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

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I rise in the House to address two crucial issues that go to the heart of our national security and our commitment to those who serve our country. The first issue is in regard to Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act, a piece of legislation that would fundamentally reform our military justice system. The second issue is in regard to the urgent need for a complete overhaul of the Canadian government's procurement process for military equipment, an area that has been totally neglected and plagued by chronic delays and inefficient bureaucracy. Together, these issues underscore the urgency of protecting our military and strengthening our defence.

Let us start with Bill C‑11, which is basically a repeat of Bill C‑66 from the 44th Parliament, with minor adjustments. This bill amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction over sexual offences to civilian authorities when these offences occur within Canada. This measure is in response to key recommendations in the reports by Justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour, which the Conservatives have always supported.

We firmly believe that all members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace, free from sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism or harassment. Those of us on this side of the House will continue to address these issues, putting victims' needs and rights first, in accordance with our criminal justice policy.

However, this bill is not without its flaws. Offences committed abroad will still be under the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction, which is consistent with section 273 of the National Defence Act. This discrepancy poses problems. By removing the CAF's jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases of sexual misconduct in Canada, there is a risk of losing essential practical skills. How will the Canadian Armed Forces maintain their expertise if they no longer manage their internal affairs?

One positive aspect is the increased independence of the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general. These positions will now be appointed by the Governor in Council, reporting directly to the Minister of National Defence, with limited terms of office. This strengthens their independence outside the chain of command.

The provost marshal will be added to the list of senior officials, along with the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister, who must have any complaints against them reviewed by the minister. However, there are still some inconsistencies. There are arbitrary differences between these positions with regard to their term of office and whether it is renewable.

What is more, this bill grants the Minister of National Defence more power to issue written instructions or directives on particular prosecutions. That opens the door to potential political interference, a risk that we, as Conservatives, cannot ignore, especially given the Liberal government's track record of interference.

Financially speaking, this bill is alarming for accused persons. Right now, the Department of National Defence covers the prosecution and defence costs, but in the civilian system, accused persons would have to pay for their own lawyers, whose fees could reach six figures. That could discourage justice and expose members of the Canadian Armed Forces to false accusations without support.

Despite the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, victims are still waiting for justice after 10 years under a Liberal government. We, the Conservatives, accepted all of the recommendations in the Deschamps report, and we cannot understand why the Liberals have been dragging their feet for so long. We want to hear from everyone involved. We are proud of our men and women in uniform and we support them unconditionally.

Since we are talking about the Canadian Armed Forces, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the serious need for a complete overhaul of the government procurement process for military equipment and services. This inefficient and outdated system is filled with red tape and engenders costly delays that weaken our defence.

According to open sources, like government reports and media analyses, Canada has had equipment procurement issues for decades. For example, projects like the Canadian Army vehicle procurement project, which is worth up to $1 billion, face significant barriers, chronic delays and skyrocketing costs.

The Prime Minister, who, we must remember, is a former Goldman Sachs banker, is responsible for accelerating defence spending in order to meet our NATO commitments. We were supposed to reach a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product, but demands are currently reaching 5%.

There are consequences to that. Right now, we all agree on the idea of investing more in defence. However, there is always a “but”. That “but” is the procurement system. The Liberals will tell us that, last week, they announced a new agency. Again, it is a new agency. All this government has done since it came to power is create new bureaucratic structures.

However, there is a way to manage much more efficiently with the current structure by giving specific directives to the public servants and deputy ministers in place at National Defence, at the procurement service and in the industry. That way, the government would not need to create a bureaucratic structure that will take time to set up and might work eventually, but, for the time being, only adds more red tape.

Things can move quickly if the will is there. Here is the proof. When the Conservative government was in power and we were at war in Afghanistan, we had urgent equipment needs on the ground. This included planes, helicopters, vehicles and personal protective equipment. Former prime minister Harper issued a directive indicating that he wanted to have equipment as quickly as possible, on time and on budget. It got done. Where there is a will, there is a way. The proof is that this happened under the Conservative government. On the Liberal side, they like to build a big bureaucracy, but decisive operational leadership can get things done too. This would go a long way to improving Canada's military procurement system, which has been a train wreck for the past few years.

We do need to reform the military justice system because this system has become a problem, particularly in cases of sexual assault. However, we should keep in mind that a dichotomy will be created by the loss of capacity within the teams that are currently responsible for prosecuting cases that occur abroad versus those that will be responsible for civilian proceedings in Canada. It is important that we have a system that ensures that military judge advocates working on the front lines, as well as the commanding officers carrying out their duties abroad, retain their expertise. We must not lose this strength.

On the military procurement front, we have moved beyond the stage of fine words. We have responded to a request from the U.S. and NATO, and we want to move forward. However, too many companies in the defence sector are still coming to me saying that they are unable to reach anyone within the Government of Canada. No one answers their calls, their emails or their requests. They have a much easier time selling equipment in other countries, while in Canada, their hands are tied. I am not talking about one company, but several companies at all levels, from major multinationals to small companies that make equipment as commonplace as chests for storing weapons, but also other equipment that could be used right now on the ground in Ukraine. A company in Montreal has to sell its equipment in Great Britain in order for that equipment to reach Ukraine because Canada is not answering its calls.

These are observations. As far as Bill C-11 is concerned, we support the idea, but there are adjustments to be made. This has been dragging on for a very long time. I do not know why we are still talking about something in 2025 that should already have been resolved. Let us hope that things speed up and that adjustments will be made. As for military procurement, it is high time that we acted quickly for the Canadian Forces, for the security of the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the interim report had 48 recommendations, many of which have already been completed. We are hoping to complete others before the end of the year. That is the goal, and that includes the passage of this particular piece of legislation. The member is trying to give the false impression that nothing is moving forward. Within a year of the interim report being brought forward, we have seen cases shifted over to the civilian justice system. That is a very strong positive.

Does the member not agree that we can collectively send a very strong message to the members of our armed forces by sending this legislation to committee stage? The committee is best suited to listen to the feedback. It seems to me we should try to get this done before the end of the year. Would the member not agree?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think some information got lost in translation.

I mentioned that it was taking a long time, but I did not say that nothing had been done. I said that it was still taking way too much time. I also said that we supported the idea of Bill C-11, but that adjustments were needed. We will probably be able to make the necessary adjustments at the committee stage.

I was generally criticizing the length of time it is taking, although some steps have been completed.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare to see all the parties agree to move a bill forward through the legislative process. From what I understand, everything will get done in committee.

I see that there is goodwill and that members want to make good recommendations and pass a good bill. Will my colleague's party lend a hand so that we can finally carry out this agenda that should have been implemented years ago?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we supported the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, which were published in recent years. In fact, we were the ones who commissioned the first report.

It is extremely important for us that this problem be resolved. We have always collaborated. We complain about the government moving at a snail's pace, but every time we have amendments to propose, they are based on reality and aim to make things better. We are not proposing amendments just to slow down the process. If we propose an amendment, it is because we think it is essential to do so. That is what we will do.

Obviously, if the government agrees to the Conservatives' amendments, the process will move more quickly. That is our goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his service in uniform. I know that he, as a former commanding officer, was responsible for discipline and for maintaining the code of service discipline and the National Defence Act within his unit.

One of the concerns he addressed in his speech is the fact that these cases have already started going over to civilian courts, but we are seeing such a backlog. Is he concerned about victims actually getting justice in the civilian courts, due to the challenges we are seeing across the country right now with the civilian justice system?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is also a veteran and a former commanding officer. He likely had to conduct summary trials like I did.

One of the problems we are seeing right now is that cases are being added to the backlog of other cases in the civilian justice system. That can hurt victims. That is one of the concerns that we Conservatives have. We agree with the principle, but if this bill causes more problems for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to justice, then we have not improved anything.

That is why we need to find a way forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I want to thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for serving our country.

I just have one question. Does the Conservative Party currently support passing Bill C-11?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there are a number of things that need to be addressed. That is why we are asking the government to make amendments and propose changes before going any further. These are fundamental issues.

At this point, we are dealing with problems that have not yet been resolved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say this is a tough bill or a tough speech for me to give, but I do have my own unique military background, which includes having spent 25 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I spent a lot of that time as a presiding officer. Fortunately, as a presiding officer, I did not have to oversee sexual misconduct cases. Those would go to court martial and were never in my purview.

Let us back up to how we got to where we are today. Reference has been made to Madam Arbour's report, and before that there was Madam Deschamps' report. I want to share with everyone how shocked and disappointed I was when the Deschamps report came out. I was literally flabbergasted.

The Canadian Armed Forces is representative of a cross section of Canadian society. We are going to have bad apples and phenomenally good people. I was somebody who was an infantry officer, who served in a combat arms unit, which gets a bad rap a lot of the time, and I had never personally witnessed any of these cases. It was shocking when it came out because I had not had feedback shared with me by my former female colleagues in our Canadian Armed Forces. I reached out once that report came out and asked some of them about it. Some of them were senior officers. The horror stories that I heard just absolutely blew me away. Unfortunately, there have been challenges within the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to sexual misconduct and justice for the victims being delivered.

I am sharing this because it is important that we get it right. We cannot just overreact. The military is no different than any other organization. Sometimes a solution creates two other problems. We have to make sure we are looking at this from all angles, both for the victims and the accused. The reason I bring up the accused is that we just have to go back over the last half-dozen years or so to see that some very senior officers had allegations brought up against them that in the end turned out to be unsubstantiated. In some cases, the officers were acquitted.

One of my best friends, a still-serving brigadier general, has done a phenomenal job. This goes back to almost 10 years ago. I think it was around 2015 when he was unjustly accused. Fortunately, due to the system finally sorting it out, he has been able to successfully maintain his career in the Canadian Armed Forces. He has been promoted a couple of times since then and currently serves.

I am just bringing that up because it is important that the system works in an impartial way to address the issues. We absolutely have to stamp out any sexual misconduct that occurs anywhere in society, while at the same time making sure that due process is followed.

There are about five elements to this bill from a summary perspective. I want to touch on each one of them slightly, except for one. The first one is that it obviously amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of sexual misconduct offences to civilian courts when they take place here in Canada.

The parliamentary secretary talked about this in her speech. I asked her how it is working so far, and she is committed to getting the data. This ties into another question that I had already asked. We now have about three-plus years of data. I want to know how many cases are being accepted by the civilian courts. What are the findings? Are any of them being delayed? I am concerned about the Jordan principle, because, again, if justice is delayed, these victims will not get the justice they need.

Another aspect to this transfer is that, unfortunately, the cases that occur overseas while our military members are deployed would still be prosecuted by our military police within the Canadian Armed Forces and within our military justice system, with its prosecutors and judge advocates general. This was a question that was brought up during a technical brief. It was asked, and I do not want to say we have been reassured, but the government has been talking about the fact that there is going to be training. My concern is that training has to be really good because why are we saying that our military police, judge advocates general and the military justice system are not good enough to deal with cases here in Canada, but they are good enough when they happen overseas?

Those are the first two points of the bill that would change certain things.

Another aspect of the bill is that it would increase the independence of the director of military prosecution, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general by having them appointed by the Governor in Council and report directly to the minister of national defence with term limits. I am not going to get into depth on that. I do think there are questions that can be asked in the review process of the bill as to how it would actually change anything internally or externally with the independence.

I think it is a little, I do not want to say mythical, but in my experience, and I can speak only from my experience, our military police were very much granted independence for everything they did. It was very much frowned upon and stamped out if somebody in the chain of command tried to interfere with the process going forward. I have had nothing but positive feedback in dealing with our military police, our national investigation service and our judge advocates general in the prosecutions that have taken place.

I talked about the importance of the data. One of the issues, though, that needs to come up as well is that if somebody is alleged to have done something wrong in the military system, they are provided with military defence counsel, but as soon as a case goes into the civilian courts, and if it is one of our soldiers, sailors or air crew who has been alleged to have done something wrong, they are no longer entitled to military defence; they are on their own dime.

I have already provided one example, and there are a couple of others I can think of, where the people who have been alleged to have done something wrong went through the process, and rightly so, but when it was determined that they in fact had done nothing wrong, it cost them literally tens of thousands of personal dollars, if not more. Their only way to get any coverage back was to sue the government or the Department of National Defence and the chain of command, to be reimbursed through civil litigation, which takes way more time.

It is a question I have; I do not know what the right answer is. I am hoping that when the bill gets to committee or goes through the amendment processes, the government considers how it is going to handle that.

What I want to talk about in the last bit of my speech is a bit more technical in nature. I have asked the question; I have not gotten a response back from the ministers or the department yet, but it is interesting that the bill would lay out a deadline for the provost marshal general, as it would now be called, to provide an annual report, a deadline of three months. I am wondering, so it is more of a question the government can take note of because I do not have a response yet, why was there not a similar timeline included for the judge advocate general when the government was updating the military justice system with the bill ? They are mandated to provide an annual report, but there is no timeline on it.

The second question I have that is tied to the previous one is this: What is the “so what”? What would be the repercussions if the provost marshal general did not submit a report on time? What would happen to them?

Ultimately the military justice system is a system that I believe is crucially needed within the military. It ensures service disciple. However, obviously we need to make sure the victims are taken care of. The decision has been made; this has gone forward, and we are moving to civilian courts to prosecute any sexual misconduct. Our military justice system, I fully agree, needs to be improved; however, my only concern is, let us not fix the one problem while creating one or two others.

I am optimistic that all parties can work together to come up with a way to make sure that the bill is the best bill possible to ensure that everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces, men and women who serve this nation, are properly protected.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way the member finished his speech and the comments he shared. I also want to thank him for his service. It is important that we give regard and respect to our men and women in uniform.

Hearing the comments provided to me, and I would say to the constituents in the riding of Waterloo, about some assurance that we can actually move the bill to committee rather quickly, I would like to hear from the member how quickly he believes it could progress so we could get to scrutinizing it and making sure we get it right at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have a clue. Ultimately, I am sure the member's party follows a similar process that we do. The bill has just been tabled. We will discuss it as a caucus.

I know that one of the key jobs of our shadow minister for defence is to determine who wants to speak to the bill. The unique challenge, after a federal election, is that almost 50% of the MPs are brand new in the House. I am a big believer, and I have stood up for this and stated it before, that everybody should be entitled to speak as much as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader speaks in the chamber.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, which was somewhat nuanced. However, considering that it was the Conservatives who appointed Mr. Vance in the first place when there were already allegations of sexual misconduct, and considering that the Liberals did everything they could to ignore those allegations, it is clear that the system needs to be overhauled. The idea behind the recommendations that were made and that are being implemented in the bill is to take the process out of the military's hands and put it in the hands of officials appointed by the Minister of National Defence. However, as we have seen in various cases, the minister does not seem to want to take action and prefers to avoid conflict.

I wonder if my colleague could share his suggestions. Should this be removed from political control? What would be the best mechanism to ensure fair judgments and a fair process in cases of sexual misconduct complaints?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the good things in the bill: It makes reference to certain allegations and complaints having to be dealt with by the minister of national defence.

As for the case the member brought up about the appointment, I cannot speak to that. I was serving in uniform in 2015, when the former chief of the defence staff was appointed, so I cannot speak to what was and what was not known or anything like that.

I do know, and I spoke to this a couple of Parliaments ago, that when allegations of misconduct against the chief of the defence staff were brought forward to the Liberal minister, he chose not to do anything about it, and we ended up censuring him in Parliament. I have a lot of respect for him because of his time in uniform, his three tours in Afghanistan and his time as a police officer, but I have no time for, and this is partly why we are in this problem in the first place, the failure of leadership within the Canadian Armed Forces to stamp out sexual misconduct internally and, in some cases, a failure with respect to ministerial accountability.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the best speeches I have ever heard the member make. It had a lot of meaning, and it has meaning for the people who live on the base in my riding and work in the Canadian Armed Forces.

In the member's speech, he alluded to a time when there were several high-ranking members all charged at the same time with allegations of sexual misconduct. This came at a particular point in time when it could have been very damaging to us had we been involved in a conflict, because it was in essence decapitating our military to a large extent. The member made an inference that there was a sense at the time with some of the conduct allegations that there was political motivation to get them out of the way.

What is in the legislation that might set the member's mind at ease or might alert him to the fact that this could happen again?