Absolutely, and I appreciate your question.
I'll speak to the first one, prospectivity. The amendment is legally redundant. Charter section 11(i) already prohibits retroactive punishment.
All new legislation is prospective by default unless it explicitly states otherwise, which this does not, so this would go forward without being retroactive by default; it's already codified in the law. I don't see any value in it as a pure housekeeping measure, and it would have no effect. I certainly don't object to it, but it's just redundant, in my opinion.
As for the National Defence Act, under the National Defence Act, courts martial don't try abduction and murders that are committed in Canada, and the core offences that Bill C-235 targets are those.
Military jurisdiction is limited to offences that are committed abroad. It would certainly be worth considering a potential different bill that would address that, but it would be an amendment to the National Defence Act.
As for sexual assault, that presently remains within the military. Victims have the choice between either the military or the civilian justice system for now, but recent legislative reform will potentially transfer that jurisdiction to the civilian justice system anyway.
The combination of those offences that Bill C-235, my bill, addresses—abduction, sexual assault and murder—would therefore only potentially apply for overseas cases and, as I said, that would be worthy of being looked at potentially in a separate bill and not conflating the two.