sad state of affairs. Since January, factory closures have been on the rise. On top of losing their jobs, Canadians are footing the Liberal Party's credit card bill. Savoura pays $2.5 million a year in carbon tax and in Éco Entreprises Québec penalties. These surcharges make it difficult to compete with tomatoes from Mexico, which travel across the entire continent.

Instead of creating a new band-aid for businesses, why not streamline the regulations and give our business owners some real breathing room?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, businesses in Quebec and across Canada are facing difficulties. Where do these difficulties stem from? They stem from the tariff war. They stem from the excessive, unjustified and ultimately counterproductive tariffs that the Americans are imposing on Canadian businesses. That is the problem. That is why we must help businesses. That is why we are supporting businesses and spending what needs to be spent to keep our businesses alive.

Finance

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us not be fooled. What we have with this Liberal Prime Minister is higher costs, higher taxes, more debt and more money on the credit card. It is always the same thing. He is just another costly Liberal. The Liberal debt has now reached $1.475 trillion. Meanwhile, according to Le Journal de Montréal, one in three Quebeckers is going into debt to eat.

Will the Prime Minister take this situation seriously? When will he put an end to his credit card budgets?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's debt stands at the figure that my colleague mentioned, or 41% of the GDP. That is one of the most manageable levels of debt in the G7.

Now, I have a question for my colleague. Where do the Conservatives want to make cuts? What programs do they want to eliminate? Will they reduce old age security benefits? Will they cut the $8 billion that goes to the Canada child benefit? Where would you make cuts? Tell us.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would remind the parliamentary secretary that he must address his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Orléans.

Veterans

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's mission in Afghanistan was the largest deployment of Canadian troops since World War II. From 2001 to 2014, more than 40,000 Canadians served with courage and sacrifice. We honour the memory of the 158 service members and seven civilians who lost their lives.

We must make sure this legacy lives on.

Can the Minister of Veterans Affairs explain why today's groundbreaking ceremony for the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan is important, and what she hopes this day will mean to CAF members, veterans, families and Canadians?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues who were able to join us a short time ago for today's groundbreaking ceremony at the site of the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan. This is a long overdue step in ensuring that the service and sacrifice of Canadians, notably the 158 Canadian Armed Forces members and the seven civilians who gave their lives, are remembered.

The monument will serve as a place of solemn reflection, remembrance and learning for generations to come, a place where Canadians can better understand the contributions made in the pursuit of peace, security and human dignity. For all Canadians, this day is an opportunity to come together in gratitude to honour those who have served and to reaffirm—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

Natural Resources

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a new week in Ottawa, but the Prime Minister is on international travel back in Europe again, although we already have a free trade deal with Europe. However, there is one thing our allies have been asking us for, and that is Canadian liquefied natural gas.

One would go to Europe to make a big announcement, so will the minister confirm that the Prime Minister is indeed in Europe to announce on what date our allies can—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I do not think the member is alluding to a specific time when the Prime Minister might be leaving for Europe, but we have to be careful. This is really trying to do indirectly what we are not supposed to do directly.

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of all the travel, the meetings and the MOUs if there is nothing tangible to show for it? The Europeans have repeatedly asked for Canadian liquefied natural gas. They probably would like to invest in a port or a pipeline to get Canadian energy to Europe.

We do not need speeches, we do not need MOUs, we do not need summits and we do not need a government-run hedge fund. We need investable projects to get Canada's energy to the world.

Will the minister announce on which date Canadian LNG will make it to the shores of Europe?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the member opposite is that we have European governments contracting with LNG facilities today to buy LNG from Canada. Shell, a European company, just invested $20 billion into Canada because it wants to build more LNG here. Maybe the Conservatives could read the papers.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, behind all the talk, the Prime Minister is just another Liberal. He is more expensive, more anti-resource and more misleading. He is well aware that Canada already has free trade agreements with Europe. Those are all in place. What we need is for he and his government to just get out of the way and stop blocking our biggest export. He said we would build at speeds never seen before, but so far our biggest exports under the government are speeches, handshakes and photo ops.

Does the Prime Minister know when the first shipment of Canadian LNG will arrive in Europe?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, just said, there is currently liquefied natural gas leaving Canada, hundreds of millions of dollars' worth, which will employ Canadians, give royalties to governments and involve indigenous participation. That goes with the hundreds of billions of dollars of other major projects currently being constructed in Canada.

We are building big, we are building with Canadians and we are going to build Canada strong.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us deal in facts.

It is a fact that the Prime Minister has not signed any new free trade deals. He signed empty, non-binding MOUs and burned taxpayer dollars to jet around the world for his chief export: hot air. It is a fact that Canadians need results, not illusions. They need tariffs dropped and the Prime Minister to keep his promise to protect Canadian jobs. It is a fact that Europeans have been pleading for a secure and stable source of energy.

While the Prime Minister is overseas, will he tell us when his new pipeline will deliver LNG to Europeans? I would like just the date.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member may have missed the news last week, which said that $4 billion of capital from Enbridge, including over 10% indigenous participation, will go to putting shovels in the ground this summer for a natural gas pipeline. What will it go to? It will go to an LNG plant that goes to world markets, creating jobs, wealth and opportunity for Canadians all over this country.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration bungled a simple decision to stop a known IRGC terrorist from entering our country, and Canadians still do not have clear evidence that the terrorist was stopped and turned back. There are reports, in fact, that say he just turned himself around and left the country.

The Liberals are keeping the minister from answering questions, because they are concerned about what she will say next.

Everyone is wondering why the Prime Minister is protecting the minister and not letting her answer questions. Can he tell Canadians, please, why she still has a job?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring the safety and security of Canadians is our top priority. I want to assure all Canadians that Canada has rigorous admissibility requirements. We have been very clear that IRGC members and all senior Iranian officials are inadmissible to Canada. If they are already in Canada, they will go through a removals process expeditiously.

We will continue to work with our border, immigration and law enforcement agencies to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal immigration minister says she is “accountable” but not responsible for dropping the ball when letting terrorists into Canada. Letting in a known terrorist should have set off every alarm bell in the Liberal government, yet just last week, the visitor permit of an Iranian regime-linked individual was specifically exempted and his entry into Canada rubber-stamped under the Liberal minister's watch. A simple Google search could have stopped this.

Worse, the Liberal Prime Minister is letting the minister keep her job. Does that mean the Prime Minister is responsible but not accountable for the failures of his Liberal immigration minister?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all Canadians that no IRGC member was admitted into Canada. Our government has been clear that IRGC members and all senior officials of the Iranian government are inadmissible to Canada. We have rigorous processes in place to ensure that anyone in the country who has ties to the IRGC goes through a removals process.

We will continue to work with our border, immigration and law enforcement agencies to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the media panels have given up on this immigration minister. Bob Fife, the bureau chief of The Globe and Mail, called her performance “pathetic” and her “incompetent” twice in the same panel. Even CBC's David Cochrane said, “when they fall back on privacy, process and the passive voice, it's usually a sign of some trouble.”

Immigration is a serious issue and the Prime Minister is ultimately accountable for the minister's failures. When will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility, and fire this minister?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the love from members on the other side. I know they know that we are restoring control, balance, sustainability and integrity to our immigration system. The facts show this.

We have new express entry categories to grow our economy. We have strengthened our rural immigration pathways. We are facilitating work permits for researchers and Ph.D. students. We have surpassed our francophone immigration targets. The list can go on.

We have 5,000 additional physicians coming to—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, wow, I did not know that we had express entry for terrorists.

It is clear that everyone has lost faith in the Minister of Immigration overseeing even the simplest parts of her job. This is the seventh Liberal immigration minister, and Conservatives knew from day one that she would make the mess worse.

The media are now calling for the minister to be removed. Liberal MPs have called for this minister to be removed. This is now about the Prime Minister's own judgment. She says that she meets with the Prime Minister every week. He seems oblivious to the mess she has created.

Will the Prime Minister end this national embarrassment and fire this immigration minister?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let me continue with my list because I need a couple of hours for that.

We are bringing our numbers down. We are strengthening oversight. We have an action plan that would restore integrity to our immigration system. CBSA removed 22,000 people from the country last year. We brought in Bill C-12, which the Conservatives opposed in the beginning, but they saw the light at the end. That bill will put additional security in place. I have also put in place the foundation of an exit tracking system, which Canada needs in this country.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today the minister said that she would continue issuing tens of thousands of new foreign student permits, in spite of millions of non-citizens being in Canada on expired or expiring permits and her admission that the Liberals have absolutely no way to track whether or not they have left. Fraud is still running unchecked in her department. They cannot detect it.

When asked in committee what the Prime Minister thought of these failures, the minister claimed she has weekly meetings with him and that she talks to him all the time. That begs the question, does the Prime Minister actually think she is doing a good job?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the official figures. If we compare the first two months of 2026 with the first two months of 2024, we see that asylum applications have fallen by two-thirds and that arrivals of temporary residents have dropped by more than 70%.

We are restoring control, balance and sustainability to immigration. The facts prove it, and Canadians can see it for themselves.

Emergency Management

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to spend this weekend with Oakville firefighters. With winter ending, we are reminded of the risk of wildfires, such as the one at Bronte Creek Provincial Park in 2021. With warmer weather, we are also already sadly seeing many communities impacted by flooding.

As emergencies have become more frequent, more severe and more costly, could the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience let us know what is ongoing to prepare for the upcoming wildfire and flooding seasons to keep Canadians safe?

[Eleanor Olszewski, Liberal, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is Emergency Preparedness Week. This year's theme is “Be Prepared. Know Your Risks.”

Our government is showing leadership by strengthening our emergency preparedness and response capacity. We have increased our aerial firefighting capacity. We are improving federal emergency coordination through our new government operations centre. Just this morning, I announced the renewal of the humanitarian workforce program. We are ready, and we are focused on keeping Canadians safe.

Indigenous Affairs

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that the Liberal government protects private property rights and that it will appeal the Cowichan decision. Here is the problem: At trial, the Liberals dropped the argument that private property rights come first, making it easier for the trial judge to conclude that aboriginal title is a “prior and senior right to land.”

How can the Prime Minister now say that the government will argue on appeal the very opposite, that private property rights come first, when they did not raise it at trial?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, private property rights are fundamental and our government will always defend them.

We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling in the Cowichan case, and we appealed it back in September. Any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has always and will always protect private property. The federal government has been signing agreements with first nations since the 1970s. No agreement between the federal government and first nations has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Our government will continue to advance reconciliation and protect the private property rights of Canadians.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2018, the Liberals and the NDP of British Columbia made a deliberate decision to instruct their lawyers not to defend private property rights in the Cowichan case. Now, years later, that same case is before the courts on appeal, and the government finds itself unable to make the very argument that Canadian homeowners expect, which is that their private property rights come first.

How does the Prime Minister expect to win, on appeal, the protection of private property rights within the city of Richmond with an argument he is unable to make?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we correct the factual record. Since 2017, the federal government has been asking the court to notify private landowners of the case so that they may participate. More recently, we have decided to support the Montrose application, which is all about the rights of private property owners and would allow them to potentially advance arguments that they were not able to make at trial.

We are able to walk down the path of reconciliation and protect the rights of private property owners at the same time. Our next argument will be presented when we appeal the decision, because we disagree with the superior courts. I hope all members of the House can move forward with the full appreciation of the federal government's position when it comes to the protection of property rights in British Columbia and across the country.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan decision has left many residents across our communities concerned about their private property rights. The Liberals are now talking about how they will defend property rights in court, but they never made this argument in Cowichan before. Appeals are not do overs. They cannot raise new arguments they never argued before.

How will government lawyers argue what Liberals MPs are arguing here when they did not do so at trial?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance. That is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property.

We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling. That is why we appealed it back in September. We are fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while advancing reconciliation. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs, in the courts, not on the floor of the House of Commons.

Northern Affairs

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on November 21, 1919, the iconic Golden Boy was hoisted atop the Manitoba Legislative Building, and it points north to signal the prosperity of the region.

Can the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs update the House on the ways in which the federal government is allowing the region to realize that potential?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the Port of Churchill plus project is a transformative opportunity to connect Manitoba and western Canadian exports to the world. While early stages mean more work is ahead, the federal government has invested $320 million since 2017, and we are looking to invest another $150 million, as the member knows, to the Port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay Railway.

This is to grow northern trade. It will also invest in lowering costs for farmers, stabilizing supply chains and supporting good jobs. This is how we are making Manitoba a global Arctic gateway once again.

Indigenous Affairs

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have painted themselves into a corner. They failed to negotiate a treaty with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost in Richmond. Now the Prime Minister says he will advance “viable legal arguments to protect private property”, but the Liberals told their lawyers not to argue the primacy of property rights at trial. By now, it must have dawned on them that an argument not advanced at trial is not viable on appeal, because the minister just told us he is asking private property owners to do their work for them.

The Liberals talk about negotiation, but the failure to negotiate is how we got here in the first place, so what are they going to do?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Conservatives are creating uncertainty and fear. They are intentionally scaring Canadians, creating uncertainty for investors and demonizing government. Our government has appealed, and we will continue to defend private property rights in Canada. I remind the Conservatives—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is getting a little too noisy. Let us take a short break and then allow the minister to continue. This is a very important issue.

The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Conservatives that real leadership means actually working to address problems, not fearmongering for political gain. Real leadership is respecting the Constitution, respecting the courts and respecting the work of advancing reconciliation.

The Economy

[Alexandre Boulerice, Independent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the government's promises, people are struggling to make ends meet, especially in Montreal. According to the Institut de recherche et d'informations socioéconomiques, Montreal is the most expensive city in Quebec. A family of two adults and two children in Montreal would need to be bringing in $88,800 after taxes to have a livable income. A livable income is enough to meet basic needs with a little bit extra for a rainy day. That is all, but thousands of people do not have that.

Rather than helping their billionaire friends, when will the Liberals take action so that everyone can live with dignity?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let us think about the dental care program, pharmacare, the school food program, the increase to old age security and the Canada child benefit. Canada is always there to help the less fortunate, those who need a hand to make ends meet. It will always be there.

The real question is this: When will we get the support of all members of this House? The Conservatives are always voting against these measures.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of employment, in response to the member for Calgary East, was clearly reading off notes that had a member's picture on both sides, clearly making it a prop and making it very easy to be seen on the screen.

This is something that I think you need to take a look at, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously a planned practice by the government, by that minister, to again present, as she made her comments, an example that had a clear photo on it. That is a prop. It does not follow the traditions of this place.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I just saw the minister reading from notes. I do not know what was on the back of them, to be honest.

We will have a look at the video. We will get back to the House, if need be.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the minister now table those documents in the House.

When we look at the video screen, what we see is a Conservative member of Parliament's head shot, including personal information details about that individual, not only their contact information but what appears to be personal information about the member.

I believe that the minister has a collection of these with different members of Parliament's personal information that is now being broadcast on television. I would ask that she now table her question period binder.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to share with the members opposite the number of projects in their ridings, the number of people who have received early learning and child care, the number of people who have received dental care, and the number of people who are getting fed in schools. That is the information on these sheets, by province and by MP.

I will stand up for our records any day.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister has just agreed to table those documents here in the House. I believe that is what the minister said.

She is standing. She has the documents there. They have the personal information of many members of Parliament on this side of the House. This is a breach, I believe, of the privacy of those members. She is now leaving the chamber with that document in her hands.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you collect those documents—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will look at the tape and see what I can see.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. During question period, the government avoided answering a legitimate question from the member for Simcoe North.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is a point of debate. I cannot force anyone to answer anything.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the customs and practices of the House, ministers are required to answer questions asked by opposition members. It seems that no minister chose to answer a clear question that—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is true when the question is in order, but I found that it was not admissible in the way that it was worded.

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth Fund

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:13 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Battle River—Crowfoot relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #109

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion lost.

Notice of Motion

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I would like to table, in both official languages, a notice of a ways and means motion to introduce a bill entitled “A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I would like to request that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of this motion.

Ministerial Compliance with Order in Council

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the question of privilege raised in the House on Wednesday by the member for Peace River—Westlock concerning the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise's failure to file annual reports. Let me say at the outset that my intervention is in support of the fundamental principle at stake, which is the right of members of the House to be adequately informed in order to carry out their constitutional role of scrutinizing the government's action.

The Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise is meant to receive and investigate complaints about alleged human rights abuses related to the activities of Canadian companies abroad, including companies in the mining, oil and gas sectors. Their office operates at arm's length because Parliament has recognized that these issues require credibility, transparency and distance from the executive branch.

The ombudsperson's annual reports are the main mechanism by which this independence becomes concrete and verifiable. They are supposed to inform Parliament, in a comprehensive and factual way, about the nature of the complaints received, the sectors and regions concerned, the status of investigations and the general findings, while also making recommendations. Without these reports, the House is being deprived of critical information about complaints related to Canadian companies abroad.

Among the issues frequently raised on the international stage in terms of supply chains is child labour. Over the years, international organizations, recognized NGOs and even UN bodies have documented serious allegations of child labour in certain mining contexts abroad. When a complaint of this nature involves a Canadian company, the allegations—not judicial findings—are examined by an independent mechanism. The ombudsman's role is to shed light on the facts and make recommendations. However, if the reports detailing this work are not tabled in the House, members of Parliament cannot know whether such complaints have been received, understand how they have been handled or assess whether the Canadian framework is robust enough to prevent potential abuses. In these circumstances, Parliament cannot debate the matter, as it is not informed.

The member for Peace River—Westlock informed the House that the government, through the Minister of International Trade, failed in its obligation to table not one, not two, but three annual reports from the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. This is not about the content of a particular report or even its findings. It is about a fundamental right of the House to have documents that are necessary for members to carry out their duties.

The ombudsperson position was created to serve the public interest and promote transparency and accountability. Canadian companies doing business abroad must uphold the values that we in the House of Commons and the people we represent hold dear. The ombudsperson's annual reports fulfill essential functions for Parliament. They provide transparency. They give the House an understanding of how complaints related to alleged human rights violations abroad are being handled. They allow for parliamentary oversight. If the documents are not officially tabled, members cannot ask informed questions, propose changes to public policy or hold the ministers responsible to account.

These reports are supposed to detail complaints against Canadian companies that violate human rights abroad, as well as the outcome of the ombudsperson's investigations. The allegations are analyzed by an independent entity, but that is precisely why Parliament must be able to examine how these complaints were handled, what obstacles were encountered and what recommendations were made.

To deprive the House of these reports is to prevent it from determining whether mechanisms introduced by the government actually work. Unless it receives this information, Parliament cannot play its role. When a report meant to enlighten the House is not tabled in the House, it could constitute a breach of that right. This is exactly the issue raised by the question of privilege we are debating. The question of privilege addresses a fundamental issue: the right of the House to have access to reports intended for the House.

As the member for Peace River—Westlock pointed out, there is a precedent confirming that failure to comply with a tabling requirement may constitute a breach of the House's privilege. In Speaker Fraser's ruling on February 5, 1992, he stated that it is through tabling that members are officially apprised of the existence of a document, emphasizing that this requirement is not merely an administrative formality, but rather something that is done “for a serious purpose”. He also noted that the tabling of documents is one of the essential mechanisms that enable members and committees to discharge their functions. In other words, without the tabling of documents, there can be no formal consideration by the House, no automatic referral, no committee study and therefore no real accountability.

In closing, if the House of Commons chooses to appoint an ombudsperson to oversee the conduct of Canadian enterprises abroad, the government must also comply with the laws and the resulting obligations, including accountability to Parliament. The systematic tabling of annual reports is not a formality. It is an essential condition for respecting the House, democratic transparency and Canada's international credibility.

Parliament created the position of ombudsperson to help members ensure government oversight and accountability. The minister has an obligation to table the ombudsperson's reports in the House, which he has not done in three years. The fact that the minister has failed to table the ombudsperson's reports hinders the work of members and interferes with parliamentary procedure.

It is with that in mind that I invite the Speaker to seriously examine this question of privilege.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports.

They are the Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 21st Autumn Meeting in Yerevan, Armenia, from November 18 to 20, 2023, and the Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 23rd Autumn Meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, from November 17 to 19, 2025.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

Framework on the Access to and Use of Cash Act

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, An Act to establish a framework for the continued access to and use of cash in Canada and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce the bill that would establish a national framework to protect Canadians' ability to access and use physical cash and to ensure that no central bank digital currency can be created without the express authorization of Parliament.

In recent years, digital transactions have grown rapidly, but millions of Canadians still depend on cash for daily life. Seniors, indigenous communities, newcomers, people living in poverty, those in remote rural regions and victims of financial or domestic abuse rely on cash because it is accessible, reliable and safe. Cash is the only form of payment that does not depend on Internet or the electrical grid. Cash does not fail. It works every time in every circumstance for every person.

The framework this bill would establish would ensure that cash infrastructure remains resilient. Cash protects privacy at a time when government, corporate and financial sector data collection is expanding dramatically. It is also the only truly anonymous payment method. This bill would amend the Bank of Canada Act to require parliamentary approval before a central bank digital currency could be developed or issued. This legislation would ensure that future digital systems remain optional, not forced, and that Canadians retain control over their own finances. It would protect privacy, strengthen resilience and defend those who depend on physical currency.

I am proud to introduce this framework on the access to and the use of cash. I urge all members to support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Taxation

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to table a petition spearheaded by a constituent of mine, aimed at bringing tax fairness to our indigenous partners.

The petition calls on the government to simply rectify an overlooked error in the current tax filing regime that results in the comparative overrepresentation of tax reassessment claims of indigenous Canadians by updating and modernizing the T4RIF, the T4RSP and the T4A(P) tax slips; update CRA contribution tracking methods; ensure efficient handling of tax-exempt returns, including those of indigenous Canadians; and implement a team of first nations tax specialists within the CRA.

Over-the-Horizon Radar System

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a petition from the good residents of Simcoe—Grey who are opposed to the over-the-horizon radar system. If we can imagine for a minute, there is going to be close to 4,000 acres when the project is done, all phases, which will be totally flat. Every farm, every house, every barn will be knocked out, as well as all wooded lots, in the middle of the municipality.

The municipality is against it. Therefore, the residents are calling for the government to stop the building of the over-the-horizon site on the already purchased property, prevent future acquisition of prime farmland, including the building of the over-the-horizon site on the prime farmland of Clearview Township, and register the previously purchased property, which is roughly 750 acres, with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition on behalf of the people of Simcoe County, and of course to support my colleague from Simcoe—Grey, because prime farmland is now under attack again.

The Department of National Defence has purchased 700 acres of prime farmland overlapping wetlands. This is on the preliminary site. It also has a requirement to potentially purchase another 2,600 acres of prime farmland in Clearview Township to build the over-the-horizon radar.

The petitioners are calling on the government to stop the building of the over-the-horizon radar on the already purchased property, prevent further acquisition of prime farmland that obviously Canada and Ontario relies on, and register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural heritage.

Human Rights

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who are deeply concerned about abuses of human rights and environmental protections. This petition deals with the activities of a Vancouver-based mining company, Pan American Silver Corp, with respect to a silver mine called the Escobal mine in Guatemala. The Guatemalan courts interceded and instructed the mine to stop operations and adequately consult the Xinka indigenous peoples of the area. After the people said no, the mine has continued operations.

The petitioners are affronted. They ask the Government of Canada to take action. We have a vacant seat for the so-called Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. The petitioners ask Canadian consular officials to protect Xinka land defenders, and fully implement the report “Voices at Risk: Canada's Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders” and the principles of UNDRIP.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue from where I left off.

The bill in question now addresses the appointment process for the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, positions that the court justices specifically identified as needing independence from the chain of command.

We also added consequences for unreasonable delays in transferring evidence. We strengthened the independence of legal actors so that prosecutions are fair and impartial. We improved supports for victims, including the ability to request a victim liaison officer when trust breaks down because, in these cases, that is very much the currency. We addressed the fairness for the accused ensuring access to defence counsel, regardless of which system hears the case. I think that is the most important change. We included the clause for future review because these changes must be monitored, they must be measured and they must be revisited when it is necessary or when they do not work.

Taken together, these amendments represent a serious effort to fix what is broken and to build a system that is more responsive, more accountable and certainly more just. However, these amendments have to be approved by this House and it seems that they are not even going to be considered. We did all of that work in committee for them to not even be considered by the government. That is not really how it is supposed to work.

Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that these changes are all necessary, but the Liberals have the power to strip these amendments, and that is really what is at the crux of this conversation today. In doing so, they would weaken the accountability of this bill, they would ignore the voices of survivors, and they would remove the very improvements that the victims themselves asked this Parliament to make.

We certainly hope they will reconsider, because without these changes, it is not about making life better for those who serve. It would be about making life better for the politicians and the bureaucrats who oversee this, and it is a very different thing.

The men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces do not work a nine to five. They serve without limit, and we owe them this in return. I urge every member of this House, including the members who now sit in the opposite benches who worked on this piece of legislation in committee, to reconsider, to stand with survivors and to support the brave men and women in uniform today and every day in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservative Party of Canada is determined to fight this legislation, and not recognize the phenomenal work that former Chief Justice Arbour did. It is only over the last couple of weeks that the Conservative Party has come out against the legislation as much as it has. At the end of the day, we have a government that is pushing forward a number of agenda items dealing with the Canadian Forces, whether it is the 2% GDP or the increase in the overall interest in joining the forces, which is at a 30-year high.

We are improving the conditions of the military and Bill C-11 is a part of that. I wish the Conservatives would get onside.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak directly to the men and women in uniform who are watching this. They had the committee change this bill with the amendments that they, themselves, asked for, both the survivors of sexual violence and the veterans of our military. I want those at home to witness that the Liberals are paving over all the amendments their own members made to this legislation. Justice Arbour did not even come to committee. They waited 11 years to bring this legislation forward. I want them to witness that the Liberals are ignoring the will of this House and the will of the members in uniform.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the bill's progress.

There is something shocking about how Liberal arrogance is what is driving the decision to revisit committee discussions when there were amendments that responded to the justice's report and acknowledged her work. In particular, there was a Bloc Québécois amendment that addressed timely trials. However, the new majority got this amendment rejected, along with many others.

I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. How does she feel about the arrogance that is being shown in this new context, which the people did not vote for but which is the result of floor crossers being bought off by the Liberal government?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is more than arrogance. We are seeing the beginnings of a very authoritarian streak with the manufactured majority that the Liberals now have. Members who now sit on their benches worked on this report. This is just one example.

The Liberals have now shut down four different committees, going in camera to have discussions that Canadians ought to know about. This is a bad start to a majority, and I think Canadians will start to notice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite appeals to members of the Canadian Forces. I, too, would appeal to the members of the Canadian Forces who are following this debate. This has been a long time coming.

Earlier this morning, one of the members commented on the bill, asking what was taking so long and why the government has taken so long to bring forward legislation on the issue. We were being criticized.

Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government a year ago. We are already advancing a total package to reinforce how important it is that we have respect within our forces, that we grow the forces and that they are going to be there.

The Canadian Armed Forces is a part of our national security, and we have a government committed to advancing it.

Why does the Conservative Party want us to drag our feet, whether it is on the financing of our forces or any other measure that we have proposed to the House of Commons?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this report has been sitting on a shelf for 11 years.

The Prime Minister had the chance to appeal to members of the armed forces, to give them an environment free of harassment, discrimination and abuse. He had the opportunity to appeal to them and to give them exactly what they asked for in committee, exactly how this bill was changed, and exactly the amendments that are before the House. Instead, he chose not to and defended the indefensible of his own government.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by going over the timeline of the bill we are debating today and by looking at the fact that the government is shutting down debate and completely undermining the hard work completed in committee by opposition and government members alike.

If we look back at the relatively recent past, we can see that the whole issue of changes to the military justice system stems in particular from the report by Justice Deschamps, which was published on March 27, 2015, about 11 years ago. It was a scathing report dealing with misconduct in the armed forces. It was around the same time that Jonathan Vance was appointed chief of the defence staff by the Conservative government of the day.

Not long after that, a huge scandal broke out involving Jonathan Vance. Members may recall that. Back in February 2021, we learned from media reports that, as early as 2018, the government had been receiving information alleging sexual offences committed by the new chief of the defence staff, but the government kept a lid on that at the time. The chief of the defence staff retired in 2021, shortly before the scandal exploded.

Then, in April of that same year, 2021, Justice Fish submitted a report containing recommendations specifically aimed at cleaning up the armed forces. Following that, after the Liberals had engaged in a very, very long filibuster in committee in an attempt to keep the Vance file under wraps, we got a new defence minister, who seemed keen to take the bull by the horns.

She asked Justice Arbour to revisit the work that had been done. Justice Arbour replied that this had already been done, but, in good faith, she nevertheless decided to do it again, in order to update Justice Deschamps' work and also to include Justice Fish's work. The aim was to present recommendations aimed at reforming the CAF's legal environment.

At that time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We hoped that all this would lead to a bill aimed at reforming the CAF's legal system. It took some time, but it eventually arrived. In March 2024, the government finally introduced Bill C-66, which aimed to overhaul the judicial system.

We thought this bill would be brought before the House because it was so important. We had been talking about it for so long. Everyone was waiting and waiting. I decided I was going to start reading the bill in detail, knowing that it would end up at the Standing Committee on National Defence once the government put it on the agenda for debate in the House, which it did not do until September.

The bill was introduced in March, and the government did not bring it up for debate until September 2024. Each of the major parties at the time—the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—was given a single opportunity to speak. After that, the government never brought the bill back into the House before the prime minister resigned. The House sat from September through December, but the bill was never brought up again.

Members will recall that the prime minister resigned, Parliament was prorogued and an election was called. Now we have the new version, Bill C-11. The Liberals wasted all that time, and now they suddenly want to get it done, so they are throwing a gag order in our face.

This gag order has specific and shocking consequences. In many respects, the work has been done in committee. In particular, witnesses commented on the importance of the government's decision to transfer sexual misconduct cases from courts martial to civilian courts in accordance with Justice Arbour's recommendation and the amendments set out in Bill C‑11. The witnesses told us that the vast majority of victims would have preferred it if they could still choose which court would handle their case. Some of them told us that it was important for certain cases to be handled by the military system for reasons related to deadlines or evidence or to avoid revictimizing someone by forcing them to restart a process that was already well under way. In some cases, the reasons concerned complexity or trust in the system.

These are all good reasons. Victims said that they would still rather choose for themselves. In collaboration with other parties, the Bloc Québécois submitted a recommendation aimed at striking the proper balance.

I will now read the clause of the bill as amended by the Bloc Québécois:

Choice of victim

(2) Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, the victim of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(d) to (h), or an individual acting on their behalf, may choose whether the person charged with the offence is to be tried by a court martial or a civil court.

We had raised the possibility of this option. We suggested, through a legislative amendment, that the civilian court take into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and other factors in deciding whether, at the victim's request, the case should instead be heard by a court martial. We had nevertheless established guidelines to avoid situations where, for example, multiple victims might have made different choices if the decision had simply been left entirely up to them. The goal was to prevent one victim from opting for a court martial while another chose a civilian court. We would still respect their wishes.

I had replaced my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton on the committee that day, and I recall that even the NDP was involved, through the member for Nunavut, who had also proposed an amendment so that victims could exercise their freedom of choice in the context of a decision regarding the court that would hear their case.

Today, the government is taking advantage of its majority to set aside the work that was done in committee and to set aside the committee members' vote to adopt the amendment that the Bloc Québécois had proposed as a compromise. I am interested in hearing how the member for Nunavut, who is now on the government side, will vote on this matter. Even though the NDP does not have a seat on this committee, she took the time to attend the meeting, make a recommendation and request permission to be heard and have her recommendation be debated. The goal of her recommendation was for people to have freedom of choice. Now that she is on the government side, I am looking forward to seeing how she will vote.

The same thing was done with some Bloc Québécois's proposals, including one to establish an office of the inspector general for misconduct. The chair of the committee ruled that it was out of scope, that it went too far, that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The entire committee, including the Liberals who had voted in favour of this Bloc Québécois recommendation, agreed to overturn the chair's ruling. We now see that today in the House, the Liberals, who now have a majority, are going to try to overturn the committee's decision to overturn the chair's ruling and go back to the original version of the bill.

The same thing happened with another proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois, which sought to ensure that military judges would automatically cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces at the time of their appointment in order to ensure their independence. That recommendation was also made by the Barreau du Québec. It came out of the Fish report. We did not just pull this recommendation out of thin air. The recommendation to create an office of the inspector general came from former Colonel Michel Drapeau, who spoke about this at length in committee. All of this work was done rigorously and conscientiously. We also listened to from the people for whom this bill was intended, who waited so long for this bill. I am completely dumbfounded by the government's approach today.

The government offered us an olive branch following the three by-elections on April 13 and said that it would take the viewpoints of the opposition parties into consideration, that it would work collaboratively. However, it quickly changed its mind when, for example, it decided to unilaterally change the composition of committees, when that is something on which there should be consensus in Parliament. In the past, that was decided by consensus. The Liberals betrayed the legacy of the House in that regard.

It is hardly surprising to us anymore when they pull such a stunt, because we have seen them doing these kinds of things for almost a week now. However, I think it is unspeakably sad for the people the bill is primarily aimed at: the victims who took the time to come and testify before the committee, even though it must have been emotionally draining. These victims are being told by the government that muzzling the House was not enough; they are going to muzzle the victims as well. If I were a victim today, I would be outraged by the government's behaviour, and I hope it realizes that. I still dare to hope that it will reconsider its decision regarding the amendments.

We will see how all this leads us to vote on this bill, which is otherwise crucial and could have been handled in a very different way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think in terms of the background of former chief justice Arbour and the work that she conducted. We are not talking hundreds but likely going to 1,000-plus consultations, both direct and indirect. She is an incredible woman who is recognized for human rights beyond Canadian borders and who ultimately came up with this recommendation. I suspect that in all the consultation with former and current CAF members, she came up with a recommendation that she truly believed was in the forces' best interest. That is what the legislation would put into place.

I am wondering if the Bloc would see that maybe we should be giving her more recognition for the work that she did.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois's proposal was in line with what Justice Arbour had recommended, while also taking into account the requests of several victims who appeared before the committee.

However, the work done by Justice Arbour, who also appeared before the committee at the time regarding Bill C-66, dates back five years. The context may have changed since then. It would have been nice to hear from her again in committee, but she would not necessarily have had the opportunity to interview new members of the forces.

In any case, as I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois's proposal was in line with Justice Arbour's recommendations, but it allowed for a choice in cases where it applied at the request of victims. It was a thoughtful, non-partisan and balanced proposal. What is so absurd today is seeing the government undermine all the committee's work on this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize that, with the collective opposition we are seeing today on Bill C-11, it was important that we advance and move forward with the legislation, given that the government, in particular this new Prime Minister, was elected last year by Canadians and we made a commitment to the Canadian Forces, the CAF members, whether it was hitting 2% of the GDP or reinforcing supports for the Canadian Forces. We now have legislation to build upon the respect that is necessary among CAF members. It is starting to see results. We actually had over 7,000 people last year who put in their application to become members of the Canadian Forces, which is a record high in 30 years. I believe we are going in the right direction.

This legislation is part of a bigger package that this Prime Minister and this government are proposing. I would encourage members to maybe revisit their thinking on the legislation and recognize it for what it is.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear the government say that the time has come to move quickly, considering that the issue has been dragging on for 11 years and that the government tried to sweep the misconduct scandal under the carpet. The government has just told us that since our work in committee is not to its liking, it is going to impose closure. I repeat, the Liberals are imposing closure to overturn the committee's decisions, one of which was supported by all the committee members, including the government members.

It has finally become clear that substance does not matter to the Liberals. What matters to them is bulldozing over decisions and, most of all, throwing out not only the opinions of the opposition parties, but also the opinions of the many witnesses who came to the committee, in what were likely highly difficult, emotionally charged circumstances, to make reasonable, justified requests, which we transposed into reasonable, justified amendments.

The Liberals say that they could not care less and that they know better than we do. Unfortunately, this gives us a strong sense of what to expect in the next three and a half years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was actually going to ask my colleague a question there. I did my officer training in her riding of Saint-Jean. It is a beloved area in my life. Some of that I wanted to forget, because of the gruelling training, but I do appreciate my colleague's speech, her passion for our military and her passion for Quebec.

The motto of la belle province is Je me souviens or I remember.

I apologize about my French, but I am practising and I have to overcome my own fear. I will do that by speaking with my French colleagues.

I want to talk about what the Minister of National Defence tabled last week, and why it matters to people who trusted the House to get it right. The minister tabled report stage amendments that would undo months not just of Conservative work but of committee work. Bloc and Conservative members of the Standing Committee on National Defence sat together, listened to witnesses and built something worth passing. The minister swept it away. Not satisfied with tabling the amendments last week, the government has now moved time allocation to limit how long the House can even discuss them. Survivors came forward twice and made themselves vulnerable twice.

I have been asked to speak to the bill because of the work I have done on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In the last Parliament, ACVA undertook the largest study in its history. It held 23 meetings, with nearly 100 witnesses, with respect to the experience of women veterans. In Parliament we are studying suicide prevention, and in many meetings, MST surfaces as a driver for suicide. The two files are not separate. As part of both studies, the committee undertook dedicated work on trauma-informed practices, what trauma does to memory, to reporting and to the way survivors present themselves in institutional settings.

I do not raise this to claim expertise. I raise it because I find myself wondering whether the officials who drafted these report stage amendments, or the members now standing to defend them, have spent comparable time in those rooms.

Many of the women who spent months testifying before the veterans affairs committee later came before the national defence committee to speak directly to the bill. They showed up twice. They made themselves vulnerable twice. The minister's amendments are his response. The cross-party amendments to clauses 7 and 8 would give survivors the right to choose which justice system handled their case, military or civilian. That reflected what witnesses asked for directly. Donna Van Leusden told the committee:

For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill...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, and that is not survivor‑centred.

She is right, and she is not alone. The provost marshal general testified that over the last five years, 270 out of 735 files stayed with the military police because victims specifically asked for them to stay there. That is more than one-third of all cases. These are real people making an informed choice. The minister's amendments would eliminate choice entirely.

Regarding civilian capacity, the picture is equally concerning. Sexual assault cases exceeding the Jordan framework deadline limits rose from just over 15% in 2016-17 to more than 30% in 2022-23. Nearly half of those cases were stayed or the files withdrawn. The civilian system is struggling with its existing caseload.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was direct in its written submission. It said that the proposed provisions would deny victims the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint is investigated. This departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing. CACP recommended maintaining concurrent jurisdiction. The people who would be executing this mandate said it would not work. The minister made his amendments anyway.

It is worth noting what the minister acknowledged at committee: He has not spoken to Justice Arbour, Justice Fish or Justice Deschamps on this file. When asked how many victims his office consulted when drafting the bill, he said that he would have to get back to the committee. He had not spoken to any provincial justice ministers since taking the portfolio. Jordan framework delays were not in his briefings. He would be implementing a mandatory jurisdictional transfer into a system he has not even consulted, without the resources to support it and over the explicit objection of survivors, the director of military prosecutions and the chiefs of police.

There are real consequences to getting this wrong, and they are playing out right now. A decade ago, the Canadian Armed Forces set a target of 25% women in uniform by 2026. Today, after 10 years of stated commitment, the number sits at 16.7%. The recruitment commander said last week that the target is now impossible to reach. In the past fiscal year alone, 1,070 women left the military, the highest rate in five years, despite pay increases.

We cannot recruit and retain women in an institution where they know before they sign up that if something happens to them, the system will not put their choice at the centre. That is precisely what Bill C-11, as the minister has now amended it, would fail to do. The government set a target of 25% women. It could not reach a force of 67,000. What exactly is its plan for half a million?

When I spoke to the bill at an earlier stage, I said that I hoped that by the time my daughters are adults, parliamentarians would not still be debating how to get this right for people assaulted in the forces in which they choose to serve. I am standing here at report stage, and nothing has changed. If anything, I am less optimistic than I was then.

However, I have not stopped believing it is possible. The committee did the work. The result was something worth passing. What the minister tabled last week is not an improvement. It is the government's substituting its own preference for that of survivors. That is paternalistic. It is further disenfranchisement of the people who have already been rendered powerless once.

Conservatives will continue to fight to restore the amendments. The provisions about choice must stand. Civilian capacity must be resourced before jurisdiction is transferred. Survivors who came forward twice, who trusted twice, deserve better than this. We can do better than this.

As I said, I am the father of two daughters, and I hope and pray that the work we have put in to make their lives better would be heard by members on the other side of the aisle. We can do better. We owe it to the next generation. We owe it to those who want to join.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been significant gains over the last year, when I think of the Canadian Forces, as we try to build up that trust, faith and support for members of the forces.

We have seen some very encouraging signs. One of the best ones was the fact that well over 7,000 people actually applied to join the Canadian Forces. That is a 30-year high. Part of that is making sure that we have a respectful workplace. This legislation that has been brought forward is based on a recommendation from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour, who directly and indirectly consulted with well over 1,000 people, I suspect. This is the core of her report.

I am wondering—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt to give the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan a chance to respond.

The hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the aisle ran out of time and did not get to ask a question, which is surprising.

Here is what I have seen in the last year. The Liberals are pounding their chests, saying that the forces have had over 7,000 applications, but that does not show how many have not made it through. It does not show the failure rate that has happened within the military, nor what the Liberals are doing to fail women who need options and choices when travesty happens to them in the military.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saskatchewan on his speech, especially for the few words he spoke in French. I am sure that he will be able to make a speech or provide us with full responses in French in no time. I am optimistic. I congratulate him on his speech on this extremely important topic.

The government is treating this issue as if it were a trivial matter, a legislative formality that can be rushed through, even though people have been waiting 11 years for something to happen on this issue. With their new majority, the Liberals are handling this issue without any consideration for the victims, who are likely the people who are most vulnerable and most directly affected by the legislation that is going to be implemented.

I would like to know if my colleague agrees that it might be a good idea to take the time to collaborate again and take another look at the amendments that were adopted in committee, some of them unanimously, so that we can carry out our work in a responsible manner that shows respect for the victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

Yes, absolutely, we need to go through this with a fine-tooth comb. My colleagues have already done the heavy lifting. They have already come forward with recommendations that are being ignored, and that is how the victims feel. They feel ignored. That is what the Liberal government is doing to them: ignoring their pleas and the challenges they have faced. It is unacceptable.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, witnesses at the national defence committee made it clear that many survivors want a choice between the military and civilian justice systems.

Could the member explain why preserving that choice is so important?

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

Mr. Speaker, it comes down to victims' having the choice.

They need to feel safe. They feel betrayed. They want to have options, because they want to be heard. This is what I am saying: The Liberal government is ignoring and shutting them out, and they have already been traumatized. We have seen that time and time again, not only in the defence committee but also in the veterans affairs committee. It is not time to shut people out. It is time to give them options. It is time to let them be heard.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be able to rise today to speak to Bill C-11.

In the previous Parliament, I was able to speak to this legislation's precursor, Bill C-66. In that speech, I spoke about the two committees I primarily sat on during the previous session, the status of women and national defence. I was able to provide a unique perspective as it related to what was, at the time, Bill C-66. At FEWO, we studied a number of issues related to violence against women. The committee studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development, intimate partner violence and coercive control. Prior to that, when I sat on the national defence committee, we studied transparency in the Canadian Armed Forces. During that study, we did hear testimony about how complicated and daunting the entire investigative process can be for armed forces members.

I will now re-enter into the record the testimony of Patrick White:

First of all, you need to put yourself in the perspective of the most vulnerable kind of person. Respectfully, that's actually not me. I'm an attorney. I have some legal knowledge. I'm not the most vulnerable kind of person. The most vulnerable kind of person may be the 16-year-old who gets parental consent to join. They may be the person who is so affected by aggravated sexual trauma that they can't even put their hand on the doorknob to get into work, or may vomit when putting on their uniform. That's just an example. If you design a system so that individuals like that can navigate it rather than requiring us to be Rory Fowler or Michel Drapeau, you will succeed in having a system that works for everyone.

The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't.

What particularly struck me was something Mr. White said after the meeting. He highlighted the labyrinth of regulations, the myriad of hidden file numbers, the thousands of initialisms, acronyms and faceless department nooks and crannies in the depths of DND that one has to know the name of in order to get the paperwork. Patrick was a lawyer, a former staffer, someone who was intimately familiar with the machinations of bureaucracy. He knew where he needed to go and what he wanted, and he found it nearly impossible.

In any event, Bill C-66 never got beyond second reading in this place, before dying on the Order Paper due to the previous election. However, I am very happy to see an ever so slightly amended version tabled in this place, and even happier to be able to speak to it today.

While reviewing the initial draft of this speech, I took the time to briefly go over the testimony of survivors and experts at the national defence committee when it studied Bill C-11. It was refreshing to see all parties working collaboratively, especially on such a serious and sensitive issue. This was echoed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on April 23, when he spoke in this place about Bill C-11. What he also spoke about was a series of unilateral changes brought forward on the day prior by the government. Those changes, only achievable because of a new-found majority, unilaterally changed the determinations of that committee, government members included.

In response to his poignant speech, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, if he could save one portion of the original pan-partisan Bill C-11, what would that be? My Manitoban colleague responded:

Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems.

With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims.

The testimony agrees. On November 18, Dr. Karen Breeck stated:

the bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases. I've spoken to many people who fear being labelled disloyal or overreacting if they were to involve civilian police, particularly for the lower-risk sexual assault cases

Colonel Bruce MacGregor, retired, similarly reminded us:

The expectation that victims would be completely satisfied with the criminal justice system is aspirational and not realistic. Many allegations of sexual assault—if not most—within the military are what we would characterize not as rape but as what may be considered as a lower level of physical violence. Saying this is in no way an attempt to minimize the impact on victims.

Christine Wood, a CAF veteran, was unequivocally clear in her testimony. 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. I support it because the CAF must uphold their 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.

The director of the Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group, Donna Van Leusden, stated:

This bill removes choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. 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, and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did.

The consensus is strikingly clear. As anyone who has ever sat on a committee here knows, there is almost always a multitude of sides to any piece of legislation or study that a committee does. It is shockingly rare to have dozens of witnesses across all walks of life, spread over nearly a dozen meetings, a full day of testimony, be nearly unanimous in their calls for specific change. This is not some regulatory change. This was a call for help from brave survivors who have battled a rotted system designed to silence and diminish them, the very thing Bill C-66 and Bill C-11 were supposed to change.

For a while, there was hope. The committee heard the witnesses. Members worked collaboratively. They introduced amendments to Bill C-11. For 62 days, these men and women brought change, and they thought change was coming, from the day the report was tabled before the House up until April 22, when the government tabled a battery of amendments that undid months of collaborative work, completely revoking these changes. One of the first things the government did with its newly secured majority, even before the three new members took their seats in this place, was table a sweeping set of changes that eliminated that hard work.

Not only is this an insult to the witnesses who were strong enough to come out and give their testimony, but it is disrespectful to the members of the committee, including the government members sitting on that committee. What the government did was worse than simply not listening. What it did was tell these witnesses and the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of survivors, “We hear you. We quite literally brought you before a standing committee of the House of Commons to listen. We sympathize with you. We even amended the legislation, but we no longer need you.”

This is not collaboration whatsoever. This is dismissal.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member was reflecting on the majority issue, I remembered very clearly the day we acquired the majority of membership on the floor of the House of Commons. One of the very first actions that took place that day was a collaboration where we saw an opposition Conservative bill actually pass, and that was with the majority. I think collaboration has been, and will continue to be, on the table.

We need to recognize that the work and effort put in by former chief justice Arbour were significant. Everyone seemed to be onside with that, at least in the last couple of weeks possibly, but we now see Conservatives in opposition to the legislation.

My question for the member opposite is in regard to the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the chance to the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga to respond.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I brought up in my remarks the mention of the machinations of this manufactured majority, I was speaking to the relevance of how this is impacting this legislation in the House. We are speaking about victims here. We are talking about Bill C-11.

The member across mentioned Justice Arbour. I would like to note that she was indeed invited to committee. She declined her opportunity to speak at committee. Let us put this into perspective: Things have changed since she wrote this report upward of seven years ago, and so has the system.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the government is stubbornly refusing to give victims the freedom to choose between a court martial and a civilian court. Why did the government ignore the amendments that the opposition members seemed to support quite unanimously? What does my colleague think?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and it is absolutely essential that we do better. For those listening at home, we are talking about the military justice system modernization act, or Bill C-11. We are currently at the report stage. Countless numbers of witnesses testified strongly. This committee heard the voices of these victims. Members of the committee collaborated, they were moving forward and then there was a hard stop. What is the change and why is the change happening? We need to do better in this place. Victims need the government to speak up and represent them. This is not the case with the way the government is acting.

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

Mr. Speaker, the significant majority of military sexual misconduct cases will not meet the civilian threshold of the civilian justice system. Of the few cases that do meet that threshold for the civilian justice system, witnesses for the system have testified that it only has the capacity to deal with just a fraction of the cases.

Perhaps my colleague could speak to whether this is just going to make the culture in the military worse and be a free pass for predators.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we could speak for hours and debate this bill, but we have to really think hard about what survivors have asked for. Why has this debate not been allowed to go further than the short time today? Supporting victims, supporting survivors, is what we need to get justice, and that is clearly not the case here. I do not understand why the government is rushing to shut down this debate before clear consensus and concerns are heard, and in addition, ignoring and contradicting the actual testimony that was heard.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, Finance; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Justice; the hon. member for Yellowhead, Taxation.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here again.

The last time I rose at second reading on this bill, I talked a bit about my military background, but I focused on why it is so important that we get this bill right, especially for the victims and the accused.

This bill would do a number of things, and in fact parts of Bill C-11 are actually very good, a step in the right direction and needed. I do not want to debate those, which are in reference to the independence around the director of military prosecutions, the provost marshal, etc. Nor do I want to focus on any amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. I want to focus around the transfer of jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civilian authorities when the offences take place in Canada and what this would mean for our Canadian Armed Forces, where I had the privilege to serve for 25 years.

Today I am wearing my Royal Military College tie. The college's motto is “Truth, Duty, Valour”, something that I think is essential with this bill. I am also wearing the tie clip of my regiment, the motto of which is pro patria, or “for country”, but the slogan is what I want to focus on, which is “Never Pass a Fault”.

I feel that we are in a position right now where the government is making a mistake.

I am going to try to lay this out. There are a few things for all listeners here because I am going to use some abbreviations. Criminal Code sex offences is CCSO. When I say MPs, I mean military police, not members of Parliament. I will likely say “police of jurisdiction”, or POJ.

Let us back up a little bit. In November 2021, the director of military prosecutions and the Canadian Armed Forces provost marshal decided to transfer all Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian jurisdiction. This was a result of Justice Fish and Justice Arbour's recommendations, and they were sort of an interim directive to go forward. Prior to that, there were concurrent investigations by both civilian authorities and the military police that resulted in some cases prior to 2021 ending up tried as civilian cases. However, when this interim direction came into place in 2021, it was the intent that ideally all CCSO would be transferred.

That direction was clear; however, the military found out that local police of jurisdiction were not accepting the files. Military police then were able to do a victim-centred trauma analysis. They could conduct the investigations for a number of reasons.

The civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the capacity or the resources to deal with it. Their threshold is much higher than the standard that the Canadian Armed Forces expects and there is a much larger gamut of tools available within the Canadian Armed Forces for both disciplinary and administrative action that allowed all of this to take place.

Part of the reason that the civilian police of jurisdiction pushed back was that they believed that the military police were more than capable and competent to do this. We have seen this with public statements of affirmation from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police of the incredible professional competency of our military police.

For some of the cases that were brought forward, the civilian police looked at them and said that there was no public interest in moving forward because some of them might have been historical or that public safety was not being dealt with.

Further, in this interim time frame, the declaration of victims' rights had been implemented.

This means that not on purpose, but because of an interim direction in 2021, we now have a choice for victims. Victims are getting the best of both worlds. There is the military police, which has fixed and addressed many of the shortfalls that had existed historically in our system, that is now able to do this in collaboration with the victim and the police of jurisdiction to make a case and go forward.

I think that the way the system is functioning today when it comes to dealing with Criminal Code sex offences is right.

Now let us talk about what happens if this bill passes with the amendments the Liberal government has made to change what was passed in committee.

First off, for the first time ever in Canada, a police force, the military police, would lose jurisdiction to investigate criminal offences within its own jurisdiction. The military police are the police of jurisdiction for the Canadian Armed Forces. As soon as the military police, during an investigation, find any suspicion of a Criminal Code sex offence, they would have to contact, transfer or refer this to the local police of jurisdiction. A CAF victim would go to them and they would have to give them a phone number for the OPP or for the Ottawa Police Service, for example. It is not ideal. The police of jurisdiction would not be compelled to do anything about it.

If the Canadian Armed Forces chooses to go ahead with administrative actions, the problem is that they would not be allowed to investigate. Section 70 of the National Defence Act lists all of the sexual offences that are tied to Criminal Code offences. Their hands would be tied and they would not be able to investigate. Right now, the way that local police of jurisdiction are dealing with this is very slowly; they are not keen on sharing that information with the military police. We would basically be taking this choice away from the victims. It would not be clean. It could be something as simple as a lower-level harassment issue that maybe should not be criminal in nature as it would not necessarily meet that threshold, but because it would fall under the changes being forecast to pass in Bill C-11, if the government got its way, they would not be able to do anything.

The removal of this would fundamentally undermine the reputation of our military police. As I mentioned earlier, military police are experts. Since 2022, all the former cases that used to be done by summary trial and are now dealt with at courts martial must be investigated by the military police. The civilian police acknowledge their incredible capability. In fact, if I had enough time, I could share stories where victims were so happy to have their situations investigated by military police instead of local police.

Let us talk about outside of Canada. I am not talking about a host nation perpetrator or victim, but specifically about where military police can investigate a CAF member, whether a victim or perpetrator, and a Canadian victim. Latvia is a good example. In this case, military police would investigate, weigh the charges and decide whether they should end up in the military or civilian justice system, as they can still do. They would maintain that skill set. I would argue that in the types of operations we are doing now in places like Latvia, where there are DND members and their families, we would see the potential for a higher level of these types of cases because, again, those in the CAF doing that are not perfect. My point is that someone could do something in Latvia and be charged for it, but if a person were to do the same thing in the CAF in Canada, they may not be charged for it.

To wrap this up, this is what concerns me. A victim-centred, trauma-informed approach would not happen as the military police would lose this concurrent jurisdiction. More charges would be dropped. There would be less accountability within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current civilian system is already overloaded and, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, has a much higher threshold. We are seeing this in jurisdictions like Ireland right now, which went through this sort of step. It is now trying to figure out how to undo what it did. It is trying to fix the situation it is in. This would break trust with our military police and within the CAF and is basically an abdication of responsibility and leadership, from my viewpoint.

This bill, no matter what, needs a sunset clause. What concerns me is that we will be back in Parliament in three years, five years or six years from now saying we messed up. We will be apologizing to the victims for not getting it right. We are not going to be able to fix that harm we caused. I say “we” meaning the Parliament of Canada, this chamber and the other place. It would not do the victims justice.

It is important that we get this right. My plea to the government is that we need to do this right. If we cannot fix it in this place, I am praying the other place will be able to fix it, because I have legitimate concerns that we would be making a mistake if this bill passed as the government wants to amend it.

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

Mr. Speaker, former justice Arbour was an incredible Canadian. Whether as a jurist, a prosecutor or a human rights advocate, she did a lot of fine work. She even went beyond Canadian borders, which is all somewhat related, directly or indirectly, to the issue.

There are 48 recommendations that came out in that report. If we take a look at recommendation 40, it states, “transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities.”

The essence of the legislation is to meet that recommendation. I think we have already done 35 or 36 of those 48 recommendations. It is an important recommendation. I suspect that in all of her consultations she knew what was being proposed.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the former justice—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary with respect to Justice Arbour, things have changed. In previous speeches we have outlined this. The victims' bill of rights is no longer there. We have a sexual misconduct resource centre available. The independence has gone forward. The military police have actually fixed and addressed the key things that allowed for the situations upon which Justice Arbour made her recommendations. It was brought up previously in the debate that unfortunately Justice Arbour chose not to show up at committee to testify.

Things have changed. In the military, the last thing we do when we do a mission analysis is ask whether the situation has changed. Since 2021, the situation has changed, as I highlighted during my speech, based on the recommendations that came from Fish and Arbour.

The system is pretty much there. Let us use the rest of Bill C-11. With this transfer, I think we are getting it wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the committee that conducted the study for weeks and that succeeded, with our Conservative colleagues, in getting a majority to adopt amendments. These amendments were informed by witness testimony and greatly improved the bill. We worked patiently for weeks. We heard from witnesses who told us where we needed to go. I believe that we managed to move this bill in the right direction.

What does my colleague call a government that does not respect the verdict of parliamentary democracy, when a majority of members have decided to move the bill in one direction, but this government is trying to overturn that by moving the bill in the other direction?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could use a really derogatory term, but I will not. My point is that it is the government that is making a mistake. Ultimately, I think we need to get this right. This is about the victims. The committee did so much hard work. The witnesses testified.

I am not taking anything away from what Justice Arbour brought forward. This is a tough position for the CAF and the senior leadership of the CAF. However, I dare say that if we go back and review the testimony put forward at committee by the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the Canadian director of military prosecutions, they weighed their concerns on this.

Again, this is ultimately about taking care of the victims. I do not think the government is going to get it right if it removes the hard work of the committee and what it put forward as recommendations.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a retired police officer, I can say that only 5% or 6% of sexual assault cases in the civilian world are brought forth, and probably less so in the CAF world.

Policing also depends on a lot of clarity, evidence and integrity. When we transfer that between two bodies, the civilian and the CAF, it is not going to work. How is this going to work practically speaking? If there is a mistake, who is going to be held accountable? Is it going to be the civilian world or the CAF world? That is what I would like to know.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I do not know if anybody is going to be held to account. That is going to be the problem with this, because ultimately it is an abdication of responsibility and accountability within the CAF, which is what I highlighted in my speech. It is about handing this off and saying that police officers are able to deal with this. As the member noted, they are already overloaded. Their threshold is much higher than the military's and I think we are not going to do the victims justice. They are going to be the ones who will suffer from this and we will be back at this trying to fix this mistake a few years from now.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, on October 8, I spoke here in the House about Bill C‑11. My background in social psychology means that I have a specific perspective when it comes to victims, actions and their impact.

In particular, I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton because he and his colleagues had an opportunity to meet with victims, which allowed them to see that the recommendations in the Arbour report needed and still need to be implemented. I thank him for that on behalf of all our military personnel, but also on behalf of veterans, many of whom are victims of wrongdoing and criminal acts.

I would also like to share the story of a female veteran. I will not mention her name, but I want to commend her resilience.

This veteran was the victim of multiple rapes while she was in the Canadian Armed Forces. Just the sight of a uniform or a medal triggers her. When I say it triggers her, I mean she exhibits disorganized behaviour. It was clear that it was the sight of male authority that triggered an indescribable feeling in her. We saw it. I was there.

Five minutes later, she managed to put it into words and explain what happened. As she told us, she has been living with this ever since that day, even after undergoing therapy. She had to repeat her story because there were so many changes. She met with an administrative officer, a caseworker, and another caseworker. She kept having to repeat her story. She knows full well that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life. I commend her courage. I can speak to this from my perspective as a social psychologist in the House today.

This veteran, this woman, has to bear her suffering day after day and has to rebuild her life, knowing that there is a system in place to protect her. That is what we are talking about. How many years has it been? It has been over 10 years. What just happened?

I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We just completed our most recent report on the unacceptably high rate of suicide among veterans, which was tabled last week.

Right now, we are looking into Lifemark, the rehabilitation program for our veterans, to see how it is working. This program is due to be re-evaluated shortly because the contract is renewed every six years. Some veterans have received good services, but there are a lot of problems with the program and that is what I am concerned about.

The role of the justice system is to take what is happening in the Canadian Armed Forces and deal with it in the civilian system. That is what it needs to do in general. The committee looked into this and made some recommendations. I even heard two of my committee colleagues say that some of the votes had been unanimous. I feel as though we are in a bad movie. I was obviously not a member of Parliament from 2015 to 2019, but I get the impression that we are reliving a situation where the public is unaware that parliamentarians are being hit with one time allocation motion after another because the government is scared that we will bring up more scandals.

We saw it earlier with Cúram. I have also seen it on the other committees I serve on. The government's approach is to be secretive and forget about transparency.

The government now has seven members on committees, giving it a complete majority, but it had assured us that this would not prevent it from working collaboratively. Seven days later, it is clear that that is not going to happen, which is appalling.

Normally, I struggle to get all my tasks done in a day, but for the past week, committee meetings have lasted only 20 minutes or have been cancelled. When there is an event, we do not resume the meeting later. Some votes will be held tomorrow, and I am convinced that the majority will decide to cancel the meeting, since there will be only one hour left.

Is that democracy? Victims are speaking out loud and clear, and it is not just individuals who are speaking out. Factual, concrete reports and situations also exist. What are the Liberals afraid of? I am really trying to contain myself right now.

I want to talk about an amendment the Liberals brought forward. It might put some people to sleep, but it is important. It states:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following:

17 (1) Subsection 165.17(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3) The Minister may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular prosecution.

...

The last point I read is the part that folks really need to pay attention to.

Let me explain what that means. The Liberals are changing something that was not even amended by the committee and that was not even discussed. Seriously, that is what is happening. Worse still, they are even proposing to give the minister the power to issue instructions regarding a particular prosecution. I do not understand the logic. I really need an explanation, and people need to talk to one another. In our democracy, we must negotiate and vote, even if the government has a majority.

I do not have much speaking time left, so I will conclude my speech.

The bill has been drafted and introduced with the express aim of putting an end to a system where people protect one another, where complaints are swept under the carpet, where victims do not feel heard, believed or respected. Is that what the government has heard from the victims? Has the government really listened to the victims? Has it read the reports by Louise Arbour and Morris Fish?

Once these questions have been answered, I can say that military culture will have to adapt to the 21st century. Military culture has to recognize that women are part of the forces. Yes, the military can accept them, but it has to adapt. It has to realize that women can be victimized. That means we have to avoid creating a justice system that tells them straight off, or at least, that gives them the impression, that the die is cast and the system is rigged.

I am thinking of all the female veterans I have met in my role as critic for veterans affairs. I see them. I hear them. I believe them.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of what I have been raising today is the holistic approach the Liberal government and our new Prime Minister have put into play. We have seen significant improvements in our Canadian Armed Forces, which include 2% of GDP, the military industry and the growth of that industry here in Canada, and the record number of people applying to become part of CAF.

We also have Bill C-11 before us, something that has been called upon for a long time. Before this, we had Bill C-66. The opposition has been saying that it has been pushing. I cannot recall Bloc members or Conservatives raising this issue, even a month ago, yet it has been here for a long time.

I wonder if the member would recognize the hard work of former justice Arbour.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everywhere we turn, we hear about investments or about “building Canada strong”, whether during elections or government announcements, while the veterans affairs budget has been cut by 15%. Do not try to tell me that the government sees them, hears them, believes them. The government definitely does not want to help veterans.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I was not personally involved, I would like to note the co-operation between our side of the House and the Bloc in getting amendments in based on the witness testimony.

As I have been following the debate today, the question I keep asking myself is this: Why? Why are the victims being ignored? Why is all the testimony being ignored, along with the amendments that the committee worked so hard to put through?

Could my colleague venture as to why the government is taking this route as opposed to following the hard work of the committee?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give the impression that they are listening, while silently thinking to themselves that they have a trick up their sleeve. They even said that we were traumatizing the people who came to give evidence all over again. I have heard that so many times. Then, when they realize that this sort of incident is not an isolated one, they have to keep it under wraps. What do they do? As they now have considerable powers, they cut short the proceedings, move on quickly, avoid discussion and turn a blind eye to what they have seen and heard.

I have hope. I hope they reverse course, because it is true that the Bloc Québécois and the official opposition have constructive and compassionate proposals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is doing some excellent work on these issues at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and who is studying a number of topics related to the ones I am studying at the Standing Committee on National Defence. Naturally, we often have overlapping areas of focus, and this is one of them.

In committee, many victims came to plead in favour of freedom of choice. It is important to note that one of the major proposals in this bill is that all cases, without exception, be transferred from military courts to civilian courts. We in the Bloc Québécois proposed a compromise that was adopted, but that amendment is now threatened by what the government is trying to do.

We were not even asking for complete freedom of choice, but we were saying that in some cases, if the civilian court felt that it would be better to leave a case with the military court, it could stay there. That does not seem like the end of the world to me. What does my colleague think about that?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate my colleague's work. Why is this not done on a case-by-case basis? Proposals are heard, a preliminary study is done, there is an assessment, and then a decision is made based on need and on what is proposed.

When we all agree and then they say that it is wrong, that we should forget about it, that is like telling the minister that he will have the right to do whatever he wants. Seriously, we are going to have to change that, and we are going to do it together.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a bill that means a great deal to me, a bill focused on issues that transcend partisan divides. Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a practical, structured and too long-awaited answer to realities that we can no longer ignore.

I am rising to speak to an issue that affects the public trust, the dignity of the women and men who bravely serve their country and the very integrity of our institutions: a profound and lasting cultural transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces.

For too long, members of the armed forces, especially but not exclusively women, have carried a silent burden. Courageous testimony has brought to light disturbing realities: sexual misconduct, abuse of power, a climate of fear and, at times, a sense of persistent impunity. This testimony is not an exception to the rule. It is the rule, and it points to a systemic problem.

Ad hoc solutions are not enough to address a systemic problem. What it takes is a profound, thoughtful, courageous and coherent transformation enshrined in law. That is exactly what Bill C‑11 proposes, supported by recommendation 5 of the Hon. Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice.

Bill C-11 proposes significant amendments to the National Defence Act. It aims to modernize a military justice system that, in some respects, has failed to keep pace with the changing values and expectations of Canadian society. Basically, it strengthens accountability, reinforces institutional independence and ensures compliance with the standards of fairness that Canadians expect.

As introduced, Bill C-11 removes the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual assault offences and gives that jurisdiction to civilian authorities. This is not a new approach. It is in keeping with the interim directive adopted in December 2021 based on Justice Arbour's interim recommendation. Since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been shifted to the civilian justice system. The directive has proven its worth. Bill C-11 enshrines it in law and makes it permanent.

Any attempt to undermine or undo the progress made over the past five years would constitute an unacceptable step backwards and a direct affront to the victims and survivors who have had the courage to speak out. The Liberal government has chosen to take action, not with symbolic gestures, but with a clear and measurable commitment to bring about lasting change. This has resulted in the strengthening of independent report mechanisms, improved support for victims, greater transparency in disciplinary processes and a renewed commitment to accountability.

Let us be clear, however, that changing an institutional culture cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires time, consistency, and above all the political courage to challenge structures deeply rooted in an institution's history—in this case, the military. It is in this context that Justice Arbour's report marked a turning point. This report did not merely identify the flaws, it charted a course forward, a demanding but necessary one. Among its recommendations, recommendation five stands out for its scope and the clarity of the message it sends to all of Canadian society.

Some might wonder why the transfer to civilian courts is so fundamental. The answer is simple, but it touches on the very essence of what we mean by justice. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done independently and impartially. However, in a system where the chain of command plays a central role in every aspect of a service member's professional life, there exists a structural perception of a conflict of interest whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not. For a victim, this perception alone may be enough to discourage any reporting.

Imagine what it is like for someone who has to report an assault in a context where their career, performance reviews and professional future depend directly or indirectly on the very organization that is handling their complaint. This is not just a procedural matter. It is a matter of fundamental trust, and without trust, there can be no justice.

By transferring these cases to the civilian system, we are introducing a crucial institutional distance and ensuring genuine independence, which strengthens the credibility of the process and sends a clear message to victims that their voices matter, their safety is a priority and their cases will be handled with all the rigour and impartiality they deserve. To those who cite the unique nature of the military context as a reason to maintain internal jurisdiction, I would say that, when it comes to serious criminal offences, especially sexual offences, the highest standards of independence and expertise must prevail. The civilian system has these capabilities. It has the necessary resources and specialized training, and, above all, it has the experience required to handle these cases with the sensitivity and rigour they require.

A strong chain of command is not about absolute control. It is about trust. Trust is built on justice, actual justice and perceived justice. Transparency is also important for building trust. Above all, responsibility and accountability are essential.

Enshrining recommendation five in law does not weaken our military institutions; it strengthens them. It recognizes that certain functions need to be performed outside the chain of command to ensure their integrity. Integrity is the very foundation of any trustworthy institution. I will even repeat that statement by saying that integrity is the sine qua non of any trustworthy institution. A strong military is not only defined by its ability to defend our borders; it is also defined by the respect it affords to each and every one of its members. It is also defined by its ability and, above all, its willingness to evolve.

In conclusion, refusing to change means accepting that the same injustices will persist. We have a collective responsibility here to reject that. Today, we have a real opportunity, an opportunity to transcend partisan lines, an opportunity to turn our commitments into action, an opportunity to send a clear message that dignity, security and justice are non-negotiable. Behind every reform are individuals, women and men who have chosen to serve this country with courage and dedication. They deserve more than our gratitude. They deserve a safe environment, a fair system and an institution that reflects the values they uphold. That is precisely what we have a responsibility to build here.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite understands neither the bill nor military chain of command. Removing the committee's amendments, ignoring overwhelming evidence of the experts and MST survivors and, even worse, adding amendments without going to committee is not democracy, transparency or collaboration.

The significant majority of military sexual misconduct cases will not meet the threshold of civilian jurisdiction, and of the cases that do meet the threshold, the civilian justice system has testified that it has the capacity to deal with only a fraction of them. Knowing that, what is the Liberals' plan to prosecute these cases and bring justice in the majority of them? Are they just going to give a free pass to predators?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not share my point of view, and our understanding of the matter differs, as he pointed out. I would like to thank him for that.

In this matter, what we are saying is that someone in the same chain of command could harm a complainant's career. We want to maintain that independence. We want to give that freedom to the person who wishes to file a complaint. We want the person to have that freedom, that comfort and that peace of mind once the complaint is filed.

We are always open to suggestions, but as I said, we do not necessarily share the same understanding on both sides.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about intentions. We agreed on the intentions behind the bill. I would remind everyone that we voted to refer the bill to committee. That meant we were also listening to the victims.

I agree with what my colleague said in support of the civilian courts. He praised their expertise, and I agree 100%. That said, it is possible that, in light of that very expertise, the civilian courts may consider that in certain specific cases it would be better for matters to remain within the military sphere. Our amendment allowed for this, but the Liberals' Motion No. 5 will remove that possibility.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand my colleague's point, but the fact remains that we do not want to remove that possibility. Once again, there is a difference in understanding on both sides of the House. I can simply say that the civilian courts have the skills, understanding and experience in this regard. Furthermore, once again, we want to work with all parties on all sides to ensure that complainants are given every opportunity to make a complaint.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague in regard to the significance of the legislation.

In Justice Arbour's report, there were 48 recommendations. I believe we have implemented 36 of those recommendations, or possibly more. The essence of this legislation would be to implement the core of what Justice Arbour was asking us to do: transfer jurisdiction to the civilian process. She consulted, listened to and worked with, directly and indirectly, well over 1,000 people, I suspect. Many of them were direct victims.

We need to be respectful of the legislation that is before us, and ultimately pass it.

Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why it was important not only to receive the report from Justice Arbour but also to follow through with it? That is exactly what the legislation would do.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. What we presented today is completely in line with Justice Arbour's recommendations and the testimony we heard in committee.

Once again, we are a responsible government. We are a government that wants to make room for anyone who wants to file a complaint. We are a government that believes every member of the military should receive equal justice for themselves and everyone who works with them and where every member should also feel that justice to be equal.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues. It is always a pleasure to be here in the House to speak on behalf of the good people of Calgary Midnapore.

The people of Calgary Midnapore, of course, reside in the wonderful province of Alberta, and I am going to start my speech today with great words that came out of a campaign in Alberta in the year 2015. Those words are “I believe you”. This was a campaign created in 2015 by the Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services to support victims of sexual assault.

When someone comes forward and claims that they are a victim of sexual assault, there should be no other response than “I believe you”, yet 97% of sexual assaults go unreported. That means 97% of persons who have been the victims of sexual assault do not have the courage to come forward to tell someone their story, what happened to them, because they are unsure that they will hear the words “I believe you”. This is the one line that a survivor of sexual assault needs to hear.

What we are hearing today from the government, what it is saying to victims of sexual assault, is that it does not believe them. The Liberals need to say to these victims that they believe them. This was the crux of this incredible campaign that came out of Alberta: “I believe you”.

Of course, Conservatives are proud of and support all of our men and women in uniform, who serve Canada. We believe that we must continue to address sexual misconduct, as well as discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment, because all military members deserve to have a safe and respectful workplace. The greatest way we can do that today is by saying that, regarding Bill C-11, “I believe you”, that we believe them, that the House believes them.

The previous Conservative government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment in the CAF, but after 11 long years of Liberal government and two more reports from Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly. The Liberals' only idea on military sexual misconduct is to force those cases into the overburdened and even slower civilian justice system without providing resources to local police forces or provincial courts to deal with military cases.

When victims of sexual assault hear that these processes are being delayed, that they are being pushed off by the federal government, what they are hearing is that the government does not believe them. What these victims need to hear is “I believe you”.

The Liberals are trying to do what is politically expedient. They want to punt this off to the provinces and municipalities by pushing sexual assault cases off their table and into an already overburdened civilian police and court system. We have seen this time and time again.

I think of a great example in my incredible riding of Calgary Midnapore, which is cell phone towers. Constituents are very concerned every time another cell phone tower goes up. They create a petition that they bring it to my attention, and I forward it to the Minister of Industry. I say that my constituents are very concerned about these cell phone towers, about the impacts that they will have on their safety and well-being. What the minister does is punt it off to the municipal level of government. She puts off making a decision and taking responsibility for the actions of the government, particularly on an issue that is so relevant to the health and well-being of Canadians, certainly as much as the issue being discussed here today is.

However, this is what Liberals do. They deflect responsibility. They try to muddy the waters by not taking jurisdiction of the decision. Instead, they try to defuse the decision-making process to avoid the responsibility. That is what we are seeing here today.

Instead of listening to the legal experts and increasing independence in the military justice system, the Liberals want to ensure that they can politically interfere with ministerial directives and ensure that the director of defence counsel services, the director of military prosecutions and the provost marshal general stay under the thumb of the chain of command of the chief. That is what we are seeing. It is essentially the Minister of Defence saying, “I don't believe you”.

Conservatives carefully studied Bill C-11 to ensure concerns from all stakeholders were taken into consideration. We are proud of the progress we made at the Standing Committee on National Defence to improve Bill C-11 and to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors were heard and considered in the studying and amending of this legislation, but most of the witnesses at the committee are asking that victims of military sexual assault be given the choice of what justice system they make their report to. Is that not the very least that we can do for these victims, these individuals who have received the greatest offence a person can possibly go through, to have their person violated? The very least we can do is give them power in the decision to decide how this abuse of trust would be handled, but the government is not willing to do that. The Liberals are essentially saying, “I don't believe you”.

The brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have put in the work for decades to ensure that no one else has to experience what they went through. It is time for all of us to stand up, be allies to them and say, “I believe you”. We need to do what we know is the right thing for the next generation, for both our sons and our daughters, not only for those serving in the CAF, but across Canada. As the mother of a son, I will tell members that my husband and I have had this conversation with him. We hope he will carry it forward with him in all the decisions he makes.

Removing victim choice on how to report sexual offences does nothing to solve the problem. It only deepens it. After 11 long years, the Liberals are, once again, letting down the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces by saying, “We don't believe you”. If Parliament is serious about doing all it can to support those who serve, then all members of Parliament must retain the ability for military victims to choose which reporting path is the safest, most credible and most operationally workable for them, regardless of where they are in Canada. We need to speak with one voice as a House and say this to them: “We believe you. We recognize what you have been through, and we honour you by giving you the choice with how you are going to deal with this violation that has occurred to you. We believe you.”

In closing, I want to share another incredible story about Alberta, and it is the #NotInMyCity campaign, which was created to deal with the horrific problem of human trafficking. We have seen the incredible ambassador Paul Brandt and heard his message in his song Alberta Bound. Extending beyond musical capabilities, as he and his wife are true songbirds, they advocate for those who are the victims of human trafficking.

We should say each and every day, not only in my great province of Alberta, but also across Canada and in this chamber, “We believe you” and “I believe you”. Members of CAF should be given the opportunity to make their decisions as such.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the federal government wanting to punt its responsibility off to the provinces. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is that the motivating factor behind us doing this in the first place was to deal with the harassment, in all forms, and sexual violence that was taking place in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is the reason why former Justice Arbour was brought in. That is the reason why 48 recommendations were made. One of them, the 40th recommendation, talked about transferring to the civil process as opposed to the military process. That is the essence of the legislation.

Listening to survivors is important. I wonder if the member might want to revisit the history.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to listen to this member talk about harassment when he sits with ministers who have been not only accused but also found guilty of harassment. That is disgraceful. I do not like to be lectured by a member of a party whose ministers have been found guilty of harassment.

I will mention a quote: “Arbour's knowledge of international law is as questionable as her understanding of morality”. That is a direct quote from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a well-regarded international jurist. He said this in 2006.

The member should think about who he is referring to as an example.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to our colleague earlier, and I wonder if the government's rejection of the amendments is not, in part, an attempt to avoid upsetting the military hierarchy too much. Among the amendments, there was one that sought to create an inspector general's office dedicated to addressing sexual misconduct within the military. There was also an amendment calling for veterans to be eligible to be appointed as judges and for military judges to be able to leave the armed forces.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP worked hard with Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to move this bill forward. I am pleased to see that the members of the Bloc Québécois are still keen to try to achieve the goal of Bill C-11. Unfortunately, I understand that we have lost the NDP member, who decided to join the Liberals.

The Conservative MPs and I agree on most of the ideas for moving Bill C-11 forward, and that includes the amendments.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my hon. colleague an opportunity to put a fine point on this powerful message that she has communicated with respect to communicating “I believe you” to victims, and how choice is so important to empower them in these situations, as it relates to this legislation. I want to give her that opportunity because it is such a powerful point.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before doing the “I believe you” campaign, the researchers talked to numerous victims of the most heinous crime a person can receive, to be violated as a person. What the researchers were told, time and time again, was that the victims just wanted to hear someone say, “I believe you”.

Right now, the Liberal government is not saying “I believe you” to the victims of sexual assault, and that needs to change. It starts with Bill C-11.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is an important one. I was reflecting, as I was preparing my comments, on the new Liberal majority. I thank the members of Parliament who double-crossed the voters who elected them one year ago. We are in a situation now where the Liberals have their cherished majority government.

I was thinking of this new age, and I had a flashback of when I was in grade 3 and living on a small military base in north Vancouver Island called Holberg. I was a proud member of Gary's Singing Worms. There was a song we sang. You are probably too young to remember it, Mr. Speaker. It was called The Age of Aquarius. It was a hit in the Broadway production Hair. Some of us have been losing our hair in the meantime.

I will not sing the song. Some members might know the words, but I will refresh everyone's memory. It came out in 1969, the “flower power” era of love and peace. Some of the words are as follows:

This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
Age of Aquarius
Aquarius
Aquarius
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derision
Golden living dreams of visions

I have some words that could very well have been penned by the Liberal Prime Minister. They have the same tune:

This is the dawning of the Age of Majority,
Our Majority, Liberal Majority
Harmony? We can stop pretending
Questions asked will be met with no bending
More secrecy and more derision
One-Party rule with tunnel vision

Committees bring recommendations
We Liberals will ignore consultations
No more listening or debate
Just whipped votes, no need to wait
Lovely Majority, Liberal Majority

I am surprised that my Liberal colleagues are not clapping at that.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have moved into a new realm of secrecy and of control. The Liberal member is sighing, as if it were not true, but he knows it is true.

What was the first thing the Liberals did when they got their majority last week? They moved several committees in camera, into secrecy, and shut down debate on things that are uncomfortable for them. Even the Liberal media organ, the CBC, now that the Liberals are established, is perplexed and critical of this move and says this is sending the wrong message.

We are seeing the same attitude in the Liberals' imposing closure on debate on this important bill. They have shown their true colours toward victims of sexual harassment in the military with how they have pushed through and are pushing through Bill C-11 without the amendments that were passed at committee. That is very unfortunate. It really boils down to control and secrecy, and we will talk a bit more about that.

This debate should not be about procedure. It must not be about politics. It must be about the survivors. It must be about veterans and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces who came before the Standing Committee on National Defence and did something extraordinarily brave. They relived some of the most painful moments of their lives, publicly and on record, because they believed that Parliament was finally prepared to listen.

Let us imagine someone's testifying about one of the worst experiences of their life and then having the government refuse to listen to their voice. They testified about sexual assault. They testified about betrayal by institutions they trusted. They testified about being silenced. Above all, they testified about choice: the right to choose which justice, military or civilian, would be most effective and where they could see justice served.

Therefore, I ask the House this: Why is the government now moving to shut down debate on Bill C-11 before those concerns are fully and honestly addressed? The government tells Canadians that the bill is about supporting victims and restoring trust. If that is true, why are the ministers afraid of scrutiny? Why impose time allocation on legislation that would directly affect survivors of military sexual trauma?

If the government is confident that the bill reflects what survivors want and need, then let Parliament test that. Let the arguments be heard. Let victims know that their voices matter, not just at committee but also here in the House, where laws are made.

This is about choice. People asked for a system that treats them with dignity, not suspicion. At committee, we listened. Conservatives worked constructively across party lines, with colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP, to improve Bill C-11. Together we brought forward amendments rooted directly in witness testimony, especially the nearly universal request that the victims of military sexual assault be able to choose which justice system they report to. That is what collaboration looks like. That is what respect for survivors looks like.

However, that stands in stark contrast to the Liberal government's approach. For months, the bill has sat idle. The government did not act. It did not engage meaningfully with victims. Then, only after securing a political procedural advantage, the government moved to rush the bill through and undo the very amendments survivors had fought for.

This is not leadership. This is political expediency. I can understand why the Liberals are this way, because they have gotten in a lot of trouble around the issue of sexual harassment in the military. I think of Harjit Sajjan. He was censured publicly at the House of Commons in 2021 around the issue of the cover-up of sexual harassment. This is a shame.

What are the Liberals doing? There is an expression for that.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The more it changes, the more it is the same. It is the same old, same old. Actually, it is not the same old, same old. It is getting worse. The Liberals would now give the minister the power to intervene and have his way. This would be superseding justice. That is not good, because it is political expedience and political cover-up. This is not what Canadians need, and it is not what the members of the armed forces need. It is a shame.

Instead of increasing the independence of military prosecutors, defence counsel and the provost marshal, the minister would ensure that these roles would remain under political and institutional control. This would do nothing to prevent sexual misconduct. It would deepen the mistrust.

There is an expression by former British prime minister William Gladstone in which he said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Gladstone was a prime minister of the U.K. at the time of the Confederation of Canada, the 1860s. It basically says that if legal remedy comes too late, it means that people are getting no justice at all. That is what is happening. The Liberals would be putting the cases into the civilian courts, but the courts are already clogged up.

I was at a home show in Maple Ridge over the weekend and talked to hundreds of people, including police officers and people in justice. They were telling me that people are being arrested and the prosecutors are not moving the cases forward because the courts are jammed full. It is taking so long that they are releasing people. This is what the Liberals' solution is: just to put the matter through into a jammed-up system where they can bury it and protect themselves. This is about self-protection and self-preservation. Shame on them.

Let us get a bill that really reflects what has been brought forward by the witnesses, to protect and help our armed forces and those who have suffered sexual assault.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that happened last week when the majority of seats came to the Liberal Party was that, in collaboration, we passed a Conservative motion.

Today we have before us a very important piece of legislation that would transfer files from the military justice system into the civilian justice system, which is a reflection of a report that was provided to the government a while ago. The report made it clear that this is what was being requested by an incredible individual.

Based on the member's comments, does he support at all having the civilian process deal with military sexual abuse files?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we support choice for the victims in where they can see the quickest route to justice. Right now the civilian system is really clogged up. What we believe in is choice, not just for victims in Canada but also internationally in the military.

You made reference to the report. You mentioned a few times Madam Arbour—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member. He cannot speak directly to another member. He has to speak through the Chair.

I invite the member to complete his comments.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a rookie error, but I am not a rookie.

Madam Arbour was asked to come to committee to testify. She did not come to committee. We wanted her to respond to the reports, to witnesses and to other reports that have also been done, the Deschamps report and the Fish report. She would not respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who provided a very good outline of the situation, describing a government that was not supposed to have a majority, but that has managed to build one anyway, a government that is demonstrating its utter arrogance, particularly by reversing amendments that were adopted by a majority of committee members. The composition in place at the time was a majority of opposition party members in the House and in committee, as democracy had intended. That was before some members crossed the floor.

Now, on top of all that, the Liberals lost their vote, but now that they have a majority, they are trying to reverse that vote with these amendments, in addition to imposing closure on us. They have been telling us all along that they are open to discussing things with others, but now they are imposing closure.

Does my colleague not find it outrageous that, on top of everything else, the icing on the cake is a closure motion on a subject as sensitive as this one?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. What the Liberals are doing in such a serious matter is appalling. To protect their own interests, they are putting their politics ahead of the pain of victims and respect for justice. What they are doing is really terrible.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interesting speech. He made a lot of historical references. When he talked about the Aquarius song from the 1970s, however, I must confess that I tend to associate Aquarius with the name of the Apollo 13 lunar module from April 1971, which saved the lives of the three astronauts on that mission.

Let me be more serious about this and talk about ethics. The member raised a lot of issues about ethics. This is very difficult, because we are talking about the new government, which is now a majority because of the people who crossed the floor.

Is the member surprised to see that, when the Liberal Party first appointed new committee members, it appointed a floor crosser to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics?

What was the member's reaction when he noticed that, with the ethics committee, we were talking about someone who crossed the floor?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was meant as provocation. They put the floor crossers right next to the Prime Minister. We see the people who have crossed the floor. It seems as though the Liberals are showing off their trophies. The floor crossers have no shame, just like the Liberals.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of the people of Cambridge, with a deep sense of responsibility to those who have served and those who continue to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. These are men and women who have committed their lives to protecting our freedom and preserving peace, often at great personal cost. When they raise their right hand to serve our country, they deserve to know that Canada will protect them in return, not only on the battlefield but within the very institutions they trust for support, justice and dignity.

We are here to debate Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. This is legislation that speaks to a serious responsibility: how we address sexual misconduct in the military and support those who come forward.

At the Standing Committee on National Defence, Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP worked constructively across party lines, guided by the testimony they heard and by a shared understanding that we needed to get this right for survivors. At the core of this issue is a principle that should unite us all. Every victim of sexual violence deserves justice, safety and dignity. They deserve a system that works for them, not against them.

I also want to speak directly to the survivors who came forward and shared their experiences with this Parliament. They did not have to do that. They did not owe us their stories, their pain or their trust. They came because they believed that if Parliament truly listened, change was still possible, and that trust matters, and it carries an obligation in all of us.

That is why Conservatives have remained focused on standing with survivors of military sexual trauma and why we believe meaningful reform must begin by listening to those with lived experience. Unfortunately, the government has not demonstrated that same willingness to listen. The Minister of National Defence acknowledged at committee that he did not personally consult victims in developing this legislation. Instead, the government has relied on external reports, without ensuring that those perspectives were fully tested through the legislative process.

The Liberals delayed this bill and are now moving to advance it in a way that risks undoing the very improvements that were made at committee. That approach raises serious concerns about whether the final legislation will truly reflect the needs of those it is intended to support. At the same time, key witnesses made it clear that removing choice would have real consequences.

What survivors asked for was not privilege or special treatment. They asked for one thing: choice. They asked for the ability to decide which system they felt safest engaging with, which process they understood and which path would allow them to be heard with dignity and respect. Survivors spoke about access: access to language, to support systems and to processes they understand. They spoke about trust and how critical it is in determining whether they feel safe coming forward at all.

The government's approach in Bill C-11 is to move cases of sexual assault into the civilian justice system. While that may be appropriate in some circumstances, it cannot be the only path forward, particularly given the current pressures facing that system. Across Canada, civilian courts are dealing with significant backlogs. Delays have significant impacts. They are a reality that affects victims. When cases are delayed beyond acceptable timelines, they risk being dismissed. We have seen this happen. Cases are not always resolved on their merits. Instead, they can be halted because the system cannot meet the timelines required. For victims, that is not just frustrating but devastating. However, the government's proposal would add further pressure to that already strained system without providing a clear plan for additional resources or capacity.

That raises a fundamental question: How does this improve access to justice?

Witnesses also warned us that that this is not an imaginary concern. We heard evidence about capacity on the ground. In one study examining cases at CFB Esquimalt, hundreds of incidents were reviewed, yet only a small number met the threshold for referral into the civilian system. Even then, prosecutors indicated they had the capacity to proceed with only a handful of cases each year. That reality matters, because when capacity does not match policy, the result is not more justice. It is fewer cases moving forward and fewer perpetrators held to account.

When policy ignores those realities, the impact is not abstract. It risks retraumatizing those who have already been harmed and reinforces the very institutional barriers survivors have told us keeps them silent. Several witnesses cautioned against exactly this approach. They warned that removing the military's role entirely could reduce accountability, weaken discipline and, ultimately, fail to deliver justice to survivors. Others pointed to the importance of maintaining concurrent jurisdiction, allowing both systems to operate and victims to choose the path that best supports them. That is the balance that was reflected in the amendments brought forward at committee. It is also important to recognize that the Canadian Armed Forces has taken steps in recent years to improve how these cases are handled within the military system. Those efforts are not perfect, but they should not be dismissed outright. Reform should build on progress, not disregard it.

Meaningful reform must also be about culture change. Survivors have told us clearly that systems that remove choice or create dead ends can reinforce institutional trauma rather than reduce it. The Arbour review played an important role in advancing this conversation, but it was written before key changes were fully implemented, including the removal of the duty to report and the strengthening of survivor-centric support mechanisms. It should not be used as a static justification for reversing progress that is still taking hold. If reform undermines trust or reduces the likelihood that cases proceed at all, then we are not fixing the system. We are weakening it. This is not about choosing one system over another. It is about recognizing that both systems have a role to play and that victims deserve the autonomy to decide which is right for them. Removing that choice does not simplify the process. It limits it.

Addressing sexual misconduct in the military is not a simple task and no single reform will solve it entirely, but we do know that progress requires more than good intentions. It requires listening, collaboration and a willingness to incorporate the perspectives of those most affected. That is why the work done at committee is so very important. Conservatives are proud of the progress that was made alongside colleagues from other parties to improve this bill. The amendments that were brought forward were not partisan. They were grounded in the testimony of witnesses and the practical realities of the systems involved.

Our position is clear. Support for this legislation must be tied to maintaining those improvements, particularly the principle that victims should have the autonomy to choose the system that best meets their needs.

More broadly, Canadians expect us to ensure that both military and civilian justice systems are equipped to handle these cases effectively. That means not only determining where cases are heard, but also ensuring that whichever system is used has the capacity, resources and structure to deliver timely and fair outcomes.

The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces serve this country with professionalism and dedication. They deserve to work in an environment that is safe, respectful and accountable. Survivors of sexual misconduct within the military have spent years advocating for change. Many have done so at great personal cost, with the hope that future generations will not face these same challenges. Survivors did not come to Parliament as partisans. They came as human beings asking to be heard. Respecting that courage requires more than sympathy; it requires that we act in a way that honours what they told us.

If this Parliament is serious about supporting those who serve, then we must ensure that Bill C-11 reflects what we have heard: Victims deserve to be listened to, they deserve timely access to justice and they deserve the autonomy to make decisions about how their cases proceed. That is the standard we should be striving for as members of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem saying that is the standard the government has been hoping to achieve. It was not just one recommendation from the former chief justice. There were 48 recommendations to deal with a very serious issue. I believe over three dozen have been implemented, and this is one that is absolutely critical. I reflect on the fact that an incredible Canadian presented a report based on a lot of consulting, working with victims and CAF members in many different capacities and coming up with this recommendation that Bill C-11 supports.

Can the member tell us when it was that the Conservative Party changed its position on transferring cases to the civilian court only?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, choice is putting the empowerment back in the hands of the victims. At the heart of the bill is a very simple issue, choice for victims. Survivors who appeared before the committee were clear: They want the ability to decide whether their case proceeds to the military justice system or to the civilian justice system, based on where they feel safest, best supported and most likely to be heard.

The approach that came forward respected that by allowing both systems to continue to play a role, rather than forcing survivors down a single path. What the government is now proposing would remove that choice by shifting everything to the civilian system. That just undermines the trust from the very people we are asking to come forward. We need to get it right, not just get it done quickly.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cambridge for her concern because she began and ended her speech by talking about those who served, those who came away with trauma or physical effects, those who need help. We heard from some of these individuals in committee.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether she thinks that there will be political repercussions for the government because the Liberals have ignored the voices of those who were represented in committee by members of the opposition. Some of the opposition members' proposals were even adopted by the government only to be rejected in the end. What message does this send to the people who have served the country?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments that were proposed at committee reflected what the survivors were saying. We need to respect their voices and ensure that those who serve are protected, the same way we expect them to protect us during wars. Conservatives will always stand up in support of this choice. It is the victims who can decide where they would like their case to be heard, not the government.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear for anyone to see that the government has engaged in the neglect of duty on this file and others.

What message is this debate sending to the victims who have already come forward and are watching this show? What message does it send to future soldiers, sailors and airmen and their families, who are probably wondering whether, if they are ever victims, they will be taken seriously and their complaint will be heard properly?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an important one. What I keep coming back to, and what should matter to all of us, is what veterans and survivors have been telling us. Some had the courage to appear before committee, which is hard enough to do on its own. Others have shared their experiences in different ways. In every case, they did so because they believed their voices would matter here. We cannot acknowledge those voices and then move forward in a way that leaves people feeling their input was heard politely and then set aside. That sends the wrong message, especially to the veterans and survivors who already struggle with whether it is safe to come forward at all.

Respect means more than listening once. It means taking seriously what they said, especially about trust, choice and feeling safe in the process. If we want people to keep coming forward, we must show that what they shared actually matters in the decisions we make here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the party opposite has the same person ask the same question. They are dogmatically hanging on the Arbour report, whether it be in the House or in committee or in debate, while overwhelmingly ignoring the plethora of evidence and reports.

Maybe the member could speak briefly about why they are ignoring this so much and hanging on one dated report.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to determine what is going on here, since the government now has its manufactured majority.

The Arbour report has been an important part of this discussion, but it should not be treated as the final word. Madam Justice Arbour was invited to appear before committee so members could ask questions and examine her recommendations in light of today's reality, but that did not happen. Since then, the director of military prosecutions has told the committee that the military has adjusted and is prepared to handle these cases. Reform has to reflect where the system is today and not where it was many years ago.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 was supposed to improve how justice works inside the Canadian Armed Forces. There have been serious and persistent concerns that misconduct, especially sexual misconduct, has not been handled fairly or independently in our military. The government dragged its feet for years. There were three reports done on this matter over a period of seven years. Finally, with the tabling of this bill, the government appeared to be addressing these issues. The initial draft of the bill proposed to move serious cases, including sexual assault, into the civilian courts. Many expected this move to be welcomed and to be seen as a serious step toward better accountability and stronger protection for victims.

The committee system in the House of Commons is designed to allow members of Parliament to examine legislation in depth. Committees act as the engine room of this place, and every so often we find out in our committees that we were wrong. That is what happened with this bill, because it turns out that our military did not wait for government to act. In the years between the release of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, our military implemented mandatory duties to report. It trained the chain of command, military police and health care providers. It implemented a victims rights charter and provided access to independent legal supports and access to victims liaison services.

The military has not solved all of the problems, but it took some pretty big steps forward that make military tribunals the forum of choice for some victims. An incredible, and very credible, group of witnesses came to the defence committee hearings on this bill and told us so. In response, Conservative members of the defence committee worked with members from all opposition parties to improve the bill to respond to the reasonable proposals by survivors and experts that military sexual assault victims be allowed to play a role in determining whether their cases would be investigated and heard in civilian or military courts. They asked for choice, and the committee worked to embed that choice into the bill.

Then, a few days ago, the Minister of National Defence tabled amendments to the bill at the report stage that ignored that advice, dismissed the testimony heard over weeks at committee and effectively restored much of the original drafting.

When I last rose to speak to this bill, I tried to drive home the point that this debate is about more than just legislation. It is about trust. It is about whether those who don a Canadian military uniform and serve this country can trust that the system will protect them, can trust it to be fair and can trust it to deliver just outcomes.

Yesterday I spoke at a ceremony in my community commemorating the 81st anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. We had more than 50 air and sea cadets participate, more than 50 young souls who are the future of our military, souls whom Canada may yet send off to war. The cadets were excellent. They participated in the colour guard, they stood sentry at the cenotaph, and they helped dignitaries lay wreaths. One played the Last Post and Lament on her bugle, another read the prayer for the air force, and another read the roll call of ships lost, while yet another rang the bell. It was beautiful and inspiring, and our community is so very proud of them.

Today, as we debate this bill at report stage, the question of whether those cadets and the many others who serve our country can trust the system still hangs over this chamber. Have we earned that trust? If the answer depends on this version of Bill C-11, it is unfortunately a resounding no. Members of the House worked in good faith across party lines to improve the bill, and we stand by the wisdom of the committee with respect to choice for survivors of sexual assault in the military.

My support for the bill is contingent on the Liberal government upholding not only the amendments made by Conservatives at the defence committee but also those made by the other parties, including the member of that committee who has since crossed the floor to join the Liberals. Will she now vote against her own amendments and those she supported?

The Liberals have chosen to use their new majority in this House to undo the work of this committee. They have chosen to double down on what we now understand to be a poor choice to push sexual assault cases onto an already overburdened civilian police and court system without providing the resources that local police forces and provincial courts need to deal with military cases. Instead of listening to the experts and increasing the independence of the military justice system, the defence minister wants to preserve his ability to interfere with ministerial directives to ensure that the director of military defence counsel services, the director of military prosecutions and the provost marshal general stay under the thumb of the chain of command.

These decisions are all ill-advised and would do nothing to improve conditions in our military at a time when our military needs our support. If there is even a perception that decisions can be influenced by the chain of command or by political considerations, confidence in the military justice system will remain fragile.

My hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who served our country faithfully as a navy commander, spoke to that human cost in a way that should stay with all of us. He reminded us that behind every policy gap and every delay there is a person, someone who stepped forward to serve, who put on a uniform and who deserves better from their country. Every time the government fails to protect victims, it means another member of the Canadian Armed Forces is left wondering whether it is worth coming forward. It means another survivor is weighing the risk of speaking out against the likelihood of being ignored. It means another erosion of confidence in an institution that Canadians should be able to believe in without hesitation.

The Minister of National Defence admitted at committee that he did not consult victims himself. He admitted that he did not consult with Justices Arbour, Fish or Deschamps on this file. He admitted that he did not consult provincial justice ministers or provincial or municipal police officers in the more than a year since this chamber considered Bill C-66, the predecessor to this bill. This reflects a disturbing trend that we see through the Liberal approach to our justice system, where government legislation seems to consistently prefer the accused over victims. It also reflects the approach that the government took to Bill C-3 at report stage, when it again used its relationships in this House to undo the work of committee.

In the context of the way that our military has progressed these issues, the request by witnesses for choice in deciding whether to engage the civilian justice system or the military tribunal system makes sense, because in some cases the military system will have conflicts of interest or other issues created by proximity or relationships. In other circumstances, the civilian justice system just would not have enough people with the lived experiences to be able to deal with the facts of a particular case when situated within military culture.

In one case, a witness at committee testified that, as a francophone, she would like to be able to choose the military pathway to ensure that she would be able to have access to services and proceedings in French rather than having to follow proceedings in English, as she would have to do through the serendipities of locations should she find herself serving in an anglophone province.

If cases are going to move to civilian courts, there is work to be done up front with the provinces to make sure they can absorb these cases. If the federal government simply moves these cases by fiat, without ensuring that the system is ready, we risk serious failure, the kind of delay that increases the risk that cases collapse before they are heard and further frustrates those seeking justice.

Canadians have heard promises from the government before. They have seen announcements and commitments, but too often they have not seen results. My hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has been persistent in pressing this point.

This is not an abstract policy debate. It is about real people and their real pain. The government has a choice to make, and my vote hinges on the balance with that choice.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was at the commemoration of the Battle of the Atlantic over the weekend, at HMCS Star, speaking to the commander about the generational investments our government is making in the military, increasing recruiting, and seeing the youth, the recruits, the men and women in the reserves and the veterans.

This bill is all about supporting those in the military and ensuring that the victims are supported and trusted. Justice Arbour's recommendations mentioned civilian courts. Could the member expand on what more needs to be done at the provincial level to make sure that prosecutions done at the provincial level are successful?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for his desire to support the military.

As he was in committee, he would have heard that people in the military need this choice in order to be supported. While Madam Justice Arbour's recommendations were right for the time at which they were made, the government took so long to act that there are better ways to address this.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague spoke about the work we managed to achieve in committee. This showed that, given that this is a minority government—since it was elected a year ago as a minority rather than a majority government—we were able to get things done.

I am the Bloc Québécois MP who sits on this committee. I worked extensively with my Conservative colleagues on this issue, as well as with my colleague from the NDP, who is no longer with the NDP but who used to come and see us and nevertheless proposed motions similar to those we eventually adopted.

What does my colleague think of the fact that this legacy is now under threat from a government that is no longer a minority government, but that claimed it would collaborate? I would point out that, as we speak, this bill is being considered under time allocation.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question.

This is something that I really struggle with, because we face allegations from our colleagues across the way every day in the House, that we are obstructionist or that we are standing in the way. Yet, this bill offers a phenomenal opportunity for members of all parties to work together to listen to Canadians to make a bill better.

It hurts my heart that Liberals would use their majority in this way, quite frankly, to strip this House of the good work that was done at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her very strong speech, and for taking the time to actually review the testimony that we heard in committee and using that in her debate today on Bill C-11 now that we have closure on it.

The Liberals continually use the Arbour report as their shield and explanation for why they are plowing ahead with these changes, which military justice experts and veterans are saying they do not want. The interesting fact is that the committee heard from the very survivors of military sexual trauma, who also talked to Justice Arbour. It was discovered that over the last five years, since they brought choice into the system and things were moved to the civilian system, they were not receiving justice because of the Jordan framework and the higher thresholds to prosecute.

At the end of the day, there was no accountability in the chain of command. Could my colleague please comment on that, as well?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege, before I was elected to this place, of being able to work with Madam Justice Arbour for a year when I worked at the ICTY in The Hague. I know the kind of work that she does. There is no doubt in my mind that the work she did and the report she provided allowed our military to make progress with respect to the issues that are addressed in this bill.

I only wish that the defence minister had taken the time to listen to people the way that Madam Justice Arbour does, and possibly to consult with her so that we could have avoided the mistakes that were made with this bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my speech today by sharing with members that before coming to the House a few minutes ago, I was at a screening on the Hill of the documentary film Traces, which is about the issue of conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine. It is a great honour to have with us, on the Hill, the director of that film, who shared directly with us about her own experience of being a victim of conflict-related sexual violence and the work she has done on this film. It is important for the House to know and to reflect on the fact that, as part of the ongoing illegal, genocidal invasion of Ukraine, we are seeing the systematic use of sexual violence as a tool by the invaders for terror. It should underline our knowledge of the horrific nature of this invasion and the need for ongoing Canadian support for the Ukrainian people.

We have before us today Bill C-11, which would make changes to the military justice system in this country. Fundamentally, what we are seeing in debate at this stage of the bill is the tragic implications of the Liberals seizing an undemocratic majority, and what they are doing with that majority to undermine the important collaborative cross-party work that was done on legislation in this chamber prior to the seizure of that undemocratic majority.

This is a bill about a sombre, serious subject: protecting victims, or trying to protect victims, of sexual violence. It is an issue on which parties should be able to work together. From what I understand, and I am not a member of that committee, work happened at committee on the bill, bringing together people from different party backgrounds to try to incorporate all the feedback that was received from survivors to make this legislation effective. It is not, and should not be, a partisan issue, which is why Conservatives, New Democrats and members of the Bloc listened to the testimony, came together and put forward amendments to the bill that reflected that testimony, strengthened that framework and established, through those amendments, a framework that would have really worked and gone as far as possible to protect these victims and survivors. From what I understand, even government members on the committee supported some of those amendments that the opposition worked on together.

At the time, the member for Nunavut was with the NDP caucus and was her party's defence critic, working with other parties on this legislation. That was the cross-party work that happened, and really that has to happen in a minority Parliament. In a minority Parliament, one party cannot dictate the outcome of legislation, which requires negotiation, listening to witnesses and listening to each other. In the context of a minority Parliament, this legislation was an example of that collaboration at its best, of members of Parliament rising to the occasion, working through the difficult issues, listening and coming to conclusions.

However, what do we have now? The government has systematically, regardless of world view, lured and then neutered members of the opposition to join and give the Liberals a majority government, which Canadians did not vote for. Now, they are using that undemocratic majority to undo the work that was done at committee. They have moved motions in the House to undo the work that was done painstakingly at committee: listening to survivors, strengthening the legislation. That work has all been ignored and undone through a motion proposed by the government. The Liberals now believe that they can rely on all the members of their newly formed, undemocratic majority to undermine the collaborative work that was done on this issue at committee.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Majority prevails.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite from, I believe, Ajax is heckling me to say, “Majority prevails.”

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Whitby.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Whitby. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I do want to make sure that he is held accountable for heckling during a speech about protecting victims of sexual violence.

The member for Whitby says the majority rules. Well, this is a majority that Canadians did not vote for and that, in the first instance, the Liberals are using to undo collaborative committee work on protecting victims of sexual violence. They want a majority, they say, to move at speeds unseen in generations. They are moving at speeds unseen in generations to dismantle collaborative committee work to protect victims of sexual violence. At the first opportunity they have, that is what they are using their majority to do.

I have to wonder what the member for Nunavut is thinking in all this. Individual members, whatever caucus they sit in, are still personally accountable before their voters, and before whatever other institutions they see themselves as accountable in front of, for the decisions they make in the House and the votes they cast here. When a member sits as part of the NDP and works collaboratively on amendments to strengthen legislation to protect victims of sexual violence, and then that member joins a caucus that is systematically undoing and ignoring the work that was done, it is hard for me to understand the dissonance.

Whether a person just changes all of their opinions at once, or whether some members of the government intend on standing up against the efforts of the minister and the front bench to dismantle this legislation, at the end of the day, every member controls how they vote when the time comes. They will have a chance to vote specifically on the decisions of the minister and the government to undo the work that was done.

This is the real, concrete outworking of the Liberals' seizure of an undemocratic majority. It now gives them, in practice, the ability to ignore what witnesses say, to ignore collaboration and to ignore the work that can be done across parties to analyze an issue from different angles and get to a result, and the Prime Minister can act as a kind of executive and direct all of the affairs that happen in this place. That is not how it should happen. That is not what Canadians voted for in the last election, but it seems that it is what they want, and their first test case for this is undermining protections for victims of sexual violence.

It is shameful, what is happening. It is undemocratic and wrong, and it will have serious negative implications for survivors who are seeking justice in the future.

I want to commend the members of the committee who worked hard on this. I want to commend our shadow minister for defence as well as members of other parties who worked collaboratively on this process but who, sadly, saw all of that work undone when the government decided to move these motions, rejecting these amendments.

In this context, with this undemocratic majority, we will continue to use all of the tools we have to hold the government accountable and fight for what is right. Government members and ministers need to hear demands from their constituents that the government reverse course and stand with victims of sexual violence. I think the member for Nunavut needs to hear from her constituents on this, asking her to stand with the work that she previously did on committee.

I think we need to see a response from the public that holds the government accountable for what it is doing, right away, with this undemocratic majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, Madam Justice Arbour did an extensive consultation with victims, with members of CAF, with many other stakeholders, and came up with an incredible report with 48 recommendations in order to deal with the complexities of the issue. Thirty-six of those have already been implemented.

The Government of Canada has been listening and has taken action. This very piece of legislation is an enactment of recommendation 40. Taking a look at the bigger picture and the support over the last year with this Prime Minister, whether it is 2% of the GDP, or whether it is a record number of people applying to join the forces last year, I believe we are on the right track.

When was the last time the Conservative Party—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan a chance to respond.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a question that went madly off in all directions. This is a bill about protecting victims of sexual violence. We can have a conversation about military spending, capabilities and all of these other issues, but, fundamentally, here is the point. The committee heard directly during its deliberations from victims and from experts.

For those who know this process best, a majority of that committee, representative of the House of Commons that Canadians elected, chose amendments to strengthen the bill and respond to the testimony they heard. Then Liberals used an undemocratic, stolen majority to try to undo all that work.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it reeks of hypocrisy when government members say that they want to consult and work together with the opposition but then they turn around and throw out every amendment. I think that kind of thing fuels criticism toward all politicians.

I am going to speak to only one of the opposition's recommendations, which was to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That is going to be scrapped. I fail to understand how the government can defend that.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. I also thank him for the work that was done by the opposition parties.

He mentioned the Liberal Party's hypocrisy. The Liberals talk a lot about co-operation, yet they tried to eliminate the need for it. Right after that, they decided to change this bill completely. This truly is an example of Liberal hypocrisy.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that was an incredible speech. I just want to draw attention to, once again, the heckling and comments about majority rules, while my colleague was trying to communicate during his speech.

I just want to give the member an opportunity to speak to what further message that sends to victims and other people who may be looking to see what the government's response is on this important piece of legislation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this certainly is the sort of issue where we would hope for cross-party collaboration and hope to not have a spirit of partisanship. From what I understand, that spirit of collaboration was what prevailed at committee. It prevailed in a context where co-operation was required, because of the minority conditions that Canadians voted for.

If a party win a majority at the polls, fair enough. It has a mandate from Canadians to proceed as a majority. However, if Canadians vote for a minority that necessitates co-operation, and then a party tries to throw that out the window, and then acts in this ultra partisan fashion while we are trying to advance solutions for victims, that is inappropriate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would like to request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 5.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 3.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That recorded division also stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 6. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10 to 12.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like this motion to also be a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 9.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request that it be a recorded division as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand further deferred until Tuesday, May 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

I see the hon. parliamentary secretary for the government House leader rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 7:12 p.m. so we can get into the late show.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the answer-seeking Canadians in the riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

Last week, I asked the government if it would end the corporate welfare spending spree and balance the budget. The response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was a misogynistic personal attack. This has become a recurring talking point from the Liberal bro caucus. The Liberals cannot defend their terrible policy, so they resort to invoking the “hysterical woman” trope.

This sexist pattern comes straight from the top. The Prime Minister does not like to be questioned by women. He gets chippy and condescending when pressed. He even deployed a classic gaslighting technique when he told Rosemary Barton to look inside herself when she asked about his conflicts of interest.

Let us be clear. I am not raising a question of privilege. This is no place for a thin skin. I am happy to throw partisan haymakers, and I can appreciate a sharp, devastating rejoinder. The secretary's ad hominem attack was just blunt and boring. It was less Cicero in the forum and more Archie Bunker in the La-Z-Boy chair.

After 11 years of failure, all the Liberals have left are tired, worn-out personal attacks. This should not be a surprise, considering their policies are just as tired and worn out. The Liberal sovereign debt fund is just repeating the failure of the clean growth fund. The clean growth fund is just repeating the failure of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. The Infrastructure Bank is just repeating the failure of the supercluster strategy. The supercluster strategy was just the Liberals' doubling down on the failure of the cluster strategy.

The Liberals continue to fail over and over again yet never learn a fundamental lesson: One cannot beat the market. It does not matter if one has a Ph.D. in economics from Oxford. No one is smarter than the collective decision-making of 40 million Canadians.

Unfortunately, while no one person can outsmart the market, someone can outsmart a government. Call this the Enron-Brookfield business model. Rather than compete in the market, they lobby the government to regulate a market into existence and to then regulate out the competition. They do not need a secret cabal to execute this strategy. They just need to put the word “sovereign” before our business pitch and watch the CBC lobby for them. They can rebrand their concrete slab into a sovereign spaceport and wait for the government to give them a 10-year exclusive, sole-source contract.

Unlike the arrogant Liberal approach, our Conservative economic plan is based in humility. We cannot know the future, so we let a thousand flowers bloom. We create the conditions where anyone with a sound business plan has a chance to build a successful venture. We do not pick and choose who gets special political exemptions from Liberal red tape. We will cut the Liberal red tape and lower taxes for everyone equally.

This is the same approach millions of Canadians take to investing. They do not try to pick individual stocks. They purchase exchange-traded funds to buy the market. This agnostic approach to economic growth has proven to be superior to the Liberals' faith-based approach. Unfortunately, Canadians are stuck living in the church of climate socialism for the next three years.

This is a choice Canadians will face next time: our Conservative approach, rooted in reality and humility, or the Liberal approach, based on economic arrogance defensible only through personal insults.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to be here this evening to answer the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke's question.

While she is very entertaining in her remarks, Canadians know that these are uncertain times and that global volatility is something our government takes seriously. Responsible leadership is really what matters more than ever. Around the world, inflation, conflict and economic volatility are putting pressure on families and governments alike. In response, our government is focused on what we can control, which is managing public finances responsibly while investing where it matters most.

That is exactly what the spring economic update delivers or at least shows progress on. Canada enters this moment from a position of strength. Our economy has proven more resilient than anticipated in the face of global disruption. Inflation remains within the Bank of Canada's target range. Investment and business confidence are recovering after two massive shocks: the oil price shock and the tariff war before it.

The strong fundamentals that we reported on in the spring economic update allow us to make smart, targeted choices without compromising fiscal discipline. Fiscal responsibility means making sure every dollar works harder for Canadians. That is why our government is preserving fiscal sustainability for future generations, keeping debt manageable and maintaining Canada's long-standing fiscal advantage among G7 countries.

The member opposite will note that the IMF has recently said that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We had that confirmed by the bank governor today at the finance committee who said the same, that we are the envy of many other countries.

Our government is committed to reducing spending on government operations. We have generated $60 billion in savings over five years to ensure public funds are focused on high-impact priorities rather than administrative costs.

We also have moved forward with a capital budgeting framework so that a greater portion of the investments the government is making can be seen to be revenue-generating and separated out with respect to reporting, in order to understand their impact. We are focused on high-impact priorities, including building more homes, advancing major nation-building projects, strengthening our defence industry and unlocking private investment across the country. We are really seeking to catalyze $1 trillion in investment. We are well on our way. We have seen a lot of commitments to invest in Canada. The UAE has committed $70 billion. Australian investors have committed $10 billion. We have $125 billion for 15 major projects that we will see creating about 60,000 or more jobs across Canada. These are results Canadians can bank on.

We are also seeing some of the results of productivity-boosting deductions that we have offered businesses that are investing in R and D, IP protection, new information technology within their businesses and the like. There are a number of different tax deductions that we have offered, which are allowing businesses to invest in themselves, in turn boosting productivity and the economy.

We are seeing wages double at the pace of inflation. That is a trend that has been continuing to increase year over year for three years now. That is good news for Canadians. I know we all can agree that productivity needs to continue to rise in order to see that standard of living rise as well, which is what Canadians all want to see.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this old Liberal response that the Liberals are incapable of rising to the occasion. They have become a broken record of vapid slogans.

The Liberals are spending more, leaving Canadians to invest less. They are growing the economy from the heart out, the elbows up, the eyes down, but always against the fight for freedom. If one dares to question them, they suggest that person is mentally ill or, like the national “spend more” minister, will accuse them of hating their country. This illustrates the choice Canadians have: They can choose the nationalism of the Liberal Party, which treats criticism as treason, or choose the patriotism of the Conservatives, who seek to repair what is being broken in the country we love. That is the choice.

We choose patriotism over nationalism. We choose humility over arrogance. We choose Canada strong and free.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has adopted the “Canada Strong” message on behalf of the government. I appreciate her finally contributing to a plan that will make our economy stronger.

As I have said, we are moving forward from a position of strength. That gives us the fiscal capacity to do the things that we have proposed to do and that we are actually implementing, including major investments in defence infrastructure and housing, which will be boosting innovation and productivity across the country.

The spring economic update shows very clearly that progress is being made. We have $11 billion less of a deficit and the average yearly increase of government spending has come down from 8% to 2%. Over the next three years, it will come to a 0% increase. We are also seeing lots of change within the economy and the highest foreign direct investment in almost two decades.

The member opposite should understand that those things are really good news for this country and for all Canadians as we build a prosperous Canada.

Justice

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a country that cannot keep its streets safe is a country that is totally losing control of its future.

What is happening in my community of Surrey and Cloverdale should be a warning to every member of the House. Quiet neighbourhoods are being hit by gunfire. Families are wondering whether they are safe in their own homes, and businesses are being threatened. The rule of law is being challenged in broad daylight. This is not inevitable, but if we do not act with seriousness and resolve, organized crime will continue to test the limits of our justice system and intimidate law-abiding Canadians in their own communities.

Let us begin with what happened just last week. In the residential neighbourhood of Sullivan, shots were fired into a vehicle. One 25-year-old man was killed and another was seriously injured. Investigators have confirmed that it was a targeted act tied to the ongoing B.C. gang conflict. This is a neighbourhood where I door knock regularly. It is the second gang execution there in a month.

What is most troubling is not the violence itself, but the facts around it. In late April, Surrey police confirmed that officers from the gang unit had been reassigned to deal with a surge in extortion. When organized crime required focused and sustained pressure, specialized resources were being pulled in another direction. That should concern everyone. When enforcement is stretched too thin, criminals look for openings. When pressure is not sustained, organized crime adapts. When police are forced to shift limited resources from one serious threat to another, innocent Canadians are the ones left in the crosshairs.

What happened last week was not some isolated gangland shooting in a back alley. It happened in a quiet neighbourhood filled with families, people who had nothing to do with this violence and are now left wondering what could happen next. We need to be clear about what we are dealing with. This is a web of rival gangs and sophisticated organized crime networks increasingly tied to extortion.

The violence is not contained between criminals. It is spilling into our neighbourhoods, our businesses and our streets. When a multi-agency task force was empowered to go after these criminals, there were signs of progress, with more than 30 active investigations, close to 100 judicial authorizations and coordinated action across agencies. Over 100 individuals were being examined for immigration violations linked to those networks.

That is what it looks like when the full weight of the system is applied, but that pressure has to be constant. Organized crime does not disappear because of one announcement or one operation. It has to be confronted every day with sustained enforcement, specialized policing and real consequences.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the pattern of leniency in the system itself. Individuals with serious criminal histories remain in this country when they should have been removed. Offenders breach conditions, reoffend and continue to benefit from delays, reduced sentences or rulings that allow them to stay. Judges have warned of a two-tier justice system, where penalties are softened to avoid deportation while Canadians face the full weight of the law. Even people under deportation orders who are facing serious allegations have been able to exploit the gaps and disappear from oversight or avoid consequences. That is not right. It sends a dangerous message to criminals that the rules are negotiable and the consequences are minimal.

If we want to turn this around, we need sustained support for law enforcement. That means specialized units that remain focused, officers on the ground who are not pulled away at the first shift in priorities, and tools, such as air support, that help police monitor suspects, coordinate responses and stop offenders from operating freely.

Will the government finally stop with the rhetoric, restore mandatory minimums, repeal its catch-and-release laws and ensure that criminals face real consequences?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today to speak about an issue that Canadians are no longer willing to tolerate: the surge of extortion that is targeting our communities, our businesses and our families.

Crime has evolved, and frankly, our laws did not keep pace quickly enough. That is a reality, but unlike the members opposite, we are not interested in pointing fingers and walking away. We are taking responsibility and fixing the issue. This is why we introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, and Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, two of the most consequential proposed reforms to the Criminal Code in a generation.

Bill C-14 would give tools to provincial judges and police officers to put repeat and violent extortionists in jail, where they belong. It would mandate strict bail conditions for people accused of extortion and organized crime, including weapons prohibitions and geographic restrictions. It would introduce a reverse onus for extortion involving violence, shifting the burden so that the people accused must justify their release instead of the Crown having to justify their detention, and it would ensure that sentences for extortion and arson are served consecutively, because escalating violence deserves escalating consequences, period.

Bill C-16 would go even further by addressing how criminal networks operate. It would create a new stand-alone offence to target people who recruit young people into committing crimes like extortion. These criminals are not just breaking the law; they are grooming young people to do their work for them. We are shutting that pipeline down before more lives are pulled into it.

Here is something Canadians must know. These bills were introduced last fall, last year. Canadians expected urgency, but what they got from the Conservatives is delay, obstruction and political gamesmanship, all while they stood in the House pretending to be tough on crime.

Now the same pattern is repeating itself in the Senate, where a Conservative senator has recently claimed there is no timeline to pass Bill C-14 and bring it back to the House for final stage. This is despite overwhelming support from all 10 premiers, from police chiefs across the country, from frontline officers I have talked to and from business leaders across this country who are dealing with extortion in real time.

Let us be clear: The only thing standing between Canadians and stronger protections right now is Conservative delay. If the member opposite truly cared about victims of extortion, she would use her rhetoric and her actual influence inside her party to make sure these bills get passed. Tonight when she goes home, we hope she will pick up the phone and tell her Conservative colleagues in the Senate to stop blocking these bills, which she has been doing, and urge them to pass Bill C-14 both at committee and at third reading, before this Friday, or she will continue to say one thing here while her colleagues ensure that nothing actually gets done.

The legislation is here. The solution is here. The only question is whether the members opposite will finally stop their obstruction and start standing with Canadians and the victims of extortion.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government is serious about restoring safety for Canadians, it has to act with clarity and resolve. This begins with consequences. Serious repeat offenders, particularly those engaged in extortion and organized crime, must face meaningful jail time, not symbolic penalties but sentences that deter and protect. The new Liberal legislation, which would make it criminal to shoot a gun from a moving car, is completely unserious. These criminals already know they are committing a crime.

We also need bail rules that put public safety first, not last, and we need to close the loopholes that allow non-citizens involved in serious criminal activity to manipulate the refugee system and remain in this country when they should not. We need to end the leniency that allows people convicted of serious crimes to avoid removal. We desperately need, at the same time, to work with police, provinces and communities, providing sustainable support to dismantle those networks properly and to restore confidence where it has been lost.

What is the reason the Liberal government does not take this issue seriously?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been doing: working with law enforcement and with police associations across the country. We have had tons of testimonials over and over again for these two bills. I have talked to my police association; to my father, who is an ex-homicide detective; and to many other police across this country who have been asking to pass these two bills. In addition, the women's organizations in my region have been asking us to pass the protecting victims act, and they support the work of the government.

Why does the member opposite continue to claim false things in the House, saying we do not care, when we have put the solutions on paper, have done the work in committee and have passed the bills through the House? Conservative senators have been blocking the legislation and trying to slow it down. They have been slowing it down for way too long. Let them get out of the cheap seats and actually do something to help Canadians.

Taxation

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, I have sent various reports and updates to households and businesses across the 35 communities of my beautiful riding. Yellowhead, this last election, has significantly changed boundaries, incorporating areas from five previous ridings. One of the mailers was a tax guide to help individuals, families and businesses to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Many have found this mailer very helpful. However, hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents did not receive it due to a lack of coordination between Canada Post, Elections Canada and the House of Commons printing services. I encourage those watching to visit my website and review my monthly updates, but please know that my team and I are actively working with all parties involved to resolve these delivery issues so that they receive the information they expect from their member of Parliament. People have the right to hear from their elected officials. Taxpayers are paying for the service, and it is unacceptable that my constituents are not receiving it.

As the only CPA with public practice experience in the House, every day I hear from law-abiding Canadians and professional accountants. People are struggling to navigate an increasingly complex tax system. Individuals with limited Internet and those lacking computer skills are being discriminated against when dealing with CRA and their access.

A recent report out of British Columbia is deeply concerning. A Canada Revenue Agency employee has been charged after allegedly compromising sensitive tax information and is now facing charges including breach of trust, identity theft and fraud following a multi-year investigation. While honest taxpayers are being burdened, cases like this raise questions. Canadians expect the CRA to protect their sensitive financial information. Instead, we see situations where bad actors within the system are able to access, misuse and abuse the data for years before being caught. Tax fairness is not just about how much people pay. It is about ensuring that the system treats everyone equally. That means going after the wrongdoers while respecting and supporting the millions of Canadians who follow the rules.

In April, in response to my question regarding removal of all gas taxes, the Liberal minister said that “Albertans are looking for the government to provide solutions” and claimed that her government is “delivering”. What is true is that Albertans are looking for change. What is lacking is any proof that the government is actually delivering. Real action would mean scrapping all federal gas and diesel taxes for the rest of the year, not pausing a third of the taxes for a third of the year. That is not delivery; that is a headline. Statistics Canada has confirmed that Canada continues to have the worst food inflation in the G7. Even with the temporary pause of the excise tax, Canadians are still paying nearly 15% more at the pump than Americans, due to the higher taxes and our weaker dollar. Families feel this every day. Higher fuel costs drive up prices across the board, forcing Canadians to choose between filling their tank and filling their grocery cart.

Therefore, I will ask again: If the government knows that energy costs drive everything else, why will it not remove all federal fuel taxes and deliver real relief?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are navigating a rapidly changing, increasingly fragmented and volatile global economy, one that is more complex, more unpredictable and, for many, more costly as well. In response, our government continues to focus on what we can control, which is building a strong Canadian economy and diversifying our trade partners abroad. We see signs of progress, with 20 new trade and security agreements signed and a 36% increase in non-U.S. trade, which is significant. We are also focused on delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses.

Just last week, on Friday, I had the opportunity to list 19 different tax cuts that our government has made. There was no response from the Conservatives, of course, because they did not support 99% of them. I think there might have been one they allowed to pass, but I am sure if they could have blocked them, they would have done so, because that is exactly what we see in this House: the Conservatives obstructing and voting against the very things that help Canadians, whether it is child care or a national school food program, a groceries and essentials benefit, an income tax cut, suspending the fuel excise tax, and on and on. Every single measure we put forward that actually helps to tangibly reduce the cost of living pressures on Canadians, they vote against and oppose. I do not know how they can stand up in the House and say they actually care about households and the cost of living.

The other thing the member opposite suggested is that the tax system has become more complex. It is true, as we offer investment tax credits for businesses and waive, or increase deductions for, certain kinds of expenses, or as we help tradespeople who are moving across the country, relocating for work, by allowing them to deduct more of those expenses, that it is more complex for Canadians. However, we have also moved forward with an automatic tax filing system and initiative that will help millions of Canadians who, for the many accessing federal benefits and supports, rely on filing their taxes. We know full well that it will help with simple tax filings. It also means that other Canadians will be able to get access to benefits because it better utilizes government resources to help those with the simplest tax filings to access the tax benefits and federal payments they are eligible for. We are stepping up to help out.

We have fiscal strength. The IMF said recently that we have the strongest fiscal position in the G7 and that we should use our fiscal capacity, which is exactly what the federal government is doing. I know Conservatives would never invest in Canadians. They do not believe in Canadians. They do not believe in boosting the economy.

That is not the Liberal Party's position. Our position is to use our fiscal capacity to boost our economy. We see those investments coming to fruition and manifesting good-paying jobs for generations to come. That is the prosperity we are building. That is how we build Canada strong, and we are not going to back down just because Conservatives talk a good game in this House.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, before the crisis got worse, Conservatives called upon the Liberals to suspend gas taxes for the summer so that Canadians could afford a simple road trip. The Liberals voted no.

Now, after years of inflation, with higher grocery costs and during an international energy crisis, we are calling for a stronger measure: to remove all federal fuel taxes for the rest of the year. Once again, the Liberals refuse to act. Instead, the Prime Minister offered a half measure, cutting a third of the taxes for a third of the year. This might have helped back in 2023, but not now.

Canadians are struggling. The cheapest gas around is reaching two dollars a litre. People cannot afford a government that is constantly behind. When will the government stop pretending to help and actually deliver real relief?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words, and what we see is that the words of Conservatives in this House do not match how they vote. They do not support any of the measures our government has put forward.

How are they going to vote on the spring economic update? That is what I would like to know. There are 80,000 to 100,000 new skilled trades workers hanging in the balance in terms of support: a $10,000 incentive for a small or medium-sized company to hire an apprentice, $400 a week up to about $16,000 for a new apprentice, plus a completion bonus of $5,000 for 80,000 to 100,000 workers. How are the Conservatives going to vote?

The Conservatives have said in the House that they do not support these investments in the workforce in Canada. How can they not support workers across this country while standing up and saying that they care about families, affordability and industries that are affected by tariffs that the United States has put on us?

How can they not support workers? How are they going to vote?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 7:08 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:08 p.m.)