Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by over 500 members of military families across the country who have raised a great concern regarding access to safe, affordable and well-maintained housing. As we know, the well-being of Canadian Armed Forces members depends on them having comfortable places where they can live and raise their families. It is important that they have fair and equal access to that, that there is a proper assessment being done and that there is an increase in housing stock. We know that all this continues to fall way short of the needs of the over 6,700 military families waiting to have a home on base. The petitioners are asking for a full review of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency. They do not trust its governance, its performance or its accountability. They are asking that the Canadian Armed Forces and/or the Department of National Defence takes over the administration of the current housing stock while building new housing stock, and ensures that houses are repaired and maintained in a timely manner to ensure a safe place where military members, their spouses and families can stay.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals themselves are warning that public investment in ag research and development has fallen by 15%. Private sector R and D outsourced to universities is down 77%. The number of firms conducting research in Canada has dropped by 30%. However, the Liberal agriculture minister is slashing $115 million in agriculture research. Science took the hit for 75% of the cuts in his department. Did the agriculture minister personally approve these cuts, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, everything the Liberals say about our military is just an illusion. They promised our troops raises, but they never materialized. Retention benefits for reserves are missing in action. The Liberal minister is gutting housing support for our troops by up to $7,000 a year, plus he is hiking housing rents on Canadian Armed Forces members. Our military is short over 8,600 personnel and over half of our military occupations are suffering critical staff shortages. Why is the defence minister making retention worse for our soldiers, sailors and aviators?

Mr. Speaker, let us separate the fiction and actually have some reality here. Most of our troops are not seeing a bump in their paycheque because the Liberals continue to claw it back at every opportunity. Rents are up by more than 5% for military housing. Housing support is down in more than 10 of the major housing posting locations. These reckless cuts are making retention and readiness much worse. How can our brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces trust these Liberals when they give with one hand and claw back with the other? Will the defence minister reverse these bad policies and actually start improving the retention of our brave women and men?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has driven Canada into a full-scale recession. Our economy has been shrinking for three of the last four quarters. We are the only G20 country in an economic downturn. While the government tries to downplay it, families know something is wrong. They feel it every day at the checkout counter. Manitobans are worried. I have spoken with farmers, families and small business owners, and they all say the same thing. Everything costs more: groceries, gas, fertilizer and housing. At a time when we are seeing record food bank use, the Prime Minister is spending nearly $195,000 on luxury inflight catering. That is outrageous. The budget watchdog said the government has no chance of meeting its own fiscal targets. Growth is slowing, unemployment is growing, and businesses are leaving Canada. Manitobans cannot afford the Prime Minister's out-of-touch leadership or his luxury lifestyle. It is time the Liberals replace their costly and inflationary policies with solutions that put Canadians and Manitobans first, not last.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to poke holes in the justice minister's argument over the length of debate on Bill C-16. We only debated this for two days at second reading, and then we let it go on division so we could get it to the justice committee for study. We asked for eight meetings to actually do a proper study on this bill and to bring in the proper witnesses. The Liberals shut it down to only four meetings. We have only had one day to debate the bill at report stage, and they are already moving closure. My question is for the minister who wraps himself in this paper tiger, saying that we do not respect the process and that there has been plenty of debate. We know that on the Liberal side, the only person who ever gets up and talks is the member from Winnipeg North who has said the most words ever, but has said the very least. Why does this minister hate democracy, and why is he undermining parliamentary processes?

Madam Speaker, I have to say I am quite disappointed that here we are again with the Liberals' shutting down parliamentary debate on such an important bill. Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, is a giant omnibus bill, over 330 pages long, with some proposed major changes to the way government operates. Under division 16 in the budget implementation act is the new defence investment agency act, and that act would open up a door of potential abuse and unethical behaviour by the government. In the section that actually talks about having competition, the Liberals list over 20 different different exemptions from competition, and it would make the minister responsible for the Defence Investment Agency immune from any criticism and give them a get-out-of-jail-free card for why any particular project or competitor is disqualified from that competition. We have this motion, instead of proper debate in the House right now that would allow Parliament to actually explore all the problems within division 16 of the budget implementation act, and instead of actually talking about how defence procurement could be used and abused by the government in power. Why not have the debate? Why do the Liberals always resort to shutting down parliamentary processes, in the name of cover-ups and Liberal largesse?

Madam Speaker, although we are legislators, it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to carry out our fiduciary duties and responsibilities to the taxpayers of Canada and to properly vet all of the legislation and spending of the government. This bill opens up a huge abyss of extra spending. We are not against spending on national defence. I know the minister tried to say that I am trying to stop it. I want to make sure that we are spending money wisely and respecting the Canadian taxpayer. In this bill, which establishes the Defence Investment Agency act and makes changes to the Defence Production Act, the Liberals are adding in an exclusion that the minister can exclude companies and reduce the way companies can compete. It gives the minister an out so that he does not have to give reasons why any corporation is excluded. This is where it gets really interesting. It is giving the power to the minister, through an order in council, to “procure the incorporation of any one or more corporations for the purpose of undertaking or carrying out any acts or things” in the act. It also gives the power to the minister to “remove any members, directors or officers of a corporation”. Would the minister agree with me that this is overreach by the government, that it stinks of far-left policies, and that it is the nationalization of some of our industries here in Canada, which we witnessed under Pierre Elliott Trudeau?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary East for his intervention today and for laying out exactly how bad the Liberals have been, especially when it comes down to things like balancing the budget. Bill C-31 is over 330 pages. We look at this thing and they are doing everything in here. So much of it has nothing to do at all with the budget. I want to speak specifically about division 16, which is on the establishment of the defence investment agency act and amending the Defence Production Act and renaming it the defence and national security production and procurement act. We are talking about substantive changes to the way the Liberals want to do procurement. When we start dealing with major changes like this, like giving a new minister new powers with up to $1 billion of spending without any oversight or accountability tied to it, I think these types of changes need to be legislated through their own bills and debated separately. Because this is part of the budget implementation act, we are not even able to study this at the defence committee. It is going to be done through the finance committee, which has to look at everything else in the budget, not just the changes that are happening to the defence investment and procurement processes that are currently under way with the government. We have been quite critical of how the government has gone and set up the Defence Investment Agency. What we are seeing is more layers of bureaucracy, another level of red tape, and it is just another illusion the Liberals are trying to pull on Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces. They are saying they are doing something when, in actuality, they are doing nothing. They went and hired a CEO. Doug Guzman is a lovely gentleman and I had a chance to meet him, but he comes to the table with no defence experience. He has no procurement background at all. His claim to fame is that he is an investment banker, and a very successful one at that. He used to be the Prime Minister's colleague at Goldman Sachs back in the day. We have a junior secretary of state who is overseeing the Defence Investment Agency, but again, it does not provide that one point of accountability in ensuring that our parliamentary processes are properly respected. We have a junior minister who is still reporting to another minister who then has to report back up to the Prime Minister. A junior minister, being the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, does not sit at the cabinet table. We also have been critical about the fact that the Defence Investment Agency is about how the government can coerce more jobs out of other companies that are going to want to do defence contracts, but will those jobs ever actually materialize? How much is it going to cost the taxpayer? How much more is the defence equipment we are buying for the Canadian Armed Forces going to cost because they have tied in all these extra things they want to do with the dollars they are spending? The top priority has to be making sure we are getting the right equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. As Conservatives, we have always supported the proud women and men who serve in uniform. We expect them to do dangerous things in the protection of Canada and to work with our allies. We have to make sure every decision we make is a prioritization of the equipment and kit that is required by the Canadian Armed Forces to do that job. We have to be capable. We have to be ready. We have to make sure the stuff we are buying is meeting those operational requirements and that we are interoperable with our allies and neighbours. Let us make sure we are not just creating more red tape, more bureaucracy or more cost in the name of a defence investment agency. We have been down this path before. The Liberals' track record on this for the past 10 years has been pitiful, as it was under the decade of darkness back in the day under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. What we get is all rhetoric and no action. We need to make sure we are taking action. It has been more than four years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The minister of the day talked about putting Canada on war footing with the defence industry. That never ever materialized. Here we are, four years after the fact, and the only increases in the production of munitions, artillery shells and rockets in this country have all been through contracts with the U.S. armed services, whether that is its army, air force, special services or navy. Those same benefits are not occurring for the Canadian Armed Forces, because the government has not signed any contracts. We can have all the agencies, bureaucracies, red tape and fancy announcements, but it means nothing unless we are actually putting ink to the dotted line and signing contracts with our defence industry that would then create the jobs because we are buying stuff that the Canadian Armed Forces needs to replace the hollowed out air force and army and the rusted out navy we currently have. Just to make that point, the results for 2024-25 for the Department of National Defence show that only 59.6% of the maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. The only reason it is at 60% is that it had to retire the entire fleet of our Kingston-class coastal maritime vessels. Only 51% of the land fleets are sitting at the ready and are well maintained so troops can use them. It is because of the underfunding for the national procurement of the aging fleet and because of the high operational tempo. They have been worn out and have not been properly maintained, because of budget cuts that happened under the Liberals. Over $2.7 billion a year was cut from 2021 to 2025. We know that the aerospace fleet is even worse, with only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces ready to serve and having the proper maintenance, but they are so aged out and so worn out. All we have to do is look at our CF-18s and the debacle with respect to their replacement. Because of the political games the Prime Minister plays with the F-35s, we have to get the F-35s to do the job. What we are seeing in Bill C-31, in division 16, with the establishment of the defence investment agency act, is that it would lock in all the inefficiencies that are already under the Defence Investment Agency. The bill does not name who the designated minister would be. There is no title or styling for that minister; it would just be a designated minister. It could be the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, or the Minister of National Defence, which I think would not be a bad idea, or there may be the creation of another junior minister who would not have the power and strength to go to the cabinet table and make the investments that are required to drive home what is asked for by our forces. The bill would establish more boards, more advisory committees and more people who are going to be hired. We are talking about more patronage and more Liberal insiders. We see, as we read through the bill, in clause 310, more opportunities for sole-sourcing and not running competitive competitions. Although it says in clause 322 that there would be a competitive procurement process, if we look at the exceptions, we see that almost everything could be excepted from it, and the minister would have the power to exclude companies and individuals from participating in the procurement but never say why they were excluded. There would be no transparency. What would the procurement ombudsman say about this lack of competition and the ability to sole-source without proper explanation? If the national security exemption is required, let us make sure we use it. This would create more contracting, more consultants and more Liberal insiders getting rich, which is the type of corruption we have to prevent. That is why we are asking why there are some rather strange definitions in the bill, such as “things”. There would be no guardrails, other than defence services, which is in clause 318, proposed paragraph 16(3)(d): “acquire defence services or professional or commercial services other than defence services”. Why are we even putting that under the defence investment act? The fact there would be no reporting, no performance and no transparency really raises a lot of red flags. Clause 312 would provide for the ability of the minister to procure shares of corporations; replace all members, directors and officers; and then place people in there the minister wants to run those organizations or those companies. It sure sounds a lot like nationalization. We have been down this path before with the Liberal government. It is called the Emergencies Act, and this reeks of having that overreach and that unaccountable style that we saw with the Emergencies Act. To conclude, I move, seconded by the member for Calgary East: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, since the bill fails to address meaningfully the cost of the living crisis which Canadians are facing through measures such as complete fuel tax relief, removing taxes and red tape which drive up housing costs, cutting the industrial carbon tax imposed on farmers and everyone else in the country's food chain, and eliminating wasteful government spending, all of which have driven up inflation including food price inflation”.

Madam Speaker, the one thing the member for Winnipeg North never talks about is the creative accounting that the Liberals did to get the 2%. They added these in, which have never been added in before, until 2017, and then they added in the big numbers last year: veterans pensions; the Canadian Coast Guard's entire budget, even though it is not a defensive organization nor does it have the ability to be a defensive organization; and Transport Canada airplanes. The pay raise the Liberals gave was long overdue, yet today there are still forces members who have not received the benefits or the bonuses for staying on as members, especially for those who serve in the Canadian reserves. The army reserves have not had those benefits yet at all. The Liberals can sit here and talk the game, but we know that, even with the increases in salaries, they have clawed them back by increasing rents on our troops. They have increased the living differentials, especially for the people who are now deployed overseas in Latvia. Their take-home pay has dropped since the so-called raise, because the Liberals are clawing it back through other deductions. If we had used the same math when we were government, our spending would have been well over 1.5%.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that if we look at actual things the Liberals have bought for our troops, we see that they have not resulted in increased lethality or kinetic capability within the Canadian Armed Forces. It took the Liberals over 10 years just to replace the sidearms for our forces. Today, members of the Canadian Armed Forces in Ottawa, in the national capital region, have been asked to turn in their rucksacks, sleeping bags, frag vests and body armour because there is not enough to be sent abroad for the people who are deployed in Latvia, where there could be a hot conflict in short order. We know that the people going through basic training right now do not even have enough uniforms, and there are not enough beds. This is a failure of the government to recognize what we need to keep our troops healthy, as well as to make sure that our Canadian Forces has the equipment to deal with the conflicts of today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday here, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean asked a question on Bill C-11 of the Minister of National Defence. It was a Liberal member asking the Liberal minister if the Liberals would include a sunset clause, which they had removed and which we had already agreed to at committee stage. The parliamentary secretary actually voted for that amendment, to go from a three-year to a four-year anniversary to bring in a review and a sunset clause. Then the Liberal minister, not listening to our committee, with the report we brought forward, and not listening to the survivors of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault, decided to ram it through and take that out. Now the Liberals are saying, according to the minister, that they would be open to the unelected Senate bringing forward that amendment. The parliamentary secretary sat on the committee, heard the witnesses say that they wanted a sunset clause, voted for a sunset clause, and then her very own minister gutted the bill and she voted for him to gut the bill of these amendments. Why?

Mr. Speaker, it is always important that I get to participate in these debates. First and foremost, I just want to thank the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard, who are out there every day, risking life and limb to keep us safe here at home, to secure our borders and to protect our security. It is often said that having a strong military actually ensures that we have economic prosperity. Having a prosperous country hardens our national security and our national defence. We need to continue to support those in the armed forces in everything that they do. On Bill C-11, we have worked very hard on the bill for the last year. As the shadow minister of national defence, this is something that is near and dear to my heart, in standing up for those who have served or are serving and who have been dealing with sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Nobody should have to go to work and experience danger that is imposed by their fellow colleagues. When we have to deal with individuals who are being aggressive, individuals who are going to carry out sexual misconduct, that is not a safe work environment. We look at the brave women and men who serve. They have already decided to step up and do one of the most dangerous things in the world, which is to protect our great nation. Instead of fighting the enemy, they are actually fighting off their fellow soldiers, aviators and sailors who are carrying out sexual misconduct. We have to stop that. I tell members that I am so disappointed in the Liberal government for not listening to those who serve, not listening to the survivors, not listening to veterans and not listening to police forces across this country, who have all said that we need to ensure that the agency of the victim is protected and that they have the choice to choose which justice system their cases are heard in, whether it is in the military justice system or in the civilian system. The Liberal government decided to be performative rather than pragmatic. Rather than taking the advice of veterans, rather than taking the advice of those who carry out military justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, rather than listening to police agencies and barristers and military justice experts, the Liberals are ignoring all of that because of the one thing they continue to hide behind, which is the Arbour report. The government decided to choose political expediency instead of actually bringing in a function within the military that works for everyone, not just those few at the top of the Canadian Armed Forces who are just trying to push this off their table. The Liberals are trying to pass the buck rather than take responsibility. We heard from so many of the victims at committee, when we studied Bill C-11. The reasoning they brought forward was the inspiration to make the amendments that we proposed at report stage, which were supported by the committee. I fear that, by the Liberals ignoring that advice, that brave and courageous testimony that we heard at committee, the Liberals are retraumatizing these victims. It just breaks my heart to know that these brave souls stepped up to tell their personal stories of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, sometimes happening many times over their careers. To have that thrown by the wayside at report stage, by the Minister of National Defence, proves that the government is not listening to those who are impacted. In reality, with what Bill C-11 does, especially here, as we are at third reading, all sexual misconduct and assault is going to be pushed off into the civilian system. There are higher thresholds there before a case will even proceed to prosecution and actually have success within the civilian justice system. That means that more of these perpetrators, more of these individuals who are committing sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, are going to walk free. Bill C-11 would remove all accountability, all prosecution and the ability to court-martial and carry out punitive measures against those perpetrators. Whether it is high-level or low-level sexual misconduct, removing that from the military would mean no accountability for those who are accused of carrying out sexual misconduct. That also would mean there would be no justice for those who have experienced sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces. The Liberals decided, now that they have their new-found, stolen majority, to run roughshod over Parliament and run roughshod over committees, and overturn all the hard work we did. We worked across party lines to bring forward very reasonable amendments to Bill C-11 that would make Bill C-11 work for those who are serving and work for those who are having to deal with sexual misconduct. We want to be able to use all the tools that are now available within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, the Liberals decided to make the bill narrowcasted and unable to carry out the justice that victims of sexual misconduct are looking for. They are using their stolen majority and are even ignoring the advice of the Liberal members who sat on the national defence committee and helped make many of the amendments that were gutted at report stage. That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting Bill C-11 at third reading. It is a slap in the face to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It ignores advice that came from the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, who said that they can do the job and that they have changed because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Arbour report. They have upgraded their skills and processes to investigate, to prosecute and to hold those to account within the Canadian Armed Forces. As a matter of fact, they would still have to do that for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when they are outside Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual assault, as defined by the Criminal Code, would still be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces military justice system and under the superintendency of the judge advocate general. It would still be prosecuted if someone is stationed in Latvia, England or Kuwait. Wherever we have our forces stationed, its members would still be subject to military justice, except when they are in Canada. When they are in Canada, that is taken away from the military and from the victims who want choice. I have to say how important choice is. It is about making sure that those victims maintain agency and franchise over their rights and decide which system is in their best interest. We know things have changed since Justice Arbour had her meetings and hearings with Canadian Armed Forces members. That is going back seven years now and the military has adjusted. New agencies have been put in place. Let us look at some of the testimony. Hélène Le Scelleur appeared at committee a couple of times going back several years. She said the following: Survivors must have the right to choose between civilian and military systems at all times, regardless of location or rank. Choice is not procedural. It is freedom: freedom from our aggressors and freedom from the silence that institutions have imposed upon us. I want to be clear that even with this choice, neither system is sufficient on its own. The military system understands the operational context. The civilian system provides independence and oversight. We would have balance and what the government wants to do is remove that balance. In another committee hearing a few weeks ago, we talked about how important it is to have choice in cases where someone was in a jurisdiction where their official language was not spoken. In her case, being from Quebec, a francophone, even though she is bilingual, she said: ... when we're talking about really specific things related to trauma or sensitive issues, I don't think I would be doing it in my second language, because when you're vulnerable, you don't have access to all of the vocabulary you would normally have. I would rather have the option of choosing the military way to make sure that I am going to have services in French, instead of the example you provided of staying in Alberta and having my case dealt with there when I'm from Quebec. She went on to talk about how she would not be able to get the high-level French support that she would need to go through the civilian justice system within the province of Alberta. Brigadier-General Hanrahan, who is the Canadian Forces provost marshal general and also the person in charge of the military police and the National Investigative Services, said, “At any point in the process with concurrent jurisdiction”, which means having both the justice system in the military and having access to the civilian justice system, “there's an ability to have a choice change....Concurrent jurisdiction allows us, from an investigative perspective and a prosecutorial perspective, to work with the victim to help them work through those choices at any point along that process.” The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in its submission to the national defence committee, said when it came to the provisions of Bill C-11: Bill C-11 would deny victims and survivors the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint might be investigated. This approach departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing. The one sad part in all of this is that the government is not providing any extra resources to local police forces, when our military bases are set up to take on these extra cases, that they are going to have to investigate on base now. It is not giving any extra resources to the provincial justice systems, so the courts would not be able to deal with the influx of cases that may be brought in. We know that the Jordan framework kicks in, the clock starts ticking and that justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, at the end of the day, we know that with the backlog that already exists within the civilian courts across this country in all jurisdictions, because of the lack of judges, prosecutors and court time, a lot of these cases are going to be thrown out. We know that, with low-level sexual misconduct cases that are dealt with right now within the Canadian Armed Forces, if they were transferred over into the civilian system the prosecutors would not proceed with the case if they did not think they were going to be successful in front of a judge. That is why, again, we need to provide the choice to our victims and our veterans. Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who is the former director of military prosecutions, said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.” That is exactly what Bill C‑11 does. It gives the power to the perpetrator, taking it away from the victim. That is disgusting. I have to say that we heard from a lot of military experts, some of whom are professors, some of whom used to serve in the military, some of whom are doing both; they are professors of law as well as captains within the Canadian Armed Forces, majors or higher. Afton David is one of them. She said: I would submit that from my perspective, they should all have a choice…considering both the safeguards and entitlements to the accused, but also the safeguards and entitlements to the victims now within the military justice system, I think we should at least give it a chance to deal with all the levels of sexual misconduct. Even though all of these changes have happened within the Canadian Armed Forces, the Liberals are throwing it out. We talked about the civilian system. We heard from lawyers across the country. The Barreau du Québec said it “considers that it would be appropriate to resolve these challenges by amending the bill so as to give victims the choice to decide which system would be best for them, given the circumstances of their situation.” We should not be going carte blanche and trying to force every case into the civilian system. We need to make sure the lower levels are handled within the military justice system so that appropriate measures can be taken, the code of service discipline is maintained and, at the end of the day, the administration of justice happens, whether it is with respect to a low-level sexual misconduct, inappropriate touching, comments and things like that versus an actual full-on sexual assault. One thing that came from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that I think we need to consider is that the CACP “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction.” It says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”. If we look at how Bill C-11, and clause 7 in particular, is written, it would take away the power of the military to actually do its own investigations. If all the evidence is on base or at a training exercise, that evidence could not be collected by the military police. They would have to wait till the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Quebec provincial police or the local municipal police agency showed up to start taking statements from witnesses and making sure it collects all the evidence. What would happen when we are training on Operation Nanook, up in the High Arctic? How would they get there in a timely manner? We always have military police accompanying our forces wherever they are. We talk about making sure there is ongoing accountability, and I will just touch on some of this quickly. Dr. Karen Breeck is a retired veteran who has worked with members of the veterans community who have experienced military sexual trauma. She says, “The bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases.” Jessica Miller, who is a survivor, wrote, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates, and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.” This is important to note. We have already had the civilian system at play since the minister gave the directive to the director of military prosecutions to start prosecuting all cases of sexual misconduct in the civilian system four years ago. We have four years of data now, and that experience has not been in the best interest of the victims. All we have to do is look at some of the high-profile cases that have gone before the courts and have been thrown out or had the charges stayed because of a lack of evidence or because they did not hit the threshold of actual prosecution. Afton David also said, “Bill C-11 effectively nullifies the code of service discipline's jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences that occur in Canada, rather than transferring jurisdiction. That decision risks passing responsibility to the civilian system without resolving the systemic causes that produce a loss of confidence in military justice in the first place.” That is a problem. We are going to lose more confidence. We are going to continue to have a situation where all this is going to be removed from the military. That is going to erode leadership and allow leadership to turn a blind eye to the sexual misconduct happening within the Canadian Armed Forces because it will be expected that the civilian system will be handling it. There is so much more here if we want to really look at doing what is right. Rory Fowler says, “If we want the leadership of the Canadian Forces to ensure that everybody in the Canadian Forces is treated fairly, is listened to and has a voice, then you have to give them the tools to do so. When they fail to use those tools, you have to hold them accountable, and that goes all the way up to the Minister of National Defence.” He goes on to say that “you can't legislate good leadership and you can't legislate culture change. What you can do is have legislation that allows you to hold leaders accountable.” Bill C-11 would do none of that. The leadership would still get to pass the buck. We have talked about the concern that there might be political interference with this bill, that it has been done with political expediency. I have to say, there was a sunset clause, and I asked the parliamentary secretary about it. It was clause 70.3. We added five paragraphs. It was unanimously accepted at committee. The sunset clause is important, and unfortunately, the government took it out. Knowing that we are opposing the bill, I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on National Defence for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 7 to 9, 15, 17, 40, 60 and 61 with the view to amend the bill so as to better reflect the views expressed by military sexual assault survivors and military justice experts in their testimony before the committee”.

Mr. Speaker, I am always disappointed with the member for Winnipeg North. He does not listen to anyone because he is always too busy flapping his lips. If he actually read the testimony we had at the national defence committee, if he had actually heard from victims, they would all have told him that things have changed since Arbour did her report seven years ago. She did all her interviews, she wrote her report, and it was not accepted by the government until five years ago. The director of military prosecutions within the Canadian Armed Forces even said that he gave the directive to start doing concurrent prosecutions, allowing victims to choose to go into the civilian system. Here we are five years later, and he said that if it was not for Bill C-11, he would have rescinded that order because the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a better job at prosecuting those cases, and victims are telling us that the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a better job of prosecuting those cases than—

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP worked very closely together to bring about the amendments that we wanted at committee. Even Liberal members of the national defence committee wanted to see changes brought in. The importance of choice is something that we heard over and over again. It was the only way we could ensure that the victims would be getting the justice that they so rightly deserve. With the changes that have already occurred within the Canadian Armed Forces, there are more and more opportunities for victims to get the help they need and carry through with the prosecution that gives them the justice they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his incredible service to this country as a colonel within the Canadian Armed Forces. He is right. So much has changed over the last five years. The Victims Bill of Rights has come in. It was adopted by the Canadian Armed Forces. It is in the National Defence Act now. That ensures the rights of the victim are always paramount and ensures that victim-focused lens in how we deal with every single case. We know that the military sexual misconduct resource centres have been set up across the country to provide assistance to those individuals who have experienced sexual misconduct, to make sure they get the counselling they deserve and also to determine which system works best for them based upon their case. We know that the training within the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Canadian Armed Forces military police, as well as in the prosecution and defence counsel services, those that are within the judge advocate general's purview, have all improved to the point that it is better than the civilian system.

Mr. Speaker, for over 50 years, the Snowbirds of the 431 Air Demonstration Squadron have served as an iconic symbol of Canadian identity, a powerful showcase of military excellence and one of the Canadian Armed Forces' most effective recruitment tools. Canadians have felt a surge of pride when watching the Snowbirds fly overhead. Sadly, 2026 may be the final season for the Snowbirds. In keeping with the Liberal government's tradition of cancelling our national symbols and heritage, the Liberals plan to end the Snowbirds team, without any clear plans for replacement. Liberals claim that this is merely a pause, but if the squadron is disbanded, the culture of excellence and institutional knowledge of the pilots, ground crew and support staff will be lost, and it may be impossible to recover. The Snowbirds are not a relic of the past. They inspire future generations to step forward, serve their country and believe in what Canadians can accomplish together. This is precisely the right time to let them soar across Canadian skies. It is time to save our Snowbirds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petition 451-00928, which is calling on the government to reinstate the agriculture research stations to be closed, announced on January 23. Over 665 positions were cut. This is a great concern to farmers and producers, as well as consumers in Canada, as we continue to undermine leading-edge research that is happening at Agriculture Canada research stations. To recap, the government announced it was going to cut the research facilities at Lacombe, Guelph, Quebec City, Indian Head, Scott, Portage la Prairie and Nappan, as well as the organic and regenerative research program at Swift Current Research and Development Centre. The petitioners are calling on the government to hire back the 665 researchers and scientists within Agriculture Canada, and to reopen all those facilities to support Canada agriculture and Canadian food consumers.

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister told Canadians that he fixed the recruitment crisis, but like everything with these Liberals, it was just another illusion. A leaked military memo tells a very different story. Some recruits were unable to communicate in either official language, and there are damning reports of misogyny and racism. This is more Liberal mismanagement and more of the same. These Liberals did not fix the military; they lowered the bar so low and hoped nobody would actually notice. When will the minister stop ignoring the facts and admit that his recruitment reforms have failed?

Mr. Speaker, the minister can sit here and spin his numbers all he wants, but he fails to mention that he actually knew that basic training success rates have fallen down to 77%. It is so bad that one platoon graduated only 48% of its recruits. A military that cannot graduate its recruits, cannot integrate its members and cannot maintain basic standards is not a military that is ready to defend our country. When will the Liberal defence minister stop prioritizing his press releases over the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces?

Mr. Speaker, it is disgusting to see the government actually using closure to shut down debate on such a serious issue, sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is disgusting that it is taking away the voice of veterans, of people who are surviving military sexual trauma, and not listening to the amendments being brought forward on Bill C-11. I do not know why the government is in a hurry on this. We brought it through committee in a relatively organized manner. We had cross-party support from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP to make amendments based on the testimony we heard at committee, and now the government wants to ignore all that, shut down debate and use its sneaky majority to stifle democracy right here. Why is the minister ignoring veterans and survivors of military sexual trauma and not making sure they have a choice in what justice system they want to use, whether it is the military justice system or the civilian system?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence admitted at committee that he took an old bill, Bill C-66, and brought it back to the current Parliament as Bill C-11. He never talked to anybody in the veterans community. He did not reach out and talk to members in the justice system within CAF. He never talked to anyone at the provincial level about the problems they are having in carrying on these prosecutions. If he had listened to veterans, and read the testimony that appeared in committee, they would have told him that they do not have faith in the civilian system, especially for low-level sexual misconduct; that they are going to be dismissed; and that there is then no recourse within the military system for any sort of administrative or disciplinary measures against those offenders. If he had been listening, he would have heard from police stations and police organizations across the country, as well as lawyers, saying to give victims the choice, so that they could choose which system they believe they are most comfortable in, whether it was the military system or the civilian system. If he listened to his own members of the Canadian Armed Forces, like the director of military prosecutions, like the director of defence counsel services, like the provost marshal general of the Canadian Armed Forces, they would have told him that they are all now at a better place, five years since the Arbour report, to actually bring in the changes that are needed to do what is right.

Mr. Speaker, I want to do a bit of a recap on the history, including pointing out the fact that in 2014 when sexual misconduct was becoming a major issue, the previous Conservative government commissioned Justice Deschamps to write a report. That report then sat on the desk of the former Liberal minister Harjit Sajjan, who was in the process of trying to cover up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance. The Liberals would rather cover things up than deal with the issues, and they ignored the nine great recommendations from Justice Deschamps. As a point of interest, I note that Justice Deschamps showed up at the committee's study on Bill C-11. The Liberals always talk about Justice Fish's appearing. He appeared as well and also submitted a written submission. All of them said that choice is an option. The only justice who did not show up and whom the Liberals continue to use as their shield is Justice Arbour. She did not show up at the committee to defend her report, and that report has now been discredited by the testimony we heard from veterans, including in the military justice system. Why will the Liberals not listen to veterans and military experts rather than try to push through on their own political agenda?

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?

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today. Bill C-11, when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward. There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one. They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form. Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country. When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs. I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11, previously Bill C-66. It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side. Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence's not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level. The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill. What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away. When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11, he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66, never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up. We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French. Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec. When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country. We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims' being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account. Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF's authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.” I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut, who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence. I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to know exactly what Madam Justice Arbour thought. We invited her to committee, but she did not even bother showing up to defend her report. Let us put this in perspective. Madam Justice Arbour's study and report were done years ago. Things have changed. The director of military prosecutions had said that, on a short-term basis, they needed to adjust and pivot, and to move all cases under the ministerial directive from one of the former ministers of national defence. Because of that, the military is prepared to deal with the cases today. What Madam Justice Arbour said before is now irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file as well. As a veteran, he has always been there to champion people who have experienced military sexual misconduct. We heard from the Victoria Police Department that it does not have the resources or the number of investigators needed, that it is already dealing with a backlog and that it has been offered no support and no resources from the federal government. We also received a written brief from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction” and says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”. Instead of having the ability to collaborate with our military police and national investigative service, they now have to go on base and take over all those investigations, without resources provided by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his hard work on Bill C-11 at committee, bringing in witnesses and listening to them. We worked across party lines to get the best possible amendments to this bill that listen to victims. The member talked about how the Liberals have now stolen their majority in a very sneaky way by getting floor crossers. Can he talk to the fact that now the Liberals get to ignore what the victims actually said at committee, and why they would do that when this is actually in the best interest of the Canadian Armed Forces and those survivors?

Mr. Speaker, we always have the same indignation coming from the member for Winnipeg North. He wants to talk about marginalization. He is marginalizing victims because he is not paying attention to what they actually said at the national defence committee in their testimony. They bravely stood in front of the committee, shared their experiences and demanded to have more freedom regarding which justice system they were able to get charges prosecuted under and move forward with. The member talks about Madam Arbour. We thank her for her report, which includes the 48 recommendations. However, the current government, for 11 years, sat on the report from Madam Justice Deschamps without touching it or lifting it. The Liberals never even dusted it off as it sat in the corner of the desk of defence ministers, going back to former Minister Sajjan back in the day. If they had acted upon that, we may not be in this situation now. The director of military prosecutions said if it were not for the directive coming from the government, he would have rescinded the orders and gone back to a concurrent system.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his service to Canada as a veteran, as a former commanding officer, whose family, his own son, is in the Royal Canadian Navy. My colleague talks about what we heard in testimony from those witnesses. There are more experts on military justice than just the one or two or three justices who have filed reports to the Department of National Defence and to ministers of national defence over the last 12 years. Some of them we heard from in testimony, such as the former director of military prosecutions, retired Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.” Does my colleague believe that what the Liberals are doing, by not listening to the victims and not keeping in place the amendments that multiple parties made together to improve Bill C-11, is again going to empower the perpetrators and undermine the freedom of the victim?

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the Liberals use the Arbour report as their shield in why they are gutting all the amendments that were made by the defence committee, some of which were even supported by the Liberals, where we worked across party lines as Conservatives, Bloc members and the NDP. Much has changed since the Arbour report came out. We know that at the time, there was a mandatory duty to report; the military police and health care providers were not fully ready or trained, but now they are; military members were not under the victims' rights charter, but now that charter is in effect; military members did not have access to a fully mature SMSRC for supports; military members did not have access to independent legal supports; and finally, military members did not have access to victims' liaison services. All those things are in place now. The Canadian Armed Forces has changed, so why not give the rights back to victims so they can choose what system best suits their need, regardless of their rank or where they are, whether in or outside Canada, on training, on base or in the community? They should have the supports they are asking for, not what the Liberals are shoving down their throats.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, who has been a long-time member of the defence committee. She has heard from more veterans, I am sure, than Justice Arbour did in her hearings several years ago. There is a base in the member's riding, and she is always advocating on behalf of members who serve, including the victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. The member has fought long and hard for victims and for the rights of women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard from many victims. Christine Wood said she “opposed the transfer of all cases to civilian court, and that was for three reasons: number one, it's broken; number two, it offers victims no choice; and number three, I believe the CAF has to maintain control over its jurisdiction and demonstrate it can be responsible for fixing its own harms.” A veteran who served, who experienced sexual misconduct and deals with military sexual trauma, is saying she needs choice. Other victims have said the exact same thing. Why will the Liberals not listen?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his service to Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy and his great work in standing up for victims. I first met the member's wife, Angel, who has also been a strong advocate of fighting for the survivors of military sexual trauma, when I was doing town halls across this country on military injuries, including military sexual trauma. Ever since then, she has been fighting for justice. After all of the committee hearings, the member and I and many others here have talked to veterans and current serving members across the country, and, particularly, the brave witnesses who stepped up at the national defence committee to look at Bill C-11 and lay out all their experiences. By the Liberals rejecting their testimony today in this debate, will that revictimize them knowing that the Liberals are brushing everything off?

Mr. Speaker, Canada needs an Arctic gateway to get our energy, commodities and resources from the prairies to the world. Hudson Bay offers two great locations: at Churchill and Port Nelson. Sitting on the shores of Hudson Bay, they offer the shortest shipping routes from the Canadian prairies to Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Energy companies stand ready to move liquefied natural gas through Port Nelson. The port of Churchill is already connected by rail and hydro and has enormous potential to enhance intermodal traffic through CentrePort. Conservatives have been calling for the renewal of the port of Churchill for years so we can protect Canada's Arctic sovereignty and get our LNG, oil and critical minerals to market. Alberta supports it. Saskatchewan supports it. Even Manitoba's NDP premier supports it. The Prime Minister is the only one left standing in the way, and his Major Projects Office has completely ignored this underutilized Arctic gateway. He has had all the power he needs for over a year, but we have heard nothing but silence. It is time for the Prime Minister to stop stalling and start delivering for Manitobans, and all western Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday afternoon by the deputy government House leader concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11. The six amendments contested by the honourable member for London West, almost 10 weeks after they were reported by the committee, have one thing in common: They were originally ruled out of order by the committee's chair. Let me remind the House that a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible. Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3327 of the Debates, on an amendment that the committee had made to Bill C-4, you reached a different conclusion from that that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had reached concerning the need for a royal recommendation. Similarly, on December 2, 2025, you reached a different conclusion from that of the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning the application of the so-called parent act rule to an amendment to Bill C-12 in a ruling found on page 4435 of the Debates. The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority. Bill C-11, as introduced, makes provision for the appointment, when necessary, of an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Moreover, Bill C-11 makes provision related to the responsibility of the judge advocate general and the chief military judge. Amendment CPC-1 would make provision of a similar effect concerning vacancies in the office of the judge advocate general. In these respects, I would argue that the amendment is consistent with the scope and principle of Bill C-11, as the role of the judge advocate general is integral to the scope of the bill. To illustrate the importance, it was included in the summary of the legislation. Additionally, the importance of legislation allowing for acting roles in the Canadian Armed Forces' chains of command were addressed with the provision for an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Not only is this within the scope of the study, it fixes an unintended omission of the Liberals in the drafting phase and would ensure accountability for a role that has been vacant for extended periods of time in the past. This amendment would ensure consistency across all leaders within the military justice system. As the deputy government House leader observed, this would require the amendment of a provision of the National Defence Act, which was not subject to other amendments in Bill C-11. While she argued that that would breach the parent act rule, I would disagree with her on this point and refer the Chair to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, delivered October 24, 2018, where he explained, starting on page 22797 of the Debates: The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper. However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill.... The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment. Along similar lines, amendment CPC-16 would add a timeline for the designation of a chief military judge when the office becomes vacant. What is interesting here is that the 120-day time frame in amendment CPC-16 is a product of a Liberal subamendment, and that amendment, as amended, was unanimously adopted, including by the Liberal members present voting for it that day. Elsewhere, Bill C-11 makes provision for the appointment of a victim's liaison officer, who would have the responsibility of, in the words of the chief of the defence staff at committee, “ensuring they have the appropriate support to navigate the justice system”. Amendment CPC-10 would make similar provision for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused. This would be consistent with Bill C-11's proposal to ensure that individuals from outside the justice system who find themselves interacting with that system have the appropriate support to navigate it, which the chief of the defence staff testified about herself. As such, I would submit that this amendment is within the scope and principle of Bill C-11. Next, there is amendment BQ-2, concerning an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bill C-11 is largely about addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Measures such as an inspector general for military sexual misconduct would, I respectfully submit, fall within the scope and principle of a bill that addresses military sexual misconduct. It too was unanimously supported by committee. With respect to the deputy government House leader's concern that amendment BQ-2 would require a royal recommendation, I would argue that the amendment was carefully drawn up to impose an obligation on the Minister of National Defence to prepare and table a report concerning a plan to establish such an office. To be clear, while this amendment would get the wheels turning in this direction, it would not directly cause the appointment of, or the expenditure involved with, an inspector general. This approach is consistent with any number of private member's bills in recent years concerning frameworks, strategies and plans that have not offended the financial prerogative of the Crown. Amendment BQ-3, meanwhile, would amend clause 18 with a view to increasing the pool of potential military judges, something that clause 18 of the bill was drafted to do in the first place. Furthermore, the amendment would see a serving officer or non-commissioned member appointed as a military judge released from the forces to enhance their independence. Bill C-11 contains other measures to enhance the independence of military justice system actors and to vouchsafe this independence relative to the judge advocate general. In my view, this amendment is entirely consistent with the spirit, scope and principle of Bill C-11. Turning to amendment NDP-4, sponsored by someone who now sits in the Liberal caucus, this amendment would ensure that everyone involved in the investigation or prosecution of the offences spelled out in subclause 70(2) of Bill C-11 has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. I would point the Chair to the committee testimony of the Attorney General of Canada in an answer to a Liberal colleague's question. He stated the following: We need to make sure that there are systems that are ready with people who are trauma-informed, with people who have appropriate training and with people who have safeguards in place to ensure that people can share their stories, know that they're going to be taken seriously and know that they'll be given whatever testimonial aids may be necessary for them to fully share their perspective. A now Liberal MP brought forward an amendment voted for by Liberal MPs to give effect to the Liberal minister's views, which were offered in response to a Liberal caucus colleague's concerns, and now we have the deputy House leader of the Liberals trying to throw the whole thing in the recycling bin. What is actually going on over there? Is the Prime Minister trying to use a stolen majority to force Liberals to swallow whole the very ideas they backed mere months ago? Is this a sign of what Canadians should expect from the Prime Minister, who has shown little regard for Parliament now that he is flexing power? However, I digress. In summary, the Liberal deputy House leader is seeking your intervention to undo key portions of the national defence committee's good work on Bill C‑11, much of which her own Liberal colleagues have supported, on the premise that the committee chair's ruling has been overturned. However, as I have laid out, a committee chair's rulings are not infallible, and in the present circumstances, the amendments concerned satisfy the necessary procedural requirements. I would ask you to find the defence committee's third report to be entirely in order and to reject the Liberal government's challenge to usurp the work that was done by committee members in good faith for all survivors of military sexual assault and misconduct.

Mr. Speaker, as Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine drags on into its fourth year, billions of dollars in Russian state assets are collecting dust in Canada while Ukraine bleeds. The government talks about standing with Ukraine, and the Liberals are good at writing cheques using Canadian taxpayer dollars, but they will not touch the 23 billion dollars' worth of frozen Russian assets right here in Canada. These are assets that belong to the regime in Moscow waging this illegal war. Legal experts, security analysts and human rights lawyers agree that Canada can and should forfeit these frozen Russian assets and use them to support Ukraine's defence and reconstruction. This is why I am calling on the government to quickly pass my private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act, so Ukraine can defeat Putin's war machine, stop his imperial ambitions and begin to rebuild after Russia's barbaric invasion. Canada can help save Ukraine by using Bill C-219. The only question is whether the Liberal government will act to hold Russia accountable for the devastation it has caused in Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, all that bragging is just talk and no action. It is the Minister of National Defence's job to fight for the best interests of those who put on the uniform to fight for each and every one of us. These brave Canadians are deployed to Latvia and other places around the world without hesitation. They sacrifice months away from their loved ones in the name of Canada because the minister tells them they have to. It is his job to make sure they are treated as the best that this country has to offer. Instead of making excuses or bragging, will the defence minister take responsibility and help our military families make ends meet?