Bill C-11

Military Justice System Modernization Act

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act that relate to the military justice system in response to the Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence and the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
In response to those reports, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the process for appointing the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services with a view to enhancing their independence;
(b) affirm the Judge Advocate General’s respect for the independence of authorities in the military justice system in the exercise of the Judge Advocate General’s superintendence of the administration of military justice;
(c) remove the court martial’s jurisdiction to try a person in relation to an offence under the Criminal Code that is alleged to have been committed in Canada and that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose and provide for exceptions;
(d) [ Deleted ]
(d.1) provide for the development of a plan for the establishment of an office of the inspectorgeneral for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces;
(e) expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge;
(f) expand the class of persons who may make an interference complaint and provide that a member of the military police or person performing policing duties or functions under the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s supervision must make such a complaint in certain circumstances; and
(g) change the title of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to the Provost Marshal General.
In addition, the enactment amends the National Defence Act to remove military judges from the summary hearing system and to provide that, in the context of a service offence, an individual acting on behalf of a victim or an accused may request that a victim’s liaison officer be appointed to assist them.
It further amends that Act to harmonize the sex offender information and publication ban provisions with the amendments made to the Criminal Code in An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act .
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, provide superior courts of criminal jurisdiction with the jurisdiction to hear applications for an exemption in respect of orders to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act made under the National Defence Act and applications to vary the duration of such orders.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation and the actions we have taken in the last number of years has ensured victims of sexual abuse or harassment are going though the civilian system today. It is the law enforcement agencies.

For example, and I use this as a hypothetical example, if there were an issue that arose in the city of Winnipeg, I suspect it might be the City of Winnipeg police that would do the investigating, and it would be then the province that would do the prosecuting. I know there are some discrepancies, because it still all needs to be worked out, but this is already happening today, at least in part. It is about having faith and confidence in our judicial system.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get my colleague's perspective on today's debate.

Why does he think some Conservative members are framing this in partisan terms, blaming the Liberals for prorogation of Parliament and delaying Bill C-66, when they themselves were calling for an election? Given the importance of moving forward with the amended bill, especially improvements that could be done at the committee stage, do you believe we can work together to pass the bill and protect the victims?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Statements are to be made through the Chair.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. If we were to take a look at what was being said on the floor of the House of Commons last year, it would be very clear we could have passed Bill C-66. It did not pass and get royal assent because the Conservative Party had an agenda that was politically self-serving, as opposed to serving Canadians. This is the reality. I would debate that issue anytime, because that is the truth.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

I want to let you know that I will be splitting my time, should any remain, with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

First of all, I want to tell people what this bill does, if they are not aware. It is similar to Bill C-66 from the last Parliament with some language changes in English and French to fix some errors.

It essentially amends the National Defence Act to transfer the jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civil authorities when the offence takes place in Canada, but it remains under the Canadian Armed Forces if it occurs outside of Canada.

The legislation incorporates recent amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and publication ban rules into the National Defence Act and tries to increase the independence of the people who are involved in these prosecutions and investigations from the chain of command.

It also identifies different levels of review, including the minister, to try to get greater accountability.

I want to say right up front that I am very happy to see this bill coming to the House; it is just a shame it has taken so long.

I have been here in the House since 2015. I can remember in 2015 when the first report, the Deschamps report, came out. Minister Sajjan sat on it for five years and did nothing to address the sexual misconduct that was rampant throughout the military. At that point in time, a light was shone on it.

We were doing a study in 2021, at the status of women committee, which I was chairing. I know there was a study done as well at the defence committee. However, this was at at the time when General Vance had allegations of sexual misconduct against him and the PMO and Minister Sajjan knew about the allegations. Did they investigate him? Did they suspend him while they investigated? No. They gave him a $50,000 raise. What did that say to the victims who were waiting for justice? They had been waiting for five years, since the Deschamps report, and then this broke. Then there was all the filibustering at the defence committee by the Liberal government. There was not that same problem at the status of women committee.

We had testimony after testimony from women who had experienced sexual violations, such as gang rape in the first eight weeks of being in the military. We heard horrific stories. They were hard to hear. It was really disheartening to know that all of the survivors did not believe anything would change in the military after all this time. It was disheartening to see the government demand another report and get the Arbour recommendations, then a year later demand a third report. It has been 10 years and now all of a sudden it seems to be in a total hurry. I think victims could be not blamed for thinking that it is virtue signalling. That is what we have seen from the government to this point.

That said, I want to talk about a couple of things.

First, I want to talk about the actual problems I see in this bill. Basically, when we look at the testimony that was heard, what was clear was when there were allegations of sexual misconduct, especially against a senior officer, the old boys' club would gather around and there was punishment given to the complainant. In some cases, if they were overseas, they were returned home as if they were discharged or demoted out of the situation. I am sure there was some good intention of protecting and not having the victim have to work day after day in the environment with the perpetrators, but obviously this is not an acceptable trauma-informed way of dealing with the situation.

I do not have a problem with moving the jurisdiction to the civil courts; however, what I would say is this. When I was on status of women, we heard testimony of sexual violations. About 40% of them do not even get a police report done. Of the 60% that get a police report done, only 5% of them make it to trial. Of the 5% that make it trial, only 1% ever get a conviction. Of the 1% that get a conviction, the penalty is measured in months of house arrest or community service compared to the trauma the victim has experienced.

While we can say that yes, it was the recommendation of all the reports that we transfer the issue out of the CAF and put it into the criminal court system, we have a problem in our criminal court system. We do not have enough judges. We do not have, in many cases, any penalties, and are letting repeat sexual violent offenders out on bail. We hear about it day after day. I have a pile of examples I could read.

Are the survivors of sexual misconduct in the military going to be better off if they have to go through the current court system? Many of the rapists are getting off on the Jordan principle, which says that if they wait a certain amount of time and there are not enough judges and they cannot hear their case, then they go free. That is not justice. That is one of the concerns I have. The legislation would not really fix the problem of making sure we deal with the problem and get justice for the victims.

The second thing I am concerned about is how the criminal courts and that legal process would interface with the military. How would they exchange information to co-operate in investigations and prosecutions? I see that there would not really be anything in place to allow them to share the information, and that is problematic.

The other thing is that international incidents that occur would still be investigated under the prior system under the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard testimony from people who served overseas and who were sexually assaulted, and the resolution there was not good, so not changing that would, again, not address the problem for the victims.

When it comes to looking at some of the other issues we have heard about, today under the military system, if somebody is accused, then the military covers the cost of the litigation for them. Therefore if there is a complaint that is not valid, and frivolous complaints can come forward, it can be very expensive. If we move all of that to the criminal courts, then the individual is on the hook for the expenses, whether the charge is a valid one or not. That is another area where the government should take a look at what it has put before the House and see whether there is a way of shoring that up so it can determine that if there is pernicious prosecution, the military can pay for it.

Another thing in the bill is that the government has created a whole bunch of new term limits, and they are not consistent across everyone. I believe that the intent is to make people more independent from the chain of command, which I support, but it is not clear to me why the terms are all different and why the government would put new roles in place. To me, it would create a lot of bureaucracy. If we look at the Liberal government and its record, this is what it does. If the Liberals want to solve a housing crisis, they create not just one bureaucracy; they are on number four. When it comes to defence procurement, the Liberals have decided the broken system would be fixed by putting a new defence procurement bureaucracy in place. It is the same for the major projects system, and I could go on.

There are still things we need to repair, and at the end of it all, it comes back to trust. The victims do not trust the current government, because it spent 10 years doing nothing, and they do not believe the Liberals now. I do not know why the Liberals think people would believe them until they see actual action and something put in place that would get victims the justice they need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in getting the member's thoughts in regard to the 48 recommendations. We have been very clear throughout the day that 47 of them are well under way, and we are anticipating that we could have them complete before the end of the year. The recommendation that has a question mark on it is actually Bill C-11.

I wonder whether the member is in a position to provide some assurance to members of the forces and to others that, from her perspective, she would like Bill C-11 passed before the end of the year so we could unanimously say that all 48 recommendations have been complete.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of confidence that the amendments I have just gone over, which are all reasonable amendments, would be accepted at committee, based on the history that I have seen, where the Liberals continually turn down the common-sense amendments of the Conservatives. This is our only opportunity to air those concerns and get them in the public, but certainly we will support the bill's going to committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent work. It is almost 10 years that we have been together in Parliament, and I think she has been involved in the work of the status of women committee for all or most of that time.

One observation I would have about this debate is that the Liberals are speaking a lot about the changes they are making to military justice, in particular, bringing this into a civilian context. However, this is also about a context in which we have a dramatic increase in violent crime across the board in this country. We are seeing more burden placed on our police officers and courts. This follows the application of a failed Liberal ideology to the justice system. One needs only to consult violent crime data to see that violent crime was going down prior to 2015 and started going up after 2015. It is not hard to identify what might have been a significant contributing factor to that change in trajectory.

Would the member have any thoughts on how the bill fits into the larger trajectory of events around violent crime in this country?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, rape is up 76% in this country. We do not have enough judges. Rapists are walking on bail. Repeat offenders are walking on bail. As I have said, the conviction rate is slim to none.

We cannot move things from the military justice system to the criminal justice system unless the criminal justice system is fixed so that women and men who are sexually assaulted in Canada get justice.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those statistics are alarming, for example, that we continue to see a very low conviction rate. That is discouraging, no doubt, to those who have been victims and might be considering coming forward or in instances in which we have perpetrators who are repeatedly released on bail, even though they are repeat violent offenders.

We had an opportunity today to try to take some action on that, when the Conservatives put forward a constructive proposal through our opposition day motion to move forward the jail-not-bail private member's bill. The government is trying to create anticipation around a bill that has yet to come forward whereas we, as Conservatives, have already prepared a bill and put forward a solution. The Liberals voted against even advancing that to committee. Victims cannot wait any longer.

I wonder if the member would like to reflect on the results of that vote today and what message the Liberals' opposition to our constructive proposal sends to victims of crime.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have already outlined the fact that Canadians have lost trust in the Liberal government. This is just another fact. Obviously we need bail, not jail.

For six months, the justice minister has had an opportunity to introduce the things that would reverse what is in Bill C-75, which gives people bail. It talks about the least restrictive punishment at the earliest possible opportunity. That means fines and bail today. That is what is happening.

That is not justice. That is not going to make victims want to come forward, because going through the process of the investigation and the trial is very punishing to them. There is no evidence for how they are going to be protected by the Canadian military while this civil process is going on. Are they going to be protected in their jobs? Will they be exposed to their perpetrator? What will happen? What will be done to protect those people?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always with great pride that I rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

That is especially true when we are discussing our armed forces since the Valcartier military base is a just a few kilometres from my riding. It is very well represented by the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier. As with all members who have a military base in their area, there are hundreds, even thousands, of military personnel, former military personnel, and military families living in my riding.

We can be proud of our military, which shone with distinction when it was called upon around the world. It happened in World War I with the Battle of Vimy Ridge, in World War II with the tragedy of Dieppe and the Normandy landings, but also during the landings in Italy, in which my father participated with the very prestigious Royal 22nd Regiment.

Closer to home, there are all those who served in the war in Afghanistan. I want to remind everyone that Canadians died there, including a young man from Loretteville, close to where I was born. Corporal Jonathan Couturier died on September 17, 2009, when he was barely 23 years old. He served under our flag, and it is important that we remember that.

The Canadian military has had its moments of glory, but it has also had its share of trials and tribulations, like any organization. As with any organization, depending on the social situations in each era, there have been challenges to be faced. I remember very well that when I was about 10 years old, in the mid-1970s, a tragedy happened not far from my home in Loretteville. A soldier who no longer had his wits about him because he had drunk a little too much alcohol unfortunately killed some children. This incident brought a lot of attention to the problem of alcoholism in the Canadian Armed Forces. What did they do? They took the problem and dealt with it properly. They succeeded in significantly reducing that alcoholism that was rampant among members of our army in the 1970s.

Members will also remember the infamous and unfortunate scandal in the mid-1990s involving the Airborne Regiment, when Canadian soldiers in Somalia dishonoured our flag and their uniform by engaging in behaviour that was completely unacceptable. That is why the regiment was disbanded in 1995 by prime minister Jean Chrétien, as everyone likely remembers.

As I said, whenever challenges arise in the military, they must be addressed, and the Canadian military has always seized the opportunity to resolve difficult situations.

The current situation involves sexual misconduct in the Canadian military. Yes, that is the reality we have to deal with. That is why we are gathered here today to discuss Bill C‑11, which directly addresses this concern about sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, particularly with regard to the chain of command and the utterly reprehensible incidents that have occurred in recent years.

Bill C‑11 is reminiscent of Bill C‑66 from the last Parliament. Essentially, when there are cases of sexual misconduct, the bill aims to have the judicial process take place in the civilian system and not in the military police system, under military law. In addition, the government would appoint the military leaders who are responsible for discipline.

Regrettably, the issue of sexual violence is not something new. The Canadian Forces and Canadians have been dealing with it for more than a decade. It was in 2014 that Stephen Harper's Conservative government tasked former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps with investigating the everyday reality of sexual violence in the Canadian Forces. One year later, Justice Deschamps tabled a scathing report that showed, unfortunately, in black and white, that sexual violence was a serious problem. About ten recommendations were made, which were adopted by the Harper government.

Then came the 2015 election and, unfortunately, a period of total darkness on the issue of sexual violence.

For years, under the Justin Trudeau government, neither its ministers nor its MPs chose to do the right thing. True, other inquiries were held, yet this only raises the question of why they were necessary, given that the evidence already confirmed the need for immediate action to solve the problem of sexual violence in our army.

For five years, the government was asleep at the wheel. It called for another inquiry by two different judges who each conducted their own inquiry, even though we all knew as far back as 2015 that action was needed. Still, the government did nothing. Obviously, what shocked everyone into action was the incident involving General Vance, Canada's top soldier. Here was a soldier who held the Canadian army's most powerful position, who was initially the focus of rumours, then allegations, then substantiated evidence and then a trial.

Why is it that, for all these years, nothing has been done? Why is it that this government, for 10 years, has done everything it can to cover up the affair? Why is it that, while this case was being studied by a parliamentary committee on April 12, 2021, the Liberal government, along with the Bloc Québécois, decided to put an end to the parliamentary inquiry? This was followed by many other developments that I will have the opportunity to discuss later, the next time this bill comes before the House.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Military Justice Modernization Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are resuming the debate from two days ago on a very important bill about a very sensitive subject. We must be serious and rigorous in doing this work, since it concerns misconduct in our armed forces, more specifically, sexual assault. That is why we need to take the time to do things right.

This is an important issue. Every time the army has been faced with an internal problem, it has been able to take control of the situation and deal with it properly. Two days ago, I was talking about some sad events that took place in the 1970s in Loretteville, where I live. Alcoholism was a serious problem for many of our soldiers at the time. People died as a result, and the army took the situation in hand and corrected the problem.

It was the same thing later on, in the mid-1990s. Sadly, members will recall that the internal traditions of the Canadian Army's paratrooper unit were resulting in inappropriate behaviour. Crimes were also committed when this unit was operating in Somalia. Once again, when the army was faced with an ethical issue, people acted appropriately, and things have improved since then.

From 2015 to 2025, we have been grappling with the issue of sexual misconduct by some of our military personnel. I say from 2015 to 2025 because it is important to remember that, during this period, three reports were produced on the same subject, and the conditions were the same.

The first report was tabled by retired Supreme Court Justice Deschamps in 2015. It contained 10 recommendations for addressing the scourge of sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, the government that was elected a few months later failed to act for years. Five years later, another investigation was conducted and it reached the same conclusions, namely that the problem had to be addressed. Subsequently, a third report recommended taking action.

All of this coincided with the sad episode involving Canada's number one soldier, General Vance, who was facing such accusations. What started as rumours became allegations; testimony was given, a trial was held and a decision was rendered.

It was time for the government to take action. We might even say that we wasted 10 years before doing the right thing in this case. Nevertheless, some progress has been made because of all the attention this issue has received. What the government is currently proposing deserves attention, of course. Fundamentally, we agree. That is why we are going to work hard on this bill in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments the member has made not only just now but also when he introduced his comments the other day.

As the member just said, the principle of the legislation, which takes sexual harassment and assault out of the military court system and puts it into the civil system, is something that, it would appear when listening to all the debate, everyone inside the House wants to support.

If he supports the principle of it, would the member not agree to get into some of the details? This is not to prevent debate, but, in order to get into some of the details, it might be a good thing to see it go to committee, where we will have ample time for more debate.

After that, there will be more debate once it gets to third reading.