Debates of May 4th, 2026

Report Stage

[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?