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

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I also want to thank Madam Arbour for her report, of which approximately 20 recommendations have already been implemented. The face of the Canadian Armed Forces has changed over the decades. Obviously, more women are joining today and that is a good thing.

Does my colleague believe that Bill C‑11 must also be accompanied by a cultural change within the armed forces, so that women are better supported, better heard, and their needs are properly addressed?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very important that this bill help create a more inclusive, respectful and safe working environment in which members of the Canadian Armed Forces can thrive. Our focus is on that cultural change. We are passionately moving in that direction.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having served in an environment where chain of custody and evidence integrity are critical, I am concerned about jurisdictional overlap.

I would like to have the member tell us how the military and civilian police would coordinate investigations without creating gaps where cases could fall through the cracks.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the consultations that I referred to earlier, regarding the development of this, looked at all of the jurisdictions that exist among the various parties involved in this. This certainly formed part of the report and the recommendations.

Certainly, the military and civilian judicial processes are both equipped and ready to work together in bringing justice for these victims and their families.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

Let me say right from the start that I support the intentions behind this bill. It aims to make our military justice system fairer, protect victims better and increase accountability. These are important goals. I think all of us in the House, especially on the Conservative side, agree that justice and fairness must be part of everything we do, including how we run our armed forces.

That said, we also have a duty to ask tough questions to make sure that while we are fixing one problem we are not creating new ones somewhere else. I want to raise a few concerns. They are not political attacks but honest concerns about how this will work in the real world with real consequences for the men and women in uniform.

One of the biggest changes in this bill is that sexual offences that occur in Canada would now be handled by civilian courts instead of the military. On paper, that makes sense. We want victims to feel safe coming forward, and civilian courts have experience handling these cases. This could lead to better outcomes for victims.

However, here is a question: What happens when something like this happens overseas during a deployment or mission? Our military operates around the world in peacekeeping, training missions and sometimes in combat zones. In many of those places, civilian police and courts are unavailable.

If the military does not have jurisdiction over certain offences, who would handle those cases when they happen abroad? The bill implies that jurisdiction overseas would revert to the National Defence Act and be handled under the code of service discipline. In other words, it would be handled by the military. If military justice is not suitable in Canada, how is it suitable overseas? Would victims feel that justice has been served by a system not deemed good enough at home? This needs to be addressed.

The second thing is command authority. Military discipline is different from civilian life. The military justice system exists to maintain order, morale and operational effectiveness. It gives commanders the tools to act quickly and firmly. This bill would risk taking too much control away from commanders. If issues have to go through a long civilian process with no clear chain of responsibility, our ability to act fast in critical situations is compromised. Commanders should not have unchecked power, but they must be involved, especially during active missions. Let us not weaken their ability to lead and protect their troops.

The third thing is independence versus bureaucracy. This bill would give more independence to roles like provost marshal and director of military prosecutions. In theory, that supports fairness and impartiality. However, we must be careful not to create a system so wrapped up in bureaucracy that it becomes slow or even politicized. Our soldiers deserve a justice system that is efficient, focused and responsive, not one bogged down in red tape.

The fourth thing is communication between systems. Let me give members a real-life example I was told about recently. At a military camp last year, a serious incident of a sexual nature occurred. It was reported by the military to civilian authorities right away and the RCMP took over the case, which is exactly as this bill envisions. However, once the RCMP had the file, there was no communication back to the military. As a result of not knowing what restrictions were to be sent down the chain of command, the military sent both the victim and the accused home on the same bus. That should never happen. That is not a failure of values. It is a failure of process.

Nowhere in this bill is there a formal mechanism for communication between the RCMP and the military. Without one, this kind of situation could happen again and again. If we are going to transfer cases to civilian courts, there must be clear communication every step of the way. The military still has to manage the members involved as long as they are active service members and protect both the rights of the accused and the safety of others.

Finally, this cannot be “set it and forget it”. We need to keep watching this bill as it rolls out. That means oversight, regular reviews and honest discussions about what is working and what is not. Because we overcivilianize the military justice system, we forget that it serves a unique and high-pressure environment, and we risk weakening it. If we weaken military justice, we weaken our ability to maintain order, protect victims and defend this country.

I will say in closing that I support the goals of Bill C-11. I support protecting victims. I support making justice fair and seen to be fair. However, we must think carefully about the real-world impacts of these changes. What happens when offences occur overseas? What happens when communication breaks down? What happens if the military loses the ability to act quickly when it matters most?

These are not hypotheticals; these are real questions that affect the lives of our armed forces members and their families. Let us pass the bill, but let us do it with our eyes open. Let us strengthen military justice, not slow it down. Let us protect victims and protect discipline. We can do both, and we must.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the point my colleague was making about what would happen when these incidents happen internationally. I was chair of the status of women committee when we studied sexual assault in the military, and it was clear that the existing military system is subject to the old boys' club. If someone is in a foreign location, they are forced to work with the perpetrators, and that system was not working. I think it needs a better answer.

Can the member comment?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can comment only on what exists in the bill. The bill does not have any provision whatsoever to revert to civilian justice overseas. Obviously, it is outside the jurisdiction. The flip side of that question is this: If the military is dealing with only those problems outside Canada, how is it going to maintain its expertise in doing so on the civilian side? That is the flip side of the same problem. There is no provision whatsoever in the bill for civilians, and I would like to see that provision.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member actually following the lead of my colleague from Terrebonne in not using the entire amount of allotted time that he had to speak. We know there are many members who want to speak to the bill, but we also recognize that there is some agreement that the bill needs to go to committee so that we can get it right, so that we would be serving the very people who take so much time to serve us.

First, I appreciate that the member was very concise in providing some constructive feedback. I would like to hear from the member on whether he agrees that the work to advance the bill and to make any amendments to it should be done at committee and that we should do it in a timely manner so that we can actually get to all the recommendations by Madam Arbour.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that a flawed bill should be fixed before it goes to committee if possible. This is a flaw in the bill, and it should be addressed. I am not entirely sure how. There is some low-hanging fruit here, like the interpolice communications, that I think can be done very easily. It simply needs a provision in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to recognize that in the report we are talking about, there are 48 recommendations, and the government is on track to get 47 of those 48 passed by the end of the year. The wild card is actually Bill C-11. All political entities in the House seem to support the essence of that legislation. Much of that legislation, such as the transfer over to the civil justice system, is already being incorporated in an informal way through the Canadian Armed Forces. We are all waiting to see the legislation get to the committee stage.

Would the member not agree, out of respect for the Canadian Forces and the women and men who serve this country so well, that we should try to get this thing passed before the end of the year?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to have seen the last 10 years be more productive, but, unfortunately, they were not. I do not think we should be passing flawed bills at all, especially when there are gaping holes that can easily be fixed.

I served for 10 years; I do not need lessons on how to respect the Canadian Forces.

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

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that my time is not being split, because it is already split, and I am the second half. I say that because I am torn and split over the bill, so I will be sharing my thoughts and comments over the next few minutes. I have been asked to speak to Bill C-11 given the veterans affairs committee's work on MST, military sexual trauma, in the last Parliament.

I am proud to speak to this important issue, but I wish it was not necessary. During that study, the veterans affairs committee heard countless first-hand accounts of how terrible military sexual trauma can be and the lasting effects it can have on a person and their family.

First, we have to solemnly thank all the survivors who came forward to bravely share their stories and pursue claims despite all the challenges thrown in their way. Sadly, the VAC claims process still places a considerable burden of proof on survivors, sometimes forcing survivors to recount their horrific stories several times, and from what I have heard, time and time again.

Many witnesses shared their difficulties, delays and ongoing barriers when seeking help for MST-related health impacts. This is extremely important to note. MST survivors often experience lasting mental health effects, such as PTSD, depression and substance abuse, compounded by physical health problems and challenges in interpersonal relationships.

Many women came forward with heartbreaking accounts, but they had the courage to demand change and accountability from the system they were in. I would like to share some quotes from survivors who shared their accounts with our committee: “I came forward because I could not live with the weight of silence anymore. The trauma followed me home, and VAC made the process so hard that I nearly gave up.” That is not a lone comment.

Another comment was, “Being believed matters. In the military, the burden of proof is too heavy. My entire story was put on trial again when I applied for support from Veterans Affairs.”

Another witness shared this: “There is strength in telling our stories, but it's exhausting to relive the trauma with each new bureaucratic step. We need a system that listens the first time.”

Another comment from a witness was, “When I tried to access help, I felt isolated and invisible. Services were not designed for people like me—they didn't understand what I had lived through.”

These are heartbreaking testimonies that have come forward. VAC needs to train case managers in trauma. Too often, I was confronted by disbelief or ignorance when explaining the reality and the complexity of sexual trauma. The veterans affairs committee dealt with and listened to many witnesses. It was heartbreaking. This committee is doing good work, and we are also going to be hearing about veterans who have committed suicide and how we can prevent this for our veterans community, so it is not an easy committee to be on.

One comment that really hit home to me was, “All I ever wanted was recognition, support, and to be treated like my experiences mattered. MST ended my career and changed my life in every way.”

We need to be there for victims during their time in service and after their time in service.

I am someone who has served and a father of two young girls, and this issue hits extremely close to home. I can only hope that by the time my children are adults, parliamentarians will not still be looking at ways to fix these ongoing crises. Sadly, the current bill would not fix them.

First, I will say clearly to anyone watching that the Liberals are not serious about this issue. If they were, they would not have tabled Bill C-66 mere months before the last election, but they did. If they were serious, they would not have allowed it to die on the Order Paper without real debate. If they were serious, they would have listened to the experts explain the legislation's problems instead of copying and pasting the legislation into Bill C-11, the bill we are debating today. Frankly, Liberals cannot be trusted to stop sexual assault within the CAF. They constantly choose soft-on-crime policies instead of advocating for victims. We have seen that today in the House. Victims seem to be ignored, but those who commit the crimes seem to get away with it.

Those of us on this side of the House believe we must continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment. All military members deserve to have a safe and respectful workplace. All victims of military sexual misconduct deserve timely justice. The Harper government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment in the CAF. After a decade of the Liberal government and two more reports from Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly.

Sadly, parts of Bill C-11 would simply open the door to potential political interference and partisan appointments. First, the bill would give increased power to the Minister of National Defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions. Second, the director of military prosecution, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general would be appointed by the Governor in Council. Canadians are worried about political interference. Given the wide-ranging issues with the ways former defence minister Sajjan handled sexual misconduct cases in 2021, this is for good reason.

For over half a year, Justin Trudeau and former minister Sajjan continually covered up information on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Trudeau's team went to great lengths to block investigations and hide the truth from Canadians. For months in 2021, he orchestrated a cover-up to hide the fact that his top aide, Katie Telford, and former minister Sajjan had direct knowledge of the sexual misconduct allegation against the then chief of the defence staff.

In a statement on the report conducted by the status of women committee in 2021, Conservatives said, “it's become abundantly clear that there has been a lack of leadership” by the defence minister on the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Despite repeated problems, including handling of sexual misconduct allegations, then prime minister Trudeau left former defence minister Sajjan as the minister until after the next election. When sexual misconduct was studied at the national defence committee in 2021, the Liberals filibustered for weeks and then called an election before the committee was able to produce a report. Four Liberal MPs who participated in the filibuster are elected today. Let us be clear that Liberal political interference is not limited to national defence. Liberals have a long and proud history of it.

We have seen time and time again how the Liberals have involved themselves in military decisions when they should have stayed out. This means that parliamentarians who are veterans need to read and go through the bill in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is so wrong in so many ways that I do not know where to begin. Maybe the member should realize that when we take a look at Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations, the goal is to achieve success on 47 of those before the end of this year. Many of the things the legislation would put in place through criminal law are already being administered, in part because of the government's drive to move and shift from military to civil court processes.

The member is just wrong on so many points. Will the Conservative brain thrust recognize that if Conservatives want that 48th recommendation done before the end of this year, they need to get onside? They have to allow the legislation to go to committee. This irresponsible and destructive force, which is better known as the Conservative Party, here on the floor of the House of Commons is the only—

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the destructive force is the Liberal government and the way it has treated our military and veterans. I cannot believe what I just heard. It is nothing but white noise from members of this party. They have done nothing for our military or our veterans.

You should be ashamed.