David McGuinty Liberal
Third reading (House), as of May 8, 2026
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-11.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-11s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-11 aims to modernize Canada’s military justice system by transferring jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada to civilian authorities. The legislation also updates appointment processes for senior military legal officials, implementing recommendations from independent reviews to improve accountability and workplace safety.
Liberal
Conservative
Bloc
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have confidence, given the direction from Madam Arbour, that for offences that take place outside Canada there is a role for the military police, and that they are more than capable of fulfilling that role, such as the gathering of evidence and working with civilian authorities back in Canada. I think that is the right direction, as has been instructed by Madam Arbour's report, which has my full support.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon pointed out in their speeches that, with its new majority, the government has a frustrating tendency to no longer listen to the opposition parties. That is what happened with this bill. Some amendments were set aside.
I know that the member for Winnipeg North enjoys sparring in the House. Since he rises on just about every issue, he can probably tell me whether the government's new way of doing things involves ignoring the opposition parties' opinions and adopting an “I won, so shut up” attitude.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I addressed the issue of collaboration at the very beginning of my comments. I talked about how, at the first opportunity we had when we had a majority of members on the floor of the House of Commons, the first action that was taken was the passage of Bailey's law, which was a Conservative private member's bill.
We have the silver alert legislation, which is again another Conservative piece of legislation, and we indicated we wanted to see it go to committee.
Just yesterday we passed at third reading, amendments to a bill that deals with the CRA.
The government has been very clear, and the Prime Minister has indicated very clearly, outside and inside this chamber, that we want to work collaboratively with opposition members, provincial governments, municipalities and indigenous communities. That is the right thing to do. We want to build that stronger and healthier country for all.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about his time serving in Canada's Armed Forces.
Just recently, I had the opportunity to spend some time at the HMCS Star in Hamilton speaking with recruits, reservists, veterans and cadets, the young men and women in Canada's military who are so proud of their country and their service. I spoke with the commander who talked about the increase in recruiting and interest in serving in Canada's military and the new opportunities for an advance presence in Hamilton.
I wonder if the member could comment on our role, as the federal government, in making sure that everyone who is serving Canada in our military, in the Armed Forces, is protected and safe in their service.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question because I think it goes two ways. The government has a responsibility. We are living up to that responsibility. Again, I will reinforce that, after this bill passes, the 48 recommendations will in fact be put in place. They are respectful, inclusive and absolutely critical. We need to continue to support our forces in the manner in which we have over the last 12 months. Second to no other Prime Minister in generations, we have a solid commitment.
I also want to make reference to this. The member mentioned my time in the Armed Forces. I had the honour to serve for just over three years, which was an absolute privilege. It is the skill sets that are gained by members of the forces that turn out to be such a wonderful asset in the future. Whether one is in the forces for three years or 30 years, there is a great deal of benefit had by all.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation.
I want to get back to the answer to my previous question. The member stated that if one of the members of the CAF commits a heinous crime, a Criminal Code sexual offence, overseas, he has complete faith in our military police to be able to collect the data, but then it needs to be transferred to the civilian courts.
Unfortunately, that is not what is going to happen when Bill C-11 passes. The same thing that occurs right now will happen when that bill passes. If the military police can find a police of jurisdiction, if there is some way to make that connection and they are willing to take that charge on, then, yes, but in the end it is going to be the military justice system that is going to do justice for these victims.
Does the member have faith that our military justice system can do the job and provide justice for the victims?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I believe the recommendation is fairly clear. It is recommendation number five from the Arbour report. I recommend that the member opposite read the recommendation.
I do believe that military police, in dealing with the issue outside of Canada, have a level of expertise in collecting and protecting the integrity of evidence and securing the situation so that we can ultimately see justice served.
Not all communities or theatres in which the Canadian Forces might participate have the same rule of law or the same court system or justice system that would match the Canadian system. I think the way it has been recommended—
Military Justice System Modernization ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I have to interrupt the hon. member.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else.
We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think.
I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed? I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it?
I would like to hear a rational explanation.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will give it my best shot. It is because of a specific recommendation. Justice Arbour knew, consulted and worked with hundreds if not thousands of people, directly or indirectly, including victims. Her recommendation says that these offences “should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.” There is an exemption if it takes place outside of Canada.
I personally have more confidence in that report today than in what has been brought before me. That is the reason.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, because of the programming motion and the time allocation on this, I am going to be the last individual to speak in this chamber, unless the bill comes back, and there is a very high probability that it may come back, based on the Minister of National Defence's indication earlier in this chamber.
When I spoke to the bill earlier this week, I highlighted the importance that we get it right. This is about the victims. This is about our military justice system. This is about retaining the credibility of our military police and our military prosecutors, but in the end, it is all about a victim-centred, trauma-informed decision within our Canadian Armed Forces.
I have highlighted before that ultimately the decision was made in late 2021 by the director of military prosecutions, in light of the report that came out by Justice Arbour, to try to transfer all Criminal Code sexual offences to the civilian authorities.
In the last five years, we have learned that the civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the resources or the capacity to deal with all these Criminal Code sexual offences. Part of the reason is that sometimes the cases are historical in nature and the courts do not view that they are in the best interest of public safety here in Canada. However, they are definitely in the best interest of justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, discipline and the necessary requirements that we need of our Canadian Armed Forces members.
If all the amendments that were done, in some cases with all-party consensus, get removed and Bill C-11 passes in its current form, the challenge we are going to have is that the victims are not going to get justice. There are two things that I think we are going to see happen at the Senate. Based on the minister's own commentary here in the chamber, he is open to the sunset clause amendment that did pass at committee, which the government has since removed, to be put back into the bill.
The other thing I think needs to be included in the bill is some sort of data collection provision. The biggest challenges we hear all the time, especially as these cases get transferred to civilian authorities, are how many they actually take, how many result in a charge being laid and how many end up with something occurring. These are all very important things that I think we need to do, and I encourage those members in the other place to take this into consideration as the bill goes forward.
However, the ultimate disappointment I have with the government's decision not to respect the victims and the decisions made at committee is that we are not going to get this right. As I said before, I predict that those of us who will have the privilege of still being in this chamber in a few years will be dealing with the next iteration of this bill and, unfortunately, apologizing to the victims who are not going to get the justice they deserve.
Military Justice System Modernization ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, May 4, 2026, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request a recorded division.
Military Justice System Modernization ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private member's hour.