I declare the motion lost.
House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was survivors.
House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was survivors.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Criminal Code Report stage of Bill S-228. The bill, Bill S-228, seeks to explicitly amend the Criminal Code to define forced and coerced sterilization as aggravated assault. Supporters from all parties argue this legislative clarity is essential to protect bodily autonomy, address systemic discrimination—particularly against Indigenous women—and provide accountability for a practice that remains a modern reality rather than just a historical injustice. 7200 words, 1 hour.
Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion Members debate the government’s motion to impose time allocation on Bill C-11, which transfers military sexual assault cases to civilian courts. Liberals contend the policy is essential for restoring institutional trust, while opposition members argue closure undermines democratic committee scrutiny. Debate also considers whether survivors should have a choice of jurisdiction. 4600 words, 2 hours.
Military Justice System Modernization Act Report stage of Bill C-11. The bill amends the National Defence Act to transfer sexual misconduct cases within the armed forces to civilian courts. Conservatives and Bloc members, citing recent committee work, argue the legislation should allow survivors to choose which justice system handles their cases. Conversely, Liberals contend that the mandatory transfer is a key recommendation of landmark reports and essential for independence. The opposition heavily criticizes the government for using time allocation to dismiss cross-party amendments. 26000 words, 3 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Ministerial Compliance with Order in Council Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay supports a question of privilege regarding the government's failure to table annual reports from the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, arguing this impedes parliamentary oversight of human rights abuses involving Canadian companies. 900 words, 10 minutes.
Framework on the Access to and Use of Cash Act First reading of Bill C-276. The bill establishes a national framework protecting access to physical cash and mandates parliamentary approval for the creation or issuance of any central bank digital currency in Canada. 200 words.
Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
David McGuinty LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I would like to table, in both official languages, a notice of a ways and means motion to introduce a bill entitled “A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I would like to request that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of this motion.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the question of privilege raised in the House on Wednesday by the member for Peace River—Westlock concerning the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise's failure to file annual reports. Let me say at the outset that my intervention is in support of the fundamental principle at stake, which is the right of members of the House to be adequately informed in order to carry out their constitutional role of scrutinizing the government's action.
The Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise is meant to receive and investigate complaints about alleged human rights abuses related to the activities of Canadian companies abroad, including companies in the mining, oil and gas sectors. Their office operates at arm's length because Parliament has recognized that these issues require credibility, transparency and distance from the executive branch.
The ombudsperson's annual reports are the main mechanism by which this independence becomes concrete and verifiable. They are supposed to inform Parliament, in a comprehensive and factual way, about the nature of the complaints received, the sectors and regions concerned, the status of investigations and the general findings, while also making recommendations. Without these reports, the House is being deprived of critical information about complaints related to Canadian companies abroad.
Among the issues frequently raised on the international stage in terms of supply chains is child labour. Over the years, international organizations, recognized NGOs and even UN bodies have documented serious allegations of child labour in certain mining contexts abroad. When a complaint of this nature involves a Canadian company, the allegations—not judicial findings—are examined by an independent mechanism. The ombudsman's role is to shed light on the facts and make recommendations. However, if the reports detailing this work are not tabled in the House, members of Parliament cannot know whether such complaints have been received, understand how they have been handled or assess whether the Canadian framework is robust enough to prevent potential abuses. In these circumstances, Parliament cannot debate the matter, as it is not informed.
The member for Peace River—Westlock informed the House that the government, through the Minister of International Trade, failed in its obligation to table not one, not two, but three annual reports from the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. This is not about the content of a particular report or even its findings. It is about a fundamental right of the House to have documents that are necessary for members to carry out their duties.
The ombudsperson position was created to serve the public interest and promote transparency and accountability. Canadian companies doing business abroad must uphold the values that we in the House of Commons and the people we represent hold dear. The ombudsperson's annual reports fulfill essential functions for Parliament. They provide transparency. They give the House an understanding of how complaints related to alleged human rights violations abroad are being handled. They allow for parliamentary oversight. If the documents are not officially tabled, members cannot ask informed questions, propose changes to public policy or hold the ministers responsible to account.
These reports are supposed to detail complaints against Canadian companies that violate human rights abroad, as well as the outcome of the ombudsperson's investigations. The allegations are analyzed by an independent entity, but that is precisely why Parliament must be able to examine how these complaints were handled, what obstacles were encountered and what recommendations were made.
To deprive the House of these reports is to prevent it from determining whether mechanisms introduced by the government actually work. Unless it receives this information, Parliament cannot play its role. When a report meant to enlighten the House is not tabled in the House, it could constitute a breach of that right. This is exactly the issue raised by the question of privilege we are debating. The question of privilege addresses a fundamental issue: the right of the House to have access to reports intended for the House.
As the member for Peace River—Westlock pointed out, there is a precedent confirming that failure to comply with a tabling requirement may constitute a breach of the House's privilege. In Speaker Fraser's ruling on February 5, 1992, he stated that it is through tabling that members are officially apprised of the existence of a document, emphasizing that this requirement is not merely an administrative formality, but rather something that is done “for a serious purpose”. He also noted that the tabling of documents is one of the essential mechanisms that enable members and committees to discharge their functions. In other words, without the tabling of documents, there can be no formal consideration by the House, no automatic referral, no committee study and therefore no real accountability.
In closing, if the House of Commons chooses to appoint an ombudsperson to oversee the conduct of Canadian enterprises abroad, the government must also comply with the laws and the resulting obligations, including accountability to Parliament. The systematic tabling of annual reports is not a formality. It is an essential condition for respecting the House, democratic transparency and Canada's international credibility.
Parliament created the position of ombudsperson to help members ensure government oversight and accountability. The minister has an obligation to table the ombudsperson's reports in the House, which he has not done in three years. The fact that the minister has failed to table the ombudsperson's reports hinders the work of members and interferes with parliamentary procedure.
It is with that in mind that I invite the Speaker to seriously examine this question of privilege.
Ministerial Compliance with Order in CouncilPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports.
They are the Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 21st Autumn Meeting in Yerevan, Armenia, from November 18 to 20, 2023, and the Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 23rd Autumn Meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, from November 17 to 19, 2025.
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, An Act to establish a framework for the continued access to and use of cash in Canada and to make related amendments to other Acts.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce the bill that would establish a national framework to protect Canadians' ability to access and use physical cash and to ensure that no central bank digital currency can be created without the express authorization of Parliament.
In recent years, digital transactions have grown rapidly, but millions of Canadians still depend on cash for daily life. Seniors, indigenous communities, newcomers, people living in poverty, those in remote rural regions and victims of financial or domestic abuse rely on cash because it is accessible, reliable and safe. Cash is the only form of payment that does not depend on Internet or the electrical grid. Cash does not fail. It works every time in every circumstance for every person.
The framework this bill would establish would ensure that cash infrastructure remains resilient. Cash protects privacy at a time when government, corporate and financial sector data collection is expanding dramatically. It is also the only truly anonymous payment method. This bill would amend the Bank of Canada Act to require parliamentary approval before a central bank digital currency could be developed or issued. This legislation would ensure that future digital systems remain optional, not forced, and that Canadians retain control over their own finances. It would protect privacy, strengthen resilience and defend those who depend on physical currency.
I am proud to introduce this framework on the access to and the use of cash. I urge all members to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to table a petition spearheaded by a constituent of mine, aimed at bringing tax fairness to our indigenous partners.
The petition calls on the government to simply rectify an overlooked error in the current tax filing regime that results in the comparative overrepresentation of tax reassessment claims of indigenous Canadians by updating and modernizing the T4RIF, the T4RSP and the T4A(P) tax slips; update CRA contribution tracking methods; ensure efficient handling of tax-exempt returns, including those of indigenous Canadians; and implement a team of first nations tax specialists within the CRA.
Terry Dowdall Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a petition from the good residents of Simcoe—Grey who are opposed to the over-the-horizon radar system. If we can imagine for a minute, there is going to be close to 4,000 acres when the project is done, all phases, which will be totally flat. Every farm, every house, every barn will be knocked out, as well as all wooded lots, in the middle of the municipality.
The municipality is against it. Therefore, the residents are calling for the government to stop the building of the over-the-horizon site on the already purchased property, prevent future acquisition of prime farmland, including the building of the over-the-horizon site on the prime farmland of Clearview Township, and register the previously purchased property, which is roughly 750 acres, with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status.
Scot Davidson Conservative New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition on behalf of the people of Simcoe County, and of course to support my colleague from Simcoe—Grey, because prime farmland is now under attack again.
The Department of National Defence has purchased 700 acres of prime farmland overlapping wetlands. This is on the preliminary site. It also has a requirement to potentially purchase another 2,600 acres of prime farmland in Clearview Township to build the over-the-horizon radar.
The petitioners are calling on the government to stop the building of the over-the-horizon radar on the already purchased property, prevent further acquisition of prime farmland that obviously Canada and Ontario relies on, and register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural heritage.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who are deeply concerned about abuses of human rights and environmental protections. This petition deals with the activities of a Vancouver-based mining company, Pan American Silver Corp, with respect to a silver mine called the Escobal mine in Guatemala. The Guatemalan courts interceded and instructed the mine to stop operations and adequately consult the Xinka indigenous peoples of the area. After the people said no, the mine has continued operations.
The petitioners are affronted. They ask the Government of Canada to take action. We have a vacant seat for the so-called Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. The petitioners ask Canadian consular officials to protect Xinka land defenders, and fully implement the report “Voices at Risk: Canada's Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders” and the principles of UNDRIP.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue from where I left off.
The bill in question now addresses the appointment process for the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, positions that the court justices specifically identified as needing independence from the chain of command.
We also added consequences for unreasonable delays in transferring evidence. We strengthened the independence of legal actors so that prosecutions are fair and impartial. We improved supports for victims, including the ability to request a victim liaison officer when trust breaks down because, in these cases, that is very much the currency. We addressed the fairness for the accused ensuring access to defence counsel, regardless of which system hears the case. I think that is the most important change. We included the clause for future review because these changes must be monitored, they must be measured and they must be revisited when it is necessary or when they do not work.
Taken together, these amendments represent a serious effort to fix what is broken and to build a system that is more responsive, more accountable and certainly more just. However, these amendments have to be approved by this House and it seems that they are not even going to be considered. We did all of that work in committee for them to not even be considered by the government. That is not really how it is supposed to work.
Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that these changes are all necessary, but the Liberals have the power to strip these amendments, and that is really what is at the crux of this conversation today. In doing so, they would weaken the accountability of this bill, they would ignore the voices of survivors, and they would remove the very improvements that the victims themselves asked this Parliament to make.
We certainly hope they will reconsider, because without these changes, it is not about making life better for those who serve. It would be about making life better for the politicians and the bureaucrats who oversee this, and it is a very different thing.
The men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces do not work a nine to five. They serve without limit, and we owe them this in return. I urge every member of this House, including the members who now sit in the opposite benches who worked on this piece of legislation in committee, to reconsider, to stand with survivors and to support the brave men and women in uniform today and every day in this country.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservative Party of Canada is determined to fight this legislation, and not recognize the phenomenal work that former Chief Justice Arbour did. It is only over the last couple of weeks that the Conservative Party has come out against the legislation as much as it has. At the end of the day, we have a government that is pushing forward a number of agenda items dealing with the Canadian Forces, whether it is the 2% GDP or the increase in the overall interest in joining the forces, which is at a 30-year high.
We are improving the conditions of the military and Bill C-11 is a part of that. I wish the Conservatives would get onside.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak directly to the men and women in uniform who are watching this. They had the committee change this bill with the amendments that they, themselves, asked for, both the survivors of sexual violence and the veterans of our military. I want those at home to witness that the Liberals are paving over all the amendments their own members made to this legislation. Justice Arbour did not even come to committee. They waited 11 years to bring this legislation forward. I want them to witness that the Liberals are ignoring the will of this House and the will of the members in uniform.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have been following the bill's progress.
There is something shocking about how Liberal arrogance is what is driving the decision to revisit committee discussions when there were amendments that responded to the justice's report and acknowledged her work. In particular, there was a Bloc Québécois amendment that addressed timely trials. However, the new majority got this amendment rejected, along with many others.
I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. How does she feel about the arrogance that is being shown in this new context, which the people did not vote for but which is the result of floor crossers being bought off by the Liberal government?
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is more than arrogance. We are seeing the beginnings of a very authoritarian streak with the manufactured majority that the Liberals now have. Members who now sit on their benches worked on this report. This is just one example.
The Liberals have now shut down four different committees, going in camera to have discussions that Canadians ought to know about. This is a bad start to a majority, and I think Canadians will start to notice.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite appeals to members of the Canadian Forces. I, too, would appeal to the members of the Canadian Forces who are following this debate. This has been a long time coming.
Earlier this morning, one of the members commented on the bill, asking what was taking so long and why the government has taken so long to bring forward legislation on the issue. We were being criticized.
Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government a year ago. We are already advancing a total package to reinforce how important it is that we have respect within our forces, that we grow the forces and that they are going to be there.
The Canadian Armed Forces is a part of our national security, and we have a government committed to advancing it.
Why does the Conservative Party want us to drag our feet, whether it is on the financing of our forces or any other measure that we have proposed to the House of Commons?
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, this report has been sitting on a shelf for 11 years.
The Prime Minister had the chance to appeal to members of the armed forces, to give them an environment free of harassment, discrimination and abuse. He had the opportunity to appeal to them and to give them exactly what they asked for in committee, exactly how this bill was changed, and exactly the amendments that are before the House. Instead, he chose not to and defended the indefensible of his own government.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by going over the timeline of the bill we are debating today and by looking at the fact that the government is shutting down debate and completely undermining the hard work completed in committee by opposition and government members alike.
If we look back at the relatively recent past, we can see that the whole issue of changes to the military justice system stems in particular from the report by Justice Deschamps, which was published on March 27, 2015, about 11 years ago. It was a scathing report dealing with misconduct in the armed forces. It was around the same time that Jonathan Vance was appointed chief of the defence staff by the Conservative government of the day.
Not long after that, a huge scandal broke out involving Jonathan Vance. Members may recall that. Back in February 2021, we learned from media reports that, as early as 2018, the government had been receiving information alleging sexual offences committed by the new chief of the defence staff, but the government kept a lid on that at the time. The chief of the defence staff retired in 2021, shortly before the scandal exploded.
Then, in April of that same year, 2021, Justice Fish submitted a report containing recommendations specifically aimed at cleaning up the armed forces. Following that, after the Liberals had engaged in a very, very long filibuster in committee in an attempt to keep the Vance file under wraps, we got a new defence minister, who seemed keen to take the bull by the horns.
She asked Justice Arbour to revisit the work that had been done. Justice Arbour replied that this had already been done, but, in good faith, she nevertheless decided to do it again, in order to update Justice Deschamps' work and also to include Justice Fish's work. The aim was to present recommendations aimed at reforming the CAF's legal environment.
At that time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We hoped that all this would lead to a bill aimed at reforming the CAF's legal system. It took some time, but it eventually arrived. In March 2024, the government finally introduced Bill C-66, which aimed to overhaul the judicial system.
We thought this bill would be brought before the House because it was so important. We had been talking about it for so long. Everyone was waiting and waiting. I decided I was going to start reading the bill in detail, knowing that it would end up at the Standing Committee on National Defence once the government put it on the agenda for debate in the House, which it did not do until September.
The bill was introduced in March, and the government did not bring it up for debate until September 2024. Each of the major parties at the time—the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—was given a single opportunity to speak. After that, the government never brought the bill back into the House before the prime minister resigned. The House sat from September through December, but the bill was never brought up again.
Members will recall that the prime minister resigned, Parliament was prorogued and an election was called. Now we have the new version, Bill C-11. The Liberals wasted all that time, and now they suddenly want to get it done, so they are throwing a gag order in our face.
This gag order has specific and shocking consequences. In many respects, the work has been done in committee. In particular, witnesses commented on the importance of the government's decision to transfer sexual misconduct cases from courts martial to civilian courts in accordance with Justice Arbour's recommendation and the amendments set out in Bill C‑11. The witnesses told us that the vast majority of victims would have preferred it if they could still choose which court would handle their case. Some of them told us that it was important for certain cases to be handled by the military system for reasons related to deadlines or evidence or to avoid revictimizing someone by forcing them to restart a process that was already well under way. In some cases, the reasons concerned complexity or trust in the system.
These are all good reasons. Victims said that they would still rather choose for themselves. In collaboration with other parties, the Bloc Québécois submitted a recommendation aimed at striking the proper balance.
I will now read the clause of the bill as amended by the Bloc Québécois:
Choice of victim
(2) Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, the victim of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(d) to (h), or an individual acting on their behalf, may choose whether the person charged with the offence is to be tried by a court martial or a civil court.
We had raised the possibility of this option. We suggested, through a legislative amendment, that the civilian court take into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and other factors in deciding whether, at the victim's request, the case should instead be heard by a court martial. We had nevertheless established guidelines to avoid situations where, for example, multiple victims might have made different choices if the decision had simply been left entirely up to them. The goal was to prevent one victim from opting for a court martial while another chose a civilian court. We would still respect their wishes.
I had replaced my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton on the committee that day, and I recall that even the NDP was involved, through the member for Nunavut, who had also proposed an amendment so that victims could exercise their freedom of choice in the context of a decision regarding the court that would hear their case.
Today, the government is taking advantage of its majority to set aside the work that was done in committee and to set aside the committee members' vote to adopt the amendment that the Bloc Québécois had proposed as a compromise. I am interested in hearing how the member for Nunavut, who is now on the government side, will vote on this matter. Even though the NDP does not have a seat on this committee, she took the time to attend the meeting, make a recommendation and request permission to be heard and have her recommendation be debated. The goal of her recommendation was for people to have freedom of choice. Now that she is on the government side, I am looking forward to seeing how she will vote.
The same thing was done with some Bloc Québécois's proposals, including one to establish an office of the inspector general for misconduct. The chair of the committee ruled that it was out of scope, that it went too far, that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The entire committee, including the Liberals who had voted in favour of this Bloc Québécois recommendation, agreed to overturn the chair's ruling. We now see that today in the House, the Liberals, who now have a majority, are going to try to overturn the committee's decision to overturn the chair's ruling and go back to the original version of the bill.
The same thing happened with another proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois, which sought to ensure that military judges would automatically cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces at the time of their appointment in order to ensure their independence. That recommendation was also made by the Barreau du Québec. It came out of the Fish report. We did not just pull this recommendation out of thin air. The recommendation to create an office of the inspector general came from former Colonel Michel Drapeau, who spoke about this at length in committee. All of this work was done rigorously and conscientiously. We also listened to from the people for whom this bill was intended, who waited so long for this bill. I am completely dumbfounded by the government's approach today.
The government offered us an olive branch following the three by-elections on April 13 and said that it would take the viewpoints of the opposition parties into consideration, that it would work collaboratively. However, it quickly changed its mind when, for example, it decided to unilaterally change the composition of committees, when that is something on which there should be consensus in Parliament. In the past, that was decided by consensus. The Liberals betrayed the legacy of the House in that regard.
It is hardly surprising to us anymore when they pull such a stunt, because we have seen them doing these kinds of things for almost a week now. However, I think it is unspeakably sad for the people the bill is primarily aimed at: the victims who took the time to come and testify before the committee, even though it must have been emotionally draining. These victims are being told by the government that muzzling the House was not enough; they are going to muzzle the victims as well. If I were a victim today, I would be outraged by the government's behaviour, and I hope it realizes that. I still dare to hope that it will reconsider its decision regarding the amendments.
We will see how all this leads us to vote on this bill, which is otherwise crucial and could have been handled in a very different way.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think in terms of the background of former chief justice Arbour and the work that she conducted. We are not talking hundreds but likely going to 1,000-plus consultations, both direct and indirect. She is an incredible woman who is recognized for human rights beyond Canadian borders and who ultimately came up with this recommendation. I suspect that in all the consultation with former and current CAF members, she came up with a recommendation that she truly believed was in the forces' best interest. That is what the legislation would put into place.
I am wondering if the Bloc would see that maybe we should be giving her more recognition for the work that she did.