Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Military Justice System Modernization Act, April 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question with a question. I am going to do what the Liberals do during question period and answer with a question. Someday it will be their turn to ask questions in the House, because nothing lasts forever.

What does my colleague have to say to the victims, the victims' associations, the Barreau du Québec and the experts who told us that they were in favour of allowing cases to be transferred to the civilian justice system, but not at all costs? It may be suitable for some cases, but not all.

I understand that complete freedom of choice is not necessarily the right option for the sole reason that not everyone always has the information and there can still be things like manipulation behind the scenes. We agree on that. However, BQ‑2, which was adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on the committee, would have made it possible to determine, on the recommendation of civilian court experts, that certain matters were best left to the military justice ssytem.

What does my colleague have to say to the victims who came to testify?

[Military Justice System Modernization Act, April 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, it shows that the government understands perfectly well how things work, but that it could not care less. In other words, it knows exactly what tactics to use to trample on the rights of members of Parliament, and in this particular case, to show utter contempt for the victims who appeared in order to have their say. That is what all this tells us.

[Military Justice System Modernization Act, April 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens. He gets up, walks around, talks and then asks a question that I already answered in my speech. We have come to expect it.

As I said, this is not about complete freedom of choice. The amendment known as BQ‑2 did not involve complete freedom of choice. What the amendment said is that not every case needs to be automatically transferred. Our initial response would be to transfer these cases, but if experts and the civilian system consider it advisable to keep them in the military system, that would be allowed. That is all.

I will close by saying that Justice Arbour could have come and testified, as she was also invited to do.

[Military Justice System Modernization Act, April 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, there are many stories in this whole sad affair. Some of them involve tragic misconduct and victims left with the aftereffects. There is the story, which spanned many years, of continued impunity, as people were protected by successive governments. Then came the bungling and the never-ending delays. Finally, our very democracy plays a part in all this, as well.

First and foremost, it is the story of victims of misconduct. Members will recall the whole story, which has been told many times in the House, of General Vance, who was protected by successive ministers of governments of all political stripes. This general was able to live with impunity, bragging that he would be forever protected and untouchable at all times because he had control over the military justice system. Members will recall that it took a long time for this story to come to light, and when it did, many said that silence was the best response—that eternal guilty silence that keeps victims voiceless.

It is also the story of several commissions of inquiry. I am thinking of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Several commissions of inquiry came to a number of conclusions after thousands of people were interviewed. There were thousands of testimonies; thousands of voices were heard in the context of this tragic case. This is an issue that has since dragged on for more than 15 years. It took more than 15 years to come up with the first version of a bill in the last Parliament and, in the current Parliament, the bill now before us.

This is a matter of democracy. I believe that, as members of Parliament, we are being shortchanged, and democracy is being shortchanged, by what is happening right now. Allow me to digress for a moment because this is important. Let us not forget that this is also the story of a government that called an election last year. What was the outcome of that election? It resulted in a minority government. That means that we go before the voters, present them with options and ideas, and show them where we are headed and what we are proposing. That is where democracy decides. It decides by determining which idea has majority support. In other words, there were more votes and more seats for the current government's proposal, but there are still enough voters who said they did not agree. The result is that the government in power has a majority that is not absolute. It is a simple majority, but one that is not absolute in terms of the number of seats. That was the verdict in April 2025. The message to the government is to work with the other parties, because more people chose the other options combined. If my math is correct, that is what it comes down to. I am no fan of the Canadian parliamentary system, but it seems to me that, in the history of these highly imperfect institutions, that is just how it works. That is the result. That is what it amounts to.

Let us come back to the story of this government that introduced Bill C-11 and the opposition parties who voted in favour of the principle of the bill because everyone agreed with it and action needed to be taken. People have suffered and others will continue to suffer if nothing changes. After the opposition parties acted in good faith and the House adopted the bill in principle, it was the committee's turn to patiently do its work. For several weeks, it heard from witnesses and reviewed reports and briefs, including one from the Barreau du Québec, which said that it liked the idea of the bill but that some small changes needed to be made. We also heard from a number of victims and victims' associations, who made recommendations and told us that, when cases are being transferred, the military justice option needs to remain open. Even though transferring cases to the civilian system is generally a good thing, we still need to have some sort of military system for certain cases, so we should not close the door on that completely.

That was the subject of an amendment that was deemed admissible, and I am happy about that because we are the ones who proposed that amendment. The Conservative amendment regarding complete freedom of choice was deemed inadmissible recently, even though it was also adopted in committee. Our amendment does not propose complete freedom of choice, but it says that if experts in the civilian system recommend keeping the case in the military system, then that might be a good thing for some victims.

It worked, and I am very pleased about that. This is an example of a recommendation made by the Barreau du Québec, which ultimately concluded that Bill C-11, as it stood, was unsatisfactory, even though it was well-intentioned. A whole host of other recommendations like that were also adopted by way of amendments, often with the majority support of the two opposition parties. Some amendments were adopted unanimously with the support of the Liberal Party, but, for the most part, it was the opposition parties that joined forces and managed to gain the upper hand. I am pleased that we managed to achieve this. It was democracy at work. In our committee, the majority consisted of opposition MPs. I would remind members that we patiently listened to victims, experts, the Barreau du Québec and other stakeholders who came to tell us what they believed should be done. Some of the recommendations in the Fish report were even subsequently deemed inadmissible. That report, which remains something of an authoritative reference on the subject, was deemed inadmissible—that says it all.

It is also the story of a government that secured a majority by getting opposition members to switch sides, swearing up and down that its approach would be collaborative. In the days that followed, however, one of the first things they told us was that they plan to unilaterally change committee composition without even talking to the opposition parties. That is what collaboration, co-operation and working together in the House mean to them. It is also the story of a government that then attempts to throw out all the work that committees have been doing for weeks, along with the democratic decisions of parliamentarians who voted on committee business. This is the story of a committee chair who decided amendments were out of order. We overruled his decision with a majority vote in committee, but he got his way in the end. It is also the story of a Speaker of the House who heard my appeal and that of my colleague, the Conservative Party's defence critic, who rose in the House to say that we heard the victims, that we could not ignore them and that certain recommendations could not be ruled out of order.

From a procedural standpoint, for example, our proposal to consider establishing an office did not entail the allocation of additional resources, yet it was deemed inadmissible on the grounds that it required additional resources. Our proposal does not run counter to the intent of this bill, which aims to reform military justice to make life more bearable for victims and to better address cases of misconduct. I am sorry, but when we have good ideas to improve a bill and flesh it out, that aligns with the bill's intent. In our case, given that we are stuck with this highly imperfect Canadian parliamentary system, we have decided, procedurally speaking, to include in the bill the need to consider establishing an office. This does not mean creating the office itself or adding new resources. It costs nothing to mandate the government to look into the issue. It does not cost a penny to include it in the bill.

However, the Speaker decided to reject all of those amendments. Even though a few admissible amendments remained, we found out only yesterday evening after checking the Notice Paper that the government had rejected them in a last-ditch effort—like I said, their majority is going to their heads—to erase, destroy, undo and dismantle everything that members had accomplished in committee. What a slap in the face for the experts, the victims and democracy.

[Military Justice System Modernization Act, April 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. By the way, I hold her in high regard, but my question has nothing to do with that. How does she feel about the fact that, for weeks, we have been doing our committee work and now, when the majority of committee members have worked to get amendments adopted, the government is doing everything it can to undo what has been done?

Is this not a slap in the face to democracy? Has the majority gone to the Liberals' heads?

[Use of Federal Lands for Veterans, April 21st, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I will avoid moving the motion again. In any case, I am not the sponsor. The explanation and description of the motion have already been provided, so I will get straight to the point. The Bloc Québécois will not support this motion, and I will explain why.

The motion instructs the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of surplus federal lands and buildings “by serving as centers that provide services for veterans”. However, the outcome is already stated: “serving as centers that provide services for veterans”. If the outcome is already known, it will not be a lengthy study. It is as though we already know the end.

The motion also says that the government is meeting the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on military spending earlier than committed. That is not true, because the government committed to reaching the 2% target over 10 years ago. The motion also states that an increasing number of Canadian Armed Forces members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans in the coming decades. That makes sense, but it distracts from the real problems, which are unfortunately caused by the government's actions.

For example, according to a recent study by the Auditor General, serving military personnel are facing serious hardship in accessing housing. The difficulty in securing affordable housing is directly linked to government decisions on immigration, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said: “We estimate that rents are currently 26% higher than they would have been without increased immigration”.

The housing crisis, which is largely caused by the Century Initiative policy, has an inevitable impact on veterans' access to housing throughout Quebec and Canada. Access to health care is lacking, whether in relation to disability benefits, issues with Canada Life, or the privatization of services through contracts with private companies under the partners in Canadian veterans rehabilitation services program.

Worst of all, however, apart from the inaccuracies in the motion and therefore in the text itself, is that it instructs the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to conduct a study according to a specific timeline. Committees are usually allowed full control over their own work. Why would the House suddenly impose such a timeline? To be clear, the motion would allow voting by members of non-recognized parties who do not sit on the committee. This means that people who are not involved in the committee would come and make decisions about committee work they had no hand in.

The motion contains nothing to improve the situation. It simply forces the committee to conduct a study based on foregone conclusions, vague though they may be. It says that the buildings and lands must be used to provide services to veterans. The motion imposes a six-month deadline to conduct the study and draft a report containing the committee's findings. By forcing it to meet a strict deadline, the motion is effectively gagging the committee. The situation is all the more unacceptable considering that, as we speak, the only two recognized opposition parties are currently a majority on the committee, and we could end up being forced to follow a timeline that is not of our choosing.

Veterans' needs are indeed numerous. These include housing, health care, disability benefits, and recognition of skills acquired in the military, to name just a few. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is better suited than the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to examine veterans' needs and come up with concrete recommendations.

The other problem with this study is that most services fall under provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa does not deliver health care. The provinces do. Ottawa does not build affordable housing. It is usually the municipalities. Ottawa does not tackle homelessness and addiction. Once again, it is the municipalities and the provinces. The best solution for Ottawa, then, is to transfer its surplus buildings to the provinces instead of looking at creating new parallel structures. The motion refers to providing services using federal buildings, but a number of civilian partners can contribute to the solutions and are better equipped than the federal government to do so, especially since these services often fall under provincial jurisdiction.

For example, the government could transfer its buildings and land to the provinces. That is the solution I mentioned earlier. The provinces could then put them to good use by building affordable housing, for example, something that provinces and municipalities already do. To truly help veterans, Ottawa needs to take proactive steps. The Liberals, like the Conservatives before them, turned a blind eye to cases of sexual misconduct in the armed forces for years, leaving many veterans with psychological issues after their service.

The same is true when it comes to the transition from military to civilian life. Ottawa is not doing enough to support service members as they leave the military. They are accustomed to a life that is completely structured and controlled by the military, and they sometimes find themselves ill-equipped to cope with their new reality afterward. One of the most pressing issues right now is housing. This is a situation that has major repercussions for the entire population, but particularly for veterans, and yet the motion makes no mention of it. I am not suggesting that there are bad intentions behind the motion, but its many negative or ill-informed aspects outweigh any good intentions.

I am going to use the time I have left to talk a bit about the housing problem that serving military members are also experiencing. The motion states that the number of veterans will only increase in the coming years. However, the Canadian Army is facing serious difficulties in providing housing for serving members, as demonstrated by the Auditor General's recent audit on the matter. As part of the audit, a total of 227 high-priority repairs were identified across 32 buildings at three military bases. In its latest estimate, National Defence revealed that it needed between 5,200 and 7,200 additional residential units for its members in 2019. Its plan to build new housing has still left a deficit of at least 3,800 homes. That is also a glaring and significant problem.

I still have a little time, so I will say a few more words about the House's interference in the business of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In our view, granting the House the power to intervene in a committee's affairs is completely unacceptable. As I said earlier, parties like the NDP and the Green Party certainly belong in the House, but they are not recognized parties, so they have no role to play in the committees. Nonetheless, they will have the power to influence and impose their opinions on a committee's work even though they are not committee members. The House of Commons does give the committees direction, which is all well and good, but committees are masters of their own proceedings. They can call witnesses and compel the production of documents they need for their work. That power rests exclusively with committees. They can define the nature and scope of their studies without additional instructions, and they can delegate all or part of their powers to subcommittees.

In light of these three problematic issues, we believe this motion is naive and grants MPs even more power over committee proceedings. We oppose that. I hope all parliamentarians give this motion plenty of thought.

[Points of Order, April 20th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just did, I want to get back to the government's challenge regarding the admissibility of amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3, which were moved by the Bloc Québécois—me in this case—in the context of the study of Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence. We oppose the government's argument that these amendments should be ruled out of order by the Chair at report stage.

Amendment BQ-2 calls on the government to table in Parliament, within six months of royal assent of Bill C‑11, a plan for the establishment of an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct. Contrary to the government's assertions, the amendment does not force the government to create such a position or generate any new spending because the amendment does not create any new positions. We believe that, after hearing some of the testimony at the Standing Committee on National Defence, committee members came to realize that Bill C-11 could be improved by asking the government to study the option of creating an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct.

This amendment was tabled following the testimony of retired colonel Michel Drapeau, who told committee members the following at the November 6, 2025, meeting:

Yes, Canada should appoint an inspector general who can take charge of the situation. This person would listen to victims and would have an open mandate. The person could do whatever seems necessary to investigate. The person would also be mandated to report to various individuals, including members of Parliament, as needed.

A number of countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, have a similar position. As Justice Létourneau recommended during the commission of inquiry into the deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, specifically with regard to the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia, I believe that an inspector general position should definitely be created.

If it were up to me, I would implement this today.

All members of the committee voted in favour of this amendment, which is directly in line with the intent of the bill, which is to address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are of the opinion that this amendment does not go beyond the scope of the bill and does not generate any new spending.

Amendment BQ-3 was adopted based on the Barreau du Québec's specific recommendation regarding Bill C-11, which can be found in the brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on National Defence. The Barreau du Québec based its recommendations to the committee directly on recommendation 1 of the Fish report. Here is what the Barreau said in its brief:

The Barreau du Québec welcomes these amendments, which address certain recommendations of the Fish Report aimed at ensuring the impartiality and independence of military judges in relation to the chain of command:

Recommendation #1: Military judges should cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and therefore become civilian. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces appointed by the Governor in Council as military judges should, at the time of their appointment, be released from the Canadian Armed Forces and renounce their military rank.

The National Defence Act should be amended to provide that military judges are never subject to the Code of Service Discipline, and may never be charged, dealt with and tried under the Code of Service Discipline for service offences allegedly committed by them while formerly subject to the Code of Service Discipline, if applicable....

However, a key passage of the first recommendation of the Fish Report is missing from the bill, namely that military judges cease to be members of the CAF upon appointment....

Therefore, the Barreau du Québec recommends that military judges cease to be members of the CAF at the time of their appointment in order to maintain their institutional independence from the executive and to avoid creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In addition, here is what the current Minister of National Defence said in the House of Commons at second reading of the bill:

Second, Bill C-11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review.

Prior to the amendment, however, contrary to the minister's statements and as shown by the Barreau du Québec, Bill C-11 was missing an important component of the Fish report's recommendation 1. The Bloc Québécois, like all parliamentarians, voted in favour of the bill in principle at second reading without knowing all of the details of the bill, because we thought we were going to study it more exhaustively in committee.

Both officials and the government have presented the bill as being faithful to the recommendations of other reports, including the Fish report. The Bloc Québécois believes that parliamentarians did not have all the details of the bill before it was studied in committee and that, as a result, they had to rely on the statements made by both the minister and officials during the vote at second reading. Amendment BQ‑3 improves the bill by bringing it more in line with Justice Fish's recommendation 1 and the intent of the bill, which was to implement the remaining legislation flowing from the recommendations in reports like the Fish report.

Lastly, the recommendation to expand the pool of veteran candidates comes from the brief submitted by Afton Brooke David, senior legal advisor for the study of Bill C-11. Here is what she said in her brief: That said, I would suggest taking it one step further and including current and former members of the CAF with at least 10 years’ service. An argument could be made that this is a matter of interpretation of the existing proposed language; I nevertheless suggest this subtle change could explicitly expand the talent pool and solicit candidates with well-rounded legal experience in and out of the CAF.

The broadened eligibility pool is perhaps implied, as military judges appointed under amendment BQ‑3 are considered to be released from the CAF. However, amendment BQ‑3 clarifies eligibility to avoid any confusion.

For all these reasons, we believe that the Chair should rule the amendments in order.

[Business of the House, April 20th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the admissibility of amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3, which were introduced by the Bloc Québécois during the Standing Committee on National Defence's study of Bill C‑11.

[Steel and Aluminum Industry, April 20th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, with the steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by Washington getting worse, it is hard to know exactly where the negotiations stand. The Prime Minister has little regard for Parliament. He is rarely available for interviews. Now we find out that he is just as tight-lipped about his consultations.

On Friday, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and the Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec both complained that they are not being consulted as much as they once were. Even Jean Charest, an adviser to the Prime Minister on Canada-U.S. relations, is concerned that the process is getting too centralized.

Why is the Prime Minister against transparency?

[Strong and Free Elections Act, April 16th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I still wonder why the bill did not include restoring public funding for political parties, because this would ensure that parties are less controlled by the wealthy, by the donors with the deepest pockets. The Liberal Party pledged to restore this funding when it won in 2015. Now, that is added to the long list of broken promises.

Is it because, once in power, the Liberals realized that the billionaires had switched sides?