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, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot about the consultations that have taken place. I would refer the member to Justice Arbour's report and the amount of work involved in the presentation of that report. I have made reference to the 48 recommendations in total, of which I believe three dozen have been implemented.

The essence of this bill deals with one specific recommendation that is based on literally hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, CAF members and others. I believe it is the right recommendation.

What are the member's thoughts with regard to that specific recommendation where we would transfer cases from the military to the civilian court?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree on that, as I said in my speech. The question I asked my colleague opposite, to which I have not yet received an answer, is the following: Why not retain the flexibility to give victims a choice?

In any crime, in any unfortunate event that can happen, the most important person is the victim. That person's choice and free will should always come first. I do not understand, and I imagine that my colleague does not have an answer for me because he did not give me one.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was tabled by my colleague, and even the comments that just came from the member for Winnipeg North, because I agree with my Bloc colleague that this is about choice for the victims. The member for Winnipeg North keeps bringing up this issue of what Justice Arbour recommended. A lot has changed, and I gave a full speech on this earlier this week at the report stage, highlighting that we have actually gotten this right.

The system now provides that the military police try to transfer any of these Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian courts or to the civilian jurisdiction. However, police in these jurisdictions are coming back saying they cannot do it. Their threshold is too high, they do not have the resources, and now, basically, justice is not getting served. With the choice that has existed now over the last five years, we are giving victims the opportunity to make sure justice is served and for the military to take administrative action even when criminal court proceedings go through on the civilian side.

What does the member think about those comments?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I certainly agree on that. The problem I have is that it seems to me that giving victims a choice should be obvious. What is more, there was consensus, and that is the sad part. All of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done. I do not know what principles it used to do that. If someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it.

As for the recommendation to make judges more independent by having them be released from the armed forces, it seems to me that this recommendation also made sense. We did not get an explanation. The government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen. I hope that this power trip will be over soon, because otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to something. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé clearly described the new dynamic in his speech. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they sometimes forget that democracy is not about saying, “I won, so shut up”. They still have to listen to what the opposition parties have to say.

I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is also our whip, is very wise. I would like to hear his thoughts on what it means, for both this bill and our work as legislators in general, to have a government that does not necessarily listen to the opposition parties.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whom I hold in high regard.

It is unfortunate, but what this means is that the common good will not always be the priority. It means that a majority government thinks that it has the corner on truth. There is no harm in taking an opposition party's amendments into account, particularly on a sensitive and delicate issue like this one. It seems to me that the least the government could do is work together.

That does not mean that we will always manage to reach an agreement, but, once again, what bothers me is that the amendments had been adopted. We worked hard and then the government just ignored everything that we did, without taking into account the work that was done and the testimony we heard in committee.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to add my voice to those of all women and the entire population of Quebec who, this week, have experienced yet another tragedy: the 10th femicide of the year in Quebec in just four months. It is incredibly sad. It is unacceptable. As we speak, 10 women have been murdered by someone close to them simply for being women.

At the beginning of the year, I agreed to join forces with organizations whose primary mission is to support women, so that we can flag this very important message: The next one is still alive. I am joining their efforts. Yesterday, there was a rally in front of the D'Main de Femmes women's centre to say that enough is enough, that this is unacceptable, and that the entire community stands behind all these organizations dedicated to standing up for the cause of women. There are also organizations that help men better manage their anger, because it is together, as a team, that we will be able to build a more humane society and also care for women who are victims of violence. I would like to commend them and also offer my deepest condolences to the family of the woman who was murdered in Gatineau this week, the 10th woman to have been murdered in Quebec since January.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-11, which is somewhat related to women's issues. I think that sexual misconduct gave rise to this bill, which is almost the same as legislation that has been introduced before and which addresses serious needs. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We have always supported any initiatives to ensure justice and to protect women in uniform who have been the victims of sexual misconduct and who have not always felt as though the military has been on their side since it did not take the necessary steps to look after them.

Bill C‑11 amends the National Defence Act and other acts. As I said, the government already attempted to introduce Bill C‑66 in a previous Parliament, but that bill died on the Order Paper. As everyone knows, Bill C‑11 follows the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Morris J. Fish and Louise Arbour, who, in their report on the issue of sexual misconduct, made several recommendations. Bill C‑11 implements several recommendations, including recommendation number five from the Arbour report, with the aim of removing the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. The government would select these individuals rather than having the military leadership do so, and those individuals would therefore be immune to any form of blackmail, so to speak.

The bill now allows military personnel from the rank of private to that of chief warrant officer to become military judges. Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial changes, including the option for victims to receive help from a victim liaison officer. As we know, when someone wants to report sexual misconduct, harassment or sexual violence, having a neutral party by their side to support them in everything they do is very important. Bill C‑11 has made it through a significant portion of the legislative process, including committee work, and it has been a lot of work. I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the tremendous work he did on making it possible to improve the bill.

On that point, the Bloc Québécois members are proud to have secured amendments that improved the bill. Here are a few examples. We added the option for victims to request that a trial be held before a military court rather than being transferred to a civilian court. We also ensured that the bill clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

We also made a compromise amendment that is more realistic by allowing civilian authorities to transfer cases in accordance with victims' recommendations, rather than imposing an automatic transfer. This would allow for the resolution of contentious cases, such as when there are multiple victims or when transferring the case could jeopardize the possibility of a trial within a reasonable time frame. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans can be appointed as military judges and so that military judges are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.

In the meantime, the government secured a majority, as members well know. I would say that there has been an abuse of this majority, which was secured, as we all know, through floor crossers. The committee's work was thorough. The committee listened to victims, who expanded on everything that Justice Arbour had heard and recommended. Victims spoke before the committee and their testimonies were used to form the basis of the amendments that were made to improve this bill. It is understandable, then, that we see this as an abuse of the majority. The government's action is not consistent with what the Prime Minister always tells the media when he does interviews, which is that he expects members to be serious and thorough and that he does not want to see any obstruction.

What we are seeing today is a bill whose amendments were completely thrown out by a majority government, which put them to a vote and disputed them. Because of the government's majority, of course, virtually all of our amendments were defeated. Committees do serious work. If the government can do without the work of committees, perhaps it wants to abolish them. If this is happening now, will it also happen with regard to future bills?

At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we work in relative harmony. I would say that we are working to improve Bill C-22, but I have concerns. I wonder whether I will end up working on amendments that go absolutely nowhere. Will I end up putting effort into a bill whose fate has already been decided by the government? Will the government reject every amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party or the Green Party?

As we know, our democratic system is designed so that the opposition can help improve bills. In the case of Bill C-11, I think the government really missed the mark. I do not think it was really listening, and that is unfortunate. I hope this does not set the tone for all our work moving forward. I do not appreciate having my time wasted, and neither do most of my colleagues. We do not want to waste our time in committee deliberating, listening to witnesses, and then, in the end, not really knowing whether the government is going to challenge everything that had passed.

In closing, as I said, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at third reading. The bill addresses a problem that was swept under the rug by both the Harper Conservatives and the Liberals. Even though we agree in principle, we had to speak out against the government's lack of seriousness when it comes to the democratic process in place in parliamentary committees.

I would like to use my remaining few seconds to commend the courage of my friend, Alain Therrien, who decided this week to pursue his political career by running in Quebec's next provincial election and confronting the Premier of Quebec. That is to his credit. When he sat here, he was a very active leader in our parliamentary lives. I want to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in wishing him the best of luck and success in Quebec's next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, in one sense, I am encouraged that the Bloc members are going to be supporting the legislation, recognizing that we do need to take cases of sexual assaults and abuse out of the military system and put them into the civilian justice system. That is encouraging.

I hope to address the concerns of the member and of the previous speaker in my comments shortly. I would reinforce that the bill would be based on the Arbour report and its findings. She came up with a number of recommendations. Personally, I am very comfortable with those recommendations and hope to be able to substantiate it.

It is more of a comment than a question, in case the member has anything else she would like to add.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commentary.

I think he realizes that the Bloc Québécois truly cares about helping to improve bills. We always say that if a thing is good for Quebec and good for Canada, so much the better. We always approach bills this way, and we take our work on parliamentary committees seriously.

As we have said, we are going to support this bill, but what we had proposed was not a rejection of Justice Arbour's recommendations, quite the contrary. I think that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I said as much in our two speeches. We agree with the recommendations, but we think that certain amendments could have improved the bill to provide better support to victims. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was moved by my Conservative colleague earlier today, which is to put this bill back to the committee to, specifically, look at some of the clauses and amendments that were passed by the committee, including Liberal members of that committee, which the government, unfortunately, has removed during report stage. This is important because the minister signalled publicly in this chamber, just a day or two ago, that he is open to having the sunset clause be put back in. That was passed by the committee when it was studying the bill.

Does the member think it is somewhat hypocritical of the government to say, “We have screwed this up. We made a mess of it. We are going to let the Senate fix it. It can amend it and then send it back to us”? What does the member think?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the official opposition is using the tools at its disposal to make the government realize that it has taken the wrong path by outright rejecting all the amendments that had been adopted by Conservative, Bloc Québécois and Liberal MPs, too; it is worth pointing that out.

I hope that the government, through this permissible parliamentary strategy, will realize that it made the wrong choice and will make amends on behalf of the victims.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of transferring sexual assault cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system, as well as to the amendment aimed at granting victims the right to speak, or even a right of veto, so that they can make a choice in this regard. I know that my colleague is an experienced social worker. She has extensive experience in mediation and conciliation. She has met many people in her career.

I would like her to speak to us about the importance of respecting victims in this type of situation.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of my professional association of social workers, so I cannot use that title anymore. However, I had a very rewarding career as a social worker that helped me to realize that when we are helping or supporting a victim, their consent is important. It is also important to understand how the victim wants to approach the process, how they want to go about it, so that they can feel as though justice has been served for the injuries, violence and harassment they experienced and for their work environment's failure to listen and to provide support.

In that sense, I think that the decision should rest with the victims. Since I did not participate in the work of the committee, I would also like to understand why the government did not agree that victims should have the right to make their own decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C‑11 and to share a few thoughts. I would like to address both the previous speakers from the Bloc, who talked about the government since it has become a majority. I want to be very respectful. The last member spoke about when a bill goes to committee and whether she should prepare amendments, as she is not sure whether the amendments would actually be listened to by the government.

The government has demonstrated, in a very clear fashion, its desire, and in particular that of the Prime Minister, to work collaboratively with opposition members, with all members. If members have good ideas, we want to hear about them. That is a message that the Prime Minister has been very clear on.

We actually have some very good, tangible examples that have taken place in the last week. In fact, the very first action of the government since having a majority in the House of Commons was to pass a Conservative private member's bill, Bailey's law. Then, just the other day, I was speaking on silver alerts, another Conservative private member's bill. We are seeing that bill go to committee. Yesterday, I was speaking about how corporations are not necessarily paying their taxes, because of bankruptcy, and how we could get more information about that through the CRA. Again, that legislation passed third reading yesterday.

That, in itself, speaks volumes in terms of the government's willingness to continue to work collaboratively with opposition parties. I would encourage the member to continue to look at ways we could improve legislation. The government has a healthy, strong legislative agenda as we try to look at ways we could develop, promote and make public policy that Canadians from coast to coast to coast would benefit from. That is the driving factor behind the government, and I believe we have demonstrated that. There is a reason that the amendments to this bill were ultimately rejected at report stage, and I will go into that shortly.

Before I do that, I want to say I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. Even though it was just over three years, it helped shape who I am today. I love my country, I love the community in which I live, and I want to make our Canadian Forces stronger and healthier and to build an environment that is respectful and encourages involvement by those who want to be members of our regular force or our reserves. I like to think all members want to see that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I must say, you look great in that chair. I believe all members would like to have that sort of an environment in our forces.

We have made significant gains to that point. Last year, there were around 7,000 new members going into the regular force. Thousands more applications are being received. The size of our reserve forces is also growing. I believe the Prime Minister has helped changed the mindset that people have when looking at the Canadian Forces today.

Over the years, I have witnessed first-hand how governments have talked about increasing the overall funding, compared to GDP, to the Canadian Forces. We had a president of the United States speak on the floor of the House about the importance of Canada contributing its fair share toward our forces and the United Nations. We were at an all-time low 18 years ago; I think it was just under 1% of Canada's GDP. Our Prime Minister today, during the last federal election, made a commitment to get it to 2%. Not only have we achieved it, but we literally achieved it months ago. For the first time in generations, Canada is back up to 2% of our GDP in supporting our Canadian Forces.

When we talk about the importance of building Canada strong and secure, our Canadian Forces play a critical role in that. The recruitment, in terms of numbers, and the level of interest today are far greater than they were a year ago because, I believe, people are understanding and appreciating that this is a government and a Prime Minister that are committed to building a stronger Canadian Forces. There are many benefits to doing that. If we look at the industries that support our military, our industrial industries, there are many different opportunities for businesses with the growth we are bringing to our Canadian Forces. It is an excellent opportunity. For example, in Winnipeg, I believe we will see growth in our aerospace industry as a direct result of the commitment to grow our Canadian Forces.

We can look at the important role that our reserves play in our forces. We all have, if not directly within our constituencies then close to our constituencies, reserve regiments or military armouries. It is wonderful to see first-hand those individuals who have committed to be part-time members of the Canadian Forces. Again, we see that growth. A combination of things has enabled that to take place.

It was not that many years ago, eight or nine years ago, when the serious issue of sexual exploitation, harassment and abuse was making headline news in media throughout the country. A decision was made that we needed to act upon that. How could we build the Canadian Forces without making sure the people who are prepared to make the sacrifice to participate feel they will be respected?

When we look at Bill C-11, what we need to really appreciate and understand, for those who are following the debate, is what Justice Arbour put on paper and the amount of effort she put into providing a report to the House of Commons. I believe that her report was right on. The recommendations she provided were right on. I made reference earlier to the recommendations that have been implemented, that I believed it was three dozen out of 48. I was really out. It is actually 47 of 48 recommendations that have been put into place. With the passage of Bill C-11, it would mean 48 of the 48 recommendations would be in place.

If we flash back to the time when Madam Arbour was hired to take on that position and come up with the report, there was no lack of interest from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from first-hand victims of sexual abuse, which would include rape and others, to individual stakeholders who were on the periphery but wanted to provide direct input. These are the individuals I have mentioned; we are not talking about a dozen or so. Whether directly or indirectly, there were 100 going up to 1,000 contributions to the “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans” report by Madam Arbour. I cannot recall anyone being critical of that particular appointment.

The last time we were debating this legislation, and I was talking about Madam Arbour, I had no idea that she was going to be Canada's Governor General. However, it is encouraging to see the response to that appointment, and how exceptionally well she is being received into that position. It does not surprise me, because when I was talking about Madam Arbour, I talked about her credentials.

In doing this report, there was no doubt a great deal of thought in making sure we got the right person to do it. One can do a quick Google search and get a good sense of who Madam Arbour is, as a jurist or an advocate, here in Canada and internationally. She is very familiar with the issues at hand, which put her in a great position to do the study and provide it to the government so that the government could ultimately straighten things out and build a more respectful, inclusive Canadian Forces.

When we take a look at the timeline, we see that in October 2021, Madam Arbour submitted the interim recommendations to immediately refer sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature under the Criminal Code to civilian authorities. On June 3, 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal issued a statement regarding the transfer and referral of cases alleged to have been committed by CAF members from the military police to federal, provincial and municipal police services. In August 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal amplified the original direction that came from December 2021 to state that all military police investigations into allegations of criminal offences of a sexual nature were now to be processed through civilian courts.

There has already been a major shift in that direction. If we look at the report, we see that there are 48 recommendations, and 47 of them have actually been implemented. Here is the one that has not been implemented. It says:

Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.

I want to highlight the word “exclusively”. I suspect that many of the arguments committee members would have heard at the last committee meeting, Madam Arbour would have also heard in the representations that were made to her.

It continues:

Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. This should include:

Sexual offences found in Part V of the Criminal Code;

Sexual offences found in Part VII of the Criminal Code, including but not limited to sexual assaults; and

Any “designated offence” as defined in subsections 490.011(1)(a), (c), (c.1), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Criminal Code, to the extent not already captured above.

That is the only recommendation, from what I understand, that has not been implemented of the 48 recommendations. It is a very clear and concise recommendation, I would suggest to members opposite. That is why I appreciate how the Bloc is positioning itself on the bill.

I have a deep respect for what takes place in our standing committees. I understand the pros and cons, the filibusters, the things that come before standing committees, the difference in personalities, how personalities can make a difference and even how a chair can make a difference, but let there be no doubt that there are opportunities for us to see wonderful things come out of the standing committees.

I do not want to take away from the standing committee, but I am confident that Madam Arbour would have been aware of the issues raised at the standing committee.

There is no indecision in her recommendation. People will say that things change in time. Well, what was the Conservative Party of Canada's position a month ago? What they are saying, in essence, is that they have changed their position. Based on what? How does that counter the full report and the 48 recommendations? To what degree was that seriously taken into consideration within the Conservative caucus?

Our newly appointed Governor General, who has to be apolitical, had a report. She had incredible credentials.

We took a look at recruitment today. The numbers are high, a 30-year high in terms of people wanting to become a part of the regular forces, and the reserve numbers are also going up. We are changing the attitude. There is a more respectful culture within our Canadian Forces.

We need to continue to move forward on this legislation, as it will pass. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that whether it is bringing our military to the 2% GDP, supporting our members of the Canadian Forces financially or providing a modernization of the industrialization of Canada's military supplies, we are going to be there to reinforce a strong and secure Canada.

The Canadian Forces play an absolutely critical role, and this legislation is very important. I would suggest that the Conservative Party recognize that the last 12 months have demonstrated very clearly that the government is on the right track, and we need to continue to move forward.

I will not vote for the amendment that the Conservatives want. The Conservatives are suggesting that it go back to committee and that they do not support Bill C-11. I believe that is a mistake and they should be revisiting it and changing their position. It would be nice to see unanimous support for Bill C-11 passing as is being proposed by the government today.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary have faith in our current military police and their ability to do justice for victims when a Criminal Code sexual offence occurs outside Canada, yes or no?