Debates of May 4th, 2026

Report Stage

[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?