Debates of May 4th, 2026

Report Stage

[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.