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

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sex assault victims, whether they be military-based or civilian-based, have an absolute lack of trust in the Canadian legal system. There is significant under-reporting, and inconsistent investigative measures are taken. When a matter does get to court, there are Crown attorneys who either display an interest or a lack of interest. There is revictimization within the trial process itself.

How does Bill C-11 address those deficiencies?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has worked in the gender violence space for many years, I know there is distrust of our systems among survivors, and there is work to be done in all of our legal systems to build back trust. There are some very strong elements in this bill that are based on the strong recommendations coming out of the reports from both justices that give us a pathway for that.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the very essence of this bill. One of the recommendations in the Arbour report is recommendation 5, which I mentioned earlier. It proposes completely removing from CAF jurisdiction the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed within Canada. As I understand it, that was the only recommendation that required legislation.

Does my colleague believe that the bill fully responds to recommendation 5 of the Arbour report?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from my understanding, this bill would allow us to establish and move forward on the particular requirement that was noted.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how is removing military jurisdiction over sexual offences a necessary step to rebuilding the trust of victims and survivors who have lost faith in the system? Can you explain that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions should go through the Chair.

The hon. member for Spadina—Harbourfront.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why is this important? Part of what surfaced in the reports was the existence of the chain of command and it being a challenge in the culture of the military. The bill would allow for a different approach to justice, which was one of the recommendations put forth very strongly.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague across the way to answer the question, if she can, about why the Liberals are splitting the treatment of crimes committed on Canadian soil from those committed when our armed forces personnel are deployed off Canadian soil.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will confess that I am not able to speak to that; I do not have the answer, unfortunately.

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

Mr. Speaker, in principle, what we have heard from all sides of this House is support for the legislation. A previous Conservative speaker summed it up quite well in saying that the principle is there and we need to get it to committee. I agree with that member.

We have now exceeded the five-hour mark. If we allow the bill to go to committee, many questions, like the one just asked, could be answered, because there is just reason for them. I am sure if the member really wants an answer, we can provide it to him. If he wants to come across the way, I would be more than happy to talk to him off to the side.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on getting this bill passed so it can go to committee.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important legislation to pass so that survivors can feel safe. One of the other elements in the legislation that I think is really important is the annual reporting. The measures there are best practices in this space, and I think this is an opportunity for us to do the right thing.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this chamber to put some words on the record about Bill C-11. This piece of legislation is of national importance. It is well overdue given the time that has elapsed since the recommendations came forward in the initial report, which I believe was commissioned by a Conservative government, on the heinous acts and actions within our Canadian Armed Forces. It is past time that we address these issues in a serious way.

The bill would impact my constituency of Brandon—Souris quite closely. I very proudly represent the hard-working Canadian Armed Forces personnel stationed at Canadian Forces Base Shilo, which includes the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the 1RCHA and the many other serving and civilian personnel who operate that base, which has a huge impact. There are over 1,100 employees in total, which is significant in western Manitoba. I am really proud to represent those folks, first as their member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and now here in the House of Commons.

From a constituency service perspective, issues around sexual transgressions and sexual assaults within the military come to my constituency office far too frequently, as do the impacts of the lack of services that should be available to many who experience such devastating actions from their colleagues, their spouses or anyone else who chooses to perpetrate such deplorable actions. These are certainly not issues that I am a stranger to, sadly. That is a very unfortunate reality, but it is the reality, so I felt it was important to get up and put a few words on the record in support of the fact that we need to do better by the people who put their lives on the line for this great country under our proud Canadian flag.

It is very important to note that Conservatives have always said that members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace and that those who have not experienced that while wearing the uniform deserve justice. We have heard lots of Conservatives raise personal examples, some very personal, of where that has not taken place recently or over the course of many years and, sadly, many decades. It is time to deliver a system that works better for victims and does not protect the bad actors in our system. We have so many systems now in this country that are focused on protecting the wrong people, and victims are left behind. This is just one example, but it is an important one that needs to be addressed.

While we certainly support the recommendations and support addressing the system to ensure that there is justice for folks who have experienced this type of trauma within the Canadian Armed Forces, we believe that Bill C-11 requires careful study at committee. That is why we are putting words on the record now in debate. The government, which has taken so much time to deliver a bill on this issue, continues to question why the Conservatives are speaking to it. It is because we have important questions that the Liberals need time to answer. We know they are not the most expeditious when it comes to investigating concerns that are raised by Canadians, particularly by the official opposition, and when it comes to the legislation they put forward.

We are putting them on the record now so that when the bill gets to committee, we sincerely hope, the Liberals may have some answers. I just previously raised a question for a Liberal member who, to her credit, admitted she had no idea what the answer was. I asked why the bill would treat crimes differently on Canadian soil than when our armed forces personnel are deployed. I credit the member for her honesty, but members who are speaking to the bill from the governing party, which put forward the legislation, should likely know the answers to questions before they get up to deliver remarks in the House of Commons.

That said, a couple of the concerns we have are about the civilian courts and their capacity to handle the cases. We understand that they may be, and in fact likely are, more experienced in dealing with these types of cases, but the courts are already backlogged. Time and time again, cases of serious violent offences, whether they be sexual in nature or cases of violent behaviour, run up against the Jordan framework, where the perpetrators are getting off on their charges because the courts cannot get through the process fast enough to have cases heard and verdicts delivered.

If we would now be adding more cases into the civilian court system, what provisions would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the court system could handle the additional workload coming its way? The Liberal government has been silent on that front, which is a concern, because if the Liberals are promising that the cases would be heard in a more effective manner, they need to put the resources behind the bill and streamline the processes to ensure that the cases would not get thrown out because of the Jordan framework.

Why would the legislation cover only domestic cases? I raise that again because it is an important point. The military police would be dealing with fewer cases overall, so that speaks to a potential lack of training or a lack of experience in dealing with cases as time goes on, yet they would still be called upon to do cases overseas. What standards and what training and expertise requirements would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the military police keep their standards up and in fact improve them while investigating cases overseas?

This can be challenging at the best of times when there are different jurisdictions and in many cases different nations and citizenships that are involved when such cases take place on multilateral operations, such as the ongoing deployment in Latvia. Soldiers from CFB Shilo in my constituency just completed a six-month stint in Latvia. Where does that leave the military police and their capacity?

Current crime stats are on the rise domestically under the Liberal government; we know that is a fact. We do not anticipate demand going down; in fact it would likely increase for civilian courts if they would be handling military penalties and cases. It could also mean that the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies under Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, where people who commit violent sexual offences are allowed to serve out their sentence on house arrest, may be allowed to do for military cases as well should they all move to the civilian system.

On a very small base, like the one in my constituency, there could be people living just down the street from their perpetrator on house arrest while their case goes through the court system and after conviction. We find that completely unacceptable in terms of the scope and impact it would have on the victims, who should be our priority. The Liberals have failed on the domestic civilian front, and we are very concerned they will fail again, as they have been failing, the victims within our Canadian Armed Forces.

I think we have raised some significant concerns that the Liberals have failed to provide any reasonable answer for, and that is why it is important that we thoroughly debate the bill, both here at second reading and at committee.

I want to be very clear that we want equal treatment for victims in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to ensure that there is commonality across the board, and we want to make sure that victims are treated with the respect, the dignity and the justice they deserve.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his service in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am very grateful to him. I am also very pleased to know that he and his colleagues are going to support this bill. He asked a very sincere question.

I have a question for him too. Does he believe that the current military court system serves the interests of Canadian Armed Forces members who are victims of sexual misconduct, or does he believe that using civilian courts instead is a better option for those individuals?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think Conservatives have been pretty clear that we believe the military system as it currently exists has failed victims within the Canadian Armed Forces who have experienced sexual trauma. However, we are concerned about the capacity of the civilian courts to handle additional work, when they are not getting through all the work they currently have before them. Many perpetrators of violent crimes, including sexual assaults, are getting off based on the Jordan framework.

While the current system is failing members of the Canadian Armed Forces, we do not want their hopes for better service to be dashed when military cases move into the civilian court system, because the civilian courts are currently not serving victims as well as they need to be either.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what does my colleague think about General Vance's statement that he had nothing to fear because he controlled the judicial process?

How did we get to this point, where a person in authority believes he is above the rules, above the law, and safe from punishment because judgments involving military personnel are under the control of the military high command itself?