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

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

As the member for Hull—Aylmer so aptly said earlier, it is always good to have people familiar with the legal profession among us to share their perspective when we talk about legal matters.

Based on his professional and personal experience, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the possible advantages of a military court over a civilian court when trying cases involving the military. We know that military judges are also part of the institution they are judging, but military knowledge is why military courts exist.

Could my colleague share his thoughts on what the current bill proposes based on his experience with civil and criminal courts, particularly in Quebec, if I remember correctly?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. I have never testified before a court martial or a military court, so I cannot speak from experience.

That said, I am well aware that a judge who has to hear a case like this will need some guidance on what military life is like. However, that sort of thing is an everyday occurrence in the courts. A judge can hear a case involving engineering without being an engineer or a case involving medical malpractice without being a doctor.

Judges are used to having to familiarize themselves with a topic before handing down a ruling. In my opinion, the same will apply to cases involving the military. Judges will need to be informed and receive explanations from the lawyers involved in the case. Surely that is better and more effective.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague and friend to share his comments on the actions, or lack thereof, of the former Liberal minister of national defence in the case of Mr. Vance.

I will remind members that the ombudsman attempted to meet with the minister 12 times and that, on those 12 occasions, the minister refused to meet with him and review the evidence, saying he did not want to interfere with the investigation. However, his government did not hesitate to go after Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who was speaking out against the actions of Scott Brison, who was part of that government at the time.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, either the former minister of national defence did not have the guts and acted in a cowardly manner, or he was instructed to act in a cowardly manner. Given the accusations at the time, it makes no sense that he refused to meet with the ombudsman, refused to look at these cases and refused to make a decision. That is not why he was appointed minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Crowfoot.

I rise today on behalf of the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces who call the Ottawa Valley home, and to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. This legislation, which was presented as reform, raises serious concerns about the future of justice for our Canadian Armed Forces and the government's ability to protect both the victims and the integrity of our military institutions.

Conservatives support our women and men in uniform. We honour their service and believe they deserve a workplace free from sexual misconduct, discrimination and harassment. We also believe they deserve a justice system that is fair, transparent and accountable.

Bill C-11 proposes to transfer jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada from the military justice system to the civilian courts. This change was recommended by Justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour, and it has been supported by many victims groups.

Conservatives have long called for action on these recommendations. We have criticized the Liberal government for its delays and lack of urgency. Victims deserve justice, and they deserve it without political interference or bureaucratic excuses. However, this bill does not fully deliver on that promise. It would create a split system where offences committed in Canada are handled in the civilian courts while those committed abroad are under military jurisdiction.

This inconsistency risks undermining the investigative capacity of our military police. If they are no longer investigating sexual offences in Canada, how will they maintain the skills needed to handle cases overseas? This is not theoretical. We have already seen troubling examples of investigative failures.

In February of this year, Ontario Superior Court Justice Cynthia Petersen stayed charges against a Canadian Armed Forces member accused of sexually assaulting his wife. She found that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service had shown bias, failed to document key evidence and even destroyed materials that should have been disclosed.

Justice Petersen called the misconduct "so egregious" that she had no choice but to halt the proceedings. She said it breached the accused's charter rights and shocked the conscience of the community. Two military police officers were suspended and an internal investigation was launched, but the damage was done. This case illustrates the dangers of a system that lacks accountability and transparency. It also raises the question about whether the military is capable of investigating its own conduct.

Another example is the case of Kristen Adams, a civilian employee working in Camp Adazi in Latvia. She was sexually assaulted by an Albanian NATO soldier who grabbed her breast while she was serving Canadian troops in the canteen. When she reported the assault, she was told by the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services that she should have expected such risks when accepting the job. They called it a cultural difference. They terminated her contract early and refused to call the incident a sexual assault.

Latvian military police conducted a superficial investigation, failed to interview witnesses and concluded there was no criminal offence. Canadian military police created a shadow file but had no jurisdiction to act. Adams was left without justice, without support and without answers.

This is what happens when jurisdiction is unclear and accountability absent. This is what happens when the system prioritizes optics over victims.

Bill C-11 does not fix this. It does not ensure that victims like Adams would be protected or that the perpetrators would be held accountable. It does not guarantee that investigations would be thorough or that justice would be served. It does not address the "culture of silence and deflection" that has plagued the military for years.

The case of Private Elvira Jaszberenyi is another sad example. She was a soldier who was raped by Corporal Oleksii Silin in a broom closet at CFB Borden. Military police who investigated her case told her that Corporal Silin was a sexual person. They told her that Silin's wife and kids had left him, suggesting this was a form of punishment. The military police mentioned that as a Russian immigrant, Silin's culture may view slapping a woman as permissible.

Despite that, Silin confessed to the military police that he had pulled her into a broom closet and had sexual intercourse with her. However, what was not mentioned at the time was that Silin was already under investigation for a different sexual assault the year before, but the military refused to prosecute the case.

Private Jaszberenyi complained to the Military Police Complaints Commission, but the commission was not permitted to review all the relevant files, specifically the briefing from the military police to prosecutors. This was despite the fact that Justice Morris Fish had issued a recommendation that these files be provided to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Without access to the briefing notes, the commission was effectively prevented from determining if the refusal to prosecute was reasonable.

While the bill before us would remove the role of the military police from investigating sexual assaults in Canada, the bill would not implement Justice Fish's recommendation to give the commission access to key briefing notes.

Faced with an unresponsive military justice system and bureaucratic hurdles, Private Jaszberenyi would not be deterred. She pursued a private prosecution in civilian court after exhausting all military avenues. The trial exposed the failure of the military justice system to take her complaint seriously. It showed how the victims are forced to fight alone for justice. It showed how the system protects itself instead of the people it serves.

In the end, Silin was acquitted. According to a CTV report on the case, Justice Robert Gattrell “...said he agreed with the defence, which argued Jaszberenyi came across as someone with ‘an agenda,’ who took issue with the military’s treatment of members, particularly women, who come forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct.”

Private Jaszberenyi's own advocacy for justice was used against her. While it is no longer permitted to weaponize a woman's sexual history against her in court, apparently women must not be too insistent in seeking justice. Any effort we make to ensure another woman is not raped can and will be used against us.

Bill C-11 does not address the underlying culture that allowed this to happen in the first place. It would not prevent senior leadership from allowing serious charges to be downgraded to conduct violations. It would not ensure that civilian court outcomes are integrated with the code of service discipline. It would not fix the disconnect between military justice and civilian accountability. Instead, it would shift responsibility without solving the root issues.

The bill would also increase the independence of key military justice officials by having them appointed by the governor in council. While independence from the chain of command is important, the inconsistent term lengths and reappointment rules raise concerns. As well, giving the Minister of National Defence the power to issue guidelines on prosecutions opens the door to political interference. This is especially troubling given the history of interference in previous cases.

Conservatives believe in protecting victims and supporting the rights of the accused. We believe in a justice system that is fair, consistent and rooted in the principles of individual liberty. We do not support a parallel system that undermines these principles.

We also believe in transparency. The military has referred dozens of sexual offence cases to civilian authorities, but it cannot, or will not, reveal how many of these cases have resulted in charges. This lack of data makes it impossible to evaluate whether the transfer of jurisdiction is working. Victims deserve answers. Service members deserve clarity. Canadians deserve accountability.

Bill C-11 may be well-intentioned, but it is incomplete. It does not address the systemic failures that have plagued the military justice system. It would not ensure that victims would be heard or that accused members would be treated fairly. It does not restore trust.

Let us be honest about why the bill was delayed. The Liberals had this legislation ready as Bill C-66. They let it die when they prorogued Parliament. They delayed it again while they scrambled to cover up their green slush fund scandal. They delayed it again while they changed leaders behind closed doors. They delayed it again while they installed a man whose record includes tax haven investments, greenwashing scandals and ties to ethically compromised donors. They delayed justice for victims so they could protect their own political interests. That is the real story behind Bill C-11. That is why victims are still waiting. That is why the system is still broken.

We will push for a fulsome committee study to hear from victims, such as Private Jaszberenyi. We will demand changes that protect victims, support service members and strengthen our justice system.

We owe it to those who serve, we owe it to those who suffered and we owe it to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we owe it to those who are serving our Canadian Forces and even those who have left the Canadian Forces who still have grievances within the system.

The first nine minutes of the member's comments are hard to dispute as they justified why the government needs to act. When we take a look at the 48 recommendations, they are virtually all in place. Moving forward, we will hit 47 of them, with the exception of the passage of Bill C-11, the only one that actually requires a legislative change to transfer it to the civil judicial system. Just so the member is aware, that directive was given years ago so that we would actually start to see our civil judicial system dealing with these cases.

Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to why that was an important thing to do? We should not have to wait for the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was important. What we are seeing is that the military police would cover up for their buddies. Commanders who were in charge of different prosecutions would cover up issues. The other thing is that the military police did not have the resources to do proper investigations. The chain of evidence was not kept in order.

For the purpose of it being more sterile, the prosecution suggested that it go to civilian courts. Then there would be less chance that the people who were the perpetrators could get involved and end up with a conviction that was not proper. From that standpoint, yes, we believe that will be one part of the solution. It was requested on behalf of many of the victims.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very passionate and factual speech. The fact of the matter is that in the 10 years that the Liberals have been in power, they have asked for report after report. Then when it was politically expedient and they needed a cover-up, they came up with this bill.

It is a fact that we have so many problems on the civilian justice side of things. As far as the Liberals releasing people on bail rather than sending them to jail, does the member think people who are victims in the military will actually see justice?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that any evidence gathered as part of an investigation should happen immediately, be completely transferred to civilian courts and taken over by police who know how to do it, who have the resources to conduct a proper investigation and gather evidence.

In fact, in many of the cases, women have not even been afforded the opportunity to have a rape test done, to gather evidence for that purpose. They are just switched over to the next mission. These incidents have lasting impacts as victims can be left with life-altering diseases, which can change the course of their lives completely.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our colleague for the work that she has done on these committees. During the 10 years I have been here, she has been a stalwart supporter of victims of military sexual trauma.

I am going to ask the same question I asked earlier on. How will the victims be protected by CAF structures as they wait for justice? It is a concern as both systems have been split and we still have victims who are still serving to this day.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no chance at this point for justice of any kind. What happens is that when a complaint is made, that person is segregated and put in a different part of the base altogether. They are separated from their job. Their continuing education stops. Any hope of furthering any rank structure is gone. When they go to the padre for guidance, the padre will tell them that when they joined the military, they handed over their life. Anything that happens is up to the military, so they have no recourse.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Taxation; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Finance; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac, Taxation.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House. Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to spend some time talking about the context in which this debate is taking place, because the legislative route that this bill took to get to this moment says everything about the tired, old, incompetent government. It is really worth taking a moment to examine that.

This bill is the second attempt to finally, after over 10 years, implement the recommendations of the Deschamps report to transfer the criminal prosecution for sexual offences to civilian court. This was contained in the report and recommendations made to the Harper government in the spring of 2015. That was just before Parliament adjourned ahead of dissolution for the 2015 election. The Harper government accepted the recommendations, and had the Conservatives been re-elected that fall, we would have had the opportunity to table the appropriate legislation to implement the Deschamps report.

Instead, we have had three entire parliaments during which the Liberal government failed to make this legislative change and implement the recommendation that Justice Deschamps made in March 2015. From 2015 to 2019, the government took exactly zero steps to implement the recommendation to address sexual misconduct in the armed forces. However, then minister Harjit Sajjan did take time to cover up the sexual misconduct of the then chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, and during that Parliament, the government did take the time to engineer the frivolous and vexatious politically motivated prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

During the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals also expended no resources to try to deal with procuring important equipment. They did spend time, though, buying rusted-out Australian F-18s while delaying a decision to replace our own fighter jet fleet. They squandered the entire four-year majority Parliament without addressing sexual misconduct in the military or making progress in procuring ships, jets, other aircraft, submarines, land vehicles, artillery, ammunition and base housing.

Then from 2019 to 2021, the Liberals continued to ignore victims of sexual misconduct, although the resignations of senior officers piled up during that Parliament. They continued to delay procurement, as worsening morale began to foment a crisis of recruitment and retention that would start to jeopardize Canada's force posture and readiness to respond to requests from allies on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and respond to China's explicit challenges to Canada's Arctic sovereignty and security.

Then in the last Parliament, between 2021 and 2025, Canada's lack of military preparedness became undeniable and unignorable. In 2023, it became known that there were 16,000 vacant positions in the Canadian Armed Forces and that another 10,000 force members were undertrained and undeployable. It was what kept then chief of the defence staff Wayne Eyre awake at night, according to his own committee testimony.

In 2023, after eight years of neglecting and ignoring the armed forces, other than the occasional morale-sapping pronouncement lamenting military culture, the Liberals finally tabled Bill C-66 but did nothing to advance it for an entire year. They finally introduced it in the House of Commons in the spring of 2024, and as my colleague from Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke pointed out, in the fall of 2024, they spent their entire legislative agenda avoiding compliance with an order of this House and not advancing this legislation.

Let there be no doubt about the government's lack of seriousness about the Canadian Armed Forces in general and the problem of sexual misconduct in the military specifically. Its track record over the past 10 years speaks for itself.

Right now, as I speak in this chamber, ships are rusting out at sea. Fighter jets that should have been ordered and delivered by now have still not been delivered. We would be lucky right now if we could get one submarine in the water for a handful of days per year, and there is no replacement ordered. We have only a handful of operational tanks, barely any available for training. We do not have air defence systems. New transport and refuelling aircraft have been ordered with no plan, no hangars built to house them and no base location decisions made.

Howitzers and artillery pieces are entirely lacking, as well as adequate shells. The government let a production line of artillery shells mothball in an emerging threat environment, and now, as Canada and its allies desperately need this ammunition, we do not have the production capacity. We do not have the production capacity to supply ourselves and our allies with desperately needed 155-millimetre artillery shells. That is a World War I munition, the production of which the government partially shut down on the eve of the Ukraine war.

Base housing is in a deplorable condition, with houses falling apart and a 7,000-unit backlog of personnel waiting to access base housing. Barracks are in horrific unsanitary conditions. Health care is also lacking for many military families. This bill would address a well-known and well-documented problem with sexual misconduct in the military, which is a factor in the recruitment and retention crisis we face and a factor in morale at a time when we desperately need to fill vacancies for almost every single position in all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As I have said before, let me say something about the men and women in our armed forces. They are among the very best people in this country. I have travelled and visited foreign bases of operations in Latvia and England, and these people are the best. They are extremely young people with extraordinary responsibilities. I met a 19-year-old in Latvia who was responsible for training and helping allied soldiers. He was a kid from northern British Columbia with enormous responsibility, and he was so positive and full of energy and enthusiasm for his work.

These are incredible people, and they deserve our support. They are the best, and they deserve protection. They deserve access to justice when sexual misconduct happens.

We have already heard in debate a lot about culture and culture change in the military. Part of the culture change that needs to happen is overcoming the culture of secrecy and the culture of cover-up. That culture has permeated to the very top levels. We saw the former minister of national defence covering up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff. We have seen this type of behaviour at the highest levels, and we see it at the unit level, as my colleague said earlier today.

We have had testimony at the defence committee from victims of sexual assault who say they cannot access justice because of the lack of access to the civilian system, which this bill would ultimately change, and because of the inability to get information about themselves to file a complaint. The reflexive secrecy around even members of the Canadian Armed Forces accessing their own information is part of the problem. This bill would not fix that, so there is a long way to go to ensure justice for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are victims of sexual misconduct.

It is not like civilian access to justice for sexual assault victims is assured. It is far from it. We see over and over again how repeat violent offenders are automatically granted bail as a result of the Liberals' so-called bail reforms of Bill C-75, and earlier this afternoon this very Liberal bench voted entirely against replacing and repealing that law.

We have seen under the current government an erosion of effective law enforcement and justice for victims. We see crime levels that we have not seen in decades. We see an acceleration in crime. We see a lack of urgency in appointing judges so that assault victims can get access to trial, and this bill would not fix all of these problems. This bill contains an important long-standing 10-year-old recommendation, and I hope this Parliament will debate this bill and that we will have a proper debate so we can come to the bottom of this and conclude it.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to address some of the issues the member talked about that were outside of the legislation. For the very first time in generations, we have a newly elected Prime Minister who is committed to 2% of GDP. Let us compare that to either the former government or the Harper government. The Harper government was one of the largest disgraces in terms of commitments to our military in generations, and that is a fact; we cannot change history.

In regard to Bill C-11, I would suggest that the member take a look at the 48 recommendations. Forty-seven of them are on the way to being finished this year, with legislation on transferring complaints from military courts to civil courts being the one we want to pass. It is the Conservatives who continuously stand in the road to stop us from making that the law of the land.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. On the very first day of debate, the member is saying that a Conservative is delaying passage because we wish to debate a bill. There is a lot to unpack in that intervention.

I will point out to the member that the previous government, which was the Harper government, procured what was necessary for our troops and armed forces at a time when they were at war. They needed new helicopters; they got the helicopters. They needed transport aircraft; they got it. The current government, which has been in power for 10 years, has entirely neglected the armed forces and neglected the problem of sexual misconduct in the armed forces.